My dear Sir—

I am much obliged to you for expressing your views so fully on the subject of Oceans & Continents   My enquiry was made to know if M^r Topley had correctly represented them¹ —No doubt the fact that these oceanic islands are volcanic is an argument in favour of the views you hold but on the other hand if continents had resisted & become submerged to the depth of the water surrounding these islands it is highly improbable that any palæozoic or secondary rocks would appear above the surface —All the high ranges of mountains are tertiary & the highest points mostly volcanic— M^r Judd has pointed out very forcibly that the reason the older mountain ranges are lower than the newer ones is because of the waste they have suffered which goes on at a much more rapid rate in the higher regions of the Atmosphere.² Probably also many of these oceanic islands have been formed since the submergence of land—if there existed any—

There is also an argument to be drawn from analogy which I think of some force— If we look at the surface of the moon we find it covered most thickly over with volcanic rings—intersecting one another in every conceivable manner.  If such a length of time as from the present to the Cambrian had elapsed without the oceanic areas distinctly altering should we find such an extent of level bottom in the oceans as the soundings disclose? There being no atmosphere in the moon the volcanic rings remain, the reason the earth presents such a difference in its surface configuration to that of the moon I maintain is solely on account of the ejected matter of volcanoes on the earth being worn away by atmospheric influences & made into sedimentary rocks (see my Moon & the Earth published by Bogue)—³

During the whole of this time also carbonate of lime would have been continuously deposited as ooze in these great ocean areas and as corals round some of the oceanic Islands— It would have been abstracted to that extent which is considerable from the sedimentary rocks which have been constructed & reconstructed since the Cambrian times & these rocks having the carbonate of lime only returned to them in part would have become progressively less calcareous— Instead of this the reverse is the case & analogies of water in various parts of the world show that the newer rocks are on the whole more calcareous— I fully agree with you that it is a “perplexing” subject— I would prefer those who differ from the views expressed in my “Oceans & Continents” meeting the arguments instead of referring to complaints—⁴ I have given the subject considerable attention lately & can only say that there are immeasurable circumstances to be taken into consideration in attempting to settle it which do not seem to have entered M^r Wallaces head—⁵ Of course I may be all wrong in my ideas but I could quote some eminent geologists who have written agreeing with me but I dont believe in that sort of argument.

Again thanking you for indicating your present views on the subject & knowing you are quite prepared to change them if you see sufficient cause | I remain | Dear Sir | Yours faithfully | T. Mellard Reade

Chas Darwin—

I must apologise for troubling you with so much writing but being deeply interested must be my excuse