Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/510

 464

ANTHRAX—AN THROPOLOGY

possible to assert, as Murray does, that no atolls or barrier-reefs have ever been developed after the manner indicated by Darwin. The most recent research on the structure of coral reefs has also been the most thorough and the most convincing. It is obvious that, if Murray s theory were correct, a bore hole sunk deep into an atoll would pass through some 100 feet of coral rock, then through a greater or less thickness of argillaceous rock, and finally would penetrate the volcanic rock on which the other materials were deposited. If Darwin’s theory is correct, the boring would pass through a great thickness of coral rock, and finally, if it went deep enough, would pass into the original rock which subsided below the waters. An expedition sent out by the Royal Society of London started in 1896 for the island of Funafuti, a typical atoll of the Ellice group in the Pacific Ocean, with the purpose of making a deep boring to test this question. The first attempt was not successful, for at a depth of 105 feet the refractory nature of the rock stopped further progress. But a second attempt, under the management of Prof. Edgeworth David of Sydney, proved a complete success. With improved apparatus, the boring was carried down to a depth of 697 feet (116 fathoms), and a third attempt carried it down to 1114 feet (185 fathoms). The boring proves the existence of a mass of pure limestone of organic origin to the depth of 1114 feet, and there is no trace of any other rock. The organic remains found in the core brought up by the drill consist of corals, foraminifera, calcareous algae, and other organisms. The results of the examination of the core had not been published at the time this article was written, but, by the courtesy of Professor Judd, the writer has been able to examine the core and satisfy himself as to the truth of the above statements. A boring was also made from the deck of a ship into the floor of the lagoon, which shows that under 100 feet of water there exists at the bottom of the lagoon a deposit more than 100 feet thick, consisting of the remains of a calcareous alga, Halimeda opuntia, mixed with abundant foraminifera. At greater depths, down to 245 feet, the same materials, mixed with the remains of branching madrepores, were met with, and further progress was stopped by the existence of solid masses of coral, fragments of porites, madrepora, and heliopora having been brought up in the core. These are shallow-water corals, and their existence at a depth of nearly 46 fathoms buried beneath a mass of halimeda and foraminifera, is clear evidence of recent subsidence. Halimeda grows abundantly over the floor of the lagoon of Funafuti, and has been observed in many other lagoons. The writer collected a quantity of it in the lagoon of Diego Garcia in the Chagos group. The boring demonstrates that the lagoon of Funafuti has been filled up to an extent of at least 245 feet (nearly 41 fathoms), and this fact accords well with Darwin’s theory, but is incompatible with that of Murray. In the present state of our knowledge it seems reasonable to conclude that coral reefs are formed wherever the conditions suitable for growth exist, whether in areas

Anthrax.

See Experiments on Animals.

Anthropology. — The following additional observations, supplementing the article Anthropology in Ency. Brit., 9th ed., vol. ii., are placed under headings corresponding to those previously adopted. MarCs Place in Nature.—In the original article use is made of the exposition of the theory of human development, as viewed on its physical side, by Professor

of subsidence, elevation, or rest. A considerable number of reefs, at all events, have not been formed in areas of subsidence, and of these the Florida reefs, the Bermudas, the Solomon islands, and possibly the great barrier-reef of Australia are examples. Funafuti would appear to have been formed in an area of subsidence, and it is quite probable that the large groups of low-lying islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans have been formed under the same conditions. At the same time, it must be remembered that the atoll or barrier-reef shape is not necessarily evidence of formation during subsidence, for the observations of Semper, A. Agassiz, and Guppy are sufficient to prove that these forms of reefs may be produced by the natural growth of coral, modified by the action of waves and currents in regions in which subsidence has certainly not taken place. Authorities.—The following list contains only the names of the more important and more general works on the structure and classification of corals and on coral reefs. For a fuller bibliography the works marked with an asterisk should be consulted :— I. *A. Andres. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, ix. 1884.— 2. H. M. Bernard. “Catalogue of Madreporarian Corals ” in Brit. Museum, ii. 1896, iii. 1897.—3. *G. C. Bourne. “Anthozoa,” in Lankester’s Treatise on Zoology, vol. ii. 1900. London, A. and C. Black.—4. G. Brook. “ Reports, ” Zoology, xxxii. 1899. {Antipatharia.) — 5. “Cat. Madrep. Corals,” Brit. Mus. i. 1893.—6. D. C. Danielssen. “Report Norwegian North Atlantic Exploring Expedition,” Zoology, xix. 1890.-—7. P. M. Duncan. Journ. Linnean Soc. xviii. 1885.— 8. P. H. Gosse. Actinologia britannica. London, 1860.—9. O. and R. Hertwig. Die Actinien. Jena, 1879.—10. R. Hertwig. “Challenger Reports,” Zool. vi. 1882, and xxvi. 1888.— 11. 1877.—12. *G. von Koch. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, xv. 1887. 13. Mitth. Zool. Slat. Neapel, ii. 1882, and xii. 1897. 14. Palceontographica, xxix. ^1883. (Also many papers in the Morphol. Jahrbuch from 18/8 to 1898.) 15. F. Koby. “ Polypiers Jurassiques de la Suisse,” Mem. Soc. Palacont. Suisse, vii.-xvi. 1880-1889.—16. A. vonKolliker. “Die Pennatuliden,” Abh. d. Senck. Naturf. Gesell. vii.—17. *“ Challenger Reports,” Zoology, i. Pennatulidce. 1880.—18. Koren and Danielssen. Norske Nordhaus Exped. Alcyonida. 1887. 19. H. de Lacaze-Duthiers. Hist. Nat. du Corail. Paris, 1864.— 20. H. Milne-Edwards and J. Haime. Hist. Nat. des Coralliaires. Paris, 1857.—21. H. N. Moseley. “Challenger Reports ” Zool. ii. 1881.—22. H. A. Nicholson. Palceozoic Tabulate Corals. Edinburgh, 1879.—23. M. M. Ogilvie. Phil. Transactions, clxxxvii. 1896.—24. E. Pratz. Palceontogra-^ phica, xxix. 1882.—25. J. J. Quelch. “Challenger Reports,’ Zool. xvi. 1886.—26. *P. S. Wright and Th. Studer. “Challenger Reports,” Zool. xxxi. 1889. Coral Reefs and Islands : 27. A. Agassiz. Many publications in the Mem. Amer. Acad. 1883, and Pull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard, 1889-1899.—28. J. D. Dana. Corals and Coral Islands. London and New York, Iggg. 29. *C. Darwin. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, 3rd edit. 1889.—30. H. B. Guppy. “The Recent Calcareous Formations of the Solomon Group,” Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. xxxii. 1885.—31. *R. Langenbeck. “Die neueren Forschungen fiber die Korallenritfe, ” Hettner Geogr. Zeitsch. in. 1897. 32 J.°Murray. “ On the Structure and Origin of Coral Reefs and Islands,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. x. 1879-80.—33. J. Murray and Irvine. “ On Coral Reefs and other Carbonate oi Lime Formations in Modern Seas,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 1889. 34 w Savile Kent. The Great Barrier Reef of Australia. London, W. H. Allen and Co., 1893.—35. C. Semper. Animal Life. Internal. Sci. Series, vol. xxxi. 1881. (g. C. B.)
 * 0. B. Klunzinger. Die Korallthiere des Eothes Meeres. Berlin,

Huxley (see his Man's Place in Nature, 1863 ; reprinted in Collected Essays, vol. vii.). Huxley’s argument has, on the whole, stood its ground, and a reproduction of his series of skeletons is given in our _ Plate (Fig. 2) as serving better than a detailed anatomical statement. Its significance in the problem of human descent requires some explanation. The acknowledgment of man’s structural similarity with the anthropomorphous species nearest approaching him was made by Linnaeus, who, in his