My dear Sir

I have been much interested with your letter & am delighted that you have thought my few remarks, worth attention. My observations on foliation are more deserving confidence than those on cleavage;¹ for during my first year in clay-slate countries I was quite unaware of there being any marked difference between cleavage & stratification; I well remember my astonishment at coming to the conclusion that they were totally different actions, & my delight at subsequently reading Sedgwicks views;² hence at that time I was only just getting out of a mist. With respect to cleavage-laminæ dipping inwards, on mountain-flanks I have certainly often observed it, so often that I thought myself justified in propounding it as usual; I might perhaps have been some degree prejudiced by Von Buch’s remarks,³ for which in those days I had a somewhat greater deference than I now have.— The mount at M. Video (p. 146 of my Book) is certainly an instance of the cleavage laminæ of an hornblendic schist dipping inwards on both sides; for I examined this hill carefully with compass in hand & note book. I entirely admit, however, that a conclusion drawn from striking a rough balance in one’s mind, is worth nothing, compared with the evidence drawn from one continuous line of section. I read Studer’s Papers carefully & drew the conclusion stated, from it;⁴ but I may very likely be in an error. I only state that I have “frequently” seen cleavage-laminæ dipping inwards on mountain-sides; that I cannot give up, but I daresay a general extension of the rule, (as might justly be inferred from the manner of my statement) would be quite erroneous.⁵

Von Buch’s statement is in his Travels in Norway; I have unfortunately lost the reference & it is a high crime, I confess, ever to refer to an opinion, without a precise reference. If you never read these Travels, they might be worth skimming, chiefly as an amusement; & if you like, & will send me a line by the Gen. Post on Monday or Tuesday, I will either send it up with Hopkins on Wednesday, or bring it myself to Geolog. Soc. I am very glad you are going to read Hopkins;⁶ his views appear to me eminently worth well comprehending: false views & language appear to me to be almost universally held by geologists on the formation of fissures, dikes & mountain-chains. If you would have the patience, I sh^d be glad if you w^d. read in my “Volcanic Islands” from page 65, or even 54 to 72, viz on the lamination of volcanic rocks: I may add that I sent the series of specimens there described to Prof. Forbes of Edinburgh, & he thought they bore out my views.⁷

There is a short extract from Prof. Rogers’ in the last Eding. New Phil. Journ. well worth your attention on the cleavage of the Appalachian Chain,⁸ & which seems far more uniform in direction of dip, than in any case, which I have met with: the Rogers’ doctrine of the ridges being thrown up by great waves I believe is monstrous; but the manner in which the ridges have been thrown over (as if by a lateral force acting on one side on a higher level than on the other) very curious, & he now states that the cleavage is ⁠⟨⁠parallel⁠⟩⁠⁹ to the axis-plane of these thrown over ridges.— Your case of the limestone beds to my mind is the greatest difficulty on any mechanical doctrine; though I did not expect ever to find actual displacement, as seems to be proved by your shell-evidence.—¹⁰ I am extremely glad you have taken up this most interesting subject in such a philosophical spirit; I have no doubt you will do much in it;—Sedgwick let a fine opportunity slip away.— I hope you will get out another section like that in your letter; these are the real things wanted.

Believe me Yours very sincerely | C. Darwin