340 On M. Humboldt’s Theory of Rocks. Note [in. J " standing the importance of the phenomena pointing out “ three distinguishable epochas,” one of which is “ the “ epocha of fragmentary rocksof which rocks he tells us, that “ the red sandstone is generally composed of the “ fragments of the rocks which exist in the neighbouring “ mountains 1 .” And “ Werner,” he further tells us, “ in “ creating geognostic science, has perceived, with an " admirable sagacity, all the relations under which we “ should view the independence of the primitive, transition “ (or fragmentary), and secondary formations 8 .” Now, although he thus draws our attention to the fragmentary monuments which exist intermediately in the series of su perposed rocks; although he attributes an igneous origin to the siliceous or primitive rocks below the fragmentary, and admits an aqueous origin of the calcareous and other secondary rocks above the fragmentary; yet, he condemns all historical inquiry concerning the modes of the forma tion of those three amazing diversities of rocks ; calling it “ an hypothesis, which appears to him very injurious to " the geognosy of position.” But, when he has once drawn our contemplation to fragmentary rocks, as constituting a line of demarcation^ and transition between the inferior siliceous and the superior arenaceous and calcareous; and, when he points out the opposite evidences, of igneous action in the former, and of aqueous action in the latter; how can he imagine it to be possible, that the mind should not first apply itself to the consideration of the monuments thus forced upon its notice; or, how can he expect, that it should concern itself at all with the accident of superposition, until it has 1 Page 269. 2 Page 80. 3 “ Sometimes a whole system of granites, gneiss, and syenites “ appears again amidst the transition (yragmentury) formations, and “ separates the grauwackes and limestone with orthoceratites, from the “ primitive homonymous system.” P. 27.
