Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T12:49:20.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—On the Mode of Origin of the Loess

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

Baron F. Richthofen
Baron F. Richthofen
Affiliation:
University of Bonn-on-the-Rhine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

[The following communication, although addressed to the Editor in the form of a letter, is of such importance that we need make no apology for treating it as an Original Article, feeling sure that our readers will be as much interested as ourselves in the observations of so eminent a geologist, who has spent many years in actual study of these vast deposits, as to the origin of which he is consequently able to speak with such profound knowledge and mature judgment. —Edit. Geol. Mag.]

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 9 , Issue 7 , July 1882 , pp. 293 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1882

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 293 note 1 Since received.—Edit. Geol. Mag.

page 294 note 1 The theory of the subaërial origin of the Loess, which, according to Mr. Howorth, (p. 16), “has received the sanction of Richthofen and Pumpelly,”Google Scholar but which, in fact, was started by me and endorsed by Raph, M.. Pumpelly (N. Y. Nation, April 14, 1878)Google Scholar, who had advocated before a fluviatile origin, was noticed first very briefly in my Letter on the provinces of Honan and Shausi, Shanghai, , 1870, pp. 9–10Google Scholar, and at some greater length in my Letter on the provinces of Chili, Shansi, Shensi, etc., Shanghai, , 1872, p. 13–18Google Scholar. The full discussion of the subject is given in China, vol. i. pp. 66 to 189Google Scholar, and a short abstract in Verhandlungen der K. K. geologischen Reichsanstalt, 1878, pp. 289 to 296. I could not avoid reverting to it repeatedly in China, vol. ii. (see lor descriptions f. i. pp. 349–351, 422–427, 530–533, 650–551, and for discussion, pp. 741 to 766).Google Scholar

page 295 note 1 I met with it in China, in 1870, only at an altitude of 6000 feet, and this figure is given by Mr. Howorth (p. 76) erroneously as an observation of Mr. Kingsmill; in 1871 I found thick deposits of Loess at an elevation of 7000 feet in Southern Mongolia, and of 8000 feet on the 'Wu-tai-shan range in the province of Shansi.

page 300 note 1 Amer. Journ. of Science and Arts, vol. xvii. 1879, p. 133.Google Scholar

page 302 note 1 Jahrbuch der K. K. geolog. Reichsanstalt in Wien, , 1877, pp. 341–371Google Scholar; and more fully explained in the same journal for 1882, pp. 111–149. This last notice, which is of great importance, came to my knowledge after writing the present article.Google Scholar

page 302 note 2 Mém. de l'Acad. Imp. des Sc. de St. Pétersbourg, t. xxix. 1881. It appears that Mr. W. T. Blanford has also adopted the theory of the subaërial origin of the deposits filling up undrained inland basins (see Proceed. R. Geogr. Soc. 1881, p. 79), and Mr. Clarence King informs me by letter that he ardently advocates the same mode of origin regarding the Loess regions of the Mississippi basin.Google Scholar

page 304 note 1 This theory was noticed in China, vol. i. p.162.Google Scholar