Abstract Tectonic research in the Swiss Alps between 1850 and the acceptance of tectonic nappes around 1900 is often reported as a rather conservative era, with much new data (mapping and stratigraphic), but very few new ideas. This paper challenges this view by proposing that Arnold Escher, a professor at Zurich University, arrived at a fundamentally new view of looking at Alpine tectonics around 1853. Whereas traditional continental European models of orogenesis assumed the vertical uplift of magmatic rocks with only minor and local crustal contraction, Escher’s new model implied a net horizontal contraction of the Earth’s crust across the Alps. With this proposal Escher was in agreement with the increasingly important theory of French and Anglo-Saxon geologists about the contraction of the Earth, but he broke with the traditions of his colleagues in the German-speaking community. His pupils Albert Heim and Armin Baltzer developed Escher’s ideas further and helped to establish ideas about the mechanical deformation of rocks, while disproving older and not very well founded ideas about metamorphism being the main driver of orogeny. Unfortunately, Heim’s later stubborn insistence on a specific detail of this new tectonic model – the famous Glarus Double Fold – delayed the acceptance of the idea of nappe tectonics, even though nappes would otherwise have fitted very well into the tectonic model of Escher and Heim. Supplementary material: The electronic supplementary material contains all the German original quotations which are embedded as English translations in the present chapter. They have been freely translated by the author and are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3258481.v1

Abstract The northernmost coastal sector of the Italian peninsula from the La Spezia Gulf to Monte Pisano, including the Alpi Apuane mountain range, represents a special morpho-structural domain of the inner northwestern Apennines. Described by naturalists since the Roman age, its location on the land and sea track of the Italian Grand Tour makes it a special zone in the Italian peninsula that was visited by some of the most eminent European geologists of the nineteenth century, including Brongniart, Buckland, De la Beche, Hoffman, Escher von der Linth, Murchison and Lyell. The area has been also the homeland of naturalists and scientists who played a significant role during the nineteenth century in the advancement of geological studies in Italy. Thanks to Capellini's ‘Geological map of the La Spezia Gulf and surroundings’ (1863) and Zaccagna's ‘Geological maps of the Alpi Apuane’ (1879–97), the area became central in the history of the foundations of modern Italian geological maps. However, the opportunities provided by early mapping and palaeontological discoveries for developing tectonic concepts were squandered by Italian Apennines geologists, who remained stuck on explanations of autochthonism, thus missing an early recognition of nappe tectonics that was only accepted in the middle of the twentieth century.

Abstract Questions concerning periodization in geology are obviously still with us, and the same goes for the relationships of time, change and discontinuity. The fact that such questions are debated repeatedly in both history and geology is illustrated by the extensive discussion in recent years about the use of the term ‘Quaternary’ as a stratigraphic unit. Thus periodization is not merely a philosophical issue. Neither does it belong solely to the sociology or politics of science. Rather it must be seen as an essential instrument and an integral part of an on-going discussion of fundamental ideas about time in general. Several texts state that it was Adolphe Morlot (1820–1867) who coined the term ‘Quaternary’, but in fact there were earlier usages, with different meanings. This paper discusses not so much the ‘invention’ of the term Quaternary, but its range of meaning during the early phase of its introduction and development, in order to give and appropriate categorization of Morlot's specific contribution and the reason why he introduce the term Quaternär . The discussion is based to a considerable extent on correspondence between Morlot and Friedrich Simony (1813–1896) of Vienna University.

ABSTRACT A recent fad in the historiography of geology is to consider the Scottish polymath James Hutton’s Theory of the Earth the last of the “theories of the earth” genre of publications that had begun developing in the seventeenth century and to regard it as something behind the times already in the late eighteenth century and which was subsequently remembered only because some later geologists, particularly Hutton’s countryman Sir Archibald Geikie, found it convenient to represent it as a precursor of the prevailing opinions of the day. By contrast, the available documentation, published and unpublished, shows that Hutton’s theory was considered as something completely new by his contemporaries, very different from anything that preceded it, whether they agreed with him or not, and that it was widely discussed both in his own country and abroad—from St. Petersburg through Europe to New York. By the end of the third decade in the nineteenth century, many very respectable geologists began seeing in him “the father of modern geology” even before Sir Archibald was born (in 1835). Before long, even popular books on geology and general encyclopedias began spreading the same conviction. A review of the geological literature of the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries shows that Hutton was not only remembered, but his ideas were in fact considered part of the current science and discussed accordingly. The strange new fashion in the historiography of geology has been promulgated mostly by professional historians rather than geologists and seems based on two main reasons: (1) a misinterpretation of what geology consists of by considering methods rather than theories as the essence of the science, and (2) insufficient attention to the scientific literature of geology through the ages. In only one case, the religious commitment of a historian seems a reason for his attempt to belittle Hutton’s contribution and to exalt those of his Christian adversaries, hitherto considered insignificant. To write a history of geology it is imperative that extra-scientific considerations such as religion or political ideology or even the mental state of the scientist(s) examined must not be mixed, overtly or covertly, into the assessment and the writer should have a good knowledge of, and experience in doing, geology. Social considerations may tell us why science is done or not done in a society, but they cannot tell us anything on the origin and evolution of its content . In understanding the intellectual development of geology, in fact science in general, sociological analysis seems not very helpful.

ABSTRACT Orogenic belts, the main factories of continental crust and the most efficient agents of continental deformation, are commonly extremely complex structures. Every orogenic belt is unique in detail, but they are generally similar to each other, having mainly been products of subduction and continental collision. Because of that common origin, they all share common functional organs, such as magmatic arcs, various back-arc and retro-arc features, and multifarious fore-arc environments, collisional sutures, etc. The modern orogenic belts usually display adequate detail about these organs, enabling us to identify them even when they are deformed or otherwise dislocated. In reconstructing now-disrupted orogenic belts, we are after one or more Ariadne’s threads to follow the original structure from one package of rock to another. The most prominent, laterally persistent, and easy-to-follow structures among the major orogenic features are the magmatic arcs. As they are the common expression of their subduction zones, they form linear or arcuate lines along the strike, and they usually move episodically inwards or outwards, being located behind sharply defined magmatic fronts. Present-day dating techniques provide high-resolution dates from magmatic rocks, and the migration of the magmatic front is easily detectable. They form the main Ariadne’s thread in orogenic studies. Where they are absent, the most helpful structures possessing lateral persistence are the now-deformed Atlantic-type continental margins and suture zones. We chose two major fossil orogenic belts, namely, the Tethysides, and the Altaids, to emphasize the methodology of comparative anatomy of orogenic belts. There have been many theories regarding the evolution of these orogenic belts. However, they are either local, only dealing with a small portion of orogen, or they are in conflict with presently active processes. We underline the importance of magmatic fronts as reliable witnesses of the geodynamic evolution of major orogenic collages. This paper aims to disperse the mist upon the reconstructions of complexly deformed orogenic belts with the simplest possible interpretations that help us to form testable hypotheses that can be checked with a variety of geological databases.

Abstract At the meeting of the British Association held in Dundee in September 1912 a group of eminent European geologists, including most of the leading Alpine tectonic experts of the day, intrigued by the account of the structure of the NW Highlands given in the 1907 memoir, expressed a wish to see these structures for themselves. Peach and Horne were approached, and agreed to lead an excursion to the Assynt area following the meeting. The programme for the excursion followed an itinerary that many geological parties still follow today. On the final evening of the excursion Albert Heim (Zurich), the doyen of Alpine geologists, gave a vote of thanks to the leaders and Maurice Lugeon (Lausanne) composed La Chanson du Moine Thrust which the participants sung with great enthusiasm. Brief biographies are given of the participants, many of whom were already distinguished, while most of the junior participants, particularly those from the British Geological Survey, went on to pursue long and distinguished careers, making major contributions to our knowledge of Scottish geology.

Abstract Archibald Geikie’s (1835–1924) field research led to better understanding of geological relationships and, ultimately, Earth processes. We consider three pieces of research in Scotland, from his early work on Skye through to the execution and impact of his 1860 expedition to the NW Highlands with Murchison, returning to Skye to consider arguments with Judd on igneous relationships. We describe the field locations and place modern interpretations in their historical context. We discuss how methods and approaches for building interpretations in the field were modified and improved through debates. Reliance on a few ‘critical outcrops’ served to anchor interpretation at the expense of understanding more complex exposures. Similar bias appears to have arisen from using simple exploratory transects which were only mitigated by proper mapping approaches. Significant misunderstandings between protagonists appear to have arisen through the reliance of text description rather than diagrammatic illustrations. The vitriolic nature of debate seems to have anchored misinterpretations, obscured interpretational uncertainty and promoted false-reasoning by inhibiting inclusive scientific engagement.

Abstract During the Cretaceous (145.5-65.5 Ma; Gradstein et al. 2004 ). Central Europe was part of the European continental plate, which was bordered by the North Atlantic ocean and the Arctic Sea to the NW and north, the Bay of Biscay to the SW, the northern branch of the Tethys Ocean to the south, and by the East European Platform to the east ( Fig. 15.1 ). The evolution of sedimentary basins was influenced by the interplay of two main global processes: plate tectonics and eustatic sea-level change. Plate tectonic reconfigurations resulted in the widening of the Central Atlantic, and the opening of the Bay of Biscay. The South Atlantic opening caused a counter-clockwise rotation of Africa, which was coeval with the closure of the Tethys Ocean. Both motions terminated the Permian-Early Cretaceous North Sea rifting and placed Europe in a transtensional stress field. The long-term eustatic sea-level rise resulted in the highest sea level during Phanerozoic times ( haq et al. 1988;Hardenbol et al. 1998 ). Large epicontinental shelf areas were flooded as a consequence of elevated spreading rates of mid-ocean ridges and intra-oceanic plateau volcanism, causing the development of extended epicontinental shelf seas and shelf-sea basins ( Hays & pitman 1973 ; Larson 1991 ). A new and unique lithofacies type, the pelagic chalk, was deposited in distal parts of the individual basins. Chalk deposition commenced during middle Cenomanian-early Turanian times. Chalk consists almost exclusively of the remains of planktonic coccolithophorid algae and other pelagic organisms, and its great thickness reflects a high rate of production of the algal tests. The bulk of the grains are composed of lowmagnesium calcite, representing coccolith debris with a subordinate amount of foraminifers, calcispheres, small invertebrates and shell fragments of larger invertebrates ( Håkansson et al. 1974 ; Surlyk & Birkelund 1977 ; Nygaard et al. 1983 ; Hancock 1975 , 1993 ).