论文部分内容阅读
地貭科学去年第5期拙作“论印支旋迴”发表后,曾与旧識某君相遇,偶論及此事,他对此文論点很不以为然,在語气中并表示責难,譏为謬論之一。其主要論据即不合国际慣例。略謂:“施蒂勒将世界的造山史分为加里东、海西、阿尔卑斯三大旋迴,为世界各国地貭学者所公认,試观欧美各国包括苏联的有关大地构造及地史学的书籍中无不如此,中国何能例外。视印支为独立旋迴,固有問題,然归諸海西运动,似更无稽,終不如归入阿尔卑斯旋迴为佳。”这一席話,乍聞之似頓尤洽而客观,其实这种說法,除使人感觉墨守书本外,并非言之成理。在此拟借少許版面,对原作再略加申論。
Earthworm science last year, my fifth book “On the Indo-China Cyclone” was published, had met with the old acquaintance, even on this matter, he disagree with this article, in tone and censure, ridiculed One of the fallacies. Its main argument is not international practice. Slightly: "Stiller divided the world’s orogenic history into the three major cycles of Caledonian, Hercynian and Alps, recognized by scholars of all countries in the world and tried the books on the tectonics and geography of Europe and the United States, including the Soviet Union. In all this, China can exception .Indip branch as an independent cycle, inherent problems, however, belong to the Hercynian movement, it seems more nonsense, better to be included in the alpine cycle is better .This remark, the first heard of Dayton In particular, in fact, in fact, in fact, this statement does not make sense except for making people feel like writing books. In this to borrow a little layout, the original slightly more application.