This is a modern-English version of The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms: With Observations on Their Habits, originally written by Darwin, Charles. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

[cover]

THE FORMATION OF
VEGETABLE MOULD
THROUGH THE ACTION OF WORMS
WITH OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR BEHAVIORS.

BY CHARLES DARWIN, LL.D., F.R.S.

BY CHARLES DARWIN, Ph.D., F.R.S.

THIRTEENTH THOUSAND
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS

13,000
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS

 

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET
1904

LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET 1904

 

PRINTED BY
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES.

PRINTED BY
WILLIAM CLOWES & SONS, LTD,
London and Beccles.

 

CONTENTS.

Introduction

Introduction

Page 1–6

Page 1–6

CHAPTER I.
HABITS OF WORMS.

CHAPTER I.
WORM HABITS.

Nature of the sites inhabited—Can live long under water—Nocturnal—Wander about at night—Often lie close to the mouths of their burrows, and are thus destroyed in large numbers by birds—Structure—Do not possess eyes, but can distinguish between light and darkness—Retreat rapidly when brightly illuminated, not by a reflex action—Power of attention—Sensitive to heat and cold—Completely deaf—Sensitive to vibrations and to touch—Feeble power of smell—Taste—Mental qualities—Nature of food—Omnivorous—Digestion—Leaves before being swallowed, moistened with a fluid of the nature of the pancreatic secretion—Extra-stomachal digestion—Calciferous glands, structure of—Calcareous concretions formed in the anterior pair of glands—The calcareous matter primarily an excretion, but secondarily serves to neutralise the acids generated during the digestive process.

Nature of the habitats they live in—Can survive for long periods underwater—Active at night—Tend to stay close to the entrances of their burrows, making them easy targets for birds—Anatomy—Lack eyes, but can tell light from dark—Quick to retreat when exposed to bright light, not as a reflex—Have the ability to focus—Sensitive to temperature changes—Completely deaf—Can feel vibrations and touch—Weak sense of smell—Taste—Cognitive abilities—Type of food—Eat both plants and animals—Digestion—Food is moistened with a fluid similar to pancreatic secretion before swallowing—Digestive processes outside the stomach—Structure of calciferous glands—Calcium deposits form in the front pair of glands—The calcium primarily serves as waste, but also helps neutralize the acids produced during digestion.

7–15

7–15

CHAPTER II.
HABITS OF WORMS—continued.

CHAPTER II.
WORM HABITS—continued.

Manner in which worms seize objects—Their power of suction—The instinct of plugging up the mouths of their burrows—Stones piled over the burrows—The advantages thus gained—Intelligence shown by worms in their manner of plugging up their burrows—Various kinds of leaves and other objects thus used—Triangles of paper—Summary of reasons for believing that worms exhibit some intelligence—Means by which they excavate their burrows, by pushing away the earth and swallowing it—Earth also swallowed for the nutritious matter which it contains—Depth to which worms burrow, and the construction of their burrows—Burrows lined with castings, and in the upper part with leaves—The lowest part paved with little stones or seeds—Manner in which the castings are ejected—The collapse of old burrows—Distribution of worms—Tower-like castings in Bengal—Gigantic castings on the Nilgiri Mountains—Castings ejected in all countries.

Manner in which worms grab objects—Their suction power—The instinct to seal up the openings of their burrows—Rocks stacked over the burrows—The benefits gained from this—The cleverness worms show in sealing their burrows—Different types of leaves and other objects used—Triangles of paper—Summary of reasons for believing that worms display some level of intelligence—Ways they dig their burrows, by pushing the soil away and swallowing it—Soil also ingested for the nutrients it contains—Depth of worm burrows and how they are constructed—Burrows lined with castings, and the upper part with leaves—The lowest part covered with small stones or seeds—How castings are expelled—The collapse of old burrows—Distribution of worms—Tower-like castings in Bengal—Huge castings on the Nilgiri Mountains—Castings expelled in all countries.

52–120

52–120

CHAPTER III.
THE AMOUNT OF FINE EARTH BROUGHT UP BY WORMS TO THE SURFACE.

CHAPTER III.
THE AMOUNT OF FINE SOIL MOVED TO THE SURFACE BY WORMS.

Rate at which various objects strewed on the surface of grass-fields are covered up by the castings of worms—The burial of a paved path—The slow subsidence of great stones left on the surface—The number of worms which live within a given space—The weight of earth ejected from a burrow, and from all the burrows within a given space—The thickness of the layer of mould which the castings on a given space would form within a given time if uniformly spread out—The slow rate at which mould can increase to a great thickness—Conclusion.

Rate at which various objects scattered on the grass fields are covered by worm castings—The covering of a paved path—The gradual sinking of large stones left on the surface—The number of worms that live in a specific area—The amount of soil ejected from a burrow, and from all the burrows in a specific area—The thickness of the layer of mold that the castings on a specific area would create over time if evenly spread out—The slow rate at which mold can build up to a significant thickness—Conclusion.

121–163

121–163

CHAPTER IV.
THE PART WHICH WORMS HAVE PLAYED IN THE BURIAL OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS.

CHAPTER IV.
THE ROLE OF WORMS IN THE DEMOLITION OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS.

The accumulation of rubbish on the sites of great cities independent of the action of worms—The burial of a Roman villa at Abinger—The floors and walls penetrated by worms—Subsidence of a modern pavement—The buried pavement at Beaulieu Abbey—Roman villas at Chedworth and Brading—The remains of the Roman town at Silchester—The nature of the débris by which the remains are covered—The penetration of the tesselated floors and walls by worms—Subsidence of the floors—Thickness of the mould—The old Roman city of Wroxeter—Thickness of the mould—Depth of the foundations of some of the Buildings—Conclusion.

The buildup of trash in major cities, independent of worms' activity—The burial of a Roman villa in Abinger—The floors and walls affected by worms—The sinking of modern pavements—The buried pavement at Beaulieu Abbey—Roman villas at Chedworth and Brading—The remnants of the Roman town at Silchester—The type of debris covering the remains—The way worms penetrate the tiled floors and walls—The sinking of the floors—The thickness of the soil—The ancient Roman city of Wroxeter—The depth of the soil—The depth of some of the building foundations—Conclusion.

164–208

164–208

CHAPTER V.
THE ACTION OF WORMS IN THE DENUDATION OF THE LAND.

CHAPTER V.
HOW WORMS HELP BREAK DOWN THE LAND.

Evidence of the amount of denudation which the land has undergone—Sub-aerial denudation—The deposition of dust—Vegetable mould, its dark colour and fine texture largely due to the action of worms—The disintegration of rocks by the humus-acids—Similar acids apparently generated within the bodies of worms—The action of these acids facilitated by the continued movement of the particles of earth—A thick bed of mould checks the disintegration of the underlying soil and rocks. Particles of stone worn or triturated in the gizzards of worms—Swallowed stones serve as mill-stones—The levigated state of the castings—Fragments of brick in the castings over ancient buildings well rounded. The triturating power of worms not quite insignificant under a geological point of view.

Evidence of how much the land has been worn away—Sub-aerial erosion—The buildup of dust—Vegetable soil, its dark color and fine texture mainly due to worms—The breakdown of rocks by humus acids—Similar acids seemingly produced inside worms—The action of these acids is enhanced by the constant movement of soil particles—A thick layer of soil slows down the breakdown of the soil and rocks underneath. Particles of stone ground down in the gizzards of worms—Swallowed stones act like millstones—The fine state of the castings—Pieces of brick in the castings from ancient buildings are well-rounded. The grinding power of worms is not entirely insignificant from a geological perspective.

209–236

209–236

CHAPTER VI.
THE DENUDATION OF THE LAND—continued.

CHAPTER VI.
THE LAND REMOVAL—continued.

Denudation aided by recently ejected castings flowing down inclined grass-covered surfaces—The amount of earth which annually flows downwards—The effect of tropical rain on worm castings—The finest particles of earth washed completely away from castings—The disintegration of dried castings into pellets, and their rolling down inclined surfaces—The formation of little ledges on hill-sides, in part due to the accumulation of disintegrated castings—Castings blown to leeward over level land—An attempt to estimate the amount thus blown—The degradation of ancient encampments and tumuli—The preservation of the crowns and furrows on land anciently ploughed—The formation and amount of mould over the Chalk formation.

Denudation helped by freshly expelled castings flowing down sloped, grassy surfaces — The volume of soil that washes down each year — The impact of tropical rain on worm castings — The smallest soil particles completely washed away from castings — The breaking apart of dried castings into pellets, which then roll down sloped surfaces — The creation of little ledges on hillsides, partly due to the buildup of broken-down castings — Castings blown sideways over flat land — An attempt to estimate the amount blown away — The erosion of ancient camps and burial mounds — The preservation of the crowns and furrows on land that was plowed long ago — The formation and volume of soil over the Chalk formation.

237–279

237–279

CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUSION.

CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUSION.

Summary of the part which worms have played in the history of the world—Their aid in the disintegration of rocks—In the denudation of the land—In the preservation of ancient remains—In the preparation of the soil for the growth of plants—Mental powers of worms—Conclusion.

Summary of the role worms have played in the history of the world—Their help in breaking down rocks—In the erosion of land—In preserving ancient remains—In preparing the soil for plant growth—The intelligence of worms—Conclusion.

280–288

280–288

p. 1INTRODUCTION.

The share which worms have taken in the formation of the layer of vegetable mould, which covers the whole surface of the land in every moderately humid country, is the subject of the present volume. This mould is generally of a blackish colour and a few inches in thickness. In different districts it differs but little in appearance, although it may rest on various subsoils. The uniform fineness of the particles of which it is composed is one of its chief characteristic features; and this may be well observed in any gravelly country, where a recently-ploughed field immediately adjoins one which has long remained undisturbed for pasture, and where the vegetable mould is exposed on the sides of a ditch or hole. The subject may appear an insignificant one, but we shall see that it possesses some interest; and the maxim “de minimis non curat lex,” does not apply to science. Even Élie de Beaumont, who generally undervalues small agencies and their accumulated effects, remarks: [2] “La couche très-mince de la terre végétale est un monument d’une haute antiquité, et, par le fait de sa permanence, un objet digne d’occuper le géologue, et capable de lui fournir des remarques intéressantes.” Although the superficial layer of vegetable mould as a whole no doubt is of the highest antiquity, yet in regard to its permanence, we shall hereafter see reason to believe that its component particles are in most cases removed at not a very slow rate, and are replaced by others due to the disintegration of the underlying materials.

The contribution of worms to the formation of the layer of dark soil that covers the land in most moderately humid countries is the focus of this volume. This soil is usually a dark color and a few inches thick. In different regions, it looks quite similar, even though it may sit on different types of subsoil. One of its main defining features is the uniform fine texture of its particles, which can be easily seen in any gravelly area where a freshly plowed field is next to a pasture that hasn't been disturbed for a long time, and where the soil is exposed on the sides of a ditch or hole. The topic might seem trivial, but it actually has its significance; and the saying “de minimis non curat lex” does not apply to science. Even Élie de Beaumont, who often downplays small influences and their cumulative impacts, notes: [2] “The very thin layer of topsoil is a monument of great antiquity, and due to its permanence, it is a subject worthy of a geologist's attention and capable of providing interesting observations.” While the overall thin layer of topsoil is certainly ancient, we will later have reasons to believe that the individual particles are generally removed at a fairly steady rate and replaced by others resulting from the breakdown of the underlying materials.

As I was led to keep in my study during many months worms in pots filled with earth, I became interested in them, and wished to learn how far they acted consciously, and how much mental power they displayed. I was the more desirous to learn something on this head, as few observations of this kind have been made, as far as I know, on animals so low in the scale of organization and so poorly provided with sense-organs, as are earth-worms.

As I spent many months observing worms in pots filled with soil in my study, I became intrigued by them and wanted to find out how consciously they acted and how much mental ability they showed. I was particularly eager to learn about this because, as far as I know, there have been few studies on such simple creatures with limited sense organs, like earthworms.

In the year 1837, a short paper was read by me before the Geological Society of London, [3] “On the Formation of Mould,” in which it was shown that small fragments of burnt marl, cinders, &c., which had been thickly strewed over the surface of several meadows, were found after a few years lying at the depth of some inches beneath the turf, but still forming a layer. This apparent sinking of superficial bodies is due, as was first suggested to me by Mr. Wedgwood of Maer Hall in Staffordshire, to the large quantity of fine earth continually brought up to the surface by worms in the form of castings. These castings are sooner or later spread out and cover up any object left on the surface. I was thus led to conclude that all the vegetable mould over the whole country has passed many times through, and will again pass many times through, the intestinal canals of worms. Hence the term “animal mould” would be in some respects more appropriate than that commonly used of “vegetable mould.”

In 1837, I presented a short paper to the Geological Society of London, [3] “On the Formation of Mould,” where I showed that small pieces of burnt marl, cinders, etc., which had been spread over the surface of several meadows, were found lying a few inches beneath the turf after a few years, still forming a layer. This seeming sinking of surface materials is due, as Mr. Wedgwood of Maer Hall in Staffordshire first suggested to me, to the large amount of fine soil that worms continuously bring to the surface in the form of castings. These castings eventually spread out and cover any object left on the surface. This led me to conclude that all the vegetable mould across the entire country has passed many times through, and will again pass many times through, the intestines of worms. Thus, the term “animal mould” might be more appropriate than the commonly used term “vegetable mould.”

Ten years after the publication of my paper, M. D’Archiac, evidently influenced by the doctrines of Élie de Beaumont, wrote about my “singulière théorie,” and objected that it could apply only to “les prairies basses et humides;” and that “les terres labourées, les bois, les prairies élevées, n’apportent aucune preuve à l’appui de cette manière de voir.” [4a] But M. D’Archiac must have thus argued from inner consciousness and not from observation, for worms abound to an extraordinary degree in kitchen gardens where the soil is continually worked, though in such loose soil they generally deposit their castings in any open cavities or within their old burrows instead of on the surface. Hensen estimates that there are about twice as many worms in gardens as in corn-fields. [4b] With respect to “prairies élevées,” I do not know how it may be in France, but nowhere in England have I seen the ground so thickly covered with castings as on commons, at a height of several hundred feet above the sea. In woods again, if the loose leaves in autumn are removed, the whole surface will be found strewed with castings. Dr. King, the superintendent of the Botanic Garden in Calcutta, to whose kindness I am indebted for many observations on earth-worms, informs me that he found, near Nancy in France, the bottom of the State forests covered over many acres with a spongy layer, composed of dead leaves and innumerable worm-castings. He there heard the Professor of “Aménagement des Forêts” lecturing to his pupils, and pointing out this case as a “beautiful example of the natural cultivation of the soil; for year after year the thrown-up castings cover the dead leaves; the result being a rich humus of great thickness.”

Ten years after I published my paper, M. D’Archiac, clearly influenced by Élie de Beaumont's ideas, wrote about my "singular theory" and claimed that it only applied to "low and wet meadows" and that "cultivated land, woods, and high meadows provide no evidence supporting this viewpoint." [4a] But M. D’Archiac must have based his arguments on personal belief rather than observation, because worms are incredibly abundant in kitchen gardens where the soil is constantly tilled. In such loose soil, they usually deposit their castings in any open holes or their old burrows rather than on the surface. Hensen estimates that there are about twice as many worms in gardens as in cornfields. [4b] As for "high meadows," I can't speak for France, but I have never seen the ground in England so densely covered with castings as on commons located several hundred feet above sea level. In woods, if you remove the loose leaves in autumn, you'll find the whole surface littered with castings. Dr. King, the superintendent of the Botanic Garden in Calcutta, has shared many observations about earthworms with me. He told me he found, near Nancy in France, that the forest floor was covered for acres with a spongy layer made up of dead leaves and countless worm castings. He heard the Professor of "Forest Management" lecturing to his students, highlighting this as a "wonderful example of natural soil cultivation; because year after year, the castings piled up over the dead leaves result in a rich, thick layer of humus."

In the year 1869, Mr. Fish [5] rejected my conclusions with respect to the part which worms have played in the formation of vegetable mould, merely on account of their assumed incapacity to do so much work. He remarks that “considering their weakness and their size, the work they are represented to have accomplished is stupendous.” Here we have an instance of that inability to sum up the effects of a continually recurrent cause, which has often retarded the progress of science, as formerly in the case of geology, and more recently in that of the principle of evolution.

In 1869, Mr. Fish [5] dismissed my conclusions about the role worms play in creating vegetable soil, solely because he believed they couldn't do that much work. He points out that “given their size and weakness, the work they are said to have done is amazing.” This reflects a common failure to recognize the effects of a cause that happens repeatedly, which has often slowed down scientific progress, like in the past with geology and more recently with the principle of evolution.

Although these several objections seemed to me to have no weight, yet I resolved to make more observations of the same kind as those published, and to attack the problem on another side; namely, to weigh all the castings thrown up within a given time in a measured space, instead of ascertaining the rate at which objects left on the surface were buried by worms. But some of my observations have been rendered almost superfluous by an admirable paper by Hensen, already alluded to, which appeared in 1877. [6] Before entering on details with respect to the castings, it will be advisable to give some account of the habits of worms from my own observations and from those of other naturalists.

Although I didn't find these objections very convincing, I decided to make more observations similar to those published and approach the problem from a different angle; specifically, to weigh all the castings created within a certain time in a measured area, rather than determining how fast objects left on the surface were buried by worms. However, some of my observations have become almost unnecessary because of an excellent paper by Hensen, which I mentioned earlier, published in 1877. [6] Before getting into the specifics about the castings, it would be helpful to provide some background on worm behavior based on my own observations and those of other naturalists.

[First Edition,
           October 10th, 1881.]

[First Edition,
           October 10th, 1881.]

p. 7CHAPTER I.
Worm Behavior.

Nature of the sites inhabited—Can live long under water—Nocturnal—Wander about at night—Often lie close to the mouths of their burrows, and are thus destroyed in large numbers by birds—Structure—Do not possess eyes, but can distinguish between light and darkness—Retreat rapidly when brightly illuminated, not by a reflex action—Power of attention—Sensitive to heat and cold—Completely deaf—Sensitive to vibrations and to touch—Feeble power of smell—Taste—Mental qualities—Nature of food—Omnivorous—Digestion—Leaves before being swallowed, moistened with a fluid of the nature of the pancreatic secretion—Extra-stomachal digestion—Calciferous glands, structure of—Calcareous concretions formed in the anterior pair of glands—The calcareous matter primarily an excretion, but secondarily serves to neutralise the acids generated during the digestive process.

Nature of the habitats they live in—Can survive for long periods underwater—Active at night—They roam around during the nighttime—Often remain close to the entrances of their burrows, making them easy targets for birds—Structure—They don't have eyes but can tell the difference between light and dark—They quickly retreat when brightly lit, not as a reflex—Ability to concentrate—Sensitive to temperature changes—Completely deaf—Responsive to vibrations and touch—Limited sense of smell—Sense of taste—Mental abilities—Type of food—Eat both plants and animals—Digestion—Food is moistened with a fluid similar to pancreatic secretions before being swallowed—Digestion that occurs outside the stomach—Structure of calciferous glands—Calcium deposits form in the first pair of glands—The calcium primarily serves as waste, but also helps to neutralize the acids produced during digestion.

Earth-worms are distributed throughout the world under the form of a few genera, which externally are closely similar to one another. The British species of Lumbricus have never been carefully monographed; but we may judge of their probable number from those inhabiting neighbouring countries. In Scandinavia there are eight species, according to Eisen; [8a] but two of these rarely burrow in the ground, and one inhabits very wet places or even lives under the water. We are here concerned only with the kinds which bring up earth to the surface in the form of castings. Hoffmeister says that the species in Germany are not well known, but gives the same number as Eisen, together with some strongly marked varieties. [8b]

Earthworms are found all over the world in a few similar genera that look almost identical. The British species of Lumbricus haven’t been thoroughly documented, but we can estimate their likely number based on those in neighboring countries. In Scandinavia, there are eight species, according to Eisen; [8a] though two of these rarely burrow in the ground, and one lives in very wet areas or even underwater. We're only focusing on the types that bring soil to the surface as castings. Hoffmeister notes that the species in Germany are not well understood but agrees on the same number as Eisen, along with some distinct varieties. [8b]

Earth-worms abound in England in many different stations. Their castings may be seen in extraordinary numbers on commons and chalk-downs, so as almost to cover the whole surface, where the soil is poor and the grass short and thin. But they are almost or quite as numerous in some of the London parks, where the grass grows well and the soil appears rich. Even on the same field worms are much more frequent in some places than in others, without any visible difference in the nature of the soil. They abound in paved court-yards close to houses; and an instance will be given in which they had burrowed through the floor of a very damp cellar. I have seen worms in black peat in a boggy field; but they are extremely rare, or quite absent in the drier, brown, fibrous peat, which is so much valued by gardeners. On dry, sandy or gravelly tracks, where heath with some gorse, ferns, coarse grass, moss and lichens alone grow, hardly any worms can be found. But in many parts of England, wherever a path crosses a heath, its surface becomes covered with a fine short sward. Whether this change of vegetation is due to the taller plants being killed by the occasional trampling of man and animals, or to the soil being occasionally manured by the droppings from animals, I do not know. [9b] On such grassy paths worm-castings may often be seen. On a heath in Surrey, which was carefully examined, there were only a few castings on these paths, where they were much inclined; but on the more level parts, where a bed of fine earth had been washed down from the steeper parts and had accumulated to a thickness of a few inches, worm-castings abounded. These spots seemed to be overstocked with worms, so that they had been compelled to spread to a distance of a few feet from the grassy paths, and here their castings had been thrown up among the heath; but beyond this limit, not a single casting could be found. A layer, though a thin one, of fine earth, which probably long retains some moisture, is in all cases, as I believe, necessary for their existence; and the mere compression of the soil appears to be in some degree favourable to them, for they often abound in old gravel walks, and in foot-paths across fields.

Earthworms are abundant in England in many different places. Their castings can be seen in huge numbers on commons and chalk downs, almost covering the entire surface where the soil is poor and the grass is short and sparse. They’re just as numerous in some of the London parks, where the grass grows well and the soil seems rich. Even within the same field, worms can be much more common in certain areas than in others, without any noticeable difference in the soil. They are found in paved courtyards near houses; there’s even an example where they burrowed through the floor of a very damp cellar. I’ve seen worms in black peat in a boggy field, but they are extremely rare, or completely absent, in the drier, brown, fibrous peat that gardeners value so much. In dry, sandy, or gravelly paths, where only heath, some gorse, ferns, coarse grass, moss, and lichens grow, there are hardly any worms at all. However, in many parts of England, wherever a path crosses a heath, the surface becomes covered with fine short grass. I’m not sure if this change in vegetation is due to the taller plants being trampled by people and animals or if the soil is occasionally enriched by animal droppings. On such grassy paths, worm castings are often visible. In a heath in Surrey that I carefully examined, there were only a few castings on these paths, especially where they sloped; but on the flatter areas where fine earth had washed down from the steeper parts and accumulated to a thickness of a few inches, worm castings were everywhere. These spots seemed to be overcrowded with worms, forcing them to spread a few feet away from the grassy paths, where their castings were found among the heath; beyond this point, no castings could be found. A thin layer of fine earth, which probably retains some moisture for a long time, is essential for their survival; also, the compaction of the soil seems to benefit them to some extent, as they often thrive in old gravel paths and in footpaths across fields.

Beneath large trees few castings can be found during certain seasons of the year, and this is apparently due to the moisture having been sucked out of the ground by the innumerable roots of the trees; for such places may be seen covered with castings after the heavy autumnal rains. Although most coppices and woods support many worms, yet in a forest of tall and ancient beech-trees in Knole Park, where the ground beneath was bare of all vegetation, not a single casting could be found over wide spaces, even during the autumn. Nevertheless, castings were abundant on some grass-covered glades and indentations which penetrated this forest. On the mountains of North Wales and on the Alps, worms, as I have been informed, are in most places rare; and this may perhaps be due to the close proximity of the subjacent rocks, into which worms cannot burrow during the winter so as to escape being frozen. Dr. McIntosh, however, found worm-castings at a height of 1500 feet on Schiehallion in Scotland. They are numerous on some hills near Turin at from 2000 to 3000 feet above the sea, and at a great altitude on the Nilgiri Mountains in South India and on the Himalaya.

Under large trees, you can find few castings during certain seasons, which seems to be because the countless roots of the trees have absorbed the moisture from the ground. After heavy autumn rains, these areas are often covered with castings. While most coppices and woods have plenty of worms, there’s a forest of tall, ancient beech trees in Knole Park where the ground is bare of all plants, and not a single casting can be found over large areas, even in autumn. On the other hand, castings are plentiful in some grassy clearings and dips within this forest. Worms are generally rare in the mountains of North Wales and the Alps, likely due to the nearby rocks that prevent them from burrowing in the winter to avoid freezing. However, Dr. McIntosh discovered worm castings at an elevation of 1500 feet on Schiehallion in Scotland. They are also common on some hills near Turin, between 2000 and 3000 feet above sea level, as well as at high altitudes in the Nilgiri Mountains in South India and the Himalayas.

Earth-worms must be considered as terrestrial animals, though they are still in one sense semi-aquatic, like the other members of the great class of annelids to which they belong. M. Perrier found that their exposure to the dry air of a room for only a single night was fatal to them. On the other hand he kept several large worms alive for nearly four months, completely submerged in water. [11] During the summer when the ground is dry, they penetrate to a considerable depth and cease to work, as they do during the winter when the ground is frozen. Worms are nocturnal in their habits, and at night may be seen crawling about in large numbers, but usually with their tails still inserted in their burrows. By the expansion of this part of their bodies, and with the help of the short, slightly reflexed bristles, with which their bodies are armed, they hold so fast that they can seldom be dragged out of the ground without being torn into pieces. [12] During the day they remain in their burrows, except at the pairing season, when those which inhabit adjoining burrows expose the greater part of their bodies for an hour or two in the early morning. Sick individuals, which are generally affected by the parasitic larvæ of a fly, must also be excepted, as they wander about during the day and die on the surface. After heavy rain succeeding dry weather, an astonishing number of dead worms may sometimes be seen lying on the ground. Mr. Galton informs me that on one such occasion (March, 1881), the dead worms averaged one for every two and a half paces in length on a walk in Hyde Park, four paces in width. He counted no less than 45 dead worms in one place in a length of sixteen paces. From the facts above given, it is not probable that these worms could have been drowned, and if they had been drowned they would have perished in their burrows. I believe that they were already sick, and that their deaths were merely hastened by the ground being flooded.

Earthworms should be seen as land animals, even though they are somewhat semi-aquatic, like other members of the large class of annelids they belong to. M. Perrier discovered that if they are exposed to dry air in a room for just one night, it can be fatal for them. On the flip side, he managed to keep several large worms alive for nearly four months by completely submerging them in water. [11] During the summer months when the ground is dry, they dig deep and stop working, similar to what they do in winter when the ground freezes. Worms are nocturnal and can often be seen at night crawling around in large numbers, although they usually keep their tails in their burrows. By expanding this part of their bodies and using the short, slightly curved bristles that cover them, they grip the ground tightly, making it hard to pull them out without tearing them apart. [12] During the day, they stay in their burrows unless it’s mating season, when those living in nearby burrows will stick out most of their bodies for an hour or two in the early morning. Sick worms, usually affected by parasitic fly larvae, are an exception as they wander around during the day and often die on the surface. After a heavy rain following a dry spell, you might see many dead worms on the ground. Mr. Galton informed me that during one such instance (March 1881), the dead worms averaged one for every two and a half steps in a walk through Hyde Park, which was four steps wide. He counted 45 dead worms in one spot over a stretch of sixteen paces. Given the facts mentioned, it’s unlikely these worms drowned; if they had, they would have died in their burrows. I believe they were already sick, and the flooding of the ground just sped up their deaths.

It has often been said that under ordinary circumstances healthy worms never, or very rarely, completely leave their burrows at night; but this is an error, as White of Selborne long ago knew. In the morning, after there has been heavy rain, the film of mud or of very fine sand over gravel-walks is often plainly marked with their tracks. I have noticed this from August to May, both months included, and it probably occurs during the two remaining months of the year when they are wet. On these occasions, very few dead worms could anywhere be seen. On January 31, 1881, after a long-continued and unusually severe frost with much snow, as soon as a thaw set in, the walks were marked with innumerable tracks. On one occasion, five tracks were counted crossing a space of only an inch square. They could sometimes be traced either to or from the mouths of the burrows in the gravel-walks, for distances between 2 or 3 up to 15 yards. I have never seen two tracks leading to the same burrow; nor is it likely, from what we shall presently see of their sense-organs, that a worm could find its way back to its burrow after having once left it. They apparently leave their burrows on a voyage of discovery, and thus they find new sites to inhabit.

It’s often said that under normal conditions, healthy worms rarely, if ever, completely leave their burrows at night; but this is a misconception, as White of Selborne recognized long ago. In the morning, after heavy rain, the fine layer of mud or very fine sand over gravel paths clearly shows their tracks. I've observed this from August to May, including both months, and it likely happens during the other two months of the year when it’s wet. During these times, very few dead worms can be found. On January 31, 1881, after a prolonged and unusually harsh frost with a lot of snow, as soon as it thawed, the paths were filled with countless tracks. At one point, I counted five tracks crossing a space no bigger than an inch square. These tracks could sometimes be traced to or from the entrances of the burrows in the gravel paths, over distances ranging from 2 or 3 to 15 yards. I’ve never seen two tracks leading to the same burrow; nor is it likely, based on what we’ll explore about their sensory organs, that a worm could find its way back to its burrow after leaving it. They seem to leave their burrows on an exploratory journey, allowing them to discover new places to inhabit.

Morren states [14] that worms often lie for hours almost motionless close beneath the mouths of their burrows. I have occasionally noticed the same fact with worms kept in pots in the house; so that by looking down into their burrows, their heads could just be seen. If the ejected earth or rubbish over the burrows be suddenly removed, the end of the worm’s body may very often be seen rapidly retreating. This habit of lying near the surface leads to their destruction to an immense extent. Every morning during certain seasons of the year, the thrushes and blackbirds on all the lawns throughout the country draw out of their holes an astonishing number of worms, and this they could not do, unless they lay close to the surface. It is not probable that worms behave in this manner for the sake of breathing fresh air, for we have seen that they can live for a long time under water. I believe that they lie near the surface for the sake of warmth, especially in the morning; and we shall hereafter find that they often coat the mouths of their burrows with leaves, apparently to prevent their bodies from coming into close contact with the cold damp earth. It is said that they completely close their burrows during the winter.

Morren states [14] that worms often lie still for hours, almost motionless, just below the openings of their burrows. I've sometimes noticed the same thing with worms kept in pots at home; by looking down into their burrows, their heads can just be seen. If the dirt or debris covering the burrows is suddenly removed, you can often see the end of the worm’s body quickly retracting. This tendency to stay near the surface makes them highly vulnerable. Every morning during certain seasons, thrushes and blackbirds across the lawns of the country pull an incredible number of worms from their holes, something they couldn’t do if the worms weren’t close to the surface. It’s unlikely that worms do this to get fresh air, since we know they can survive for long periods underwater. I believe they stay near the surface for warmth, especially in the morning; and later on, we’ll find that they often cover the openings of their burrows with leaves, seemingly to keep their bodies from touching the cold, damp ground. It’s said they completely seal their burrows during the winter.

Structure.—A few remarks must be made on this subject. The body of a large worm consists of from 100 to 200 almost cylindrical rings or segments, each furnished with minute bristles. The muscular system is well developed. Worms can crawl backwards as well as forwards, and by the aid of their affixed tails can retreat with extraordinary rapidity into their burrows. The mouth is situated at the anterior end of the body, and is provided with a little projection (lobe or lip, as it has been variously called) which is used for prehension. Internally, behind the mouth, there is a strong pharynx, shown in the accompanying diagram (Fig. 1) which is pushed forwards when the animal eats, and this part corresponds, according to Perrier, with the protrudable trunk or proboscis of other annelids. The pharynx leads into the œsophagus, on each side of which in the lower part there are three pairs of large glands, which secrete a surprising amount of carbonate of lime. These calciferous glands are highly remarkable, for nothing like them is known in any other animal. Their use will be discussed when we treat of the digestive process. In most of the species, the œsophagus is enlarged into a crop in front of the gizzard. This latter organ is lined with a smooth thick chitinous membrane, and is surrounded by weak longitudinal, but powerful transverse muscles. Perrier saw these muscles in energetic action; and, as he remarks, the trituration of the food must be chiefly effected by this organ, for worms possess no jaws or teeth of any kind. Grains of sand and small stones, from the 1/20 to a little more than the 1/10 inch in diameter, may generally be found in their gizzards and intestines. As it is certain that worms swallow many little stones, independently of those swallowed while excavating their burrows, it is probable that they serve, like mill-stones, to triturate their food. The gizzard opens into the intestine, which runs in a straight course to the vent at the posterior end of the body. The intestine presents a remarkable structure, the typhlosolis, or, as the old anatomists called it, an intestine within an intestine; and Claparède [17] has shown that this consists of a deep longitudinal involution of the walls of the intestine, by which means an extensive absorbent surface is gained.

Structure.—A few comments need to be made on this topic. The body of a large worm consists of 100 to 200 nearly cylindrical rings or segments, each equipped with tiny bristles. The muscular system is well developed. Worms can crawl backwards as well as forwards, and with their attached tails, they can swiftly retreat into their burrows. The mouth is located at the front end of the body and has a small projection (lobe or lip, as it’s been called) used for grabbing food. Internally, just behind the mouth, there's a strong pharynx, illustrated in the accompanying diagram (Fig. 1), which extends forward when the animal eats; this part is similar, according to Perrier, to the extendable trunk or proboscis found in other annelids. The pharynx leads into the esophagus, flanked by three pairs of large glands in the lower part that secrete a significant amount of calcium carbonate. These calciferous glands are particularly noteworthy because nothing like them exists in any other animal. Their function will be discussed when we cover the digestive process. In most species, the esophagus expands into a crop just before the gizzard. This gizzard is lined with a smooth, thick chitinous membrane and surrounded by weak longitudinal muscles, but powerful transverse muscles. Perrier observed these muscles in active motion; as he noted, the grinding of the food is primarily carried out by this organ, since worms lack jaws or teeth. Grains of sand and small stones, ranging from 1/20 to just over 1/10 inch in diameter, are usually found in their gizzards and intestines. Since it’s clear that worms swallow many small stones, in addition to those ingested while digging their burrows, it's likely that these stones function like millstones to grind their food. The gizzard connects to the intestine, which runs directly to the vent at the back end of the body. The intestine has a remarkable structure called the typhlosolis, or what earlier anatomists referred to as an intestine within an intestine; Claparède [17] demonstrated that this consists of a deep longitudinal folding of the intestinal walls, which increases the absorbent surface area significantly.

The circulatory system is well developed. Worms breathe by their skin, as they do not possess any special respiratory organs. The two sexes are united in the same individual, but two individuals pair together. The nervous system is fairly well developed; and the two almost confluent cerebral ganglia are situated very near to the anterior end of the body.

The circulatory system is highly developed. Worms breathe through their skin since they lack specialized respiratory organs. Both sexes are found in each individual, but two individuals pair up. The nervous system is relatively well developed, with two almost merged cerebral ganglia located close to the front of the body.

Senses.—Worms are destitute of eyes, and at first I thought that they were quite insensible to light; for those kept in confinement were repeatedly observed by the aid of a candle, and others out of doors by the aid of a lantern, yet they were rarely alarmed, although extremely timid animals. Other persons have found no difficulty in observing worms at night by the same means. [18a]

Senses.—Worms have no eyes, and initially, I believed they couldn't sense light at all; the ones kept in captivity were often observed with a candle, and those outside with a lantern, yet they rarely seemed frightened, even though they are very timid creatures. Others have easily seen worms at night using the same method. [18a]

Hoffmeister, however, states [18b] that worms, with the exception of a few individuals, are extremely sensitive to light; but he admits that in most cases a certain time is requisite for its action. These statements led me to watch on many successive nights worms kept in pots, which were protected from currents of air by means of glass plates. The pots were approached very gently, in order that no vibration of the floor should be caused. When under these circumstances worms were illuminated by a bull’s-eye lantern having slides of dark red and blue glass, which intercepted so much light that they could be seen only with some difficulty, they were not at all affected by this amount of light, however long they were exposed to it. The light, as far as I could judge, was brighter than that from the full moon. Its colour apparently made no difference in the result. When they were illuminated by a candle, or even by a bright paraffin lamp, they were not usually affected at first. Nor were they when the light was alternately admitted and shut off. Sometimes, however, they behaved very differently, for as soon as the light fell on them, they withdrew into their burrows with almost instantaneous rapidity. This occurred perhaps once out of a dozen times. When they did not withdraw instantly, they often raised the anterior tapering ends of their bodies from the ground, as if their attention was aroused or as if surprise was felt; or they moved their bodies from side to side as if feeling for some object. They appeared distressed by the light; but I doubt whether this was really the case, for on two occasions after withdrawing slowly, they remained for a long time with their anterior extremities protruding a little from the mouths of their burrows, in which position they were ready for instant and complete withdrawal.

Hoffmeister, however, states [18b] that worms, except for a few individuals, are very sensitive to light; but he admits that in most cases it takes some time for the light to affect them. This led me to observe worms kept in pots over many nights, which were shielded from air currents by glass plates. I approached the pots very gently so as not to cause any vibrations on the floor. When the worms were illuminated by a bull’s-eye lantern with dark red and blue glass slides that blocked so much light they could only be seen with difficulty, they were not affected by this amount of light, no matter how long they were exposed to it. The light, as far as I could tell, was brighter than that of a full moon. The color seemed to make no difference in the outcome. When they were lit by a candle or even a bright paraffin lamp, they usually didn't react at first. They remained unfazed even when the light was turned on and off alternately. However, sometimes they reacted quite differently; as soon as the light hit them, they quickly withdrew into their burrows. This happened perhaps once in every twelve times. When they didn’t retreat instantly, they often lifted the front, tapered ends of their bodies off the ground, as if their attention had been caught or if they were surprised; or they would move their bodies side to side, as if searching for something. They seemed disturbed by the light, but I’m not sure this was actually the case, because on two occasions, after retreating slowly, they stayed with the front parts of their bodies sticking out slightly from the entrances of their burrows, ready for quick and complete withdrawal.

When the light from a candle was concentrated by means of a large lens on the anterior extremity, they generally withdrew instantly; but this concentrated light failed to act perhaps once out of half a dozen trials. The light was on one occasion concentrated on a worm lying beneath water in a saucer, and it instantly withdrew into its burrow. In all cases the duration of the light, unless extremely feeble, made a great difference in the result; for worms left exposed before a paraffin lamp or a candle invariably retreated into their burrows within from five to fifteen minutes; and if in the evening the pots were illuminated before the worms had come out of their burrows, they failed to appear.

When the light from a candle was focused using a large lens on the front end, they usually pulled back immediately; however, this focused light didn't always work, failing about one time in every six attempts. One time, the light was focused on a worm lying underwater in a dish, and it immediately withdrew into its burrow. In all cases, the length of time the light was present, unless it was very weak, made a significant difference in the outcome; worms left exposed in front of a paraffin lamp or a candle consistently retreated into their burrows within five to fifteen minutes. Additionally, if the pots were lit up in the evening before the worms had emerged from their burrows, they did not come out.

From the foregoing facts it is evident that light affects worms by its intensity and by its duration. It is only the anterior extremity of the body, where the cerebral ganglia lie, which is affected by light, as Hoffmeister asserts, and as I observed on many occasions. If this part is shaded, other parts of the body may be fully illuminated, and no effect will be produced. As these animals have no eyes, we must suppose that the light passes through their skins, and in some manner excites their cerebral ganglia. It appeared at first probable that the different manner in which they were affected on different occasions might be explained, either by the degree of extension of their skin and its consequent transparency, or by some particular incident of the light; but I could discover no such relation. One thing was manifest, namely, that when worms were employed in dragging leaves into their burrows or in eating them, and even during the short intervals whilst they rested from their work, they either did not perceive the light or were regardless of it; and this occurred even when the light was concentrated on them through a large lens. So, again, whilst they are paired, they will remain for an hour or two out of their burrows, fully exposed to the morning light; but it appears from what Hoffmeister says that a light will occasionally cause paired individuals to separate.

From the facts mentioned, it's clear that light affects worms based on its intensity and duration. Only the front part of their bodies, where the brain-like ganglia are located, responds to light, as Hoffmeister claims and as I have observed many times. If this area is shaded, even if other parts of the body are fully lit, there will be no effect. Since these animals don’t have eyes, we can assume that light penetrates their skin and somehow stimulates their brain-like ganglia. Initially, it seemed possible that the different ways they reacted at various times could be explained by the extent of their skin's stretch and its transparency or by some specific feature of the light, but I couldn’t find any such connection. One thing was clear: when worms were busy pulling leaves into their burrows or eating them, and even during short breaks from their work, they either didn’t notice the light or ignored it; this happened even when light was focused on them through a large lens. Additionally, while they are paired, they can stay outside their burrows for an hour or two fully exposed to the morning light; however, according to Hoffmeister, light can sometimes cause paired worms to separate.

When a worm is suddenly illuminated and dashes like a rabbit into its burrow—to use the expression employed by a friend—we are at first led to look at the action as a reflex one. The irritation of the cerebral ganglia appears to cause certain muscles to contract in an inevitable manner, independently of the will or consciousness of the animal, as if it were an automaton. But the different effect which a light produced on different occasions, and especially the fact that a worm when in any way employed and in the intervals of such employment, whatever set of muscles and ganglia may then have been brought into play, is often regardless of light, are opposed to the view of the sudden withdrawal being a simple reflex action. With the higher animals, when close attention to some object leads to the disregard of the impressions which other objects must be producing on them, we attribute this to their attention being then absorbed; and attention implies the presence of a mind. Every sportsman knows that he can approach animals whilst they are grazing, fighting or courting, much more easily than at other times. The state, also, of the nervous system of the higher animals differs much at different times, for instance, a horse is much more readily startled at one time than at another. The comparison here implied between the actions of one of the higher animals and of one so low in the scale as an earth-worm, may appear far-fetched; for we thus attribute to the worm attention and some mental power, nevertheless I can see no reason to doubt the justice of the comparison.

When a worm is suddenly lit up and dashes like a rabbit into its burrow—using a friend's phrase—we initially think of the action as a reflex. The irritation of the brain's nerve centers seems to make certain muscles contract automatically, without the animal's will or awareness, almost like a machine. However, the different effects that light has on various occasions, and especially the fact that a worm often ignores light while engaged in different activities, suggest that the sudden retreat isn’t just a simple reflex. With higher animals, when they focus on something, they tend to ignore other stimuli, which we attribute to their full attention; and attention implies the presence of a mind. Any hunter knows that they can approach animals more easily while they’re grazing, fighting, or mating than at other times. Moreover, the nervous system of higher animals varies significantly at different moments; for example, a horse can be more easily startled at one time than another. The comparison between the actions of a higher animal and something as simple as an earthworm may seem far-fetched, as it suggests the worm has attention and some form of mental ability, yet I see no reason to doubt the validity of this comparison.

Although worms cannot be said to possess the power of vision, their sensitiveness to light enables them to distinguish between day and night; and they thus escape extreme danger from the many diurnal animals which prey on them. Their withdrawal into their burrows during the day appears, however, to have become an habitual action; for worms kept in pots covered by glass plates, over which sheets of black paper were spread, and placed before a north-east window, remained during the day-time in their burrows and came out every night; and they continued thus to act for a week. No doubt a little light may have entered between the sheets of glass and the blackened paper; but we know from the trials with coloured glass, that worms are indifferent to a small amount of light.

Although worms can't really be said to see, their sensitivity to light allows them to tell the difference between day and night, helping them avoid most daytime predators. Their habit of hiding in their burrows during the day seems to be a learned behavior; for example, worms kept in containers covered with glass plates and black paper in front of a northeast window stayed in their burrows during the day and came out every night, doing this consistently for a week. It's possible that some light got through between the glass and the black paper, but experiments with colored glass show that worms don't react much to low light levels.

Worms appear to be less sensitive to moderate radiant heat than to a bright light. I judge of this from having held at different times a poker heated to dull redness near some worms, at a distance which caused a very sensible degree of warmth in my hand. One of them took no notice; a second withdrew into its burrow, but not quickly; the third and fourth much more quickly, and the fifth as quickly as possible. The light from a candle, concentrated by a lens and passing through a sheet of glass which would intercept most of the heat-rays, generally caused a much more rapid retreat than did the heated poker. Worms are sensitive to a low temperature, as may be inferred from their not coming out of their burrows during a frost.

Worms seem to be less responsive to moderate heat than to bright light. I've noticed this after holding a red-hot poker near some worms, at a distance that made my hand feel quite warm. One worm ignored it; a second slowly retreated into its burrow; the third and fourth pulled back much faster, and the fifth moved away as quickly as possible. The light from a candle, focused through a lens and filtered through a piece of glass that blocked most of the heat rays, usually prompted a much quicker retreat than the heated poker. Worms are sensitive to cold, as suggested by their tendency to stay in their burrows during frost.

Worms do not possess any sense of hearing. They took not the least notice of the shrill notes from a metal whistle, which was repeatedly sounded near them; nor did they of the deepest and loudest tones of a bassoon. They were indifferent to shouts, if care was taken that the breath did not strike them. When placed on a table close to the keys of a piano, which was played as loudly as possible, they remained perfectly quiet.

Worms don’t have any sense of hearing. They didn’t react at all to the high-pitched sounds from a metal whistle that was blown near them, nor did they respond to the deep and loud notes of a bassoon. They were unaffected by shouts, as long as the breath didn’t hit them. When placed on a table near a piano being played at full volume, they stayed completely still.

Although they are indifferent to undulations in the air audible by us, they are extremely sensitive to vibrations in any solid object. When the pots containing two worms which had remained quite indifferent to the sound of the piano, were placed on this instrument, and the note C in the bass clef was struck, both instantly retreated into their burrows. After a time they emerged, and when G above the line in the treble clef was struck they again retreated. Under similar circumstances on another night one worm dashed into its burrow on a very high note being struck only once, and the other worm when C in the treble clef was struck. On these occasions the worms were not touching the sides of the pots, which stood in saucers; so that the vibrations, before reaching their bodies, had to pass from the sounding board of the piano, through the saucer, the bottom of the pot and the damp, not very compact earth on which they lay with their tails in their burrows. They often showed their sensitiveness when the pot in which they lived, or the table on which the pot stood, was accidentally and lightly struck; but they appeared less sensitive to such jars than to the vibrations of the piano; and their sensitiveness to jars varied much at different times.

Although they don’t react to changes in the air that we can hear, they are very sensitive to vibrations in solid objects. When the pots containing two worms, which showed no interest in the sound of the piano, were placed on the instrument, and the note C in the bass clef was played, both quickly retreated into their burrows. After a while, they came out, and when G above the line in the treble clef was played, they again withdrew. On another night, under similar conditions, one worm rushed into its burrow when a very high note was played just once, while the other worm retreated when C in the treble clef was played. During these times, the worms weren't touching the sides of the pots, which stood in saucers; so the vibrations had to travel from the piano's sounding board, through the saucer, the bottom of the pot, and the damp, somewhat loose earth on which they lay with their tails in their burrows. They often displayed their sensitivity when the pot they lived in, or the table it was on, was lightly and accidentally tapped; but they seemed less responsive to such jolts than to the vibrations from the piano, and their sensitivity to taps varied at different times.

It has often been said that if the ground is beaten or otherwise made to tremble, worms believe that they are pursued by a mole and leave their burrows. From one account that I have received, I have no doubt that this is often the case; but a gentleman informs me that he lately saw eight or ten worms leave their burrows and crawl about the grass on some boggy land on which two men had just trampled while setting a trap; and this occurred in a part of Ireland where there were no moles. I have been assured by a Volunteer that he has often seen many large earth-worms crawling quickly about the grass, a few minutes after his company had fired a volley with blank cartridges. The Peewit (Tringa vanellus, Linn.) seems to know instinctively that worms will emerge if the ground is made to tremble; for Bishop Stanley states (as I hear from Mr. Moorhouse) that a young peewit kept in confinement used to stand on one leg and beat the turf with the other leg until the worms crawled out of their burrows, when they were instantly devoured. Nevertheless, worms do not invariably leave their burrows when the ground is made to tremble, as I know by having beaten it with a spade, but perhaps it was beaten too violently.

It's often said that when the ground shakes or trembles, worms think they're being chased by a mole and leave their burrows. From what I've heard, this does happen quite a bit; however, one gentleman told me he recently saw eight or ten worms leave their burrows and crawl around on some marshy land where two men had just trampled while setting a trap, and this was in a part of Ireland with no moles. A Volunteer assured me that he's often seen large earthworms quickly moving about in the grass just a few minutes after his group fired a volley with blank cartridges. The Peewit (Tringa vanellus, Linn.) seems to instinctively know that worms will come out when the ground trembles; Bishop Stanley mentions (as I heard from Mr. Moorhouse) that a young peewit kept in captivity would stand on one leg and pound the ground with the other until the worms crawled out of their burrows, at which point they were quickly eaten. However, worms don’t always leave their burrows when the ground shakes, as I've seen when I hit the ground with a spade, though perhaps I did it too violently.

The whole body of a worm is sensitive to contact. A slight puff of air from the mouth causes an instant retreat. The glass plates placed over the pots did not fit closely, and blowing through the very narrow chinks thus left, often sufficed to cause a rapid retreat. They sometimes perceived the eddies in the air caused by quickly removing the glass plates. When a worm first comes out of its burrow, it generally moves the much extended anterior extremity of its body from side to side in all directions, apparently as an organ of touch; and there is some reason to believe, as we shall see in the next chapter, that they are thus enabled to gain a general notion of the form of an object. Of all their senses that of touch, including in this term the perception of a vibration, seems much the most highly developed.

The entire body of a worm is sensitive to touch. A slight puff of air from the mouth leads to an instant retreat. The glass plates placed over the pots didn't fit tightly, and blowing through the narrow gaps that were left often caused a quick retreat. They sometimes noticed the air currents created by quickly removing the glass plates. When a worm first emerges from its burrow, it typically moves the extended front end of its body back and forth in all directions, seemingly as a sense of touch; and there's good reason to believe, as we’ll see in the next chapter, that this helps them get a general idea of the shape of an object. Of all their senses, the sense of touch, which also includes the perception of vibrations, appears to be the most developed.

In worms the sense of smell apparently is confined to the perception of certain odours, and is feeble. They were quite indifferent to my breath, as long as I breathed on them very gently. This was tried, because it appeared possible that they might thus be warned of the approach of an enemy. They exhibited the same indifference to my breath whilst I chewed some tobacco, and while a pellet of cotton-wool with a few drops of millefleurs perfume or of acetic acid was kept in my mouth. Pellets of cotton-wool soaked in tobacco juice, in millefleurs perfume, and in paraffin, were held with pincers and were waved about within two or three inches of several worms, but they took no notice. On one or two occasions, however, when acetic acid had been placed on the pellets, the worms appeared a little uneasy, and this was probably due to the irritation of their skins. The perception of such unnatural odours would be of no service to worms; and as such timid creatures would almost certainly exhibit some signs of any new impression, we may conclude that they did not perceive these odours.

In worms, the sense of smell seems to be limited to recognizing certain odors, and it's quite weak. They didn't react to my breath as long as I blew on them gently. I tried this because I thought it might warn them of an approaching threat. They showed the same indifference to my breath while I chewed some tobacco and when I had a cotton ball soaked with a few drops of millefleur perfume or acetic acid in my mouth. Cotton balls soaked in tobacco juice, millefleur perfume, and paraffin were held with tweezers and waved close to several worms, but they ignored them. However, on one or two occasions, when acetic acid was on the cotton balls, the worms seemed a little bothered, likely due to skin irritation. Recognizing such unusual odors wouldn’t be useful for worms, and since these timid creatures would probably show some reaction to any new stimulus, we can conclude that they didn’t perceive these odors.

The result was different when cabbage-leaves and pieces of onion were employed, both of which are devoured with much relish by worms. Small square pieces of fresh and half-decayed cabbage-leaves and of onion bulbs were on nine occasions buried in my pots, beneath about ¼ of an inch of common garden soil; and they were always discovered by the worms. One bit of cabbage was discovered and removed in the course of two hours; three were removed by the next morning, that is, after a single night; two others after two nights; and the seventh bit after three nights. Two pieces of onion were discovered and removed after three nights. Bits of fresh raw meat, of which worms are very fond, were buried, and were not discovered within forty-eight hours, during which time they had not become putrid. The earth above the various buried objects was generally pressed down only slightly, so as not to prevent the emission of any odour. On two occasions, however, the surface was well watered, and was thus rendered somewhat compact. After the bits of cabbage and onion had been removed, I looked beneath them to see whether the worms had accidentally come up from below, but there was no sign of a burrow; and twice the buried objects were laid on pieces of tin-foil which were not in the least displaced. It is of course possible that the worms whilst moving about on the surface of the ground, with their tails affixed within their burrows, may have poked their heads into the places where the above objects were buried; but I have never seen worms acting in this manner. Some pieces of cabbage-leaf and of onion were twice buried beneath very fine ferruginous sand, which was slightly pressed down and well watered, so as to be rendered very compact, and these pieces were never discovered. On a third occasion the same kind of sand was neither pressed down nor watered, and the pieces of cabbage were discovered and removed after the second night. These several facts indicate that worms possess some power of smell; and that they discover by this means odoriferous and much-coveted kinds of food.

The outcome was different when cabbage leaves and onion pieces were used, both of which worms enjoy eating. Small square pieces of fresh and slightly decayed cabbage leaves and onion bulbs were buried in my pots on nine occasions, under about ¼ inch of regular garden soil; and the worms always found them. One piece of cabbage was discovered and taken within two hours; three were removed by the next morning, after just one night; two more after two nights; and the last piece after three nights. Two pieces of onion were found and taken after three nights. Bits of fresh raw meat, which worms really like, were buried and went unfound for forty-eight hours, during which time they didn’t rot. The soil above the buried items was usually pressed down only slightly, so it didn't block any smell. However, on two occasions, the surface was well watered, making it a bit compact. After the pieces of cabbage and onion were removed, I checked underneath to see if the worms had accidentally come up from below, but there was no sign of a burrow; and on two occasions, the buried items were placed on pieces of tin foil that remained completely undisturbed. It's of course possible that while moving on the surface, with their tails still in their burrows, the worms could have poked their heads into the spots where the items were buried; but I’ve never seen worms behave this way. Some pieces of cabbage leaf and onion were buried twice under very fine iron-rich sand, which was slightly pressed down and well watered to make it very compact, and these pieces were never found. On a third occasion, the same kind of sand was neither pressed down nor watered, and the pieces of cabbage were discovered and taken after the second night. These various facts suggest that worms have some sense of smell; and that they find their favorite types of food through this ability.

It may be presumed that all animals which feed on various substances possess the sense of taste, and this is certainly the case with worms. Cabbage-leaves are much liked by worms; and it appears that they can distinguish between different varieties; but this may perhaps be owing to differences in their texture. On eleven occasions pieces of the fresh leaves of a common green variety and of the red variety used for pickling were given them, and they preferred the green, the red being either wholly neglected or much less gnawed. On two other occasions, however, they seemed to prefer the red. Half-decayed leaves of the red variety and fresh leaves of the green were attacked about equally. When leaves of the cabbage, horse-radish (a favourite food) and of the onion were given together, the latter were always, and manifestly preferred. Leaves of the cabbage, lime-tree, Ampelopsis, parsnip (Pastinaca), and celery (Apium) were likewise given together; and those of the celery were first eaten. But when leaves of cabbage, turnip, beet, celery, wild cherry and carrots were given together, the two latter kinds, especially those of the carrot, were preferred to all the others, including those of celery. It was also manifest after many trials that wild cherry leaves were greatly preferred to those of the lime-tree and hazel (Corylus). According to Mr. Bridgman the half-decayed leaves of Phlox verna are particularly liked by worms. [31]

It can be assumed that all animals that eat different types of food have a sense of taste, and this definitely applies to worms. Worms really enjoy cabbage leaves; it seems they can tell different varieties apart, possibly because of differences in texture. On eleven occasions, I offered them pieces of fresh leaves from a common green variety and a red variety used for pickling. They preferred the green leaves, while the red ones were either completely ignored or only eaten a little. However, on two other occasions, they appeared to prefer the red. Half-decayed leaves of the red variety and fresh leaves of the green were eaten about the same amount. When I presented cabbage, horseradish (a favorite), and onion leaves together, the onion leaves were always clearly favored. I also gave them leaves of cabbage, lime tree, Ampelopsis, parsnip, and celery at the same time, and they ate the celery first. But when cabbage, turnip, beet, celery, wild cherry, and carrots were offered together, the last two, especially the carrots, were preferred over all the others, including celery. After many trials, it was evident that wild cherry leaves were much more preferred than those of the lime tree and hazel. According to Mr. Bridgman, worms particularly enjoy the half-decayed leaves of Phlox verna. [31]

Pieces of the leaves of cabbage, turnip, horse-radish and onion were left on the pots during 22 days, and were all attacked and had to be renewed; but during the whole of this time leaves of an Artemisia and of the culinary sage, thyme and mint, mingled with the above leaves, were quite neglected excepting those of the mint, which were occasionally and very slightly nibbled. These latter four kinds of leaves do not differ in texture in a manner which could make them disagreeable to worms; they all have a strong taste, but so have the four first mentioned kinds of leaves; and the wide difference in the result must be attributed to a preference by the worms for one taste over another.

Pieces of cabbage, turnip, horseradish, and onion leaves were left on the pots for 22 days and were all eaten and had to be replaced; however, throughout this time, the leaves of Artemisia, culinary sage, thyme, and mint, which were mixed in with the other leaves, were mostly ignored, except for the mint leaves, which were occasionally and very lightly chewed. These last four types of leaves don't differ in texture enough to be unappealing to the worms; they all have a strong flavor, just like the first four types. The significant difference in the outcome can be attributed to the worms having a preference for one taste over another.

Mental Qualities.—There is little to be said on this head. We have seen that worms are timid. It may be doubted whether they suffer as much pain when injured, as they seem to express by their contortions. Judging by their eagerness for certain kinds of food, they must enjoy the pleasure of eating. Their sexual passion is strong enough to overcome for a time their dread of light. They perhaps have a trace of social feeling, for they are not disturbed by crawling over each other’s bodies, and they sometimes lie in contact. According to Hoffmeister they pass the winter either singly or rolled up with others into a ball at the bottom of their burrows. [32] Although worms are so remarkably deficient in the several sense-organs, this does not necessarily preclude intelligence, as we know from such cases as those of Laura Bridgman; and we have seen that when their attention is engaged, they neglect impressions to which they would otherwise have attended; and attention indicates the presence of a mind of some kind. They are also much more easily excited at certain times than at others. They perform a few actions instinctively, that is, all the individuals, including the young, perform such actions in nearly the same fashion. This is shown by the manner in which the species of Perichæta eject their castings, so as to construct towers; also by the manner in which the burrows of the common earth-worm are smoothly lined with fine earth and often with little stones, and the mouths of their burrows with leaves. One of their strongest instincts is the plugging up the mouths of their burrows with various objects; and very young worms act in this manner. But some degree of intelligence appears, as we shall see in the next chapter, to be exhibited in this work,—a result which has surprised me more than anything else in regard to worms.

Mental Qualities.—There's not much to say about this topic. We’ve observed that worms are timid. It's uncertain whether they feel as much pain when injured as their contortions suggest. Based on their eagerness for certain foods, they likely enjoy eating. Their strong sexual drive can momentarily surpass their fear of light. They might possess some social instincts, as they aren’t bothered by crawling over each other and sometimes lie close together. According to Hoffmeister, they spend the winter either alone or curled up with others in a ball at the bottom of their burrows. [32] Even though worms lack several sense organs, this doesn’t necessarily mean they lack intelligence, as evidenced by cases like Laura Bridgman; we’ve seen that when their focus is engaged, they ignore stimuli they would usually notice, and this focus indicates some level of consciousness. They are also more easily excited at certain times than others. Some behaviors are instinctual, meaning that all individuals, including the young, perform these actions in the same way. This is evident in how the species of Perichæta eject their waste to build towers, and how the common earthworm lines its burrows smoothly with fine soil and often includes little stones, and how the entrances of their burrows are lined with leaves. One of their strongest instincts is to block the entrances of their burrows with various objects, and even very young worms do this. However, some degree of intelligence appears to be demonstrated in this behavior, as we’ll explore in the next chapter—this has surprised me more than anything else I’ve learned about worms.

Food and Digestion.—Worms are omnivorous. They swallow an enormous quantity of earth, out of which they extract any digestible matter which it may contain; but to this subject I must recur. They also consume a large number of half-decayed leaves of all kinds, excepting a few which have an unpleasant taste or are too tough for them; likewise petioles, peduncles, and decayed flowers. But they will also consume fresh leaves, as I have found by repeated trials. According to Morren [33] they will eat particles of sugar and liquorice; and the worms which I kept drew many bits of dry starch into their burrows, and a large bit had its angles well rounded by the fluid poured out of their mouths. But as they often drag particles of soft stone, such as of chalk, into their burrows, I feel some doubt whether the starch was used as food. Pieces of raw and roasted meat were fixed several times by long pins to the surface of the soil in my pots, and night after night the worms could be seen tugging at them, with the edges of the pieces engulfed in their mouths, so that much was consumed. Raw fat seems to be preferred even to raw meat or to any other substance which was given them, and much was consumed. They are cannibals, for the two halves of a dead worm placed in two of the pots were dragged into the burrows and gnawed; but as far as I could judge, they prefer fresh to putrid meat, and in so far I differ from Hoffmeister.

Food and Digestion.—Worms are omnivores. They take in a huge amount of soil, from which they extract any digestible materials. I'll come back to this topic later. They also eat a lot of half-decayed leaves of various types, except for a few that taste bad or are too tough for them; they also consume stems, flower stalks, and decayed flowers. However, they will also eat fresh leaves, as I've discovered through several experiments. According to Morren [33], they will eat bits of sugar and licorice; and the worms I kept pulled many pieces of dry starch into their burrows, with the edges of the pieces smoothed out by the fluids they secreted. But since they often pull soft stone, like chalk, into their burrows, I'm unsure whether the starch was actually used as food. I pinned pieces of raw and roasted meat to the surface of the soil in my pots multiple times, and night after night, the worms could be seen tugging at them, with the edges of the pieces taken into their mouths, resulting in significant consumption. Raw fat seems to be preferred over raw meat or any other substances offered to them, and a lot was eaten. They are cannibals, as the two halves of a dead worm placed in two of the pots were dragged into the burrows and gnawed on; however, from what I could gather, they seem to prefer fresh meat over spoiled meat, and on this point, I disagree with Hoffmeister.

Léon Fredericq states [34] that the digestive fluid of worms is of the same nature as the pancreatic secretion of the higher animals; and this conclusion agrees perfectly with the kinds of food which worms consume. Pancreatic juice emulsifies fat, and we have just seen how greedily worms devour fat; it dissolves fibrin, and worms eat raw meat; it converts starch into grape-sugar with wonderful rapidity, and we shall presently show that the digestive fluid of worms acts on starch. [35a] But they live chiefly on half-decayed leaves; and these would be useless to them unless they could digest the cellulose forming the cell-walls; for it is well known that all other nutritious substances are almost completely withdrawn from leaves, shortly before they fall off. It has, however, now been ascertained that some forms of cellulose, though very little or not at all attacked by the gastric secretion of the higher animals, are acted on by that from the pancreas. [35b]

Léon Fredericq states [34] that the digestive fluid of worms is similar to the pancreatic secretion of higher animals; this conclusion aligns perfectly with the types of food worms eat. Pancreatic juice emulsifies fat, and we have just seen how eagerly worms consume fat; it dissolves fibrin, and worms eat raw meat; it converts starch into grape sugar at an impressive speed, and we will soon demonstrate that the digestive fluid of worms acts on starch. [35a] However, they primarily feed on partially decayed leaves; these would be of no use to them unless they could digest the cellulose in the cell walls, as it is well known that all other nutritious substances are nearly completely depleted from leaves just before they fall. It has now been confirmed that some forms of cellulose, which are only minimally or not at all broken down by the gastric secretion of higher animals, are affected by that from the pancreas. [35b]

The half-decayed or fresh leaves which worms intend to devour, are dragged into the mouths of their burrows to a depth of from one to three inches, and are then moistened with a secreted fluid. It has been assumed that this fluid serves to hasten their decay; but a large number of leaves were twice pulled out of the burrows of worms and kept for many weeks in a very moist atmosphere under a bell-glass in my study; and the parts which had been moistened by the worms did not decay more quickly in any plain manner than the other parts. When fresh leaves were given in the evening to worms kept in confinement and examined early on the next morning, therefore not many hours after they had been dragged into the burrows, the fluid with which they were moistened, when tested with neutral litmus paper, showed an alkaline reaction. This was repeatedly found to be the case with celery, cabbage and turnip leaves. Parts of the same leaves which had not been moistened by the worms, were pounded with a few drops of distilled water, and the juice thus extracted was not alkaline. Some leaves, however, which had been drawn into burrows out of doors, at an unknown antecedent period, were tried, and though still moist, they rarely exhibited even a trace of alkaline reaction.

The half-decayed or fresh leaves that worms want to eat are pulled into their burrows to a depth of one to three inches and then moistened with a fluid they secrete. It was believed that this fluid speeds up decay; however, a significant number of leaves were pulled out of the worms' burrows twice and kept for several weeks in a very humid environment under a bell jar in my study. The parts that had been moistened by the worms did not decay any faster than the other parts. When fresh leaves were given to worms in confinement in the evening and checked the next morning—only a few hours after being pulled into the burrows—the fluid that moistened them showed an alkaline reaction when tested with neutral litmus paper. This finding was consistent with celery, cabbage, and turnip leaves. Parts of the same leaves that had not been moistened by the worms were crushed with a few drops of distilled water, and the juice extracted was not alkaline. Some leaves that had been pulled into outdoor burrows at an unknown earlier time were also tested, and although still moist, they rarely showed even a trace of an alkaline reaction.

The fluid, with which the leaves are bathed, acts on them whilst they are fresh or nearly fresh, in a remarkable manner; for it quickly kills and discolours them. Thus the ends of a fresh carrot-leaf, which had been dragged into a burrow, were found after twelve hours of a dark brown tint. Leaves of celery, turnip, maple, elm, lime, thin leaves of ivy, and, occasionally those of the cabbage were similarly acted on. The end of a leaf of Triticum repens, still attached to a growing plant, had been drawn into a burrow, and this part was dark brown and dead, whilst the rest of the leaf was fresh and green. Several leaves of lime and elm removed from burrows out of doors were found affected in different degrees. The first change appears to be that the veins become of a dull reddish-orange. The cells with chlorophyll next lose more or less completely their green colour, and their contents finally become brown. The parts thus affected often appeared almost black by reflected light; but when viewed as a transparent object under the microscope, minute specks of light were transmitted, and this was not the case with the unaffected parts of the same leaves. These effects, however, merely show that the secreted fluid is highly injurious or poisonous to leaves; for nearly the same effects were produced in from one to two days on various kinds of young leaves, not only by artificial pancreatic fluid, prepared with or without thymol, but quickly by a solution of thymol by itself. On one occasion leaves of Corylus were much discoloured by being kept for eighteen hours in pancreatic fluid, without any thymol. With young and tender leaves immersion in human saliva during rather warm weather, acted in the same manner as the pancreatic fluid, but not so quickly. The leaves in all these cases often became infiltrated with the fluid.

The liquid that coats the leaves interacts with them while they are fresh or almost fresh in a striking way; it quickly kills and discolors them. For example, the tips of a fresh carrot leaf that got pulled into a burrow were found after twelve hours to be a dark brown color. Leaves from celery, turnip, maple, elm, lime, thin ivy leaves, and occasionally cabbage leaves showed similar effects. The tip of a leaf from Triticum repens, still attached to a living plant, was pulled into a burrow and had turned dark brown and dead, while the rest of the leaf remained fresh and green. Several leaves of lime and elm taken from outdoor burrows showed varying degrees of damage. The first noticeable change is that the veins turned a dull reddish-orange. The cells containing chlorophyll gradually lost their green color, and their contents eventually turned brown. The affected areas often looked almost black in reflected light; however, when viewed as a transparent object under a microscope, tiny specks of light could be seen passing through, which wasn’t the case with the unaffected parts of the same leaves. These observations indicate that the secreted fluid is extremely damaging or toxic to leaves; similar effects were observed in one to two days on various types of young leaves, not only from artificial pancreatic fluid, prepared with or without thymol, but also rapidly from a solution of thymol alone. On one occasion, Corylus leaves were significantly discolored after being kept for eighteen hours in pancreatic fluid without any thymol. For young and tender leaves, soaking them in human saliva during relatively warm weather produced similar effects as the pancreatic fluid, but not as quickly. In all these cases, the leaves often became saturated with the fluid.

Large leaves from an ivy plant growing on a wall were so tough that they could not be gnawed by worms, but after four days they were affected in a peculiar manner by the secretion poured out of their mouths. The upper surfaces of the leaves, over which the worms had crawled, as was shown by the dirt left on them, were marked in sinuous lines, by either a continuous or broken chain of whitish and often star-shaped dots, about 2 mm. in diameter. The appearance thus presented was curiously like that of a leaf, into which the larva of some minute insect had burrowed. But my son Francis, after making and examining sections, could nowhere find that the cell-walls had been broken down or that the epidermis had been penetrated. When the section passed through the whitish dots, the grains of chlorophyll were seen to be more or less discoloured, and some of the palisade and mesophyll cells contained nothing but broken down granular matter. These effects must be attributed to the transudation of the secretion through the epidermis into the cells.

Large leaves from an ivy plant growing on a wall were so tough that worms couldn't gnaw them, but after four days, they were oddly affected by a secretion that came from the worms' mouths. The upper surfaces of the leaves, marked by dirt left behind from the worms crawling over them, showed wavy lines created by a continuous or broken series of whitish, often star-shaped dots, about 2 mm in diameter. The way the leaves looked resembled a sheet that had been burrowed into by the larva of a tiny insect. However, my son Francis, after making and examining sections, found no signs that the cell walls had been broken or that the outer layer had been penetrated. When the section included the whitish dots, the chlorophyll grains appeared somewhat discolored, and some of the palisade and mesophyll cells contained only broken-down granular matter. These effects must be due to the secretion soaking through the outer layer and into the cells.

The secretion with which worms moisten leaves likewise acts on the starch-granules within the cells. My son examined some leaves of the ash and many of the lime, which had fallen off the trees and had been partly dragged into worm-burrows. It is known that with fallen leaves the starch-grains are preserved in the guard-cells of the stomata. Now in several cases the starch had partially or wholly disappeared from these cells, in the parts which had been moistened by the secretion; while it was still well preserved in the other parts of the same leaves. Sometimes the starch was dissolved out of only one of the two guard-cells. The nucleus in one case had disappeared, together with the starch-granules. The mere burying of lime-leaves in damp earth for nine days did not cause the destruction of the starch-granules. On the other hand, the immersion of fresh lime and cherry leaves for eighteen hours in artificial pancreatic fluid, led to the dissolution of the starch-granules in the guard-cells as well as in the other cells.

The secretion that worms use to moisten leaves also affects the starch granules inside the cells. My son looked at some ash and lime leaves that had fallen from the trees and were partly dragged into worm burrows. It's known that fallen leaves keep starch grains in the guard cells of the stomata. In several instances, the starch had either partially or completely disappeared from these cells in the areas that had been moistened by the secretion, while it was still well-preserved in other parts of the same leaves. Sometimes, the starch was dissolved from just one of the two guard cells. In one case, the nucleus disappeared along with the starch granules. Simply burying lime leaves in damp soil for nine days did not destroy the starch granules. However, immersing fresh lime and cherry leaves in artificial pancreatic fluid for eighteen hours resulted in the dissolution of starch granules in both the guard cells and other cells.

From the secretion with which the leaves are moistened being alkaline, and from its acting both on the starch-granules and on the protoplasmic contents of the cells, we may infer that it resembles in nature not saliva, [40] but pancreatic secretion; and we know from Fredericq that a secretion of this kind is found in the intestines of worms. As the leaves which are dragged into the burrows are often dry and shrivelled, it is indispensable for their disintegration by the unarmed mouths of worms that they should first be moistened and softened; and fresh leaves, however soft and tender they may be, are similarly treated, probably from habit. The result is that they are partially digested before they are taken into the alimentary canal. I am not aware of any other case of extra-stomachal digestion having been recorded. The boa-constrictor is said to bathe its prey with saliva, but this is doubtful; and it is done solely for the sake of lubricating its prey. Perhaps the nearest analogy may be found in such plants as Drosera and Dionæa; for here animal matter is digested and converted into peptone not within a stomach, but on the surfaces of the leaves.

From the secretion that moistens the leaves being alkaline, and its effects on both the starch granules and the protoplasmic contents of the cells, we can deduce that it is more similar to pancreatic secretion than to saliva, [40]. We know from Fredericq that this type of secretion is found in the intestines of worms. Since the leaves brought into the burrows are often dry and shriveled, it is essential for them to be moistened and softened for the unarmed mouths of worms to break them down. Fresh leaves, no matter how soft and tender, undergo the same treatment, likely out of habit. As a result, they are partially digested before entering the alimentary canal. I am not aware of any other documented cases of digestion occurring outside the stomach. It is said that the boa constrictor moistens its prey with saliva, but this claim is questionable, as it seems to be done only for lubrication. Perhaps the closest analogy can be found in plants like Drosera and Dionaea, where animal matter is digested and converted into peptone not inside a stomach, but on the surfaces of the leaves.

Calciferous Glands.—These glands (see Fig. 1), judging from their size and from their rich supply of blood-vessels, must be of much importance to the animal. But almost as many theories have been advanced on their use as there have been observers. They consist of three pairs, which in the common earth-worm debouch into the alimentary canal in advance of the gizzard, but posteriorly to it in Urochæta and some other genera. [41a] The two posterior pairs are formed by lamellæ, which, according to Claparède, are diverticula from the œsophagus. [41b] These lamellæ are coated with a pulpy cellular layer, with the outer cells lying free in infinite numbers. If one of these glands is punctured and squeezed, a quantity of white pulpy matter exudes, consisting of these free cells. They are minute, and vary in diameter from 2 to 6 μ. They contain in their centres a little excessively fine granular matter; but they look so like oil globules that Claparède and others at first treated them with ether. This produces no effect; but they are quickly dissolved with effervescence in acetic acid, and when oxalate of ammonia is added to the solution a white precipitate is thrown down. We may therefore conclude that they contain carbonate of lime. If the cells are immersed in a very little acid, they become more transparent, look like ghosts, and are soon lost to view; but if much acid is added, they disappear instantly. After a very large number have been dissolved, a flocculent residue is left, which apparently consists of the delicate ruptured cell-walls. In the two posterior pairs of glands the carbonate of lime contained in the cells occasionally aggregates into small rhombic crystals or into concretions, which lie between the lamellæ; but I have seen only one case, and Claparède only a very few such cases.

Calciferous Glands.—These glands (see Fig. 1), based on their size and rich blood supply, must be very important to the animal. However, there are as many theories about their function as there are observers. They consist of three pairs, which in the common earthworm connect to the digestive tract ahead of the gizzard, but behind it in Urochæta and some other genera. [41a] The two back pairs are made up of lamellae, which, according to Claparède, are extensions from the esophagus. [41b] These lamellae are covered with a pulpy cellular layer, with the outer cells free in vast numbers. If one of these glands is punctured and squeezed, a quantity of white pulpy matter oozes out, made up of these free cells. They are tiny, measuring between 2 to 6 μ. They contain a little very fine granular matter in their centers; however, they resemble oil droplets so closely that Claparède and others initially treated them with ether. This has no effect, but they dissolve quickly with fizzing in acetic acid, and when oxalate of ammonia is added to the solution, a white precipitate forms. Thus, we can conclude that they contain calcium carbonate. If the cells are placed in a small amount of acid, they become more transparent, appearing ghostly, and soon vanish from sight; but if a lot of acid is added, they disappear immediately. After a large number of them have dissolved, a fluffy residue remains, which likely consists of the delicate broken cell walls. In the two back pairs of glands, the calcium carbonate in the cells sometimes clusters into small rhombic crystals or into concretions situated between the lamellae; however, I have only observed one instance of this, and Claparède has seen very few such cases.

The two anterior glands differ a little in shape from the four posterior ones, by being more oval. They differ also conspicuously in generally containing several small, or two or three larger, or a single very large concretion of carbonate of lime, as much as 1½ mm. in diameter. When a gland includes only a few very small concretions, or, as sometimes happens, none at all, it is easily overlooked. The large concretions are round or oval, and exteriorly almost smooth. One was found which filled up not only the whole gland, as is often the case, but its neck; so that it resembled an olive-oil flask in shape. These concretions when broken are seen to be more or less crystalline in structure. How they escape from the gland is a marvel; but that they do escape is certain, for they are often found in the gizzard, intestines, and in the castings of worms, both with those kept in confinement and those in a state of nature.

The two front glands are slightly different in shape from the four back ones, being more oval. They also noticeably vary by usually containing several small pieces, or two or three larger ones, or a single very large lump of calcium carbonate, up to 1½ mm in diameter. When a gland contains only a few very small pieces, or, as can sometimes happen, none at all, it’s easy to miss. The large lumps are round or oval and almost smooth on the outside. One was found that filled not just the whole gland, as often happens, but also its neck, making it look like a bottle for olive oil. When these lumps are broken open, they appear to have a more or less crystalline structure. How they manage to escape from the gland is a mystery, but it's clear that they do, because they are often found in the gizzard, intestines, and in the droppings of worms, both in captivity and in the wild.

Claparède says very little about the structure of the two anterior glands, and he supposes that the calcareous matter of which the concretions are formed is derived from the four posterior glands. But if an anterior gland which contains only small concretions is placed in acetic acid and afterwards dissected, or if sections are made of such a gland without being treated with acid, lamellæ like those in the posterior glands and coated with cellular matter could be plainly seen, together with a multitude of free calciferous cells readily soluble in acetic acid. When a gland is completely filled with a single large concretion, there are no free cells, as these have been all consumed in forming the concretion. But if such a concretion, or one of only moderately large size, is dissolved in acid, much membranous matter is left, which appears to consist of the remains of the formerly active lamellæ. After the formation and expulsion of a large concretion, new lamellæ must be developed in some manner. In one section made by my son, the process had apparently commenced, although the gland contained two rather large concretions, for near the walls several cylindrical and oval pipes were intersected, which were lined with cellular matter and were quite filled with free calciferous cells. A great enlargement in one direction of several oval pipes would give rise to the lamellæ.

Claparède doesn’t say much about the structure of the two front glands, and he suggests that the calcium deposits that make up the concretions come from the four back glands. However, if you take a front gland that only has small concretions and put it in acetic acid, then dissect it, or if you slice the gland without using acid, you can clearly see layers similar to those in the back glands, coated with cellular matter, along with many free calciferous cells that dissolve easily in acetic acid. When a gland is entirely filled with a single large concretion, there are no free cells left because they’ve all been used up to form the concretion. But if you dissolve such a concretion, or one that’s moderately large, in acid, a lot of membranous material remains, which seems to be the remnants of the previously active layers. After forming and releasing a large concretion, new layers must somehow develop. In a section made by my son, this process seemed to have started, even though the gland had two fairly large concretions, because near the walls, several cylindrical and oval tubes were shown, lined with cellular matter and packed with free calciferous cells. A significant enlargement in one direction of several oval tubes would lead to the formation of layers.

Besides the free calciferous cells in which no nucleus was visible, other and rather larger free cells were seen on three occasions; and these contained a distinct nucleus and nucleolus. They were only so far acted on by acetic acid that the nucleus was thus rendered more distinct. A very small concretion was removed from between two of the lamellæ within an anterior gland. It was imbedded in pulpy cellular matter, with many free calciferous cells, together with a multitude of the larger, free, nucleated cells, and these latter cells were not acted on by acetic acid, while the former were dissolved. From this and other such cases I am led to suspect that the calciferous cells are developed from the larger nucleated ones; but how this was effected was not ascertained.

Besides the free calciferous cells where no nucleus was visible, other larger free cells were observed on three occasions, and these contained a distinct nucleus and nucleolus. They were only affected by acetic acid to the extent that the nucleus became more distinct. A very small concretion was removed from between two of the lamellae in an anterior gland. It was embedded in pulpy cellular matter, along with many free calciferous cells, as well as a multitude of the larger free nucleated cells. These larger cells were not affected by acetic acid, while the calciferous cells were dissolved. From this and other similar cases, I suspect that the calciferous cells develop from the larger nucleated ones; however, how this occurs has not been determined.

When an anterior gland contains several minute concretions, some of these are generally angular or crystalline in outline, while the greater number are rounded with an irregular mulberry-like surface. Calciferous cells adhered to many parts of these mulberry-like masses, and their gradual disappearance could be traced while they still remained attached. It was thus evident that the concretions are formed from the lime contained within the free calciferous cells. As the smaller concretions increase in size, they come into contact and unite, thus enclosing the now functionless lamellæ; and by such steps the formation of the largest concretions could be followed. Why the process regularly takes place in the two anterior glands, and only rarely in the four posterior glands, is quite unknown. Morren says that these glands disappear during the winter; and I have seen some instances of this fact, and others in which either the anterior or posterior glands were at this season so shrunk and empty, that they could be distinguished only with much difficulty.

When a front gland has several tiny particles, some of them are usually angular or crystal-shaped, while most are rounded with an uneven, mulberry-like surface. Calciferous cells stuck to many parts of these mulberry-like clumps, and their gradual disappearance could be observed while they remained attached. It became clear that the particles are formed from the calcium found within the free calciferous cells. As the smaller particles grow larger, they touch and merge, thus enclosing the now nonfunctional layers; and this process allows the formation of the largest particles to be tracked. It is unknown why this process consistently occurs in the two front glands and only occasionally in the four back glands. Morren states that these glands disappear during the winter, and I have seen some examples of this, as well as instances where either the front or back glands were so shriveled and empty in this season that they could be distinguished only with great difficulty.

With respect to the function of the calciferous glands, it is probable that they primarily serve as organs of excretion, and secondarily as an aid to digestion. Worms consume many fallen leaves; and it is known that lime goes on accumulating in leaves until they drop off the parent-plant, instead of being re-absorbed into the stem or roots, like various other organic and inorganic substances. [46] The ashes of a leaf of an acacia have been known to contain as much as 72 per cent. of lime. Worms therefore would be liable to become charged with this earth, unless there were some special means for its excretion; and the calciferous glands are well adapted for this purpose. The worms which live in mould close over the chalk, often have their intestines filled with this substance, and their castings are almost white. Here it is evident that the supply of calcareous matter must be super-abundant. Nevertheless with several worms collected on such a site, the calciferous glands contained as many free calciferous cells, and fully as many and large concretions, as did the glands of worms which lived where there was little or no lime; and this indicates that the lime is an excretion, and not a secretion poured into the alimentary canal for some special purpose.

Regarding the function of the calciferous glands, it's likely that they primarily act as organs for excretion and secondarily help with digestion. Worms eat a lot of fallen leaves, and it's known that lime accumulates in leaves until they fall from the parent plant, rather than being reabsorbed into the stem or roots like some other organic and inorganic materials. [46] The ashes of an acacia leaf have been shown to contain as much as 72 percent lime. As a result, worms could end up with significant amounts of this earth unless they have a specific way to excrete it; the calciferous glands are well-suited for this. Worms that live in soil with chalk often have their intestines filled with this substance, and their waste is almost white. It's clear that the supply of calcareous matter must be very high. Still, in several worms collected from such an environment, the calciferous glands contained just as many free calciferous cells, as well as just as many large concretions, as the glands of worms living where there was little or no lime; this suggests that lime is an excretion, not a secretion put into the digestive system for a specific function.

On the other hand, the following considerations render it highly probable that the carbonate of lime, which is excreted by the glands, aids the digestive process under ordinary circumstances. Leaves during their decay generate an abundance of various kinds of acids, which have been grouped together under the term of humus acids. We shall have to recur to this subject in our fifth chapter, and I need here only say that these acids act strongly on carbonate of lime. The half-decayed leaves which are swallowed in such large quantities by worms would, therefore, after they have been moistened and triturated in the alimentary canal, be apt to produce such acids. And in the case of several worms, the contents of the alimentary canal were found to be plainly acid, as shown by litmus paper. This acidity cannot be attributed to the nature of the digestive fluid, for pancreatic fluid is alkaline; and we have seen that the secretion which is poured out of the mouths of worms for the sake of preparing the leaves for consumption, is likewise alkaline. The acidity can hardly be due to uric acid, as the contents of the upper part of the intestine were often acid. In one case the contents of the gizzard were slightly acid, those of the upper intestines being more plainly acid. In another case the contents of the pharynx were not acid, those of the gizzard doubtfully so, while those of the intestine were distinctly acid at a distance of 5 cm. below the gizzard. Even with the higher herbivorous and omnivorous animals, the contents of the large intestine are acid. “This, however, is not caused by any acid secretion from the mucous membrane; the reaction of the intestinal walls in the larger as in the small intestine is alkaline. It must therefore arise from acid fermentations going on in the contents themselves . . . In Carnivora the contents of the coecum are said to be alkaline, and naturally the amount of fermentation will depend largely on the nature of the food.” [49]

On the other hand, the following points make it very likely that the calcium carbonate, which is produced by the glands, helps with digestion under normal conditions. Leaves, as they decompose, produce a variety of acids that are collectively known as humus acids. We will revisit this topic in our fifth chapter, and I will just mention here that these acids have a strong effect on calcium carbonate. The partially decayed leaves that are consumed in large amounts by worms would, after being moistened and ground up in the digestive tract, likely create these acids. In the case of several worms, the contents of the digestive tract were clearly acidic, as indicated by litmus paper. This acidity can't be blamed on the nature of the digestive fluid, as pancreatic fluid is alkaline; and we have seen that the secretion from the mouths of worms, which is released to prepare the leaves for eating, is also alkaline. The acidity is unlikely to come from uric acid, since the contents of the upper part of the intestine were often acidic. In one case, the contents of the gizzard were slightly acidic, while the upper intestines were more clearly acidic. In another case, the contents of the pharynx were not acidic, the gizzard's contents were uncertainly so, while those of the intestine were distinctly acidic about 5 cm below the gizzard. Even in larger herbivorous and omnivorous animals, the contents of the large intestine are acidic. "This, however, is not due to any acid secretion from the mucous membrane; the walls of the intestine, both large and small, are alkaline. Therefore, it must come from acid fermentations occurring in the contents themselves . . . In carnivores, the contents of the cecum are said to be alkaline, and naturally, the degree of fermentation will largely depend on the type of food." [49]

With worms not only the contents of the intestines, but their ejected matter or the castings, are generally acid. Thirty castings from different places were tested, and with three or four exceptions were found to be acid; and the exceptions may have been due to such castings not having been recently ejected; for some which were at first acid, were on the following morning, after being dried and again moistened, no longer acid; and this probably resulted from the humus acids being, as is known to be the case, easily decomposed. Five fresh castings from worms which lived in mould close over the chalk, were of a whitish colour and abounded with calcareous matter; and these were not in the least acid. This shows how effectually carbonate of lime neutralises the intestinal acids. When worms were kept in pots filled with fine ferruginous sand, it was manifest that the oxide of iron, with which the grains of silex were coated, had been dissolved and removed from them in the castings.

With worms, not only the contents of their intestines but also their excretions, or castings, are generally acidic. We tested thirty castings from various locations, and with just a few exceptions, they were found to be acidic. The exceptions may have been due to those castings not being recently expelled; some that were initially acidic were no longer acidic the next morning after drying and being moistened again, likely because the humus acids break down easily. Five fresh castings from worms living in soil above chalk were whitish and rich in calcium carbonate, and these were not acidic at all. This demonstrates how effectively calcium carbonate neutralizes intestinal acids. When worms were kept in pots filled with fine iron-rich sand, it was clear that the iron oxide coating the silica grains had dissolved and was removed from them in the castings.

The digestive fluid of worms resembles in its action, as already stated, the pancreatic secretion of the higher animals; and in these latter, “pancreatic digestion is essentially alkaline; the action will not take place unless some alkali be present; and the activity of an alkaline juice is arrested by acidification, and hindered by neutralization.” [50] Therefore it seems highly probable that the innumerable calciferous cells, which are poured from the four posterior glands into the alimentary canal of worms, serve to neutralise more or less completely the acids there generated by the half-decayed leaves. We have seen that these cells are instantly dissolved by a small quantity of acetic acid, and as they do not always suffice to neutralise the contents of even the upper part of the alimentary canal, the lime is perhaps aggregated into concretions in the anterior pair of glands, in order that some may be carried down to the posterior parts of the intestine, where these concretions would be rolled about amongst the acid contents. The concretions found in the intestines and in the castings often have a worn appearance, but whether this is due to some amount of attrition or of chemical corrosion could not be told. Claparède believes that they are formed for the sake of acting as mill-stones, and of thus aiding in the trituration of the food. They may give some aid in this way; but I fully agree with Perrier that this must be of quite subordinate importance, seeing that the object is already attained by stones being generally present in the gizzards and intestines of worms.

The digestive fluid in worms works similarly to the pancreatic secretion in higher animals. In these animals, "pancreatic digestion is mainly alkaline; it won’t occur without some alkali being present, and the effectiveness of an alkaline juice is stopped by acidification and slowed down by neutralization.” [50] So, it’s very likely that the countless calciferous cells released from the four back glands into the worm's digestive tract help to neutralize the acids produced by the partially decayed leaves. We’ve observed that these cells dissolve immediately in a small amount of acetic acid, and since they don’t always completely neutralize the contents of even the upper part of the digestive system, the lime might accumulate into lumps in the front pair of glands. This way, some can be transported to the back parts of the intestine, where these lumps would mix with the acidic contents. The lumps found in the intestines and in the excretions often look worn down, but it’s unclear whether this is due to some wear and tear or chemical corrosion. Claparède thinks they form to act like millstones, helping to grind the food. They may provide some assistance in this, but I completely agree with Perrier that this is likely of minor importance since the purpose is already achieved by the stones usually found in the gizzards and intestines of worms.

p. 52CHAPTER II.
Worm Habits—continued.

Manner in which worms seize objects—Their power of suction—The instinct of plugging up the mouths of their burrows—Stones piled over the burrows—The advantages thus gained—Intelligence shown by worms in their manner of plugging up their burrows—Various kinds of leaves and other objects thus used—Triangles of paper—Summary of reasons for believing that worms exhibit some intelligence—Means by which they excavate their burrows, by pushing away the earth and swallowing it—Earth also swallowed for the nutritious matter which it contains—Depth to which worms burrow, and the construction of their burrows—Burrows lined with castings, and in the upper part with leaves—The lowest part paved with little stones or seeds—Manner in which the castings are ejected—The collapse of old burrows—Distribution of worms—Tower-like castings in Bengal—Gigantic castings on the Nilgiri Mountains—Castings ejected in all countries.

How worms grab objects—Their suction power—The instinct to seal their burrow entrances—Stones stacked over the burrows—The benefits gained from this—The intelligence displayed by worms in how they seal their burrows—Different types of leaves and other materials used for this—Triangles made of paper—Summary of reasons for believing worms show some intelligence—How they dig their burrows by pushing dirt aside and swallowing it—Soil also swallowed for its nutrients—The depth at which worms burrow and the structure of their tunnels—Burrows lined with castings and the upper part filled with leaves—The lowest section covered with small stones or seeds—How castings are expelled—The collapse of old burrows—Worm distribution—Tower-like castings in Bengal—Huge castings on the Nilgiri Mountains—Castings made in all countries.

In the pots in which worms were kept, leaves were pinned down to the soil, and at night the manner in which they were seized could be observed. The worms always endeavoured to drag the leaves towards their burrows; and they tore or sucked off small fragments, whenever the leaves were sufficiently tender. They generally seized the thin edge of a leaf with their mouths, between the projecting upper and lower lip; the thick and strong pharynx being at the same time, as Perrier remarks, pushed forward within their bodies, so as to afford a point of resistance for the upper lip. In the case of broad flat objects they acted in a wholly different manner. The pointed anterior extremity of the body, after being brought into contact with an object of this kind, was drawn within the adjoining rings, so that it appeared truncated and became as thick as the rest of the body. This part could then be seen to swell a little; and this, I believe, is due to the pharynx being pushed a little forwards. Then by a slight withdrawal of the pharynx or by its expansion, a vacuum was produced beneath the truncated slimy end of the body whilst in contact with the object; and by this means the two adhered firmly together. [53] That under these circumstances a vacuum was produced was plainly seen on one occasion, when a large worm lying beneath a flaccid cabbage leaf tried to drag it away; for the surface of the leaf directly over the end of the worm’s body became deeply pitted. On another occasion a worm suddenly lost its hold on a flat leaf; and the anterior end of the body was momentarily seen to be cup-formed. Worms can attach themselves to an object beneath water in the same manner; and I saw one thus dragging away a submerged slice of an onion-bulb.

In the containers where worms were kept, leaves were pressed into the soil, and at night, the way they were taken could be observed. The worms always tried to pull the leaves toward their burrows, and they tore or sucked off small pieces whenever the leaves were soft enough. They typically grabbed the thin edge of a leaf with their mouths, between their upper and lower lips; the thick and powerful pharynx was simultaneously pushed forward inside their bodies, providing a point of resistance for the upper lip, as noted by Perrier. For wider flat objects, they acted quite differently. The pointed front part of their body, after coming into contact with such an object, was pulled inside the adjacent segments, making it look truncated and as thick as the rest of the body. This part would also swell slightly, which I believe is because the pharynx was pushed a bit forward. Then, by slightly retracting the pharynx or expanding it, a vacuum was created beneath the truncated, slimy end of the body while still in contact with the object, allowing them to stick firmly together. [53] It was clearly observed on one occasion when a large worm underneath a drooping cabbage leaf tried to pull it away; the surface of the leaf right over the end of the worm’s body became deeply indented. On another occasion, a worm suddenly lost its grip on a flat leaf; and the front end of its body was momentarily seen to be cup-shaped. Worms can similarly attach themselves to an object underwater; I once saw one pulling a submerged piece of an onion bulb.

The edges of fresh or nearly fresh leaves affixed to the ground were often nibbled by the worms; and sometimes the epidermis and all the parenchyma on one side was gnawed completely away over a considerable space; the epidermis alone on the opposite side being left quite clean. The veins were never touched, and leaves were thus sometimes partly converted into skeletons. As worms have no teeth and as their mouths consist of very soft tissue, it may be presumed that they consume by means of suction the edges and the parenchyma of fresh leaves, after they have been softened by the digestive fluid. They cannot attack such strong leaves as those of sea-kale or large and thick leaves of ivy; though one of the latter after it had become rotten was reduced in parts to the state of a skeleton.

The edges of fresh or nearly fresh leaves stuck to the ground were often chewed by worms; and sometimes the outer layer and all the inner tissue on one side was completely eaten away over a large area, leaving just the outer layer on the opposite side untouched. The veins were never harmed, so leaves were sometimes partially turned into skeletons. Since worms don’t have teeth and their mouths are made of very soft tissue, it seems they consume the edges and inner tissue of fresh leaves by suction, after those leaves have been softened by digestive fluid. They can’t tackle tough leaves like those of sea-kale or the large, thick leaves of ivy; however, one of the ivy leaves, after it rotted, was partially reduced to a skeleton.

Worms seize leaves and other objects, not only to serve as food, but for plugging up the mouths of their burrows; and this is one of their strongest instincts. They sometimes work so energetically that Mr. D. F. Simpson, who has a small walled garden where worms abound in Bayswater, informs me that on a calm damp evening he there heard so extraordinary a rustling noise from under a tree from which many leaves had fallen, that he went out with a light and discovered that the noise was caused by many worms dragging the dry leaves and squeezing them into the burrows. Not only leaves, but petioles of many kinds, some flower-peduncles, often decayed twigs of trees, bits of paper, feathers, tufts of wool and horse-hairs are dragged into their burrows for this purpose. I have seen as many as seventeen petioles of a Clematis projecting from the mouth of one burrow, and ten from the mouth of another. Some of these objects, such as the petioles just named, feathers, &c., are never gnawed by worms. In a gravel-walk in my garden I found many hundred leaves of a pine-tree (P. austriaca or nigricans) drawn by their bases into burrows. The surfaces by which these leaves are articulated to the branches are shaped in as peculiar a manner as is the joint between the leg-bones of a quadruped; and if these surfaces had been in the least gnawed, the fact would have been immediately visible, but there was no trace of gnawing. Of ordinary dicotyledonous leaves, all those which are dragged into burrows are not gnawed. I have seen as many as nine leaves of the lime-tree drawn into the same burrow, and not nearly all of them had been gnawed; but such leaves may serve as a store for future consumption. Where fallen leaves are abundant, many more are sometimes collected over the mouth of a burrow than can be used, so that a small pile of unused leaves is left like a roof over those which have been partly dragged in.

Worms grab leaves and other items, not just for food but also to plug the openings of their burrows; this is one of their strongest instincts. They sometimes work so hard that Mr. D. F. Simpson, who has a small walled garden full of worms in Bayswater, told me he once heard a strange rustling noise one calm, damp evening under a tree where many leaves had fallen. He went out with a light and found that the noise came from lots of worms dragging dry leaves and stuffing them into their burrows. They pull in not just leaves, but also stems of various plants, some flower stalks, often decayed tree twigs, bits of paper, feathers, clumps of wool, and horse hairs for this purpose. I've seen as many as seventeen stems from a Clematis sticking out of one burrow and ten from another. Some of these items, like the aforementioned stems, feathers, etc., aren't eaten by worms. In a gravel path in my garden, I found hundreds of leaves from a pine tree (P. austriaca or nigricans) pulled in by their bases into burrows. The parts of the leaves where they connect to the branches have a peculiar shape, similar to the joint between the leg bones of a four-legged animal; if these had been chewed at all, it would have been obvious, but there was no sign of gnawing. For regular broadleaf plants, not all leaves dragged into burrows are chewed. I've seen as many as nine leaves from a lime tree pulled into the same burrow, and not all of them were chewed; these leaves might serve as a reserve for later use. When there are a lot of fallen leaves, sometimes worms collect more than they can use over the opening of a burrow, leaving a small pile of unused leaves like a roof over those that have been partially pulled in.

A leaf in being dragged a little way into a cylindrical burrow is necessarily much folded or crumpled. When another leaf is drawn in, this is done exteriorly to the first one, and so on with the succeeding leaves; and finally all become closely folded and pressed together. Sometimes the worm enlarges the mouth of its burrow, or makes a fresh one close by, so as to draw in a still larger number of leaves. They often or generally fill up the interstices between the drawn-in leaves with moist viscid earth ejected from their bodies; and thus the mouths of the burrows are securely plugged. Hundreds of such plugged burrows may be seen in many places, especially during the autumnal and early winter months. But, as will hereafter be shown, leaves are dragged into the burrows not only for plugging them up and for food, but for the sake of lining the upper part or mouth.

A leaf being pulled a little way into a cylindrical burrow is usually quite crumpled or folded. When another leaf is drawn in, it happens outside the first one, and this continues with the leaves that follow; eventually, all of them become tightly packed and pressed together. Sometimes the worm expands the entrance of its burrow, or creates a new one nearby, to take in an even larger number of leaves. They often fill the gaps between the pulled-in leaves with moist, sticky earth pushed out from their bodies; this way, the entrances of the burrows are securely blocked. You can see hundreds of these blocked burrows in many places, especially in the autumn and early winter months. But, as will be shown later, leaves are dragged into the burrows not just for blocking them and for food, but also to line the upper part or entrance.

When worms cannot obtain leaves, petioles, sticks, &c., with which to plug up the mouths of their burrows, they often protect them by little heaps of stones; and such heaps of smooth rounded pebbles may frequently be seen on gravel-walks. Here there can be no question about food. A lady, who was interested in the habits of worms, removed the little heaps of stones from the mouths of several burrows and cleared the surface of the ground for some inches all round. She went out on the following night with a lantern, and saw the worms with their tails fixed in their burrows, dragging the stones inwards by the aid of their mouths, no doubt by suction. “After two nights some of the holes had 8 or 9 small stones over them; after four nights one had about 30, and another 34 stones.” [58] One stone—which had been dragged over the gravel-walk to the mouth of a burrow weighed two ounces; and this proves how strong worms are. But they show greater strength in sometimes displacing stones in a well-trodden gravel-walk; that they do so, may be inferred from the cavities left by the displaced stones being exactly filled by those lying over the mouths of adjoining burrows, as I have myself observed.

When worms can’t find leaves, petioles, sticks, etc., to cover the mouths of their burrows, they often use little piles of stones for protection. You can frequently spot these smooth, round pebbles on gravel paths. There's no question about them needing food. A woman interested in worm behavior removed the small stone piles from several burrow entrances and cleared the ground around them for a few inches. The next night, she went out with a lantern and saw the worms with their tails secured in their burrows, pulling the stones inside using their mouths, likely through suction. “After two nights, some of the holes had 8 or 9 small stones on them; after four nights, one had about 30, and another had 34 stones.” One stone, which had been dragged along the gravel path to the entrance of a burrow, weighed two ounces, proving how strong worms are. However, they demonstrate even more strength when displacing stones in a well-worn gravel path; you can tell this is happening because the holes left by the moved stones are exactly filled by those lying over the entrances of nearby burrows, as I have personally observed.

Work of this kind is usually performed during the night; but I have occasionally known objects to be drawn into the burrows during the day. What advantage the worms derive from plugging up the mouths of their burrows with leaves, &c., or from piling stones over them, is doubtful. They do not act in this manner at the times when they eject much earth from their burrows; for their castings then serve to cover the mouths. When gardeners wish to kill worms on a lawn, it is necessary first to brush or rake away the castings from the surface, in order that the lime-water may enter the burrows. [59a] It might be inferred from this fact that the mouths are plugged up with leaves, &c., to prevent the entrance of water during heavy rain; but it may be urged against this view that a few, loose, well-rounded stones are ill-adapted to keep out water. I have moreover seen many burrows in the perpendicularly cut turf-edgings to gravel-walks, into which water could hardly flow, as well plugged as burrows on a level surface. It is not probable that the plugs or piles of stones serve to conceal the burrows from scolopendras, which, according to Hoffmeister, [59b] are the bitterest enemies of worms, or from the larger species of Carabus and Staphylinus which attack them ferociously, for these animals are nocturnal, and the burrows are opened at night. May not worms when the mouth of the burrow is protected be able to remain with safety with their heads close to it, which we know that they like to do, but which costs so many of them their lives? Or may not the plugs check the free ingress of the lowest stratum of air, when chilled by radiation at night, from the surrounding ground and herbage? I am inclined to believe in this latter view: firstly, because when worms were kept in pots in a room with a fire, in which case cold air could not enter the burrows, they plugged them up in a slovenly manner; and secondarily, because they often coat the upper part of their burrows with leaves, apparently to prevent their bodies from coming into close contact with the cold damp earth. Mr. E. Parfitt has suggested to me that the mouths of the burrows are closed in order that the air within them may be kept thoroughly damp, and this seems the most probable explanation of the habit. But the plugging-up process may serve for all the above purposes.

Work like this usually happens at night, but I've sometimes seen things pulled into the burrows during the day. It's unclear what benefit worms get from blocking the entrances of their burrows with leaves, etc., or from piling stones on top. They don't do this when they're pushing a lot of dirt out of their burrows, since their castings then cover the entrances. When gardeners want to kill worms on a lawn, they first need to brush or rake away the castings from the surface so that the lime-water can reach the burrows. [59a] One could assume that the entrances are blocked with leaves, etc., to keep water out during heavy rain, but it's worth noting that a few loose, rounded stones aren't very good at keeping water out. I have also seen many burrows in the straight-cut turf edges of gravel paths that were just as well sealed as those on flat ground, even though water could hardly get in. It's unlikely that the plugs or stone piles are there to hide the burrows from scolopendras, which, according to Hoffmeister, [59b] are fierce enemies of worms, or from the larger species of Carabus and Staphylinus that attack them aggressively, since these creatures are nocturnal and the burrows are opened at night. Could it be that when the entrance to the burrow is protected, worms can safely keep their heads close to it, something they seem to like but which leads to many of their deaths? Or perhaps the plugs restrict the flow of cold air from the surrounding ground and vegetation at night? I tend to lean toward this latter idea: first, because when worms were kept in pots in a heated room where cold air couldn't enter the burrows, they blocked them up carelessly; and second, because they often cover the top part of their burrows with leaves, seemingly to keep their bodies from touching the cold, damp earth. Mr. E. Parfitt suggested to me that the burrow entrances are closed to keep the air inside them thoroughly damp, which seems like the most likely explanation for this behavior. But the plugging process might serve all these purposes.

Whatever the motive may be, it appears that worms much dislike leaving the mouths of their burrows open. Nevertheless they will reopen them at night, whether or not they can afterwards close them. Numerous open burrows may be seen on recently-dug ground, for in this case the worms eject their castings in cavities left in the ground, or in the old burrows instead of piling them over the mouths of their burrows, and they cannot collect objects on the surface by which the mouths might be protected. So again on a recently disinterred pavement of a Roman villa at Abinger (hereafter to be described) the worms pertinaciously opened their burrows almost every night, when these had been closed by being trampled on, although they were rarely able to find a few minute stones wherewith to protect them.

Whatever the reason might be, it seems that worms really dislike leaving the openings of their burrows exposed. However, they will reopen them at night, whether or not they can close them again afterward. You can see many open burrows on freshly dug soil because, in this case, the worms push their castings into holes left in the ground or into the old burrows instead of covering the entrances with them. They also can’t gather items on the surface to protect the openings. Similarly, on a recently unearthed pavement of a Roman villa at Abinger (which will be described later), the worms stubbornly reopened their burrows almost every night after they had been closed by being stepped on, even though they rarely managed to find a few tiny stones to cover them.

Intelligence shown by worms in their manner of plugging up their burrows.—If a man had to plug up a small cylindrical hole, with such objects as leaves, petioles or twigs, he would drag or push them in by their pointed ends; but if these objects were very thin relatively to the size of the hole, he would probably insert some by their thicker or broader ends. The guide in his case would be intelligence. It seemed therefore worth while to observe carefully how worms dragged leaves into their burrows; whether by their tips or bases or middle parts. It seemed more especially desirable to do this in the case of plants not natives to our country; for although the habit of dragging leaves into their burrows is undoubtedly instinctive with worms, yet instinct could not tell them how to act in the case of leaves about which their progenitors knew nothing. If, moreover, worms acted solely through instinct or an unvarying inherited impulse, they would draw all kinds of leaves into their burrows in the same manner. If they have no such definite instinct, we might expect that chance would determine whether the tip, base or middle was seized. If both these alternatives are excluded, intelligence alone is left; unless the worm in each case first tries many different methods, and follows that alone which proves possible or the most easy; but to act in this manner and to try different methods makes a near approach to intelligence.

Intelligence shown by worms in their way of sealing up their burrows.—If a person had to seal a small cylindrical hole using objects like leaves, stems, or twigs, they would typically push or drag them in by their pointed ends; but if these objects were relatively thin compared to the size of the hole, they would likely insert some by their thicker or broader ends. In this case, the guiding factor would be intelligence. Therefore, it seemed worthwhile to carefully observe how worms pull leaves into their burrows; whether by their tips, bases, or middle sections. This was especially important for plants that aren’t native to our country; since dragging leaves into their burrows is definitely instinctive for worms, instinct alone wouldn’t guide them on how to act with leaves their ancestors knew nothing about. Moreover, if worms acted only on instinct or an unchanging inherited impulse, they would bring all kinds of leaves into their burrows in the same way. If they lack a specific instinct, it’s reasonable to think that randomness would decide whether they grab the tip, base, or middle. If both of these possibilities are ruled out, then intelligence remains as the only explanation; unless the worm first tries out various methods and sticks to the one that works or is easiest; but acting this way and experimenting with different approaches is very close to being intelligent.

In the first place 227 withered leaves of various kinds, mostly of English plants, were pulled out of worm-burrows in several places. Of these, 181 had been drawn into the burrows by or near their tips, so that the foot-stalk projected nearly upright from the mouth of the burrow; 20 had been drawn in by their bases, and in this case the tips projected from the burrows; and 26 had been seized near the middle, so that these had been drawn in transversely and were much crumpled. Therefore 80 per cent. (always using the nearest whole number) had been drawn in by the tip, 9 per cent. by the base or foot-stalk, and 11 per cent. transversely or by the middle. This alone is almost sufficient to show that chance does not determine the manner in which leaves are dragged into the burrows.

In the first place, 227 dried leaves of various kinds, mostly from English plants, were pulled out of worm tunnels in several locations. Of these, 181 were pulled into the tunnels by or near their tips, so that the stalk was almost upright at the entrance of the tunnel; 20 were pulled in by their bases, which meant the tips were sticking out of the tunnels; and 26 were grabbed near the middle, so they were pulled in sideways and became quite crumpled. Therefore, 80 percent (using the nearest whole number) were pulled in by the tip, 9 percent by the base or stalk, and 11 percent sideways or by the middle. This alone is almost enough to show that chance doesn’t determine how leaves are dragged into the tunnels.

Of the above 227 leaves, 70 consisted of the fallen leaves of the common lime-tree, which is almost certainly not a native of England. These leaves are much acuminated towards the tip, and are very broad at the base with a well-developed foot-stalk. They are thin and quite flexible when half-withered. Of the 70, 79 per cent. had been drawn in by or near the tip; 4 per cent. by or near the base; and 17 per cent. transversely or by the middle. These proportions agree very closely, as far as the tip is concerned, with those before given. But the percentage drawn in by the base is smaller, which may be attributed to the breadth of the basal part of the blade. We here, also, see that the presence of a foot-stalk, which it might have been expected would have tempted the worms as a convenient handle, has little or no influence in determining the manner in which lime leaves are dragged into the burrows. The considerable proportion, viz., 17 per cent., drawn in more or less transversely depends no doubt on the flexibility of these half-decayed leaves. The fact of so many having been drawn in by the middle, and of some few having been drawn in by the base, renders it improbable that the worms first tried to draw in most of the leaves by one or both of these methods, and that they afterwards drew in 79 per cent. by their tips; for it is clear that they would not have failed in drawing them in by the base or middle.

Of the 227 leaves mentioned, 70 were fallen leaves from the common lime tree, which is likely not native to England. These leaves are pointed at the tip and broad at the base, with a well-formed foot stalk. They are thin and fairly flexible when partially wilted. Of those 70 leaves, 79 percent were pulled in by or near the tip; 4 percent by or near the base; and 17 percent transversely or by the middle. These proportions closely match the earlier figures regarding the tip. However, the percentage pulled in by the base is smaller, which may be due to the width of the base of the leaf. Additionally, we can see that the presence of a foot stalk, which might have been expected to entice the worms as an easy grip, has little to no impact on how lime leaves are pulled into the burrows. The significant proportion, 17 percent, pulled in more or less sideways is likely due to the flexibility of these partially decayed leaves. The fact that many were drawn in by the middle, along with a few by the base, suggests it’s unlikely that the worms initially tried to pull most leaves in using one or both of these methods before later pulling 79 percent by their tips; clearly, they wouldn’t have failed to draw them in by the base or middle.

The leaves of a foreign plant were next searched for, the blades of which were not more pointed towards the apex than towards the base. This proved to be the case with those of a laburnum (a hybrid between Cytisus alpinus and laburnum) for on doubling the terminal over the basal half, they generally fitted exactly; and when there was any difference, the basal half was a little the narrower. It might, therefore, have been expected that an almost equal number of these leaves would have been drawn in by the tip and base, or a slight excess in favour of the latter. But of 73 leaves (not included in the first lot of 227) pulled out of worm-burrows, 63 per cent. had been drawn in by the tip; 27 per cent. by the base, and 10 per cent. transversely. We here see that a far larger proportion, viz., 27 per cent. were drawn in by the base than in the case of lime leaves, the blades of which are very broad at the base, and of which only 4 per cent. had thus been drawn in. We may perhaps account for the fact of a still larger proportion of the laburnum leaves not having been drawn in by the base, by worms having acquired the habit of generally drawing in leaves by their tips and thus avoiding the foot-stalk. For the basal margin of the blade in many kinds of leaves forms a large angle with the foot-stalk; and if such a leaf were drawn in by the foot-stalk, the basal margin would come abruptly into contact with the ground on each side of the burrow, and would render the drawing in of the leaf very difficult.

The leaves of a foreign plant were then examined, where the tips weren’t more pointed than the bases. This was true for those of a laburnum (a hybrid between Cytisus alpinus and laburnum), as folding the tip over the lower half generally matched perfectly; when there was any difference, the lower half was usually a bit narrower. Therefore, one might have expected that an almost equal number of these leaves would be pulled in by the tip and base, or a slight preference for the base. But out of 73 leaves (not included in the initial batch of 227) taken from worm burrows, 63 percent were drawn in by the tip, 27 percent by the base, and 10 percent transversely. Here, we notice that a larger proportion, specifically 27 percent, were pulled in by the base compared to lime leaves, which have very broad bases and only 4 percent were similarly drawn in. We might explain the greater number of laburnum leaves not being drawn in by the base as worms developing a habit of mainly pulling in leaves by their tips to avoid the foot-stalk. This is because the lower margin of the blade in many types of leaves forms a large angle with the foot-stalk; if such a leaf were pulled in by the foot-stalk, the lower margin would abruptly meet the ground on both sides of the burrow, making it very difficult to draw the leaf in.

Nevertheless worms break through their habit of avoiding the foot-stalk, if this part offers them the most convenient means for drawing leaves into their burrows. The leaves of the endless hybridised varieties of the Rhododendron vary much in shape; some are narrowest towards the base and others towards the apex. After they have fallen off, the blade on each side of the midrib often becomes curled up while drying, sometimes along the whole length, sometimes chiefly at the base, sometimes towards the apex. Out of 28 fallen leaves on one bed of peat in my garden, no less than 23 were narrower in the basal quarter than in the terminal quarter of their length; and this narrowness was chiefly due to the curling in of the margins. Out of 36 fallen leaves on another bed, in which different varieties of the Rhododendron grew, only 17 were narrower towards the base than towards the apex. My son William, who first called my attention to this case, picked up 237 fallen leaves in his garden (where the Rhododendron grows in the natural soil) and of these 65 per cent. could have been drawn by worms into their burrows more easily by the base or foot-stalk than by the tip; and this was partly due to the shape of the leaf and in a less degree to the curling in of the margins: 27 per cent. could have been drawn in more easily by the tip than by the base: and 8 per cent. with about equal ease by either end. The shape of a fallen leaf ought to be judged of before one end has been drawn into a burrow, for after this has happened, the free end, whether it be the base or apex, will dry more quickly than the end imbedded in the damp ground; and the exposed margins of the free end will consequently tend to become more curled inwards than they were when the leaf was first seized by the worm. My son found 91 leaves which had been dragged by worms into their burrows, though not to a great depth; of these 66 per cent. had been drawn in by the base or foot-stalk; and 34 per cent. by the tip. In this case, therefore, the worms judged with a considerable degree of correctness how best to draw the withered leaves of this foreign plant into their burrows; notwithstanding that they had to depart from their usual habit of avoiding the foot-stalk.

However, worms will sometimes break their habit of avoiding the foot-stalk if this part gives them the easiest way to pull leaves into their burrows. The leaves from the many hybrid varieties of Rhododendron vary significantly in shape; some are narrowest at the base while others are narrowest at the tip. After they fall, the edges on each side of the midrib often curl up as they dry, sometimes along the entire length, at other times mostly at the base, or mainly at the tip. Out of 28 fallen leaves on a peat bed in my garden, 23 were narrower in the basal quarter than in the terminal quarter of their length, mainly due to the curling in of the edges. From another bed with different Rhododendron varieties, only 17 out of 36 fallen leaves were narrower at the base than at the tip. My son William, who first pointed this out to me, collected 237 fallen leaves in his garden (where the Rhododendron thrives in natural soil), and among these, 65 percent could have been pulled by worms into their burrows more easily by the base or foot-stalk than by the tip; this was partly due to the leaf shape and to a lesser extent to the curling of the edges. 27 percent could have been drawn in more easily by the tip than by the base, while 8 percent could be drawn in with about equal ease from either end. The shape of a fallen leaf should be assessed before one end is pulled into a burrow, because once that happens, the exposed end, whether it's the base or the tip, will dry faster than the end buried in the damp soil; as a result, the exposed edges of the free end will tend to curl inward more than they did when the worm first grabbed the leaf. My son found 91 leaves that had been dragged by worms into their burrows, though not very deeply; of these, 66 percent were pulled in by the base or foot-stalk, and 34 percent by the tip. In this case, the worms made remarkably accurate judgments about the best way to pull the withered leaves of this foreign plant into their burrows, even though they had to break their usual habit of avoiding the foot-stalk.

On the gravel-walks in my garden a very large number of leaves of three species of Pinus (P. austriaca, nigricans and sylvestris) are regularly drawn into the mouths of worm burrows. These leaves consist of two so-called needles, which are of considerable length in the two first and short in the last named species, and are united to a common base; and it is by this part that they are almost invariably drawn into the burrows. I have seen only two or at most three exceptions to this rule with worms in a state of nature. As the sharply pointed needles diverge a little, and as several leaves are drawn into the same burrow, each tuft forms a perfect chevaux de frise. On two occasions many of these tufts were pulled up in the evening, but by the following morning fresh leaves had been pulled in, and the burrows were again well protected. These leaves could not be dragged into the burrows to any depth, except by their bases, as a worm cannot seize hold of the two needles at the same time, and if one alone were seized by the apex, the other would be pressed against the ground and would resist the entry of the seized one. This was manifest in the above mentioned two or three exceptional cases. In order, therefore, that worms should do their work well, they must drag pine-leaves into their burrows by their bases, where the two needles are conjoined. But how they are guided in this work is a perplexing question.

On the gravel paths in my garden, a large number of leaves from three species of pine trees (P. austriaca, nigricans, and sylvestris) are regularly pulled into the entrances of worm burrows. These leaves are made up of two so-called needles, which are quite long in the first two species and short in the last, and they are connected at a common base; it’s this part that is almost always drawn into the burrows. I've only seen two or at most three exceptions to this rule with worms in the wild. Since the sharply pointed needles spread apart a little, and since several leaves are pulled into the same burrow, each cluster creates a perfect chevaux de frise. On two occasions, many of these clusters were pulled up in the evening, but by the next morning, fresh leaves had been pulled in, and the burrows were once again well protected. These leaves couldn’t be dragged into the burrows very deep, except by their bases, because a worm can’t grab both needles at the same time. If it only grabs one by the tip, the other gets pressed against the ground and resists the entry of the one being seized. This was clear in those two or three exceptions mentioned earlier. Therefore, for worms to do their job properly, they must pull pine leaves into their burrows by their bases, where the two needles are joined. But figuring out how they manage this is a puzzling question.

This difficulty led my son Francis and myself to observe worms in confinement during several nights by the aid of a dim light, while they dragged the leaves of the above named pines into their burrows. They moved the anterior extremities of their bodies about the leaves, and on several occasions when they touched the sharp end of a needle they withdrew suddenly as if pricked. But I doubt whether they were hurt, for they are indifferent to very sharp objects, and will swallow even rose-thorns and small splinters of glass. It may also be doubted, whether the sharp ends of the needles serve to tell them that this is the wrong end to seize; for the points were cut off many leaves for a length of about one inch, and fifty-seven of them thus treated were drawn into the burrows by their bases, and not one by the cut-off ends. The worms in confinement often seized the needles near the middle and drew them towards the mouths of their burrows; and one worm tried in a senseless manner to drag them into the burrow by bending them. They sometimes collected many more leaves over the mouths of their burrows (as in the case formerly mentioned of lime-leaves) than could enter them. On other occasions, however, they behaved very differently; for as soon as they touched the base of a pine-leaf, this was seized, being sometimes completely engulfed in their mouths, or a point very near the base was seized, and the leaf was then quickly dragged or rather jerked into their burrows. It appeared both to my son and myself as if the worms instantly perceived as soon as they had seized a leaf in the proper manner. Nine such cases were observed, but in one of them the worm failed to drag the leaf into its burrow, as it was entangled by other leaves lying near. In another case a leaf stood nearly upright with the points of the needles partly inserted into a burrow, but how placed there was not seen; and then the worm reared itself up and seized the base, which was dragged into the mouth of the burrow by bowing the whole leaf. On the other hand, after a worm had seized the base of a leaf, this was on two occasions relinquished from some unknown motive.

This challenge led my son Francis and me to observe worms in a confined space over several nights with the help of a dim light while they dragged leaves from the previously mentioned pines into their burrows. They moved the front ends of their bodies around the leaves, and on a few occasions, when they touched the sharp end of a needle, they pulled back suddenly as if they were pricked. However, I doubt they were actually hurt because they are indifferent to very sharp objects and will even swallow rose thorns and small pieces of glass. It’s also questionable whether the sharp ends of the needles let them know that this was the wrong end to grab; after all, the points had cut off many leaves to about an inch in length, and fifty-seven of these were pulled into the burrows by their bases, not one by the cut-off ends. The worms in confinement often grabbed the needles near the middle and pulled them toward the entrances of their burrows; one worm even tried senselessly to drag them in by bending them. They sometimes piled many more leaves on top of their burrow openings (like the earlier case with lime leaves) than could actually fit inside. However, on other occasions, they acted quite differently; as soon as they touched the base of a pine leaf, they grabbed it, sometimes fully engulfing it in their mouths, or they seized a point very close to the base and quickly dragged—rather, jerked—the leaf into their burrows. Both my son and I noticed it seemed like the worms immediately recognized when they had grabbed a leaf the right way. We observed nine such instances, but in one case, the worm couldn't pull the leaf into its burrow as it got caught on other leaves nearby. In another case, a leaf was nearly upright with the points of the needles partially inserted into a burrow, but how it got there was unclear; then the worm lifted itself and grabbed the base, pulling it into the mouth of the burrow by bending the entire leaf. On the other hand, after a worm had taken hold of the base of a leaf, it relinquished it on two occasions for some unknown reason.

As already remarked, the habit of plugging up the mouths of the burrows with various objects, is no doubt instinctive in worms; and a very young one, born in one of my pots, dragged for some little distance a Scotch-fir leaf, one needle of which was as long and almost as thick as its own body. No species of pine is endemic in this part of England, it is therefore incredible that the proper manner of dragging pine-leaves into the burrows can be instinctive with our worms. But as the worms on which the above observations were made, were dug up beneath or near some pines, which had been planted there about forty years, it was desirable to prove that their actions were not instinctive. Accordingly, pine-leaves were scattered on the ground in places far removed from any pine-tree, and 90 of them were drawn into the burrows by their bases. Only two were drawn in by the tips of the needles, and these were not real exceptions, as one was drawn in for a very short distance, and the two needles of the other cohered. Other pine-leaves were given to worms kept in pots in a warm room, and here the result was different; for out of 42 leaves drawn into the burrows, no less than 16 were drawn in by the tips of the needles. These worms, however, worked in a careless or slovenly manner; for the leaves were often drawn in to only a small depth; sometimes they were merely heaped over the mouths of the burrows, and sometimes none were drawn in. I believe that this carelessness may be accounted for either by the warmth of the air, or by its dampness, as the pots were covered by glass plates; the worms consequently did not care about plugging up their holes effectually. Pots tenanted by worms and covered with a net which allowed the free entrance of air, were left out of doors for several nights, and now 72 leaves were all properly drawn in by their bases.

As I already mentioned, the habit of sealing the entrances of burrows with different objects is likely instinctive for worms. I observed a very young worm, born in one of my pots, dragging a Scotch pine leaf that was almost as long and thick as its own body. No species of pine naturally grows in this part of England, so it’s hard to believe that worms have an instinct for dragging pine leaves into their burrows. However, since the worms I observed were dug up near some pines that had been planted there for about forty years, I wanted to confirm that their behavior wasn’t instinctive. I spread pine leaves on the ground in areas far from any pine tree, and 90 of them were pulled into the burrows by their bases. Only two were pulled in by the tips of the needles, but these weren’t true exceptions since one was pulled in just a little way, and the two needles of the other were stuck together. I also gave pine leaves to worms kept in pots in a warm room, and this time the results were different; out of 42 leaves pulled into the burrows, 16 were pulled in by the tips of the needles. However, these worms worked rather carelessly because the leaves were often pulled in only a little ways; sometimes they were just piled over the openings of the burrows, and sometimes none were pulled in at all. I think this carelessness might be due to the warm or damp air, since the pots were covered with glass plates, so the worms didn’t feel the need to seal their holes properly. I left pots with worms, covered with a net that allowed for airflow, outside for several nights, and all 72 leaves were pulled in properly by their bases.

It might perhaps be inferred from the facts as yet given, that worms somehow gain a general notion of the shape or structure of pine-leaves, and perceive that it is necessary for them to seize the base where the two needles are conjoined. But the following cases make this more than doubtful. The tips of a large number of needles of P. austriaca were cemented together with shell-lac dissolved in alcohol, and were kept for some days, until, as I believe, all odour or taste had been lost; and they were then scattered on the ground where no pine-trees grew, near burrows from which the plugging had been removed. Such leaves could have been drawn into the burrows with equal ease by either end; and judging from analogy and more especially from the case presently to be given of the petioles of Clematis montana, I expected that the apex would have been preferred. But the result was that out of 121 leaves with the tips cemented, which were drawn into burrows, 108 were drawn in by their bases, and only 13 by their tips. Thinking that the worms might possibly perceive and dislike the smell or taste of the shell-lac, though this was very improbable, especially after the leaves had been left out during several nights, the tips of the needles of many leaves were tied together with fine thread. Of leaves thus treated 150 were drawn into burrows—123 by the base and 27 by the tied tips; so that between four and five times as many were drawn in by the base as by the tip. It is possible that the short cut-off ends of the thread with which they were tied, may have tempted the worms to drag in a larger proportional number by the tips than when cement was used. Of the leaves with tied and cemented tips taken together (271 in number) 85 per cent. were drawn in by the base and 15 per cent. by the tips. We may therefore infer that it is not the divergence of the two needles which leads worms in a state of nature almost invariably to drag pine-leaves into their burrows by the base. Nor can it be the sharpness of the points of the needles which determines them; for, as we have seen, many leaves with the points cut off were drawn in by their bases. We are thus led to conclude, that with pine-leaves there must be something attractive to worms in the base, notwithstanding that few ordinary leaves are drawn in by the base or foot-stalk.

It might be suggested from the information provided so far that worms somehow understand the general shape of pine leaves and recognize that they need to grab the base where the two needles join. However, the following cases raise doubts about this. The tips of many needles from P. austriaca were stuck together with shell-lac dissolved in alcohol and kept for several days, until, I believe, they lost all scent and flavor. They were then spread on the ground where no pine trees were present, near burrows where the plugs had been removed. These leaves could have easily been pulled into the burrows from either end; and based on what I've observed, especially with the case I'll discuss shortly regarding the petioles of Clematis montana, I expected that the apex would be chosen. However, the result was that out of 121 leaves with cemented tips that were pulled into burrows, 108 were drawn in by their bases, and only 13 by their tips. I considered that the worms might have noticed and avoided the smell or taste of the shell-lac, although this seemed unlikely, especially after the leaves had been left out for several nights. I tied the tips of many leaves together with fine thread. Of the leaves treated this way, 150 were drawn into burrows—123 by the base and 27 by the tied tips—so about four to five times as many were pulled in by the base compared to the tip. It's possible that the short, cut-off ends of the thread used for tying may have attracted the worms, leading them to drag in a larger proportion of leaves by the tips than when cement was used. Taking both tied and cemented tips together (271 in total), 85 percent were pulled in by the base and 15 percent by the tips. Therefore, we can infer that it's not the separation of the two needles that causes worms in their natural state to almost always pull pine leaves into their burrows by the base. It can't be the sharpness of the needle tips that influences their choice either; as we've seen, many leaves with cut-off tips were still pulled in by their bases. This leads us to conclude that there must be something about the base of pine leaves that attracts worms, even though few ordinary leaves are drawn in by their base or petiole.

Petioles.—We will now turn to the petioles or foot-stalks of compound leaves, after the leaflets have fallen off. Those from Clematis montana, which grew over a verandah, were dragged early in January in large numbers into the burrows on an adjoining gravel-walk, lawn, and flower-bed. These petioles vary from 2½ to 4½ inches in length, are rigid and of nearly uniform thickness, except close to the base where they thicken rather abruptly, being here about twice as thick as in any other part. The apex is somewhat pointed, but soon withers and is then easily broken off. Of these petioles, 314 were pulled out of burrows in the above specified sites; and it was found that 76 per cent. had been drawn in by their tips, and 24 per cent by their bases; so that those drawn in by the tip were a little more than thrice as many as those drawn in by the base. Some of those extracted from the well-beaten gravel-walk were kept separate from the others; and of these (59 in number) nearly five times as many had been drawn in by the tip as by the base; whereas of those extracted from the lawn and flower-bed, where from the soil yielding more easily, less care would be necessary in plugging up the burrows, the proportion of those drawn in by the tip (130) to those drawn in by the base (48) was rather less than three to one. That these petioles had been dragged into the burrows for plugging them up, and not for food, was manifest, as neither end, as far as I could see, had been gnawed. As several petioles are used to plug up the same burrow, in one case as many as 10, and in another case as many as 15, the worms may perhaps at first draw in a few by the thicker end so as to save labour; but afterwards a large majority are drawn in by the pointed end, in order to plug up the hole securely.

Petioles.—Now, let's talk about the petioles, or foot-stalks, of compound leaves after the leaflets have dropped off. The ones from Clematis montana, which grew over a porch, were dragged in large numbers in early January into the burrows on a nearby gravel path, lawn, and flowerbed. These petioles range from 2½ to 4½ inches long, are stiff, and have nearly uniform thickness, except near the base where they thicken abruptly, being about twice as thick there as anywhere else. The tip is somewhat pointed but withers quickly and breaks off easily. Of these petioles, 314 were pulled from the burrows in the specified locations; it was found that 76 percent were drawn in by their tips while 24 percent were drawn in by their bases. Thus, those brought in by the tip were a little more than three times as many as those brought in by the base. Some of the petioles extracted from the heavily trafficked gravel path were kept separate; of these (59 in total), nearly five times as many had been drawn in by the tip compared to the base. In contrast, those taken from the lawn and flowerbed, where the soil was looser and required less effort to block the burrows, showed a ratio of those drawn in by the tip (130) to those drawn in by the base (48) of just under three to one. It was clear that these petioles were dragged into the burrows to block them up, not for food, as neither end appeared to have been gnawed. Since several petioles are used to seal the same burrow—up to 10 in one case and 15 in another—the worms might initially drag a few in by the thicker end to save effort. However, a large majority are later pulled in by the pointed end to securely plug the hole.

The fallen petioles of our native ash-tree were next observed, and the rule with most objects, viz., that a large majority are dragged into the burrows by the more pointed end, had not here been followed; and this fact much surprised me at first. These petioles vary in length from 5 to 8½ inches; they are thick and fleshy towards the base, whence they taper gently towards the apex, which is a little enlarged and truncated where the terminal leaflet had been originally attached. Under some ash-trees growing in a grass-field, 229 petioles were pulled out of worm burrows early in January, and of these 51.5 per cent. had been drawn in by the base, and 48.5 per cent. by the apex. This anomaly was however readily explained as soon as the thick basal part was examined; for in 78 out of 103 petioles, this part had been gnawed by worms, just above the horse-shoe shaped articulation. In most cases there could be no mistake about the gnawing; for ungnawed petioles which were examined after being exposed to the weather for eight additional weeks had not become more disintegrated or decayed near the base than elsewhere. It is thus evident that the thick basal end of the petiole is drawn in not solely for the sake of plugging up the mouths of the burrows, but as food. Even the narrow truncated tips of some few petioles had been gnawed; and this was the case in 6 out of 37 which were examined for this purpose. Worms, after having drawn in and gnawed the basal end, often push the petioles out of their burrows; and then drag in fresh ones, either by the base for food, or by the apex for plugging up the mouth more effectually. Thus, out of 37 petioles inserted by their tips, 5 had been previously drawn in by the base, for this part had been gnawed. Again, I collected a handful of petioles lying loose on the ground close to some plugged-up burrows, where the surface was thickly strewed with other petioles which apparently had never been touched by worms; and 14 out of 47 (i.e. nearly one-third), after having had their bases gnawed had been pushed out of the burrows and were now lying on the ground. From these several facts we may conclude that worms draw in some petioles of the ash by the base to serve as food, and others by the tip to plug up the mouths of their burrows in the most efficient manner.

The fallen petioles of our native ash tree were next observed, and the trend with most objects, that a large majority are pulled into the burrows by the pointed end, was not seen here; this surprised me at first. These petioles range in length from 5 to 8½ inches; they are thick and fleshy at the base, tapering gently towards the top, which is slightly enlarged and flat where the terminal leaflet was originally attached. Under some ash trees growing in a grassy area, 229 petioles were pulled out of worm burrows early in January, and of these, 51.5 percent had been pulled in by the base, while 48.5 percent had been pulled in by the tip. This oddity was quickly explained once the thick base was examined; in 78 out of 103 petioles, this part had been gnawed by worms just above the horse-shoe shaped joint. In most cases, there was no mistake about the gnawing; undamaged petioles examined after being left outside for an additional eight weeks showed no more disintegration or decay at the base than at any other point. It's clear that the thick base of the petiole is pulled in not just to seal the burrow openings but also for food. Even the narrow, flat tips of a few petioles had been gnawed; this was true for 6 out of 37 examined for this reason. Worms, after pulling in and gnawing the base, often push the petioles out of their burrows and then drag in new ones, either by the base for food or by the tip to seal the entrance more effectively. Thus, out of 37 petioles inserted by their tips, 5 had previously been pulled in by the base, as this part had been gnawed. Furthermore, I collected a handful of petioles lying loose on the ground near some sealed burrows, where the surface was covered with other petioles that seemingly had never been touched by worms; 14 out of 47 (nearly a third), after having had their bases gnawed, had been pushed out of the burrows and were now on the ground. From these various facts, we can conclude that worms pull in some ash petioles by the base for food and others by the tip to effectively seal the mouths of their burrows.

The petioles of Robinia pseudo-acacia vary from 4 or 5 to nearly 12 inches in length; they are thick close to the base before the softer parts have rotted off, and taper much towards the upper end. They are so flexible that I have seen some few doubled up and thus drawn into the burrows of worms. Unfortunately these petioles were not examined until February, by which time the softer parts had completely rotted off, so that it was impossible to ascertain whether worms had gnawed the bases, though this is in itself probable. Out of 121 petioles extracted from burrows early in February, 68 were imbedded by the base, and 53 by the apex. On February 5 all the petioles which had been drawn into the burrows beneath a Robinia, were pulled up; and after an interval of eleven days, 35 petioles had been again dragged in, 19 by the base, and 16 by the apex. Taking these two lots together, 56 per cent. were drawn in by the base, and 44 per cent. by the apex. As all the softer parts had long ago rotted off, we may feel sure, especially in the latter case, that none had been drawn in as food. At this season, therefore, worms drag these petioles into their burrows indifferently by either end, a slight preference being given to the base. This latter fact may be accounted for by the difficulty of plugging up a burrow with objects so extremely thin as are the upper ends. In support of this view, it may be stated that out of the 16 petioles which had been drawn in by their upper ends, the more attenuated terminal portion of 7 had been previously broken off by some accident.

The petioles of Robinia pseudo-acacia range from 4 or 5 to nearly 12 inches long; they are thick near the base before the softer parts decay, and taper significantly towards the top. They are so flexible that I've seen a few bend and get pulled into worm burrows. Unfortunately, these petioles weren’t examined until February, by which time the softer parts had completely rotted away, making it impossible to determine if worms had chewed the bases, though that's likely. Out of 121 petioles taken from burrows in early February, 68 were embedded at the base, and 53 at the top. On February 5, all the petioles pulled into the burrows under a Robinia were extracted; after eleven days, 35 petioles were dragged back in—19 by the base and 16 by the top. Combining these two sets, 56 percent were pulled in by the base and 44 percent by the top. Since all the softer parts had long since decayed, we can be sure, especially in the latter case, that none were dragged in for food. At this time of year, worms pull these petioles into their burrows from either end, with a slight preference for the base. This preference may be due to the difficulty of sealing a burrow with objects as thin as the upper ends. Supporting this idea, of the 16 petioles pulled in by their top ends, the more slender terminal part of 7 had been broken off due to some accident.

Triangles of paper.—Elongated triangles were cut out of moderately stiff writing-paper, which was rubbed with raw fat on both sides, so as to prevent their becoming excessively limp when exposed at night to rain and dew. The sides of all the triangles were three inches in length, with the bases of 120 one inch, and of the other 183 half an inch in length. These latter triangles were very narrow or much acuminated. [79] As a check on the observations presently to be given, similar triangles in a damp state were seized by a very narrow pair of pincers at different points and at all inclinations with reference to the margins, and were then drawn into a short tube of the diameter of a worm-burrow. If seized by the apex, the triangle was drawn straight into the tube, with its margins infolded; if seized at some little distance from the apex, for instance at half an inch, this much was doubled back within the tube. So it was with the base and basal angles, though in this case the triangles offered, as might have been expected, much more resistance to being drawn in. If seized near the middle the triangle was doubled up, with the apex and base left sticking out of the tube. As the sides of the triangles were three inches in length, the result of their being drawn into a tube or into a burrow in different ways, may be conveniently divided into three groups: those drawn in by the apex or within an inch of it; those drawn in by the base or within an inch of it; and those drawn in by any point in the middle inch.

Triangles of paper.—Elongated triangles were cut from moderately stiff writing paper, which was rubbed with raw fat on both sides to prevent them from getting too limp when exposed to rain and dew at night. All the triangles had sides that were three inches long, with one base measuring one inch and the other base measuring half an inch. The latter triangles were very narrow and pointed. [79] To check the observations that will be described, similar triangles in a damp state were grasped by a very narrow pair of pincers at different points and at various angles relative to the edges, and then pulled into a short tube with a diameter similar to that of a worm burrow. If grabbed by the apex, the triangle was pulled straight into the tube, with its edges folded in; if grabbed a little distance from the apex, for example, half an inch away, this portion was folded back inside the tube. The same was true for the base and base angles, although in this case, as might be expected, the triangles offered much more resistance when being drawn in. If grabbed near the middle, the triangle was folded up, leaving the apex and base sticking out of the tube. Since the sides of the triangles were three inches long, the results of drawing them into a tube or burrow in various ways can be conveniently categorized into three groups: those drawn in by the apex or within an inch of it; those drawn in by the base or within an inch of it; and those drawn in by any point within the middle inch.

In order to see how the triangles would be seized by worms, some in a damp state were given to worms kept in confinement. They were seized in three different manners in the case of both the narrow and broad triangles: viz., by the margin; by one of the three angles, which was often completely engulfed in their mouths; and lastly, by suction applied to any part of the flat surface. If lines parallel to the base and an inch apart, are drawn across a triangle with the sides three inches in length, it will be divided into three parts of equal length. Now if worms seized indifferently by chance any part, they would assuredly seize on the basal part or division far oftener than on either of the two other divisions. For the area of the basal to the apical part is as 5 to 1, so that the chance of the former being drawn into a burrow by suction, will be as 5 to 1, compared with the apical part. The base offers two angles and the apex only one, so that the former would have twice as good a chance (independently of the size of the angles) of being engulfed in a worm’s mouth, as would the apex. It should, however, be stated that the apical angle is not often seized by worms; the margin at a little distance on either side being preferred. I judge of this from having found in 40 out of 46 cases in which triangles had been drawn into burrows by their apical ends, that the tip had been doubled back within the burrow for a length of between 1/20 of an inch and 1 inch. Lastly, the proportion between the margins of the basal and apical parts is as 3 to 2 for the broad, and 2½ to 2 for the narrow triangles. From these several considerations it might certainly have been expected, supposing that worms seized hold of the triangles by chance, that a considerably larger proportion would have been dragged into the burrows by the basal than by the apical part; but we shall immediately see how different was the result.

To understand how worms would grab triangles, some damp ones were given to worms in confinement. They were captured in three different ways with both narrow and broad triangles: by the edge, by one of the three angles—which was often fully engulfed—and by suction applied to any part of the flat surface. If you draw lines that are parallel to the base and one inch apart across a triangle with sides measuring three inches, it splits into three equal sections. If worms grabbed any part randomly, they would definitely grab the bottom section more often than either of the other two sections. This is because the area of the bottom section compared to the top section is 5 to 1, so the chance of the bottom section being pulled into a burrow by suction is 5 to 1 compared to the top section. The base has two angles while the apex has only one, so the base has twice the chance (regardless of the angle size) of being pulled into a worm’s mouth compared to the apex. However, it should be noted that the apex angle is not often grabbed by worms; the edges nearby are usually preferred. I can tell this from finding that in 40 out of 46 instances where triangles were pulled into burrows by their pointed ends, the tip had been folded back inside the burrow anywhere from 1/20 of an inch to 1 inch. Finally, the ratio between the margins of the base and apex sections is 3 to 2 for the broad triangles and 2½ to 2 for the narrow ones. Considering all these factors, it would generally be expected that if worms grabbed the triangles randomly, a significantly larger proportion would be pulled into burrows by the base rather than the apex; but the results ended up being quite different.

Triangles of the above specified sizes were scattered on the ground in many places and on many successive nights near worm-burrows, from which the leaves, petioles, twigs, &c., with which they had been plugged, were removed. Altogether 303 triangles were drawn by worms into their burrows: 12 others were drawn in by both ends, but as it was impossible to judge by which end they had been first seized, these are excluded. Of the 303, 62 per cent. had been drawn in by the apex (using this term for all drawn in by the apical part, one inch in length); 15 per cent. by the middle; and 23 per cent. by the basal part. If they had been drawn indifferently by any point, the proportion for the apical, middle and basal parts would have been 33.3 per cent. for each; but, as we have just seen, it might have been expected that a much larger proportion would have been drawn in by the basal than by any other part. As the case stands, nearly three times as many were drawn in by the apex as by the base. If we consider the broad triangles by themselves, 59 per cent. were drawn in by the apex, 25 per cent. by the middle, and 16 per cent. by the base. Of the narrow triangles, 65 per cent. were drawn in by the apex, 14 per cent, by the middle, and 21 per cent. by the base; so that here those drawn in by the apex were more than 3 times as many as those drawn in by the base. We may therefore conclude that the manner in which the triangles are drawn into the burrows is not a matter of chance.

Triangles of the specified sizes were scattered on the ground in various places over many nights near worm burrows, from which the leaves, petioles, twigs, etc., with which they had been plugged, were removed. In total, 303 triangles were pulled into their burrows: 12 others were drawn in by both ends, but since it was impossible to tell which end was seized first, these are excluded. Of the 303, 62 percent were drawn in by the apex (using this term for all drawn in by the apical part, one inch long); 15 percent by the middle; and 23 percent by the basal part. If they had been drawn randomly by any point, the proportion for the apical, middle, and basal parts would have been 33.3 percent for each; however, as noted, it was expected that a much larger proportion would be drawn in by the basal part than by any other. As it stands, nearly three times as many were drawn in by the apex as by the base. If we look at the broad triangles alone, 59 percent were drawn in by the apex, 25 percent by the middle, and 16 percent by the base. Of the narrow triangles, 65 percent were drawn in by the apex, 14 percent by the middle, and 21 percent by the base; therefore, in this case, those drawn in by the apex were more than three times as many as those drawn in by the base. We can conclude that the way the triangles are pulled into the burrows is not a matter of chance.

In eight cases, two triangles had been drawn into the same burrow, and in seven of these cases, one had been drawn in by the apex and the other by the base. This again indicates that the result is not determined by chance. Worms appear sometimes to revolve in the act of drawing in the triangles, for five out of the whole lot had been wound into an irregular spire round the inside of the burrow. Worms kept in a warm room drew 63 triangles into their burrows; but, as in the case of the pine-leaves, they worked in a rather careless manner, for only 44 per cent. were drawn in by the apex, 22 per cent. by the middle, and 33 per cent. by the base. In five cases, two triangles were drawn into the same burrow.

In eight instances, two triangles had been pulled into the same burrow, and in seven of those cases, one was drawn in by the apex and the other by the base. This once again shows that the outcome isn’t random. Sometimes, the worms seem to twist while pulling in the triangles, as five of them were wound into an irregular spiral around the inside of the burrow. Worms kept in a warm room pulled in 63 triangles into their burrows; however, similar to the case with the pine leaves, they worked somewhat carelessly, as only 44 percent were drawn in by the apex, 22 percent by the middle, and 33 percent by the base. In five cases, two triangles were drawn into the same burrow.

It may be suggested with much apparent probability that so large a proportion of the triangles were drawn in by the apex, not from the worms having selected this end as the most convenient for the purpose, but from having first tried in other ways and failed. This notion was countenanced by the manner in which worms in confinement were seen to drag about and drop the triangles; but then they were working carelessly. I did not at first perceive the importance of this subject, but merely noticed that the bases of those triangles which had been drawn in by the apex, were generally clean and not crumpled. The subject was afterwards attended to carefully. In the first place several triangles which had been drawn in by the basal angles, or by the base, or a little above the base, and which were thus much crumpled and dirtied, were left for some hours in water and were then well shaken while immersed; but neither the dirt nor the creases were thus removed. Only slight creases could be obliterated, even by pulling the wet triangles several times through my fingers. Owing to the slime from the worms’ bodies, the dirt was not easily washed off. We may therefore conclude that if a triangle, before being dragged in by the apex, had been dragged into a burrow by its base with even a slight degree of force, the basal part would long retain its creases and remain dirty. The condition of 89 triangles (65 narrow and 24 broad ones), which had been drawn in by the apex, was observed; and the bases of only 7 of them were at all creased, being at the same time generally dirty. Of the 82 uncreased triangles, 14 were dirty at the base; but it does not follow from this fact that these had first been dragged towards the burrows by their bases; for the worms sometimes covered large portions of the triangles with slime, and these when dragged by the apex over the ground would be dirtied; and during rainy weather, the triangles were often dirtied over one whole side or over both sides. If the worms had dragged the triangles to the mouths of their burrows by their bases, as often as by their apices, and had then perceived, without actually trying to draw them into the burrow, that the broader end was not well adapted for this purpose—even in this case a large proportion would probably have had their basal ends dirtied. We may therefore infer—improbable as is the inference—that worms are able by some means to judge which is the best end by which to draw triangles of paper into their burrows.

It seems likely that many of the triangles were pulled in by the tip, not because the worms chose that end as the easiest option, but because they initially tried other methods and failed. This idea was supported by the way worms in captivity were observed to drag and drop the triangles around, although they were being careless. At first, I didn't realize how important this topic was; I just noticed that the bases of the triangles pulled in by the tip were generally clean and not crumpled. I later paid closer attention to it. First, I left several triangles that had been pulled in by the bottom angles or by the base, or just above the base, which were crumpled and dirty, in water for a few hours and then shook them while still submerged. However, the dirt and creases didn’t come off. Only some slight creases could be smoothed out, even by rubbing the wet triangles between my fingers multiple times. Because of the slime from the worms, the dirt was difficult to wash away. So, we can conclude that if a triangle had been pulled into a burrow by its base with even a little force before being dragged in by the tip, the base would likely keep its creases and stay dirty for a long time. I examined the condition of 89 triangles (65 narrow and 24 broad ones) that were pulled in by the tip; only 7 of them had any creases and were generally dirty. Of the 82 uncreased triangles, 14 were dirty at the base, but this doesn't mean they were initially dragged toward the burrows by their bases. Worms sometimes cover large parts of the triangles with slime, and when they drag them by the tip over the ground, they get dirty. In rainy weather, the triangles often got dirty on one whole side or both sides. If the worms had dragged the triangles to the entrances of their burrows by their bases as often as by their tips, and then noticed without actually trying to pull them into the burrow that the wider end wasn't well suited for that, a large number would likely have had their base ends soiled in that case too. Therefore, we may conclude—though it seems unlikely—that worms somehow have the ability to determine which end is best for pulling triangles of paper into their burrows.

The percentage results of the foregoing observations on the manner in which worms draw various kinds of objects into the mouths of their burrows may be abridged as follows:—

The percentage results of the previous observations on how worms pull different types of objects into the mouths of their burrows can be summarized as follows:—

Nature of Object.

Object Type.

Drawn into the burrows, by or near the apex.

Drawn into the tunnels, at or near the top.

Drawn in, by or near the middle.

Drawn in, by or near the middle.

Drawn in, by or near the base.

Drawn in, by or near the base.

Leaves of various kinds

Variety of leaves

80

80

11

11

9

9

—of the Lime, basal margin of blade broad, apex acuminated

—of the Lime, the base of the blade is wide, and the tip is pointed.

79

79

17

17

4

4

—of a Laburnum, basal part of blade as narrow as, or sometimes little narrower than the apical part

—of a Laburnum, the base of the leaf blade is as narrow as, or sometimes slightly narrower than the tip

63

63

10

10

27

27

—of the Rhododendron, basal part of blade often narrower than the apical part

—of the Rhododendron, the base of the leaf is often narrower than the tip

34

34

...

I apologize, but there is no text provided for me to modernize. Please provide the phrase you would like me to work on.

66

66

—of Pine-trees, consisting of two needles arising from a common base

—of Pine trees, made up of two needles coming from a shared base

...

Please provide the text you'd like me to modernize.

...

I'm sorry, but there doesn't seem to be any text to modernize. Please provide a phrase for me to work with.

100

100

Petioles of a Clematis, somewhat pointed at the apex, and blunt at the base

Petioles of a Clematis, slightly pointed at the top and flat at the bottom.

76

76

...

I'm sorry, but it seems there is no text provided for me to modernize. Could you please share the phrases you'd like assistance with?

24

24

—of the Ash, the thick basal end often drawn in to serve as food

—of the Ash, the thick base is often pulled in to serve as food

48.5

48.5

...

I'm ready for the text! Please provide the phrases you would like modernized.

51.5

51.5

—of Robinia, extremely thin, especially towards the apex, so as to be ill-fitted for plugging up the burrows

—of Robinia, very thin, especially towards the top, making it unsuitable for plugging up the burrows

44

44

...

Sure! Please provide the text you would like me to modernize.

56

56

Triangles of paper, of the two sizes

Triangles of paper, in two sizes

62

62

15

15

23

23

—of the broad ones alone

—of the wide ones only

59

59

25

25

16

16

—of the narrow ones alone

—of just the narrow ones

65

65

14

14

21

21

If we consider these several cases, we can hardly escape from the conclusion that worms show some degree of intelligence in their manner of plugging up their burrows. Each particular object is seized in too uniform a manner, and from causes which we can generally understand, for the result to be attributed to mere chance. That every object has not been drawn in by its pointed end, may be accounted for by labour having been saved through some being inserted by their broader or thicker ends. No doubt worms are led by instinct to plug up their burrows; and it might have been expected that they would have been led by instinct how best to act in each particular case, independently of intelligence. We see how difficult it is to judge whether intelligence comes into play, for even plants might sometimes be thought to be thus directed; for instance when displaced leaves re-direct their upper surfaces towards the light by extremely complicated movements and by the shortest course. With animals, actions appearing due to intelligence may be performed through inherited habit without any intelligence, although aboriginally thus acquired. Or the habit may have been acquired through the preservation and inheritance of beneficial variations of some other habit; and in this case the new habit will have been acquired independently of intelligence throughout the whole course of its development. There is no à priori improbability in worms having acquired special instincts through either of these two latter means. Nevertheless it is incredible that instincts should have been developed in reference to objects, such as the leaves of petioles of foreign plants, wholly unknown to the progenitors of the worms which act in the described manner. Nor are their actions so unvarying or inevitable as are most true instincts.

If we look at these various cases, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that worms show some level of intelligence when they block up their burrows. The way they grab different objects is too consistent and can be understood through factors we usually recognize, which means it's unlikely just luck. The fact that not every object is pulled in by its pointed end can be explained by the fact that some are inserted using their broader or thicker ends to save effort. It's clear that worms are driven by instinct to seal their burrows; however, one might expect that they would also instinctively know the best way to do it in each specific situation, regardless of intelligence. Determining whether intelligence plays a role is tricky, as even plants can seem to act in a similar way. For instance, when knocked out of place, leaves can reposition their upper surfaces toward the light through complex movements and the shortest path. With animals, behaviors that seem intelligent may actually stem from inherited habits that don't involve any real thought, even if those behaviors originated from intelligence initially. Alternatively, habits may develop through the preservation and inheritance of beneficial variations from other habits, meaning that the new behavior could emerge without any intelligence throughout its development. There's nothing unlikely about worms developing specific instincts through either of these last two methods. However, it's hard to believe that instincts have been formed in relation to objects, such as the petiole leaves of unfamiliar plants, completely unknown to the ancestors of the worms that behave this way. Moreover, their actions are not as consistent or predictable as many true instincts.

As worms are not guided by special instincts in each particular case, though possessing a general instinct to plug up their burrows, and as chance is excluded, the next most probable conclusion seems to be that they try in many different ways to draw in objects, and at last succeed in some one way. But it is surprising that an animal so low in the scale as a worm should have the capacity for acting in this manner, as many higher animals have no such capacity. For instance, ants may be seen vainly trying to drag an object transversely to their course, which could be easily drawn longitudinally; though after a time they generally act in a wiser manner, M. Fabre states [89a] that a Sphex—an insect belonging to the same highly-endowed order with ants—stocks its nest with paralysed grass-hoppers, which are invariably dragged into the burrow by their antennæ. When these were cut off close to the head, the Sphex seized the palpi; but when these were likewise cut off, the attempt to drag its prey into the burrow was given up in despair. The Sphex had not intelligence enough to seize one of the six legs or the ovipositor of the grasshopper, which, as M. Fabre remarks, would have served equally well. So again, if the paralysed prey with an egg attached to it be taken out of the cell, the Sphex after entering and finding the cell empty, nevertheless closes it up in the usual elaborate manner. Bees will try to escape and go on buzzing for hours on a window, one half of which has been left open. Even a pike continued during three months to dash and bruise itself against the glass sides of an aquarium, in the vain attempt to seize minnows on the opposite side. [89b] A cobra-snake was seen by Mr. Layard [90] to act much more wisely than either the pike or the Sphex; it had swallowed a toad lying within a hole, and could not withdraw its head; the toad was disgorged, and began to crawl away; it was again swallowed and again disgorged; and now the snake had learnt by experience, for it seized the toad by one of its legs and drew it out of the hole. The instincts of even the higher animals are often followed in a senseless or purposeless manner: the weaver-bird will perseveringly wind threads through the bars of its cage, as if building a nest: a squirrel will pat nuts on a wooden floor, as if he had just buried them in the ground: a beaver will cut up logs of wood and drag them about, though there is no water to dam up; and so in many other cases.

Since worms don't have specific instincts for each situation, even though they have a general instinct to seal their tunnels, and because chance isn't a factor, the next most reasonable conclusion is that they try various ways to pull in objects and eventually succeed in one method. It's surprising that an animal as simple as a worm can act this way when many more advanced animals can't. For example, ants can be seen struggling to drag an object sideways when it would be much easier to pull it straight; although, after a while, they usually act more wisely. M. Fabre notes that a Sphex—an insect in the same highly capable group as ants—fills its nest with paralyzed grasshoppers, always dragging them into the burrow by their antennae. When the antennae are cut off near the head, the Sphex grabs the palpi, but when those are also cut off, the attempt to drag its prey into the burrow is abandoned. The Sphex wasn’t clever enough to grab one of the grasshopper's six legs or its ovipositor, which, as M. Fabre points out, would have worked just as well. Furthermore, if the paralyzed prey with an attached egg is removed from the cell, the Sphex will still enter and close the empty cell in its usual detailed way. Bees will try to escape and buzz around for hours at a window, even when one half is left open. Even a pike kept crashing into the glass sides of an aquarium for three months, fruitlessly trying to catch minnows on the other side. A cobra was seen by Mr. Layard acting much more intelligently than either the pike or the Sphex. After swallowing a toad that was stuck in a hole and unable to pull its head back, the cobra regurgitated the toad, which then started to crawl away; it was swallowed again and regurgitated again. Now the snake had learned from experience and grabbed the toad by one of its legs to pull it out of the hole. The instincts of even higher animals are often followed in a senseless or aimless way: a weaver-bird will persistently weave threads through the bars of its cage, as if building a nest; a squirrel will pat nuts on a wooden floor, as if it had just buried them; a beaver will cut up logs and drag them around, even when there's no water to dam; and there are many other similar examples.

Mr. Romanes, who has specially studied the minds of animals, believes that we can safely infer intelligence, only when we see an individual profiting by its own experience. By this test the cobra showed some intelligence; but this would have been much plainer if on a second occasion he had drawn a toad out of a hole by its leg. The Sphex failed signally in this respect. Now if worms try to drag objects into their burrows first in one way and then in another, until they at last succeed, they profit, at least in each particular instance, by experience.

Mr. Romanes, who has specifically studied animal minds, believes we can confidently infer intelligence only when we see an individual learn from its own experiences. By this standard, the cobra showed some intelligence; however, it would have been much more obvious if on a second occasion, it had pulled a toad out of a hole by its leg. The Sphex failed significantly in this area. Now, if worms attempt to drag objects into their burrows in different ways until they finally succeed, they benefit, at least in those specific instances, from their experience.

But evidence has been advanced showing that worms do not habitually try to draw objects into their burrows in many different ways. Thus half-decayed lime-leaves from their flexibility could have been drawn in by their middle or basal parts, and were thus drawn into the burrows in considerable numbers; yet a large majority were drawn in by or near the apex. The petioles of the Clematis could certainly have been drawn in with equal ease by the base and apex; yet three times and in certain cases five times as many were drawn in by the apex as by the base. It might have been thought that the foot-stalks of leaves would have tempted the worms as a convenient handle; yet they are not largely used, except when the base of the blade is narrower than the apex. A large number of the petioles of the ash are drawn in by the base; but this part serves the worms as food. In the case of pine-leaves worms plainly show that they at least do not seize the leaf by chance; but their choice does not appear to be determined by the divergence of the two needles, and the consequent advantage or necessity of drawing them into their burrows by the base. With respect to the triangles of paper, those which had been drawn in by the apex rarely had their bases creased or dirty; and this shows that the worms had not often first tried to drag them in by this end.

But evidence has been presented showing that worms don’t typically try to pull objects into their burrows in various ways. For instance, half-decayed lime leaves could have easily been pulled in by their middle or bottom parts, and were indeed pulled into the burrows in significant quantities; however, most of them were pulled in from or near the tip. The petioles of the Clematis could be pulled in just as easily from the base or the tip; still, three times, and in some cases five times as many were pulled in by the tip as by the base. One might think that the foot-stalks of leaves would attract the worms as a convenient handle; yet they aren’t used much, except when the base of the blade is narrower than the tip. A lot of ash petioles are pulled in by the base, but that part serves as food for the worms. In the case of pine leaves, worms clearly show that they don’t just randomly grab the leaf; however, their choice doesn’t seem to be influenced by the separation of the two needles and the resulting benefit or necessity of pulling them into their burrows from the base. Regarding the triangles of paper, those that were pulled in by the tip rarely had their bases creased or dirty; this indicates that the worms hadn’t often tried to drag them in by that end first.

If worms are able to judge, either before drawing or after having drawn an object close to the mouths of their burrows, how best to drag it in, they must acquire some notion of its general shape. This they probably acquire by touching it in many places with the anterior extremity of their bodies, which serves as a tactile organ. It may be well to remember how perfect the sense of touch becomes in a man when born blind and deaf, as are worms. If worms have the power of acquiring some notion, however rude, of the shape of an object and of their burrows, as seems to be the case, they deserve to be called intelligent; for they then act in nearly the same manner as would a man under similar circumstances.

If worms can figure out how to pull something into their burrows, either before or after bringing it close, they must have some idea of its overall shape. They probably get this by touching it with the front part of their bodies, which acts as a sense organ. It's worth noting how sharp the sense of touch can become in a person who is born blind and deaf, like worms. If worms can grasp some basic idea of the shape of an object and their burrows, which seems to be true, they deserve to be considered intelligent; because they act almost the same way a person would in similar situations.

To sum up, as chance does not determine the manner in which objects are drawn into the burrows, and as the existence of specialized instincts for each particular case cannot be admitted, the first and most natural supposition is that worms try all methods until they at last succeed; but many appearances are opposed to such a supposition. One alternative alone is left, namely, that worms, although standing low in the scale of organization, possess some degree of intelligence. This will strike every one as very improbable; but it may be doubted whether we know enough about the nervous system of the lower animals to justify our natural distrust of such a conclusion. With respect to the small size of the cerebral ganglia, we should remember what a mass of inherited knowledge, with some power of adapting means to an end, is crowded into the minute brain of a worker-ant.

In summary, since chance doesn’t govern how objects are pulled into burrows, and we can’t accept that there are specific instincts for every situation, the most straightforward assumption is that worms experiment with different methods until they eventually succeed. However, many observations contradict this assumption. The only other option left is that worms, despite being simple organisms, have some degree of intelligence. While this might seem very unlikely, we should question whether we really understand enough about the nervous systems of lower animals to dismiss this conclusion entirely. Regarding the small size of their brain structures, we should consider how much inherited knowledge and the ability to adapt strategies are packed into the tiny brain of a worker ant.

Means by which worms excavate their burrows.—This is effected in two ways; by pushing away the earth on all sides, and by swallowing it. In the former case, the worm inserts the stretched out and attenuated anterior extremity of its body into any little crevice, or hole; and then, as Perrier remarks, [93] the pharynx is pushed forwards into this part, which consequently swells and pushes away the earth on all sides. The anterior extremity thus serves as a wedge. It also serves, as we have before seen, for prehension and suction, and as a tactile organ. A worm was placed on loose mould, and it buried itself in between two and three minutes. On another occasion four worms disappeared in 15 minutes between the sides of the pot and the earth, which had been moderately pressed down. On a third occasion three large worms and a small one were placed on loose mould well mixed with fine sand and firmly pressed down, and they all disappeared, except the tail of one, in 35 minutes. On a fourth occasion six large worms were placed on argillaceous mud mixed with sand firmly pressed down, and they disappeared, except the extreme tips of the tails of two of them, in 40 minutes. In none of these cases, did the worms swallow, as far as could be seen, any earth. They generally entered the ground close to the sides of the pot.

How worms dig their burrows.—Worms do this in two ways: by pushing the soil aside and by swallowing it. In the first method, the worm extends its thin, pointed head into small cracks or holes. Then, as Perrier points out, [93] the pharynx is pushed forward into this area, causing it to expand and push the soil away in all directions. The front of the worm acts like a wedge. It also functions, as we've seen before, for grasping, sucking, and as a sensory organ. A worm was placed on loose soil, and it buried itself in just two to three minutes. On another occasion, four worms vanished in 15 minutes between the pot's sides and the moderately compressed soil. In a third instance, three large worms and a small one were put on well-mixed loose soil with fine sand that had been firmly packed down, and they all disappeared, leaving only the tail of one, in 35 minutes. In a fourth instance, six large worms were placed on clayey mud mixed with sand that was tightly compressed, and they disappeared, except for the very tips of two tails, in 40 minutes. In none of these cases did the worms swallow any soil that could be observed. They typically dug into the ground close to the pot's edges.

A pot was next filled with very fine ferruginous sand, which was pressed down, well watered, and thus rendered extremely compact. A large worm left on the surface did not succeed in penetrating it for some hours, and did not bury itself completely until 25 hrs. 40 min. had elapsed. This was effected by the sand being swallowed, as was evident by the large quantity ejected from the vent, long before the whole body had disappeared. Castings of a similar nature continued to be ejected from the burrow during the whole of the following day.

A pot was then filled with very fine iron-rich sand, which was pressed down, thoroughly watered, and made extremely compact. A large worm left on the surface struggled to penetrate it for several hours and didn’t fully bury itself until 25 hours and 40 minutes had passed. This happened because the sand was being swallowed, as shown by the large amount ejected from the vent long before the entire body had vanished. Similar castings continued to be expelled from the burrow throughout the next day.

As doubts have been expressed by some writers whether worms ever swallow earth solely for the sake of making their burrows, some additional cases may be given. A mass of fine reddish sand, 23 inches in thickness, left on the ground for nearly two years, had been penetrated in many places by worms; and their castings consisted partly of the reddish sand and partly of black earth brought up from beneath the mass. This sand had been dug up from a considerable depth, and was of so poor a nature that weeds could not grow on it. It is therefore highly improbable that it should have been swallowed by the worms as food. Again in a field near my house the castings frequently consist of almost pure chalk, which lies at only a little depth beneath the surface; and here again it is very improbable that the chalk should have been swallowed for the sake of the very little organic matter which could have percolated into it from the poor overlying pasture. Lastly, a casting thrown up through the concrete and decayed mortar between the tiles, with which the now ruined aisle of Beaulieu Abbey had formerly been paved, was washed, so that the coarser matter alone was left. This consisted of grains of quartz, micaceous slate, other rocks, and bricks or tiles, many of them from 1/20 to 1/10 inch in diameter. No one will suppose that these grains were swallowed as food, yet they formed more than half of the casting, for they weighed 19 grains, the whole casting having weighed 33 grains. Whenever a worm burrows to a depth of some feet in undisturbed compact ground, it must form its passage by swallowing the earth; for it is incredible that the ground could yield on all sides to the pressure of the pharynx when pushed forwards within the worm’s body.

Some writers have questioned whether worms swallow earth just to create their burrows, so here are some more examples. A pile of fine reddish sand that was left on the ground for almost two years had been burrowed into by worms in several spots. Their castings were made up of both the reddish sand and black earth brought up from below. This sand was dug from a fair depth and was so poor that weeds couldn’t grow in it. So, it's very unlikely that worms consumed it for food. In another spot near my house, the castings often consist almost entirely of chalk, which is just slightly below the surface; again, it’s hard to believe that the worms would swallow the chalk for the minuscule organic matter that might have seeped into it from the poor pasture above. Finally, a casting that pushed through the concrete and crumbling mortar between the tiles in what was once the paved aisle of Beaulieu Abbey was washed, leaving only the coarser materials. This included grains of quartz, micaceous slate, other rocks, and bricks or tiles, many of which were between 1/20 and 1/10 inch wide. No one would think these grains were eaten as food, yet they made up more than half of the casting, weighing 19 grains total, while the entire casting weighed 33 grains. Whenever a worm burrows several feet deep into undisturbed, compact ground, it must create its tunnel by swallowing the earth; it’s hard to believe that the ground could somehow give way all around it due to the pressure of the worm’s throat pushing forward.

That worms swallow a larger quantity of earth for the sake of extracting any nutritious matter which it may contain than for making their burrows, appears to me certain. But as this old belief has been doubted by so high an authority as Claparède, evidence in its favour must be given in some detail. There is no à priori improbability in such a belief, for besides other annelids, especially the Arenicola marina, which throws up such a profusion of castings on our tidal sands, and which it is believed thus subsists, there are animals belonging to the most distinct classes, which do not burrow, but habitually swallow large quantities of sand; namely, the molluscan Onchidium and many Echinoderms. [97]

That worms consume a larger amount of soil to extract any nutrients it may contain rather than to build their burrows seems certain to me. However, since this old belief has been questioned by a respected authority like Claparède, evidence supporting it needs to be presented in detail. There is no inherent unlikelihood in such a belief, because aside from other annelids, especially the Arenicola marina, which creates such a large number of castings on our tidal sands and is believed to survive this way, there are animals from very different classes that do not burrow but regularly ingest large amounts of sand; namely, the molluscan Onchidium and many Echinoderms. [97]

If earth were swallowed only when worms deepened their burrows or made new ones, castings would be thrown up only occasionally; but in many places fresh castings may be seen every morning, and the amount of earth ejected from the same burrow on successive days is large. Yet worms do not burrow to a great depth, except when the weather is very dry or intensely cold. On my lawn the black vegetable mould or humus is only about 5 inches in thickness, and overlies light-coloured or reddish clayey soil: now when castings are thrown up in the greatest profusion, only a small proportion are light coloured, and it is incredible that the worms should daily make fresh burrows in every direction in the thin superficial layer of dark-coloured mould, unless they obtained nutriment of some kind from it. I have observed a strictly analogous case in a field near my house where bright red clay lay close beneath the surface. Again on one part of the Downs near Winchester the vegetable mould overlying the chalk was found to be only from 3 to 4 inches in thickness; and the many castings here ejected were as black as ink and did not effervesce with acids; so that the worms must have confined themselves to this thin superficial layer of mould, of which large quantities were daily swallowed. In another place at no great distance the castings were white; and why the worms should have burrowed into the chalk in some places and not in others, I am unable to conjecture.

If the earth were only swallowed when worms dug deeper or created new burrows, you’d see castings occasionally; however, in many areas, fresh castings can be spotted every morning, and the volume of earth produced from the same burrow over several days is considerable. Still, worms generally don’t dig very deeply unless the weather is extremely dry or very cold. On my lawn, the black vegetable mold or humus is only about 5 inches thick, sitting on top of light-colored or reddish clay soil. When castings are produced in large amounts, only a small portion is light-colored, making it hard to believe that worms would make new burrows in every direction within the thin upper layer of dark mold unless they were getting some kind of nourishment from it. I’ve noticed a similar situation in a field near my home where bright red clay lies just below the surface. Additionally, in one area of the Downs near Winchester, the vegetable mold over the chalk was only about 3 to 4 inches thick; the many castings found there were as black as ink and didn’t fizz with acids, indicating that the worms must have stuck to this thin top layer of mold, which they consumed in large quantities every day. In another nearby location, the castings were white; I can’t guess why the worms burrowed into the chalk in some places but not in others.

Two great piles of leaves had been left to decay in my grounds, and months after their removal, the bare surface, several yards in diameter, was so thickly covered during several months with castings that they formed an almost continuous layer; and the large number of worms which lived here must have subsisted during these months on nutritious matter contained in the black earth.

Two big piles of leaves had been left to rot on my property, and months after they were cleared away, the bare area, several yards wide, became so covered with castings over several months that it formed an almost continuous layer; the large number of worms living there must have survived during this time on the nutritious material found in the dark soil.

The lowest layer from another pile of decayed leaves mixed with some earth was examined under a high power, and the number of spores of various shapes and sizes which it contained was astonishingly great; and these crushed in the gizzards of worms may largely aid in supporting them. Whenever castings are thrown up in the greatest number, few or no leaves are drawn into the burrows; for instance the turf along a hedgerow, about 200 yards in length, was daily observed in the autumn during several weeks, and every morning many fresh castings were seen; but not a single leaf was drawn into these burrows. These castings from their blackness and from the nature of the subsoil could not have been brought up from a greater depth than 6 or 8 inches. On what could these worms have subsisted during this whole time, if not on matter contained in the black earth? On the other hand, whenever a large number of leaves are drawn into the burrows, the worms seem to subsist chiefly on them, for few earth-castings are then ejected on the surface. This difference in the behaviour of worms at different times, perhaps explains a statement by Claparède, namely, that triturated leaves and earth are always found in distinct parts of their intestines.

The bottom layer from another pile of decayed leaves mixed with some soil was examined under a high power, and the number of spores of various shapes and sizes it contained was incredibly high; these crushed in the gizzards of worms likely help sustain them. Whenever castings are produced in large numbers, few or no leaves are drawn into the burrows; for example, the grass along a hedgerow, about 200 yards long, was observed daily in the autumn over several weeks, and each morning many fresh castings were seen, but not a single leaf was pulled into these burrows. These castings, based on their blackness and the type of subsoil, couldn't have come from deeper than 6 to 8 inches. What could these worms have eaten during this entire time if not the material in the black earth? On the other hand, when a large number of leaves are taken into the burrows, the worms seem to primarily feed on them, as few earth castings are then ejected on the surface. This difference in the worms' behavior at different times might explain a statement by Claparède, which says that ground leaves and earth are always found in separate parts of their intestines.

Worms sometimes abound in places where they can rarely or never obtain dead or living leaves; for instance, beneath the pavement in well-swept courtyards, into which leaves are only occasionally blown. My son Horace examined a house, one corner of which had subsided; and he found here in the cellar, which was extremely damp, many small worm-castings thrown up between the stones with which the cellar was paved; and in this case it is improbable that the worms could ever have obtained leaves. Mr. A. C. Horner confirms this account, as he has seen castings in the cellars of his house, which is an old one at Tonbridge.

Worms can sometimes thrive in places where they hardly ever find dead or living leaves; for example, under the pavement in well-kept courtyards where leaves are rarely blown in. My son Horace looked at a house where one corner had sunk, and he discovered in the cellar, which was very damp, many small worm castings pushed up between the stones that paved the cellar; in this situation, it’s unlikely that the worms could have ever found leaves. Mr. A. C. Horner supports this story, as he has seen castings in the cellars of his own old house in Tonbridge.

But the best evidence, known to me, of worms subsisting for at least considerable periods of time solely on the organic matter contained in earth, is afforded by some facts communicated to me by Dr. King. Near Nice large castings abound in extraordinary numbers, so that 5 or 6 were often found within the space of a square foot. They consist of fine, pale-coloured earth, containing calcareous matter, which after having passed through the bodies of worms and being dried, coheres with considerable force. I have reason to believe that these castings had been formed by species of Perichæta, which have been naturalized here from the East. [101] They rise like towers, with their summits often a little broader than their bases, sometimes to a height of above 3 and often to a height of 2½ inches. The tallest of those which were measured was 3.3 inches in height and 1 inch in diameter. A small cylindrical passage runs up the centre of each tower, through which the worm ascends to eject the earth which it has swallowed, and thus to add to its height. A structure of this kind would not allow leaves being easily dragged from the surrounding ground into the burrows; and Dr. King, who looked carefully, never saw even a fragment of a leaf thus drawn in. Nor could any trace be discovered of the worms having crawled down the exterior surfaces of the towers in search of leaves; and had they done so, tracks would almost certainly have been left on the upper part whilst it remained soft. It does not, however, follow that these worms do not draw leaves into their burrows during some other season of the year, at which time they would not build up their towers.

But the best evidence I know of worms living for significant periods solely on the organic matter in the soil comes from some facts shared with me by Dr. King. Near Nice, there are incredibly large amounts of castings, with 5 or 6 often found in a square foot. These consist of fine, pale-colored earth, containing lime, which, after passing through the bodies of worms and drying, sticks together with considerable strength. I believe these castings were made by species of Perichæta, which have been introduced here from the East. [101] They rise like towers, often a bit wider at the top than at the bottom, sometimes reaching over 3 inches and often 2½ inches tall. The tallest one measured was 3.3 inches high and 1 inch in diameter. A small cylindrical passage runs up the center of each tower, allowing the worm to climb up and eject the earth it has swallowed, adding to its height. A structure like this wouldn’t easily allow leaves to be dragged from the surrounding ground into the burrows, and Dr. King, who looked closely, never saw even a piece of a leaf pulled in. There was also no sign of worms crawling down the outer surfaces of the towers in search of leaves; if they had, there would likely have been tracks left on the upper part while it was still soft. However, this doesn’t mean that these worms don’t bring leaves into their burrows during other seasons of the year when they aren't building up their towers.

From the several foregoing cases, it can hardly be doubted that worms swallow earth, not only for the sake of making their burrows, but for obtaining food. Hensen, however, concludes from his analyses of mould that worms probably could not live on ordinary vegetable mould, though he admits that they might be nourished to some extent by leaf-mould. [102] But we have seen that worms eagerly devour raw meat, fat, and dead worms; and ordinary mould can hardly fail to contain many ova, larvæ, and small living or dead creatures, spores of cryptogamic plants, and micrococci, such as those which give rise to saltpetre. These various organisms, together with some cellulose from any leaves and roots not utterly decayed, might well account for such large quantities of mould being swallowed by worms. It may be worth while here to recall the fact that certain species of Utricularia, which grow in damp places in the tropics, possess bladders beautifully constructed for catching minute subterranean animals; and these traps would not have been developed unless many small animals inhabited such soil.

From the various cases mentioned earlier, it’s hard to doubt that worms consume earth, not just to create their burrows, but also to find food. However, Hensen concludes from his analyses of mold that worms probably can’t survive solely on regular vegetable mold, although he acknowledges they might be somewhat nourished by leaf mold. [102] But we’ve observed that worms eagerly feast on raw meat, fat, and even dead worms; and ordinary mold is likely to contain many eggs, larvae, and small living or dead creatures, as well as spores from certain plants and microorganisms that can lead to saltpeter formation. These various organisms, along with some cellulose from any leaves and roots that aren’t completely decayed, could easily explain why worms consume such large amounts of mold. It might be useful to remember that certain species of Utricularia, found in wet areas in tropical regions, have bladders intricately designed to catch tiny underground animals; these traps wouldn’t have evolved unless many small creatures inhabited that type of soil.

The depth to which worms penetrate, and the construction of their burrows.—Although worms usually live near the surface, yet they burrow to a considerable depth during long-continued dry weather and severe cold. In Scandinavia, according to Eisen, and in Scotland, according to Mr. Lindsay Carnagie, the burrows run down to a depth of from 7 to 8 feet; in North Germany, according to Hoffmeister, from 6 to 8 feet, but Hensen says, from 3 to 6 feet. This latter observer has seen worms frozen at a depth of 1½ feet beneath the surface. I have not myself had many opportunities for observation, but I have often met with worms at depths of 3 to 4 feet. In a bed of fine sand overlying the chalk, which had never been disturbed, a worm was cut into two at 55 inches, and another was found here at Down in December at the bottom of its burrow, at 61 inches beneath the surface. Lastly, in earth near an old Roman Villa, which had not been disturbed for many centuries, a worm was met with at a depth of 66 inches; and this was in the middle of August.

The depth to which worms burrow, and the structure of their tunnels.—Although worms typically live close to the surface, they can dig down quite deep during long periods of dry weather and extreme cold. In Scandinavia, according to Eisen, and in Scotland, according to Mr. Lindsay Carnagie, their burrows can reach depths of 7 to 8 feet. In North Germany, Hoffmeister reports depths of 6 to 8 feet, though Hensen states they go down from 3 to 6 feet. This latter observer has noted worms frozen at a depth of 1½ feet below the surface. I haven't had many chances to observe this myself, but I have frequently found worms at depths of 3 to 4 feet. In a bed of fine sand over chalk that had never been disturbed, one worm was found cut in half at 55 inches, and another was discovered here at Down in December at the bottom of its burrow, 61 inches beneath the surface. Lastly, in soil near an old Roman Villa that hadn't been disturbed for many centuries, a worm was found at a depth of 66 inches; this was in mid-August.

The burrows run down perpendicularly, or more commonly a little obliquely. They are said sometimes to branch, but as far as I have seen this does not occur, except in recently dug ground and near the surface. They are generally, or as I believe invariably, lined with a thin layer of fine, dark-coloured earth voided by the worms; so that they must at first be made a little wider than their ultimate diameter. I have seen several burrows in undisturbed sand thus lined at a depth of 4 ft. 6 in.; and others close to the surface thus lined in recently dug ground. The walls of fresh burrows are often dotted with little globular pellets of voided earth, still soft and viscid; and these, as it appears, are spread out on all sides by the worm as it travels up or down its burrow. The lining thus formed becomes very compact and smooth when nearly dry, and closely fits the worm’s body. The minute reflexed bristles which project in rows on all sides from the body, thus have excellent points of support; and the burrow is rendered well adapted for the rapid movement of the animal. The lining appears also to strengthen the walls, and perhaps saves the worm’s body from being scratched. I think so because several burrows which passed through a layer of sifted coal-cinders, spread over turf to a thickness of 1½ inch, had been thus lined to an unusual thickness. In this case the worms, judging from the castings, had pushed the cinders away on all sides and had not swallowed any of them. In another place, burrows similarly lined, passed through a layer of coarse coal-cinders, 3½ inches in thickness. We thus see that the burrows are not mere excavations, but may rather be compared with tunnels lined with cement.

The burrows go down straight or, more commonly, at a slight angle. They’re sometimes said to branch out, but from what I’ve seen, this only happens in freshly dug soil and near the surface. Generally, or so I believe, they’re always lined with a thin layer of fine, dark soil that the worms have expelled; this means they must initially be made a bit wider than their final diameter. I’ve observed several burrows in undisturbed sand lined like this at a depth of 4 ft. 6 in., and others near the surface in recently disturbed soil. The walls of new burrows are often covered with small, round pellets of expelled soil that are still soft and sticky; these seem to be spread around by the worm as it moves up or down its burrow. The lining becomes very compact and smooth when it’s nearly dry, closely fitting the worm’s body. The tiny backward-facing bristles that stick out in rows from the body provide great support, allowing the burrow to be well-suited for the worm's quick movements. The lining also appears to reinforce the walls, possibly helping to protect the worm’s body from being scratched. I think this is true because some burrows that went through a layer of sifted coal cinders, with a thickness of 1½ inches, had this lining built up unusually thick. In this case, the worms, judging by the castings, had pushed the cinders away on all sides and hadn’t swallowed any. In another spot, similarly lined burrows went through a layer of coarse coal cinders that were 3½ inches thick. This shows that the burrows aren't just simple holes; they’re better compared to tunnels lined with cement.

The mouths of the burrow are in addition often lined with leaves; and this is an instinct distinct from that of plugging them up, and does not appear to have been hitherto noticed. Many leaves of the Scotch-fir or pine (Pinus sylvestris) were given to worms kept in confinement in two pots; and when after several weeks the earth was carefully broken up, the upper parts of three oblique burrows were found surrounded for lengths of 7, 4, and 3½ inches with pine-leaves, together with fragments of other leaves which had been given the worms as food. Glass beads and bits of tile, which had been strewed on the surface of the soil, were stuck into the interstices between the pine-leaves; and these interstices were likewise plastered with the viscid castings voided by the worms. The structures thus formed cohered so well, that I succeeded in removing one with only a little earth adhering to it. It consisted of a slightly curved cylindrical case, the interior of which could be seen through holes in the sides and at either end. The pine-leaves had all been drawn in by their bases; and the sharp points of the needles had been pressed into the lining of voided earth. Had this not been effectually done, the sharp points would have prevented the retreat of the worms into their burrows; and these structures would have resembled traps armed with converging points of wire, rendering the ingress of an animal easy and its egress difficult or impossible. The skill shown by these worms is noteworthy and is the more remarkable, as the Scotch pine is not a native of this district.

The entrances of the burrows are often lined with leaves; this behavior is different from simply blocking the burrows and seems to have gone unnoticed until now. I provided worms kept in captivity with many leaves from the Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) in two pots. After several weeks, when I carefully dug up the soil, I found the upper parts of three slanted burrows surrounded by lengths of 7, 4, and 3½ inches of pine leaves, along with bits of other leaves that the worms had eaten. Glass beads and pieces of tile that I scattered on the surface of the soil were wedged into the gaps between the pine leaves, which were also coated with the sticky waste produced by the worms. These structures were so well-formed that I was able to lift one out with only a little soil clinging to it. It was a slightly curved cylindrical casing, and I could see inside through holes in the sides and at each end. The pine leaves had all been pulled in by their bases, and the sharp tips of the needles had been pressed into the lining of the excavated earth. If this hadn’t been done properly, the sharp points would have made it difficult for the worms to retreat into their burrows, and the structures would have acted like traps with converging wires, allowing an animal to enter easily but making it hard or impossible to leave. The skill displayed by these worms is impressive, especially since the Scotch pine isn’t native to this area.

After having examined these burrows made by worms in confinement, I looked at those in a flower-bed near some Scotch pines. These had all been plugged up in the ordinary manner with the leaves of this tree, drawn in for a length of from 1 to 1½ inch; but the mouths of many of them were likewise lined with them, mingled with fragments of other kinds of leaves, drawn in to a depth of 4 or 5 inches. Worms often remain, as formerly stated, for a long time close to the mouths of their burrows, apparently for warmth; and the basket-like structures formed of leaves would keep their bodies from coming into close contact with the cold damp earth. That they habitually rested on the pine-leaves, was rendered probable by their clean and almost polished surfaces.

After examining the worm burrows in confinement, I looked at those in a flower bed near some Scots pines. These burrows were all blocked in the usual way with leaves from this tree, extending about 1 to 1½ inches in length; however, many of their openings were also lined with these leaves, mixed with bits of other types of leaves, going down about 4 to 5 inches. As mentioned earlier, worms often stay close to the entrances of their burrows for extended periods, seemingly for warmth; the basket-like structures made of leaves would prevent their bodies from touching the cold damp ground. It seemed likely that they regularly rested on the pine leaves, as evidenced by their clean and almost polished surfaces.

The burrows which run far down into the ground, generally, or at least often, terminate in a little enlargement or chamber. Here, according to Hoffmeister, one or several worms pass the winter rolled up into a ball. Mr. Lindsay Carnagie informed me (1838) that he had examined many burrows over a stone-quarry in Scotland, where the overlying boulder-clay and mould had recently been cleared away, and a little vertical cliff thus left. In several cases the same burrow was a little enlarged at two or three points one beneath the other; and all the burrows terminated in a rather large chamber, at a depth of 7 or 8 feet from the surface. These chambers contained many small sharp bits of stone and husks of flax-seeds. They must also have contained living seeds, for on the following spring Mr. Carnagie saw grass-plants sprouting out of some of the intersected chambers. I found at Abinger in Surrey two burrows terminating in similar chambers at a depth of 36 and 41 inches, and these were lined or paved with little pebbles, about as large as mustard seeds; and in one of the chambers there was a decayed oat-grain, with its husk. Hensen likewise states that the bottoms of the burrows are lined with little stones; and where these could not be procured, seeds, apparently of the pear, had been used, as many as fifteen having been carried down into a single burrow, one of which had germinated. [108] We thus see how easily a botanist might be deceived who wished to learn how long deeply buried seeds remained alive, if he were to collect earth from a considerable depth, on the supposition that it could contain only seeds which had long lain buried. It is probable that the little stones, as well as the seeds, are carried down from the surface by being swallowed; for a surprising number of glass beads, bits of tile and of glass were certainly thus carried down by worms kept in pots; but some may have been carried down within their mouths. The sole conjecture which I can form why worms line their winter-quarters with little stones and seeds, is to prevent their closely coiled-up bodies from coming into close contact with the surrounding cold soil; and such contact would perhaps interfere with their respiration which is effected by the skin alone.

The burrows that go deep into the ground usually end in a small widening or chamber. According to Hoffmeister, one or more worms curl up in a ball to spend the winter there. Mr. Lindsay Carnagie told me in 1838 that he had checked out numerous burrows above a stone quarry in Scotland, where the top layer of boulder clay and soil had recently been removed, creating a small vertical cliff. In several instances, the same burrow was slightly wider at two or three points stacked on top of each other, and all the burrows finished in a fairly large chamber about 7 or 8 feet below the surface. These chambers contained many tiny sharp stones and flax seed husks. They must have also had live seeds inside because the following spring, Mr. Carnagie noticed grass plants sprouting from some of the chambers. I found two burrows at Abinger in Surrey that ended in similar chambers at depths of 36 and 41 inches, and these were lined or paved with small pebbles about the size of mustard seeds. In one chamber, there was a decayed oat grain with its husk. Hensen also mentions that the bottoms of the burrows are lined with small stones; and where stones weren’t available, seeds, seemingly from pears, were used, with as many as fifteen being taken into a single burrow, one of which had sprouted. [108] We can see how easily a botanist trying to find out how long buried seeds can survive might be misled if they collected soil from a significant depth, assuming it would only contain seeds that had been buried for a long time. It's likely that both the small stones and seeds are brought down from the surface by being swallowed; many glass beads, bits of tile, and glass were definitely carried down this way by worms kept in pots, though some might have been taken in through their mouths. The only idea I have as to why worms line their winter homes with small stones and seeds is to keep their tightly coiled bodies from coming into direct contact with the cold surrounding soil, which might disrupt their respiration, since they breathe through their skin.

A worm after swallowing earth, whether for making its burrow or for food, soon comes to the surface to empty its body. The ejected earth is thoroughly mingled with the intestinal secretions, and is thus rendered viscid. After being dried it sets hard. I have watched worms during the act of ejection, and when the earth was in a very liquid state it was ejected in little spurts, and by a slow peristaltic movement when not so liquid. It is not cast indifferently on any side, but with some care, first on one and then on another side; the tail being used almost like a trowel. When a worm comes to the surface to eject earth, the tail protrudes, but when it collects leaves its head must protrude. Worms therefore must have the power of turning round in their closely-fitting burrows; and this, as it appears to us, would be a difficult feat. As soon as a little heap has been formed, the worm apparently avoids, for the sake of safety, protruding its tail; and the earthy matter is forced up through the previously deposited soft mass. The mouth of the same burrow is used for this purpose for a considerable time. In the case of the tower-like castings (see Fig. 2) near Nice, and of the similar but still taller towers from Bengal (hereafter to be described and figured), a considerable degree of skill is exhibited in their construction. Dr. King also observed that the passage up these towers hardly ever ran in the same exact line with the underlying burrow, so that a thin cylindrical object such as a haulm of grass, could not be passed down the tower into the burrow; and this change of direction probably serves in some manner as a protection.

A worm, after swallowing soil, whether to create its burrow or for food, quickly comes to the surface to empty its body. The expelled soil is mixed with intestinal secretions, making it sticky. Once it dries, it hardens. I have observed worms during this process, and when the soil was very liquid, it was expelled in little spurts, whereas when it was less liquid, it came out with a slow peristaltic movement. The soil isn’t just thrown out randomly; the worm carefully places it on one side and then the other, using its tail almost like a trowel. When a worm surfaces to expel soil, its tail comes out, but when it gathers leaves, its head comes out instead. This means worms can turn around in their snug burrows, which seems like a tricky maneuver to us. Once a little pile of soil has formed, the worm seems to avoid sticking out its tail for safety, forcing the soil up through the softer material it has already deposited. The same entrance to the burrow is used for this purpose for quite a while. In the case of the tower-like castings (see Fig. 2) near Nice, and the similar but even taller towers from Bengal (to be described and illustrated later), there’s a notable skill in how they are built. Dr. King also noticed that the pathway up these towers rarely aligned directly with the burrow below, so a thin cylindrical object, like a blade of grass, couldn’t be pushed down from the tower into the burrow; this change in direction likely provides some form of protection.

Worms do not always eject their castings on the surface of the ground. When they can find any cavity, as when burrowing in newly turned-up earth, or between the stems of banked-up plants, they deposit their castings in such places. So again any hollow beneath a large stone lying on the surface of the ground, is soon filled up with their castings. According to Hensen, old burrows are habitually used for this purpose; but as far as my experience serves, this is not the case, excepting with those near the surface in recently dug ground. I think that Hensen may have been deceived by the walls of old burrows, lined with black earth, having sunk in or collapsed; for black streaks are thus left, and these are conspicuous when passing through light-coloured soil, and might be mistaken for completely filled-up burrows.

Worms don’t always leave their castings on the ground’s surface. When they find any space, like when they burrow in freshly turned earth or between the stems of piled-up plants, they deposit their castings in those areas. Similarly, any hollow beneath a large stone on the ground’s surface quickly fills with their castings. According to Hensen, old burrows are regularly used for this purpose; however, based on my experience, that’s not true, except for those close to the surface in recently dug soil. I believe Hensen may have been misled by the walls of old burrows that are lined with black earth sinking or collapsing; this creates black streaks that stand out against lighter soil, which could be mistaken for completely filled burrows.

It is certain that old burrows collapse in the course of time; for as we shall see in the next chapter, the fine earth voided by worms, if spread out uniformly, would form in many places in the course of a year a layer 0.2 of an inch in thickness; so that at any rate this large amount is not deposited within the old unused burrows. If the burrows did not collapse, the whole ground would be first thickly riddled with holes to a depth of about ten inches, and in fifty years a hollow unsupported space, ten inches in depth, would be left. The holes left by the decay of successively formed roots of trees and plants must likewise collapse in the course of time.

Old burrows definitely collapse over time; as we’ll see in the next chapter, the fine dirt left behind by worms, when spread out evenly, would create a layer about 0.2 inches thick in many places over the course of a year. So, this large amount isn’t deposited in the old, unused burrows. If the burrows didn’t collapse, the ground would first be filled with holes down to about ten inches deep, and after fifty years, a hollow space ten inches deep would be left unsupported. The holes created by the decaying roots of trees and plants must also eventually collapse over time.

The burrows of worms run down perpendicularly or a little obliquely, and where the soil is at all argillaceous, there is no difficulty in believing that the walls would slowly flow or slide inwards during very wet weather. When, however, the soil is sandy or mingled with many small stones, it can hardly be viscous enough to flow inwards during even the wettest weather; but another agency may here come into play. After much rain the ground swells, and as it cannot expand laterally, the surface rises; during dry weather it sinks again. For instance, a large flat stone laid on the surface of a field sank 3.33 mm. whilst the weather was dry between May 9th and June 13th, and rose 1.91 mm, between September 7th and 19th of the same year, much rain having fallen during the latter part of this time. During frosts and thaws the movements were twice as great. These observations were made by my son Horace, who will hereafter publish an account of the movements of this stone during successive wet and dry seasons, and of the effects of its being undermined by worms. Now when the ground swells, if it be penetrated by cylindrical holes, such as worm-burrows, their walls will tend to yield and be pressed inwards; and the yielding will be greater in the deeper parts (supposing the whole to be equally moistened) from the greater weight of the superincumbent soil which has to be raised, than in the parts near the surface. When the ground dries, the walls will shrink a little and the burrows will be a little enlarged. Their enlargement, however, through the lateral contraction of the ground, will not be favoured, but rather opposed, by the weight of the superincumbent soil.

The burrows of worms go straight down or at a slight angle, and where the soil has any clay, it’s easy to believe that the walls could slowly flow or slide inward during very wet weather. However, when the soil is sandy or mixed with small stones, it probably isn't gooey enough to shift inward even in the heaviest downpours; but another factor could be at play here. After a lot of rain, the ground expands, and since it can't spread out sideways, the surface rises; during dry periods, it sinks back down. For example, a large flat stone placed on a field's surface sank 3.33 mm while it was dry between May 9th and June 13th, and it rose 1.91 mm between September 7th and 19th of the same year, after significant rain had fallen in that time. During freezes and thaws, the movements were even more pronounced. These observations were made by my son Horace, who will later publish a report on the movements of this stone during different wet and dry seasons, and on the effects of it being undermined by worms. Now, when the ground expands and is filled with cylindrical holes, like worm burrows, their walls will tend to give way and be pushed inward; and this give will be more pronounced in the deeper areas (assuming everything is equally moist) because of the greater weight of the soil above that needs to be lifted, compared to the sections closer to the surface. When the ground dries out, the walls will shrink a bit, and the burrows will enlarge slightly. However, their enlargement due to the lateral shrinking of the ground will be hindered rather than helped by the weight of the soil above.

Distribution of Worms.—Earth-worms are found in all parts of the world, and some of the genera have an enormous range. [113] They inhabit the most isolated islands; they abound in Iceland, and are known to exist in the West Indies, St. Helena, Madagascar, New Caledonia and Tahiti. In the Antarctic regions, worms from Kerguelen Land have been described by Ray Lankester; and I found them in the Falkland Islands. How they reach such isolated islands is at present quite unknown. They are easily killed by salt-water, and it does not appear probable that young worms or their egg-capsules could be carried in earth adhering to the feet or beaks of land-birds. Moreover Kerguelen Land is not now inhabited by any land-bird.

Distribution of Worms.—Earthworms are found all over the world, and some species have an extensive range. [113] They live on the most remote islands; they are plentiful in Iceland, and are known to exist in the West Indies, St. Helena, Madagascar, New Caledonia, and Tahiti. In the Antarctic regions, worms from Kerguelen Land were described by Ray Lankester; I also found them in the Falkland Islands. How they reach such isolated islands is still unknown. They are easily killed by saltwater, and it doesn't seem likely that young worms or their egg capsules could be transported in soil clinging to the feet or beaks of land birds. Additionally, Kerguelen Land currently has no land birds.

In this volume we are chiefly concerned with the earth cast up by worms, and I have gleaned a few facts on this subject with respect to distant lands. Worms throw up plenty of castings in the United States. In Venezuela, castings, probably ejected by species of Urochæta, are common in the gardens and fields, but not in the forests, as I hear from Dr. Ernst of Caracas. He collected 156 castings from the court-yard of his house, having an area of 200 square yards. They varied in bulk from half a cubic centimeter to five cubic centimeters, and were on an average three cubic centimeters. They were, therefore, of small size in comparison with those often found in England; for six large castings from a field near my house averaged 16 cubic centimeters. Several species of earth-worms are common in St. Catharina in South Brazil, and Fritz Müller informs me “that in most parts of the forests and pasture-lands, the whole soil, to a depth of a quarter of a metre, looks as if it had passed repeatedly through the intestines of earth-worms, even where hardly any castings are to be seen on the surface.” A gigantic but very rare species is found there, the burrows of which are sometimes even two centimeters or nearly 0.8 of an inch in diameter, and which apparently penetrate the ground to a great depth.

In this book, we mainly focus on the soil created by worms, and I've gathered some information about this topic from different regions. Worms produce a lot of castings in the United States. In Venezuela, castings, likely produced by species of Urochæta, are common in gardens and fields, but not in forests, according to Dr. Ernst from Caracas. He collected 156 castings from the courtyard of his house, which is 200 square yards in size. They ranged from half a cubic centimeter to five cubic centimeters in size, averaging around three cubic centimeters. Compared to those often found in England, these are relatively small; for example, six large castings from a field near my home averaged 16 cubic centimeters. Various species of earthworms are common in St. Catharina, South Brazil, and Fritz Müller tells me “that in most areas of the forests and pasturelands, the entire soil, up to a depth of a quarter meter, looks like it has been processed through earthworm intestines, even where there are hardly any castings visible on the surface.” There’s also a large but very rare species found there, whose burrows can be as much as two centimeters or nearly 0.8 inches in diameter, and these worms seem to dig deep into the ground.

In the dry climate of New South Wales, I hardly expected that worms would be common; but Dr. G. Krefft of Sydney, to whom I applied, after making inquiries from gardeners and others, and from his own observations, informs me that their castings abound. He sent me some collected after heavy rain, and they consisted of little pellets, about 0.15 inch in diameter; and the blackened sandy earth of which they were formed still cohered with considerable tenacity.

In the dry climate of New South Wales, I didn’t expect worms to be common; but Dr. G. Krefft of Sydney, whom I reached out to after asking gardeners and others, and based on his own observations, told me that their castings are everywhere. He sent me some collected after heavy rain, and they were made up of little pellets, about 0.15 inch in diameter; and the black sandy soil they were made from still held together quite firmly.

The late Mr. John Scott of the Botanic Gardens near Calcutta made many observations for me on worms living under the hot and humid climate of Bengal. The castings abound almost everywhere, in jungles and in the open ground, to a greater degree, as he thinks, than in England. After the water has subsided from the flooded rice-fields, the whole surface very soon becomes studded with castings—a fact which much surprised Mr. Scott, as he did not know how long worms could survive beneath water. They cause much trouble in the Botanic garden, “for some of the finest of our lawns can be kept in anything like order only by being almost daily rolled; if left undisturbed for a few days they become studded with large castings.” These closely resemble those described as abounding near Nice; and they are probably the work of a species of Perichæta. They stand up like towers, with an open passage in the centre.

The late Mr. John Scott from the Botanic Gardens near Calcutta made many observations for me about worms living in the hot and humid climate of Bengal. The castings are almost everywhere, in jungles and on open ground, and he believes they are more abundant than in England. After the water recedes from the flooded rice fields, the entire surface quickly becomes covered with castings—a fact that surprised Mr. Scott, as he did not know how long worms could survive underwater. They cause a lot of issues in the Botanic Garden, “because some of our finest lawns can only be kept in decent condition if we roll them almost daily; if left unattended for a few days, they become covered with large castings.” These closely resemble those found near Nice, and they are likely made by a species of Perichæta. They stand up like towers, with an open passage in the center.

A figure of one of these castings from a photograph is here given (Fig. 3). The largest received by me was 3½ inches in height and 1.35 inch in diameter; another was only ¾ inch in diameter and 2¾ in height. In the following year, Mr. Scott measured several of the largest; one was 6 inches in height and nearly 1½ in diameter: two others were 5 inches in height and respectively 2 and rather more than 2½ inches in diameter. The average weight of the 22 castings sent to me was 35 grammes (1¼ oz.); and one of them weighed 44.8 grammes (or 2 oz.). All these castings were thrown up either in one night or in two. Where the ground in Bengal is dry, as under large trees, castings of a different kind are found in vast numbers: these consist of little oval or conical bodies, from about the 1/20 to rather above 1/10 of an inch in length. They are obviously voided by a distinct species of worms.

A figure of one of these castings from a photograph is presented here (Fig. 3). The largest one I received was 3½ inches tall and 1.35 inches in diameter; another was only ¾ inch in diameter and 2¾ inches tall. The following year, Mr. Scott measured several of the largest ones; one was 6 inches tall and nearly 1½ inches in diameter: two others were 5 inches tall and about 2 and just over 2½ inches in diameter, respectively. The average weight of the 22 castings sent to me was 35 grams (1¼ oz.); and one of them weighed 44.8 grams (or 2 oz.). All these castings were formed either in one night or over two nights. In areas of Bengal where the ground is dry, like under large trees, a different type of casting is found in great numbers: these consist of small oval or conical shapes, measuring between about 1/20 and just over 1/10 of an inch in length. They are clearly produced by a distinct species of worms.

The period during which worms near Calcutta display such extraordinary activity lasts for only a little over two months, namely, during the cool season after the rains. At this time they are generally found within about 10 inches beneath the surface. During the hot season they burrow to a greater depth, and are then found coiled up and apparently hybernating. Mr. Scott has never seen them at a greater depth than 2½ feet, but has heard of their having been found at 4 feet. Within the forests, fresh castings may be found even during the hot season. The worms in the Botanic garden, during the cool and dry season, draw many leaves and little sticks into the mouths of their burrows, like our English worms; but they rarely act in this manner during the rainy season.

The time when worms near Calcutta show such remarkable activity only lasts for just over two months, specifically during the cool season after the rains. During this period, they are usually found about 10 inches below the surface. In the hot season, they dig deeper and are often found coiled up and seemingly hibernating. Mr. Scott has never seen them deeper than 2½ feet but has heard of them being found at 4 feet. In the forests, fresh castings can still be found even in the hot season. The worms in the Botanic garden, during the cool and dry season, pull many leaves and small sticks into the openings of their burrows, similar to English worms; however, they rarely do this during the rainy season.

Mr. Scott saw worm-castings on the lofty mountains of Sikkim in North India. In South India Dr. King found in one place, on the plateau of the Nilgiris, at an elevation of 7000 feet, “a good many castings,” which are interesting for their great size. The worms which eject them are seen only during the wet season, and are reported to be from 12 to 15 inches in length, and as thick as a man’s little finger. These castings were collected by Dr. King after a period of 110 days without any rain; and they must have been ejected either during the north-east or more probably during the previous south-west monsoon; for their surfaces had suffered some disintegration and they were penetrated by many fine roots. A drawing is here given (Fig. 4) of one which seems to have best retained its original size and appearance. Notwithstanding some loss from disintegration, five of the largest of these castings (after having been well sun-dried) weighed each on an average 89.5 grammes, or above 3 oz.; and the largest weighed 123.14 grammes, or 4⅓ oz.,—that is, above a quarter of a pound! The largest convolutions were rather more than one inch in diameter; but it is probable that they had subsided a little whilst soft, and that their diameters had thus been increased. Some had flowed so much that they now consisted of a pile of almost flat confluent cakes. All were formed of fine, rather light-coloured earth, and were surprisingly hard and compact, owing no doubt to the animal matter by which the particles of earth had been cemented together. They did not disintegrate, even when left for some hours in water. Although they had been cast up on the surface of gravelly soil, they contained extremely few bits of rock, the largest of which was only 0.15 inch in diameter.

Mr. Scott observed worm castings on the high mountains of Sikkim in North India. In South India, Dr. King found numerous castings in one spot on the Nilgiri plateau, at an elevation of 7,000 feet, which were notable for their size. The worms that produce these castings are only seen during the rainy season and are reported to be between 12 to 15 inches long and as thick as a person's little finger. Dr. King collected these castings after 110 days without rain; they must have been produced either during the northeast monsoon or, more likely, during the previous southwest monsoon, as their surfaces had experienced some disintegration and were filled with many fine roots. A drawing is included (Fig. 4) of one that seems to have best maintained its original size and appearance. Despite some loss due to disintegration, five of the largest castings (after being well dry in the sun) averaged 89.5 grams, or just over 3 ounces each, and the largest weighed 123.14 grams, or 4⅓ ounces—which is over a quarter of a pound! The biggest sections were slightly over one inch in diameter, but it’s likely they expanded a bit while still soft. Some had spread so much that they now formed a pile of nearly flat, connected cakes. All were made of fine, somewhat light-colored soil, and were surprisingly hard and compact, likely due to the organic matter that held the soil particles together. They didn’t break apart even when left in water for several hours. Although they were found on gravelly soil, they contained very few bits of rock, the largest being only 0.15 inch in diameter.

Dr. King saw in Ceylon a worm about 2 feet in length and ½ inch in diameter; and he was told that it was a very common species during the wet season. These worms must throw up castings at least as large as those on the Nilgiri Mountains; but Dr. King saw none during his short visit to Ceylon.

Dr. King saw a worm in Ceylon that was about 2 feet long and ½ inch wide. He was informed that it was a very common species during the rainy season. These worms should produce castings at least as large as those found on the Nilgiri Mountains, but Dr. King didn't see any during his brief visit to Ceylon.

Sufficient facts have now been given, showing that worms do much work in bringing up fine earth to the surface in most or all parts of the world, and under the most different climates.

Sufficient facts have now been presented, showing that worms do a lot of work in bringing fine soil to the surface in most or all parts of the world, and in a variety of climates.

p. 121CHAPTER III.
THE QUANTITY OF FINE SOIL MOVED TO THE SURFACE BY WORMS.

Rate at which various objects strewed on the surface of grass-fields are covered up by the castings of worms—The burial of a paved path—The slow subsidence of great stones left on the surface—The number of worms which live within a given space—The weight of earth ejected from a burrow, and from all the burrows within a given space—The thickness of the layer of mould which the castings on a given space would form within a given time if uniformly spread out—The slow rate at which mould can increase to a great thickness—Conclusion.

Rate at which different objects scattered on grass fields get covered by worm castings—The burial of a paved path—The slow sinking of large stones left on the surface—The number of worms living in a certain area—The weight of soil expelled from a burrow, and from all the burrows in a specific area—The thickness of the layer of soil that the castings in a certain area would form over time if spread evenly—The slow rate at which soil can build up to a significant thickness—Conclusion.

We now come to the more immediate subject of this volume, namely, the amount of earth which is brought up by worms from beneath the surface, and is afterwards spread out more or less completely by the rain and wind. The amount can be judged of by two methods,—by the rate at which objects left on the surface are buried, and more accurately by weighing the quantity brought up within a given time. We will begin with the first method, as it was first followed.

We now turn to the main topic of this volume, which is the amount of earth that worms bring up from below the surface and that is later distributed, to varying degrees, by rain and wind. We can assess this amount using two methods: by observing how quickly objects left on the surface get buried, and more precisely, by weighing the quantity that is brought up over a specific time period. We will start with the first method, as it was the original approach used.

Near Mael Hall in Staffordshire, quick-lime had been spread about the year 1827 thickly over a field of good pasture-land, which had not since been ploughed. Some square holes were dug in this field in the beginning of October 1837; and the sections showed a layer of turf, formed by the matted roots of the grasses, ½ inch in thickness, beneath which, at a depth of 2½ inches (or 3 inches from the surface), a layer of the lime in powder or in small lumps could be distinctly seen running all round the vertical sides of the holes. The soil beneath the layer of lime was either gravelly or of a coarse sandy nature, and differed considerably in appearance from the overlying dark-coloured fine mould. Coal-cinders had been spread over a part of this same field either in the year 1833 or 1834; and when the above holes were dug, that is after an interval of 3 or 4 years, the cinders formed a line of black spots round the holes, at a depth of 1 inch beneath the surface, parallel to and above the white layer of lime. Over another part of this field cinders had been strewed, only about half-a-year before, and these either still lay on the surface or were entangled among the roots of the grasses; and I here saw the commencement of the burying process, for worm-castings had been heaped on several of the smaller fragments. After an interval of 4¾ years this field was re-examined, and now the two layers of lime and cinders were found almost everywhere at a greater depth than before by nearly 1 inch, we will say by ¾ of an inch. Therefore mould to an average thickness of 0.22 of an inch had been annually brought up by the worms, and had been spread over the surface of this field.

Near Mael Hall in Staffordshire, quicklime had been spread around 1827 thickly over a field of good pasture land that hadn't been plowed since. Some square holes were dug in this field at the beginning of October 1837, and the sections showed a layer of turf, formed by the matted roots of grasses, half an inch thick. Beneath that, at a depth of 2.5 inches (or 3 inches from the surface), a layer of lime in powder or small lumps could be clearly seen running all around the vertical sides of the holes. The soil beneath the layer of lime was either gravelly or coarse sandy, and it looked significantly different from the dark-colored fine topsoil above. Coal cinders had been spread over part of this same field either in 1833 or 1834, and when the holes were dug, three or four years later, the cinders created a line of black spots around the holes, at a depth of 1 inch below the surface, parallel to and above the white layer of lime. Over another part of this field, cinders had been scattered only about six months earlier, and they either still rested on the surface or were tangled among the roots of the grasses. I observed the beginning of the burying process here; worm castings had piled up on several of the smaller fragments. After an interval of 4.75 years, this field was re-examined, and now the two layers of lime and cinders were found almost everywhere at a greater depth than before—by nearly 1 inch, let's say by about 0.75 of an inch. So, an average thickness of 0.22 of an inch of soil had been brought up annually by the worms and spread over the surface of this field.

Coal-cinders had been strewed over another field, at a date which could not be positively ascertained, so thickly that they formed (October, 1837) a layer, 1 inch in thickness at a depth of about 3 inches from the surface. The layer was so continuous that the over-lying dark vegetable mould was connected with the sub-soil of red clay only by the roots of the grasses; and when these were broken, the mould and the red clay fell apart. In a third field, on which coal-cinders and burnt marl had been strewed several times at unknown dates, holes were dug in 1842; and a layer of cinders could be traced at a depth of 3½ inches, beneath which at a depth of 9½ inches from the surface there was a line of cinders together with burnt marl. On the sides of one hole there were two layers of cinders, at 2 and 3½ inches beneath the surface; and below them at a depth in parts of 9½, and in other parts of 10½ inches there were fragments of burnt marl. In a fourth field two layers of lime, one above the other, could be distinctly traced, and beneath them a layer of cinders and burnt marl at a depth of from 10 to 12 inches below the surface.

Coal cinders had been spread across another field at an unknown time, so thickly that they formed a layer, 1 inch thick, about 3 inches below the surface (October, 1837). The layer was so continuous that the dark topsoil was only connected to the red clay subsoil by the roots of the grasses, and when these were disturbed, the topsoil and red clay separated. In a third field, where coal cinders and burned marl had been spread several times at unspecified dates, holes were dug in 1842, revealing a layer of cinders at a depth of 3½ inches. Below that, at a depth of 9½ inches from the surface, there was a layer of cinders along with burnt marl. One hole revealed two layers of cinders at depths of 2 and 3½ inches beneath the surface, and below them, at depths of 9½ inches in some places and 10½ inches in others, there were fragments of burnt marl. In a fourth field, two distinct layers of lime, one above the other, could be traced, and beneath them, there was a layer of cinders and burnt marl at depths of 10 to 12 inches below the surface.

A piece of waste, swampy land was enclosed, drained, ploughed, harrowed and thickly covered in the year 1822 with burnt marl and cinders. It was sowed with grass seeds, and now supports a tolerably good but coarse pasture. Holes were dug in this field in 1837, or 15 years after its reclamation, and we see in the accompanying diagram (Fig. 5), reduced to half of the natural scale, that the turf was ½ inch thick, beneath which there was a layer of vegetable mould 2½ inches thick. This layer did not contain fragments of any kind; but beneath it there was a layer of mould, 1½ inch in thickness, full of fragments of burnt marl, conspicuous from their red colour, one of which near the bottom was an inch in length; and other fragments of coal-cinders together with a few white quartz pebbles. Beneath this layer and at a depth of 4½ inches from the surface, the original black, peaty, sandy soil with a few quartz pebbles was encountered. Here therefore the fragments of burnt marl and cinders had been covered in the course of 15 years by a layer of fine vegetable mould, only 2½ inches in thickness, excluding the turf. Six and a half years subsequently this field was re-examined, and the fragments were now found at from 4 to 5 inches beneath the surface. So that in this interval of 6½ years, about 1½ inch of mould had been added to the superficial layer. I am surprised that a greater quantity had not been brought up during the whole 21½ years, for in the closely underlying black, peaty soil there were many worms. It is, however, probable that formerly, whilst the land remained poor, worms were scanty; and the mould would then have accumulated slowly. The average annual increase of thickness for the whole period is 0.19 of an inch.

A piece of waste, swampy land was enclosed, drained, plowed, harrowed, and heavily covered in 1822 with burnt marl and cinders. It was sown with grass seeds, and now it supports a fairly good but coarse pasture. Holes were dug in this field in 1837, 15 years after it was reclaimed, and we see in the accompanying diagram (Fig. 5), reduced to half of the natural scale, that the turf was ½ inch thick, beneath which there was a layer of vegetable mold 2½ inches thick. This layer didn’t contain any fragments; but underneath it was a layer of mold, 1½ inch thick, full of fragments of burnt marl, noticeable for their red color, one of which near the bottom was an inch long; along with other fragments of coal cinders and a few white quartz pebbles. Below this layer, at a depth of 4½ inches from the surface, the original black, peaty, sandy soil with a few quartz pebbles was found. Thus, the fragments of burnt marl and cinders had been covered over the course of 15 years by a layer of fine vegetable mold only 2½ inches thick, excluding the turf. Six and a half years later, this field was re-examined, and the fragments were now found 4 to 5 inches beneath the surface. So, during this interval of 6½ years, about 1½ inch of mold had accumulated to the top layer. I’m surprised that a greater amount hadn’t formed during the whole 21½ years since there were many worms in the closely underlying black, peaty soil. However, it’s likely that when the land was still poor, worms were scarce; so the mold would have accumulated slowly. The average annual increase in thickness for the whole period is 0.19 of an inch.

Two other cases are worth recording. In the spring of 1835, a field, which had long existed as poor pasture and was so swampy that it trembled slightly when stamped on, was thickly covered with red sand so that the whole surface appeared at first bright red. When holes were dug in this field after an interval of about 2½ years, the sand formed a layer at a depth of ¾ in. beneath the surface. In 1842 (i.e., 7 years after the sand had been laid on) fresh holes were dug, and now the red sand formed a distinct layer, 2 inches beneath the surface, or 1½ inch beneath the turf; so that on an average, 0.21 inch of mould had been annually brought to the surface. Immediately beneath the layer of red sand, the original substratum of black sandy peat extended.

Two other cases are worth noting. In the spring of 1835, a field that had long been a poor pasture and was so swampy it quivered slightly when stepped on, became thickly covered with red sand, making the entire surface appear bright red at first. After about 2½ years, when holes were dug in this field, the sand formed a layer at a depth of ¾ inch beneath the surface. In 1842 (that is, 7 years after the sand was spread), fresh holes were dug, and the red sand now formed a distinct layer, 2 inches beneath the surface or 1½ inches beneath the turf; so, on average, 0.21 inch of mold had been added to the surface each year. Right beneath the layer of red sand, the original layer of black sandy peat extended.

A grass field, likewise not far from Maer Hall, had formerly been thickly covered with marl, and was then left for several years as pasture; it was afterwards ploughed. A friend had three trenches dug in this field 28 years after the application of the marl, [126] and a layer of the marl fragments could be traced at a depth, carefully measured, of 12 inches in some parts, and of 14 inches in other parts. This difference in depth depended on the layer being horizontal, whilst the surface consisted of ridges and furrows from the field having been ploughed. The tenant assured me that it had never been turned up to a greater depth than from 6 to 8 inches; and as the fragments formed an unbroken horizontal layer from 12 to 14 inches beneath the surface, these must have been buried by the worms whilst the land was in pasture before it was ploughed, for otherwise they would have been indiscriminately scattered by the plough throughout the whole thickness of the soil. Four-and-a-half years afterwards I had three holes dug in this field, in which potatoes had been lately planted, and the layer of marl-fragments was now found 13 inches beneath the bottoms of the furrows, and therefore probably 15 inches beneath the general level of the field. It should, however, be observed that the thickness of the blackish sandy soil, which had been thrown up by the worms above the marl-fragments in the course of 32½ years, would have measured less than 15 inches, if the field had always remained as pasture, for the soil would in this case have been much more compact. The fragments of marl almost rested on an undisturbed substratum of white sand with quartz pebbles; and as this would be little attractive to worms, the mould would hereafter be very slowly increased by their action.

A grass field, not far from Maer Hall, was once heavily covered in marl and then left as pasture for several years before being plowed. A friend had three trenches dug in this field 28 years after the marl was applied, [126] and we found a layer of marl fragments at a measured depth of 12 inches in some areas and 14 inches in others. This difference in depth was due to the layer being horizontal, while the surface had ridges and furrows from the plowing. The tenant told me it had never been plowed deeper than 6 to 8 inches; since the fragments formed a continuous horizontal layer 12 to 14 inches below the surface, they must have been buried by worms while the land was still pasture before being plowed. Otherwise, they would have been mixed throughout the soil by the plow. Four and a half years later, I had three holes dug in this field, where potatoes had recently been planted, and we found the layer of marl fragments now at 13 inches below the bottoms of the furrows, meaning it was likely 15 inches below the overall level of the field. However, it's important to note that the thickness of the blackish sandy soil, which had built up from the worms over 32.5 years, would have been less than 15 inches if the field had always been pasture since the soil would have been much denser in that case. The marl fragments were almost resting on a stable layer of white sand with quartz pebbles beneath it, and since this would be less appealing to worms, the soil would consequently build up very slowly due to their activity.

We will now give some cases of the action of worms, on land differing widely from the dry sandy or the swampy pastures just described. The chalk formation extends all round my house in Kent; and its surface, from having been exposed during an immense period to the dissolving action of rain-water, is extremely irregular, being abruptly festooned and penetrated by many deep well-like cavities. [128] During the dissolution of the chalk, the insoluble matter, including a vast number of unrolled flints of all sizes, has been left on the surface and forms a bed of stiff red clay, full of flints, and generally from 6 to 14 feet in thickness. Over the red clay, wherever the land has long remained as pasture, there is a layer a few inches in thickness, of dark-coloured vegetable mould.

We will now provide some examples of how worms act in different types of land compared to the previously described dry sandy or swampy pastures. The chalk formation surrounds my house in Kent, and its surface, having been exposed to the dissolving effects of rainwater for a very long time, is highly uneven, featuring many deep, well-like cavities. [128] As the chalk dissolved, the insoluble materials, including a large number of unrolled flints of various sizes, were left on the surface, creating a layer of stiff red clay that is full of flints and generally between 6 to 14 feet thick. On top of the red clay, where the land has been pasture for a long time, there is a layer a few inches thick of dark-colored organic matter.

A quantity of broken chalk was spread, on December 20, 1842, over a part of a field near my house, which had existed as pasture certainly for 30, probably for twice or thrice as many years. The chalk was laid on the land for the sake of observing at some future period to what depth it would become buried. At the end of November, 1871, that is after an interval of 29 years, a trench was dug across this part of the field; and a line of white nodules could be traced on both sides of the trench, at a depth of 7 inches from the surface. The mould, therefore, (excluding the turf) had here been thrown up at an average rate of 0.22 inch per year. Beneath the line of chalk nodules there was in parts hardly any fine earth free of flints, while in other parts there was a layer, 2¼ inches in thickness. In this latter case the mould was altogether 9¼ inches thick; and in one such spot a nodule of chalk and a smooth flint pebble, both of which must have been left at some former time on the surface, were found at this depth. At from 11 to 12 inches beneath the surface, the undisturbed reddish clay, full of flints, extended. The appearance of the above nodules of chalk surprised me, much at first, as they closely resembled water-worn pebbles, whereas the freshly-broken fragments had been angular. But on examining the nodules with a lens, they no longer appeared water-worn, for their surfaces were pitted through unequal corrosion, and minute, sharp points, formed of broken fossil shells, projected from them. It was evident that the corners of the original fragments of chalk had been wholly dissolved, from presenting a large surface to the carbonic acid dissolved in the rain-water and to that generated in soil containing vegetable matter, as well as to the humus-acids. [131] The projecting corners would also, relatively to the other parts, have been embraced by a larger number of living rootlets; and these have the power of even attacking marble, as Sachs has shown. Thus, in the course of 29 years, buried angular fragments of chalk had been converted into well-rounded nodules.

A quantity of broken chalk was spread on December 20, 1842, over part of a field near my house, which had likely been used as pasture for at least 30 years, probably even longer. The chalk was placed on the land to observe later how deep it would become buried. At the end of November 1871, after 29 years, a trench was dug across this area, and a line of white nodules could be seen on both sides of the trench, 7 inches below the surface. Therefore, the soil (excluding the turf) had been accumulated at an average rate of 0.22 inches per year. Below the line of chalk nodules, there was almost no fine soil free of flints in some areas, while in others, there was a layer 2¼ inches thick. In the latter case, the soil was a total of 9¼ inches thick; and in one such area, a nodule of chalk and a smooth flint pebble, both of which must have previously been on the surface, were found at this depth. Between 11 and 12 inches below the surface, undisturbed reddish clay filled with flints was present. I was initially surprised by the appearance of the chalk nodules, as they closely resembled water-worn pebbles, whereas the freshly broken pieces were angular. However, upon examining the nodules with a lens, they no longer seemed water-worn; their surfaces were pitted from uneven erosion, and tiny sharp points, formed from broken fossil shells, stuck out from them. It was clear that the corners of the original chalk fragments had completely dissolved, presenting a large surface area to the carbonic acid in rainwater and that produced in soil with organic material, as well as to the humus acids. The protruding corners would have been surrounded by more living rootlets, which have the ability to attack even marble, as Sachs has demonstrated. Thus, over 29 years, the buried angular fragments of chalk transformed into well-rounded nodules.

Another part of this same field was mossy, and as it was thought that sifted coal-cinders would improve the pasture, a thick layer was spread over this part either in 1842 or 1843, and another layer some years afterwards. In 1871 a trench was here dug, and many cinders lay in a line at a depth of 7 inches beneath the surface, with another line at a depth of 5½ inches parallel to the one beneath. In another part of this field, which had formerly existed as a separate one, and which it was believed had been pasture-land for more than a century, trenches were dug to see how thick the vegetable mould was. By chance the first trench was made at a spot where at some former period, certainly more than forty years before, a large hole had been filled up with coarse red clay, flints, fragments of chalk, and gravel; and here the fine vegetable mould was only from 4⅛ to 4⅜ inches in thickness. In another and undisturbed place, the mould varied much in thickness, namely, from 6½ to 8½ inches; beneath which a few small fragments of brick were found in one place. From these several cases, it would appear that during the last 29 years mould has been heaped on the surface at an average annual rate of from 0.2 to 0.22 of an inch. But in this district when a ploughed field is first laid down in grass, the mould accumulates at a much slower rate. The rate, also, must become very much slower after a bed of mould, several inches in thickness, has been formed; for the worms then live chiefly near the surface, and burrow down to a greater depth so as to bring up fresh earth from below, only during the winter when the weather is very cold (at which time worms were found in this field at a depth of 26 inches) and during summer, when the weather is very dry.

Another part of this same field was covered in moss, and it was believed that spreading sifted coal cinders would improve the pasture, so a thick layer was applied over this area either in 1842 or 1843, with another layer added some years later. In 1871, a trench was dug here, revealing many cinders arranged in a line at a depth of 7 inches below the surface, with another line at a depth of 5½ inches parallel to the one below. In another section of this field, which used to be a separate one and was thought to have been pasture land for over a century, trenches were dug to measure the thickness of the vegetable soil. By chance, the first trench was dug at a spot where, more than forty years prior, a large hole had been filled with coarse red clay, flints, chalk fragments, and gravel; and here the fine vegetable soil was only 4⅛ to 4⅜ inches thick. In another undisturbed area, the soil thickness varied quite a bit, ranging from 6½ to 8½ inches; beneath this, a few small brick fragments were found in one spot. From these observations, it seems that over the last 29 years, soil has built up on the surface at an average annual rate of about 0.2 to 0.22 inches. However, in this district, when a plowed field is initially converted to grass, the soil builds up at a much slower rate. This rate also becomes significantly slower after a layer of soil several inches thick has formed, as worms then primarily live near the surface and only burrow deeper to bring up fresh soil from below during the winter when it’s very cold (during which time worms were found in this field at a depth of 26 inches) and during the summer, when it’s very dry.

A field, which adjoins the one just described, slopes in one part rather steeply (viz., at from 10° to 15°); this part was last ploughed in 1841, was then harrowed and left to become pasture-land. For several years it was clothed with an extremely scant vegetation, and was so thickly covered with small and large flints (some of them half as large as a child’s head) that the field was always called by my sons “the stony field.” When they ran down the slope the stones clattered together, I remember doubting whether I should live to see these larger flints covered with vegetable mould and turf. But the smaller stones disappeared before many years had elapsed, as did every one of the larger ones after a time; so that after thirty years (1871) a horse could gallop over the compact turf from one end of the field to the other, and not strike a single stone with his shoes. To anyone who remembered the appearance of the field in 1842, the transformation was wonderful. This was certainly the work of the worms, for though castings were not frequent for several years, yet some were thrown up month after month, and these gradually increased in numbers as the pasture improved. In the year 1871 a trench was dug on the above slope, and the blades of grass were cut off close to the roots, so that the thickness of the turf and of the vegetable mould could be measured accurately. The turf was rather less than half an inch, and the mould, which did not contain any stones, 2½ inches in thickness. Beneath this lay coarse clayey earth full of flints, like that in any of the neighbouring ploughed fields. This coarse earth easily fell apart from the overlying mould when a spit was lifted up. The average rate of accumulation of the mould during the whole thirty years was only .083 inch per year (i.e., nearly one inch in twelve years); but the rate must have been much slower at first, and afterwards considerably quicker.

A field next to the one mentioned earlier slopes steeply in one part (between 10° to 15°). This section was last plowed in 1841, then harrowed and left to turn into pasture. For several years, it had very sparse vegetation and was so covered with small and large flints (some as big as a child's head) that my sons always called it “the stony field.” When they ran down the slope, the stones would clatter together, and I remember wondering if I'd ever see those bigger flints covered with soil and grass. But over the years, the smaller stones disappeared, and eventually, so did all the larger ones. By 1871, thirty years later, a horse could gallop over the solid turf from one end of the field to the other without hitting a single stone. For anyone who remembered how the field looked in 1842, the change was incredible. This was definitely due to the worms, because while worm castings weren’t common for a few years, some appeared month after month, and their numbers increased as the pasture improved. In 1871, a trench was dug on that slope, cutting the grass close to the roots so we could measure the thickness of the turf and soil accurately. The turf was just under half an inch thick, and the soil, which had no stones in it, was 2½ inches thick. Underneath that was coarse, clay-filled earth with flints, similar to what you’d find in the neighboring plowed fields. This coarse earth easily separated from the soil above when a shovel was lifted. The average accumulation rate of the soil over those thirty years was only .083 inch per year (almost one inch every twelve years); however, it must have started much slower and then sped up later on.

The transformation in the appearance of this field, which had been effected beneath my eyes, was afterwards rendered the more striking, when I examined in Knole Park a dense forest of lofty beech-trees, beneath which nothing grew. Here the ground was thickly strewed with large naked stones, and worm-castings were almost wholly absent. Obscure lines and irregularities on the surface indicated that the land had been cultivated some centuries ago. It is probable that a thick wood of young beech-trees sprung up so quickly, that time enough was not allowed for worms to cover up the stones with their castings, before the site became unfitted for their existence. Anyhow the contrast between the state of the now miscalled “stony field,” well stocked with worms, and the present state of the ground beneath the old beech-trees in Knole Park, where worms appeared to be absent, was striking.

The change in the look of this field, which I witnessed firsthand, became even more noticeable when I checked out a dense forest of tall beech trees in Knole Park, where nothing grew underneath. The ground was littered with large bare stones, and there were hardly any worm castings. Faint lines and unevenness on the surface suggested that the land had been farmed centuries ago. It's likely that a thick young beech forest grew up so quickly that there wasn’t enough time for worms to cover the stones with their castings before the area became unsuitable for them. Regardless, the difference between the now misnamed “stony field,” which was rich in worms, and the current condition of the ground beneath the old beech trees in Knole Park, where worms seemed to be missing, was striking.

A narrow path running across part of my lawn was paved in 1843 with small flagstones, set edgeways; but worms threw up many castings and weeds grew thickly between them. During several years the path was weeded and swept; but ultimately the weeds and worms prevailed, and the gardener ceased to sweep, merely mowing off the weeds, as often as the lawn was mowed. The path soon became almost covered up, and after several years no trace of it was left. On removing, in 1877, the thin overlying layer of turf, the small flag-stones, all in their proper places, were found covered by an inch of fine mould.

A narrow path running across part of my lawn was paved in 1843 with small flagstones, set on their sides; but worms brought up a lot of dirt, and weeds grew thick between them. For several years, the path was regularly weeded and swept; but eventually, the weeds and worms took over, and the gardener stopped sweeping it, just mowing down the weeds whenever the lawn was mowed. The path quickly became almost completely covered, and after a few years, there was no trace of it left. When the thin layer of grass was removed in 1877, the small flagstones, all in their original spots, were found covered by an inch of fine soil.

Two recently published accounts of substances strewed on the surface of pasture-land, having become buried through the action of worms, may be here noticed. The Rev. H. C. Key had a ditch cut in a field, over which coal-ashes had been spread, as it was believed, eighteen years before; and on the clean-cut perpendicular sides of the ditch, at a depth of at least seven inches, there could be seen, for a length of 60 yards, “a distinct, very even, narrow line of coal-ashes, mixed with small coal, perfectly parallel with the top-sward.” [136a] This parallelism and the length of the section give interest to the case. Secondly, Mr. Dancer states [136b] that crushed bones had been thickly strewed over a field; and “some years afterwards” these were found “several inches below the surface, at a uniform depth.”

Two recent accounts of materials spread on pasture land, which became buried due to worms, are worth mentioning. Rev. H. C. Key had a ditch dug in a field where coal ash had been spread, believed to have been done eighteen years earlier. In the clean-cut vertical sides of the ditch, at a depth of at least seven inches, there was a clear, very even, narrow line of coal ash mixed with small coal, perfectly parallel to the topsoil, extending for 60 yards. [136a] This parallel alignment and the length of the section make the case interesting. Secondly, Mr. Dancer notes [136b] that crushed bones were spread thickly over a field, and "some years later," these were found "several inches below the surface, at a uniform depth."

The Rev. Mr. Zincke informs me that he has lately had an orchard dug to the unusual depth of 4 feet. The upper 18 inches consisted of dark-coloured vegetable mould, and the next 18 inches of sandy loam, containing in the lower part many rolled pieces of sandstone, with some bits of brick and tile, probably of Roman origin, as remains of this period have been found close by. The sandy loam rested on an indurated ferruginous pan of yellow clay, on the surface of which two perfect celts were found. If, as seems probable, the celts were originally left on the surface of the land, they have since been covered up with earth 3 feet in thickness, all of which has probably passed through the bodies of worms, excepting the stones which may have been scattered on the surface at different times, together with manure or by other means. It is difficult otherwise to understand the source of the 18 inches of sandy loam, which differed from the overlying dark vegetable mould, after both had been burnt, only in being of a brighter red colour, and in not being quite so fine-grained. But on this view we must suppose that the carbon in vegetable mould, when it lies at some little depth beneath the surface and does not continually receive decaying vegetable matter from above, loses its dark colour in the course of centuries; but whether this is probable I do not know.

The Rev. Mr. Zincke tells me that he recently had an orchard dug to an unusual depth of 4 feet. The top 18 inches was made up of dark vegetable soil, and the next 18 inches was sandy loam, which contained many rounded pieces of sandstone in the lower part, along with some fragments of brick and tile, likely of Roman origin, since remains from that era have been found nearby. The sandy loam rested on a hardened iron-rich layer of yellow clay, on the surface of which two perfect stone tools (celts) were found. If, as seems likely, the celts were initially left on the land's surface, they have since been buried under 3 feet of soil, most of which has probably passed through worm activity, except for the stones that may have been scattered on the surface at various times, along with manure or other materials. It is otherwise hard to explain the source of the 18 inches of sandy loam, which differed from the dark vegetable soil above it, except that it was a brighter red color and not quite as fine-grained once both had been burned. But if we consider this, we must assume that the carbon in vegetable soil, when it sits at a little depth beneath the surface and doesn’t continually receive decaying matter from above, fades in color over centuries; whether this is likely, I do not know.

Worms appear to act in the same manner in New Zealand as in Europe; for Professor J. von Haast has described [138a] a section near the coast, consisting of mica-schist, “covered by 5 or 6 feet of loess, above which about 12 inches of vegetable soil had accumulated.” Between the loess and the mould there was a layer from 3 to 6 inches in thickness, consisting of “cores, implements, flakes, and chips, all manufactured from hard basaltic rock.” It is therefore probable that the aborigines, at some former period, had left these objects on the surface, and that they had afterwards been slowly covered up by the castings of worms.

Worms seem to behave the same way in New Zealand as they do in Europe; for Professor J. von Haast has described [138a] a section near the coast that consists of mica-schist, “covered by 5 or 6 feet of loess, on top of which about 12 inches of vegetable soil had accumulated.” Between the loess and the soil, there was a layer 3 to 6 inches thick, made up of “cores, implements, flakes, and chips, all crafted from hard basaltic rock.” It’s likely that the indigenous people, at some point in the past, left these objects on the surface, and that they were later gradually covered by the castings of worms.

Farmers in England are well aware that objects of all kinds, left on the surface of pasture-land, after a time disappear, or, as they say, work themselves downwards. How powdered lime, cinders, and heavy stones, can work down, and at the same rate, through the matted roots of a grass-covered surface, is a question which has probably never occurred to them. [138b]

Farmers in England know that objects of all kinds left on pasture land eventually disappear or, as they say, sink into the ground. It's probably never crossed their minds how things like powdered lime, cinders, and heavy stones can sink down through the tangled roots of grass covering the surface. [138b]

The Sinking of great Stones through the Action of Worms.—When a stone of large size and of irregular shape is left on the surface of the ground, it rests, of course, on the more protuberant parts; but worms soon fill up with their castings all the hollow spaces on the lower side; for, as Hensen remarks, they like the shelter of stones. As soon as the hollows are filled up, the worms eject the earth which they have swallowed beyond the circumference of the stones; and thus the surface of the ground is raised all round the stone. As the burrows excavated directly beneath the stone after a time collapse, the stone sinks a little. [139] Hence it is, that boulders which at some ancient period have rolled down from a rocky mountain or cliff on to a meadow at its base, are always somewhat imbedded in the soil; and, when removed, leave an exact impression of their lower surfaces in the underlying fine mould. If, however, a boulder is of such huge dimensions, that the earth beneath is kept dry, such earth will not be inhabited by worms, and the boulder will not sink into the ground.

The Sinking of Great Stones through the Action of Worms.—When a large, oddly-shaped stone is left on the ground, it rests on the highest points. However, worms quickly fill in the hollow spaces underneath with their castings because, as Hensen points out, they prefer to hide under stones. Once the hollows are filled, the worms push the soil they’ve consumed out around the edges of the stone, raising the ground's surface all around it. Over time, as the tunnels beneath the stone collapse, the stone sinks a bit. [139] This is why boulders that rolled down from a rocky mountain or cliff onto a meadow long ago are usually slightly embedded in the soil; when those boulders are taken away, they leave a clear imprint of their undersides in the surrounding fine soil. However, if a boulder is so large that it keeps the ground underneath dry, that soil won’t be home to worms, and the boulder won’t sink into the ground.

A lime-kiln formerly stood in a grass-field near Leith Hill Place in Surrey, and was pulled down 35 years before my visit; all the loose rubbish had been carted away, excepting three large stones of quartzose sandstone, which it was thought might hereafter be of some use. An old workman remembered that they had been left on a bare surface of broken bricks and mortar, close to the foundations of the kiln; but the whole surrounding surface is now covered with turf and mould. The two largest of these stones had never since been moved; nor could this easily have been done, as, when I had them removed, it was the work of two men with levers. One of these stones, and not the largest, was 64 inches long, 17 inches broad, and from 9 to 10 inches in thickness. Its lower surface was somewhat protuberant in the middle; and this part still rested on broken bricks and mortar, showing the truth of the old workman’s account. Beneath the brick rubbish the natural sandy soil, full of fragments of sandstone was found; and this could have yielded very little, if at all, to the weight of the stone, as might have been expected if the sub-soil had been clay. The surface of the field, for a distance of about 9 inches round the stone, gradually sloped up to it, and close to the stone stood in most places about 4 inches above the surrounding ground. The base of the stone was buried from 1 to 2 inches beneath the general level, and the upper surface projected about 8 inches above this level, or about 4 inches above the sloping border of turf. After the removal of the stone it became evident that one of its pointed ends must at first have stood clear above the ground by some inches, but its upper surface was now on a level with the surrounding turf. When the stone was removed, an exact cast of its lower side, forming a shallow crateriform hollow, was left, the inner surface of which consisted of fine black mould, excepting where the more protuberant parts rested on the brick-rubbish. A transverse section of this stone, together with its bed, drawn from measurements made after it had been displaced, is here given on a scale of ½ inch to a foot (Fig. 6). The turf-covered border which sloped up to the stone, consisted of fine vegetable mould, in one part 7 inches in thickness. This evidently consisted of worm-castings, several of which had been recently ejected. The whole stone had sunk in the thirty-five years, as far as I could judge, about 1½ inch; and this must have been due to the brick-rubbish beneath the more protuberant parts having been undermined by worms. At this rate the upper surface of the stone, if it had been left undisturbed, would have sunk to the general level of the field in 247 years; but before this could have occurred, some earth would have been washed down by heavy rain from the castings on the raised border of turf over the upper surface of the stone.

A lime kiln used to be located in a grassy field near Leith Hill Place in Surrey, and it was taken down 35 years before my visit; all the loose debris had been cleared away, except for three large pieces of quartzose sandstone, which were thought to be potentially useful in the future. An old worker recalled that these stones had been left on a bare patch of broken bricks and mortar, close to the foundations of the kiln; however, the entire surrounding area is now covered with grass and dirt. The two largest stones had not been moved since then, and it wouldn't have been easy to do so; when I had them taken away, it took two men with levers to move one. One of these stones, though not the largest, measured 64 inches long, 17 inches wide, and 9 to 10 inches thick. Its lower surface was slightly raised in the middle; this part still rested on the broken bricks and mortar, confirming the old workman's story. Below the brick debris, the natural sandy soil, filled with pieces of sandstone, was discovered; it wouldn't have yielded much, if at all, to the weight of the stone, as would have been expected if the subsoil had been clay. The surface of the field sloped gradually up to the stone for about 9 inches, and near the stone, it stood about 4 inches higher than the surrounding ground in most places. The base of the stone was buried 1 to 2 inches below the general level, while the upper surface projected about 8 inches above this level, or about 4 inches above the sloping edge of grass. After the stone was removed, it became clear that one of its pointed ends must have initially stood a few inches above the ground, but its upper surface was now even with the surrounding grass. When the stone was taken away, an exact impression of its lower side, forming a shallow crater-shaped hollow, was left behind, with the inner surface consisting of fine black soil, except where the raised parts rested on the brick scraps. A cross-section of this stone, along with its base, is presented here based on measurements taken after it was moved, depicted at a scale of ½ inch to a foot (Fig. 6). The grassy edge that sloped up to the stone contained fine vegetable soil, which was 7 inches thick in one area. This clearly consisted of worm castings, several of which had been recently expelled. The entire stone had settled approximately 1½ inches over the thirty-five years, which must have been due to the brick debris beneath the raised sections being eroded by worms. At this rate, the upper surface of the stone, if left undisturbed, would have sunk to the general level of the field in 247 years; however, before that could happen, some soil would have been washed down by heavy rain from the castings on the elevated edge of grass over the stone's upper surface.

The second stone was larger that the one just described, viz., 67 inches in length, 39 in breadth, and 15 in thickness. The lower surface was nearly flat, so that the worms must soon have been compelled to eject their castings beyond its circumference. The stone as a whole had sunk about 2 inches into the ground. At this rate it would have required 262 years for its upper surface to have sunk to the general level of the field. The upwardly sloping, turf-covered border round the stone was broader than in the last case, viz., from 14 to 16 inches; and why this should be so, I could see no reason. In most parts this border was not so high as in the last case, viz., from 2 to 2½ inches, but in one place it was as much as 5½. Its average height close to the stone was probably about 3 inches, and it thinned out to nothing. If so, a layer of fine earth, 15 inches in breadth and 1½ inch in average thickness, of sufficient length to surround the whole of the much elongated slab, must have been brought up by the worms in chief part from beneath the stone in the course of 35 years. This amount would be amply sufficient to account for its having sunk about 2 inches into the ground; more especially if we bear in mind that a good deal of the finest earth would have been washed by heavy rain from the castings ejected on the sloping border down to the level of the field. Some fresh castings were seen close to the stone. Nevertheless, on digging a large hole to a depth of 18 inches where the stone had lain, only two worms and a few burrows were seen, although the soil was damp and seemed favourable for worms. There were some large colonies of ants beneath the stone, and possibly since their establishment the worms had decreased in number.

The second stone was larger than the one just described, measuring 67 inches long, 39 inches wide, and 15 inches thick. The bottom surface was almost flat, so the worms must have quickly had to push their castings beyond its edge. Overall, the stone had sunken about 2 inches into the ground. At this rate, it would take about 262 years for the top surface to sink to the general level of the surrounding field. The sloping, grass-covered border around the stone was wider than in the previous case, measuring between 14 and 16 inches; I didn't see any reason for this difference. In most areas, this border wasn't as high as before, ranging from 2 to 2½ inches, but in one spot, it was as much as 5½ inches high. Its average height near the stone was probably around 3 inches, tapering down to nothing. If that's the case, a layer of fine soil measuring 15 inches wide and an average thickness of 1½ inches, long enough to surround the entire elongated slab, must have been brought up by the worms mainly from beneath the stone over the course of 35 years. This amount would be more than enough to explain why it had sunk about 2 inches into the ground, especially considering that a lot of the finest soil would have been washed away by heavy rain from the castings deposited on the sloping border down to the level of the field. Some fresh castings were seen close to the stone. However, when a large hole was dug to a depth of 18 inches where the stone had been, only two worms and a few burrows were found, even though the soil was damp and seemed good for worms. There were some large colonies of ants beneath the stone, which might have contributed to a decrease in the number of worms since they established themselves.

The third stone was only about half as large as the others; and two strong boys could together have rolled it over. I have no doubt that it had been rolled over at a moderately recent time, for it now lay at some distance from the two other stones at the bottom of a little adjoining slope. It rested also on fine earth, instead of partly on brick-rubbish. In agreement with this conclusion, the raised surrounding border of turf was only 1 inch high in some parts, and 2 inches in other parts. There were no colonies of ants beneath this stone, and on digging a hole where it had lain, several burrows and worms were found.

The third stone was only about half the size of the others; two strong boys could have easily rolled it over together. I’m sure it had been moved recently, as it was now located some distance away from the other two stones at the bottom of a small slope. It also rested on fine soil instead of partially on debris. Supporting this conclusion, the raised border of grass around it was just 1 inch high in some areas and 2 inches in others. There were no ant colonies under this stone, and when I dug where it had been, I found several burrows and worms.

At Stonehenge, some of the outer Druidical stones are now prostrate, having fallen at a remote but unknown period; and these have become buried to a moderate depth in the ground. They are surrounded by sloping borders of turf, on which recent castings were seen. Close to one of these fallen stones, which was 17 ft long, 6 ft. broad, and 28½ inches thick, a hole was dug; and here the vegetable mould was at least 9½ inches in thickness. At this depth a flint was found, and a little higher up on one side of the hole a fragment of glass. The base of the stone lay about 9½ inches beneath the level of the surrounding ground, and its upper surface 19 inches above the ground.

At Stonehenge, some of the outer Druid stones are now lying flat, having fallen during a distant but unknown time; and they have become buried to a moderate depth in the earth. They're surrounded by sloping patches of grass, where recent casts were noticed. Near one of these fallen stones, which measures 17 feet long, 6 feet wide, and 28½ inches thick, a hole was dug; and here the topsoil was at least 9½ inches thick. At this depth, a flint was found, and a little higher up on one side of the hole, a piece of glass. The base of the stone was about 9½ inches below the level of the surrounding ground, while its upper surface was 19 inches above the ground.

A hole was also dug close to a second huge stone, which in falling had broken into two pieces; and this must have happened long ago, judging from the weathered aspect of the fractured ends. The base was buried to a depth of 10 inches, as was ascertained by driving an iron skewer horizontally into the ground beneath it. The vegetable mould forming the turf-covered sloping border round the stone, on which many castings had recently been ejected, was 10 inches in thickness; and most of this mould must have been brought up by worms from beneath its base. At a distance of 8 yards from the stone, the mould was only 5½ inches in thickness (with a piece of tobacco pipe at a depth of 4 inches), and this rested on broken flint and chalk which could not have easily yielded to the pressure or weight of the stone.

A hole was also dug near a second large stone, which had fallen and split into two pieces; this likely happened a long time ago, based on the worn look of the fractured edges. The base was buried about 10 inches deep, confirmed by driving an iron skewer horizontally into the ground underneath it. The soil forming the turf-covered sloping edge around the stone, from which many castings had recently been removed, was 10 inches thick; and most of this soil must have been brought up by worms from below its base. Eight yards away from the stone, the soil was only 5½ inches thick (with a piece of a tobacco pipe found at a depth of 4 inches), resting on broken flint and chalk that wouldn’t have easily given way under the stone's pressure or weight.

A straight rod was fixed horizontally (by the aid of a spirit-level) across a third fallen stone, which was 7 feet 9 inches long; and the contour of the projecting parts and of the adjoining ground, which was not quite level, was thus ascertained, as shown in the accompanying diagram (Fig. 7) on a scale of ½ inch to a foot. The turf-covered border sloped up to the stone on one side to a height of 4 inches, and on the opposite side to only 2½ inches above the general level. A hole was dug on the eastern side, and the base of the stone was here found to lie at a depth of 4 inches beneath the general level of the ground, and of 8 inches beneath the top of the sloping turf-covered border.

A straight rod was securely positioned horizontally (using a spirit level) across a third fallen stone, which measured 7 feet 9 inches long. The shape of the protruding parts and the surrounding ground, which wasn't completely level, was determined as shown in the accompanying diagram (Fig. 7) on a scale of ½ inch to a foot. The grass-covered edge sloped up to the stone on one side to a height of 4 inches, and on the other side, it only reached 2½ inches above the general level. A hole was dug on the eastern side, where it was found that the base of the stone was 4 inches below the general ground level and 8 inches below the top of the sloping grass-covered border.

 

Sufficient evidence has now been given showing that small objects left on the surface of the land where worms abound soon get buried, and that large stones sink slowly downwards through the same means. Every step of the process could be followed, from the accidental deposition of a single casting on a small object lying loose on the surface, to its being entangled amidst the matted roots of the turf, and lastly to its being embedded in the mould at various depths beneath the surface. When the same field was re-examined after the interval of a few years, such objects were found at a greater depth than before. The straightness and regularity of the lines formed by the imbedded objects, and their parallelism with the surface of the land, are the most striking features of the case; for this parallelism shows how equably the worms must have worked; the result being, however, partly the effect of the washing down of the fresh castings by rain. The specific gravity of the objects does not affect their rate of sinking, as could be seen by porous cinders, burnt marl, chalk and quartz pebbles, having all sunk to the same depth within the same time. Considering the nature of the substratum, which at Leith Hill Place was sandy soil including many bits of rock, and at Stonehenge, chalk-rubble with broken flints; considering, also, the presence of the turf-covered sloping border of mould round the great fragments of stone at both these places, their sinking does not appear to have been sensibly aided by their weight, though this was considerable. [147]

Sufficient evidence has now been provided showing that small objects left on the surface of land rich in worms quickly get buried, and that large stones sink downwards over time through the same process. Every step could be traced, from the random dropping of a single casting onto a small object lying loose on the surface, to its becoming tangled in the matted roots of the turf, and finally to being embedded in the soil at various depths below the surface. When the same field was re-examined after a few years, those objects were found at greater depths than before. The straightness and regularity of the lines formed by the embedded objects, along with their parallelism to the land's surface, are the most noteworthy features; this parallelism indicates how evenly the worms must have worked, although the result was also partly due to rain washing down the fresh castings. The specific gravity of the objects doesn’t influence their sinking rate, as seen with porous cinders, burnt marl, chalk, and quartz pebbles, all sinking to the same depth in the same amount of time. Considering the type of soil beneath, which at Leith Hill Place was sandy with many rock fragments, and at Stonehenge was chalk rubble with broken flints; and also considering the presence of the turf-covered sloping border of soil around the large stone fragments at both sites, their sinking doesn’t seem to have been significantly aided by their weight, even though it was considerable. [147]

On the number of worms which live within a given space.—We will now show, firstly, what a vast number of worms live unseen by us beneath our feet, and, secondly, the actual weight of the earth which they bring up to the surface within a given space and within a given time. Hensen, who has published so full and interesting an account of the habits of worms, [148] calculates, from the number which he found in a measured space, that there must exist 133,000 living worms in a hectare of land, or 53,767 in an acre. This latter number of worms would weigh 356 pounds, taking Hensen’s standard of the weight of a single worm, namely, three grams. It should, however, be noted that this calculation is founded on the numbers found in a garden, and Hensen believes that worms are here twice as numerous as in corn-fields. The above result, astonishing though it be, seems to me credible, judging from the number of worms which I have sometimes seen, and from the number daily destroyed by birds without the species being exterminated. Some barrels of bad ale were left on Mr. Miller’s land, [149] in the hope of making vinegar, but the vinegar proved bad, and the barrels were upset. It should be premised that acetic acid is so deadly a poison to worms that Perrier found that a glass rod dipped into this acid and then into a considerable body of water in which worms were immersed, invariably killed them quickly. On the morning after the barrels had been upset, “the heaps of worms which lay dead on the ground were so amazing, that if Mr. Miller had not seen them, he could not have thought it possible for such numbers to have existed in the space.” As further evidence of the large number of worms which live in the ground, Hensen states that he found in a garden sixty-four open burrows in a space of 14½ square feet, that is, nine in 2 square feet. But the burrows are sometimes much more numerous, for when digging in a grass-field near Maer Hall, I found a cake of dry earth, as large as my two open hands, which was penetrated by seven burrows, as large as goose-quills.

On the number of worms that live within a given space.—We will now demonstrate, first, how many worms live unseen beneath our feet, and second, the actual weight of the earth they bring to the surface in a specific area and time period. Hensen, who has published a detailed and fascinating account of worm habits, [148] estimates that there are about 133,000 living worms in a hectare of land, or 53,767 in an acre, based on the numbers he found in a measured area. This latter number would weigh 356 pounds, using Hensen’s standard weight of a single worm, which is three grams. However, it's important to note that this estimate is based on counts in a garden, and Hensen believes worms are about twice as abundant there as in cornfields. Although this figure is surprising, it seems believable, considering how many worms I have occasionally observed and the number that birds destroy daily without wiping out the species. Some barrels of bad ale were left on Mr. Miller’s property, [149] hoping to turn into vinegar, but the vinegar turned out bad, and the barrels were knocked over. It’s worth mentioning that acetic acid is so poisonous to worms that Perrier found if a glass rod dipped in this acid is then placed into a significant amount of water inhabited by worms, it will quickly kill them. The morning after the barrels were upset, “the piles of dead worms on the ground were so astonishing that if Mr. Miller hadn’t seen them, he would not have believed such numbers could exist in that space.” As further proof of the significant number of worms living in the soil, Hensen states that he found sixty-four open burrows in a garden covering 14½ square feet, which is nine burrows in 2 square feet. However, the burrows can be much more numerous, as when I was digging in a grass field near Maer Hall, I found a cake of dry earth, about the size of my two open hands, that had seven burrows in it, as large as goose quills.

Weight of the earth ejected from a single burrow, and from all the burrows within a given space.—With respect to the weight of the earth daily ejected by worms, Hensen found that it amounted, in the case of some worms which he kept in confinement, and which he appears to have fed with leaves, to only 0.5 gram, or less than 8 grains per diem. But a very much larger amount must be ejected by worms in their natural state, at the periods when they consume earth as food instead of leaves, and when they are making deep burrows. This is rendered almost certain by the following weights of the castings thrown up at the mouths of single burrows; the whole of which appeared to have been ejected within no long time, as was certainly the case in several instances. The castings were dried (excepting in one specified instance) by exposure during many days to the sun or before a hot fire.

Weight of the soil removed from a single burrow, and from all the burrows in a specific area.—Regarding the amount of soil that worms expel daily, Hensen found that in the case of some worms he kept in captivity and fed with leaves, it was only 0.5 grams, or less than 8 grains a day. However, a much larger quantity must be expelled by worms in their natural environment, especially when they eat soil instead of leaves and when they are digging deep burrows. This is almost definitely supported by the following weights of the castings deposited at the openings of single burrows; all of which seem to have been expelled in a relatively short time, as was clearly evident in several cases. The castings were dried (except for one specified case) by being exposed to the sun or a hot fire for many days.

Weight of the Castings accumulated at the mouth of a single Burrow.

Weight of the castings collected at the entrance of a single burrow.

(1.) Down, Kent (sub-soil red clay, full of flints, over-lying the chalk). The largest casting which I could find on the flanks of a steep valley, the sub-soil being here shallow. In this one case, the casting was not well dried

(1.) Down, Kent (sub-soil red clay, full of flints, overlying the chalk). The largest casting I could find on the sides of a steep valley, where the sub-soil is shallow. In this one instance, the casting was not completely dry.

3.98

3.98

(2.) Down.—Largest casting which I could find (consisting chiefly of calcareous matter), on extremely poor pasture land at the bottom of the valley mentioned under (1.)

(2.) Down.—The largest casting I found (mostly made up of calcareous material) on very poor pasture land at the bottom of the valley mentioned in (1.)

3.87

3.87

(3.) Down.—A large casting, but not of unusual size, from a nearly level field, poor pasture, laid down in a grass about 35 years before

(3.) Down.—A large casting, but not unusually sized, from a nearly flat field, with poor pasture, established in grass about 35 years ago.

1.22

1.22

(4.) Down. Average weight of 11 not large castings ejected on a sloping surface on my lawn, after they had suffered some loss of weight from being exposed during a considerable length of time to rain

(4.) Down. Average weight of 11 not large castings ejected on a sloping surface on my lawn, after they had suffered some loss of weight from being exposed during a considerable length of time to rain

0.7

0.7

(5.) Near Nice in France.—Average weight of 12 castings of ordinary dimensions, collected by Dr. King on land which had not been mown for a long time and where worms abounded, viz., a lawn protected by shrubberies near the sea; soil sandy and calcareous; these castings had been exposed for some time to rain, before being collected, and must have lost some weight by disintegration, but they still retained their form

(5.) Near Nice in France.—Average weight of 12 castings of regular size, collected by Dr. King on land that hadn’t been mowed in a long time and where worms were plentiful, specifically a lawn protected by shrubs near the sea; the soil was sandy and chalky; these castings had been exposed to rain for a while before being collected and likely lost some weight due to breaking down, but they still kept their shape.

1.37

1.37

(6.) The heaviest of the above twelve castings

(6.) The heaviest of the twelve castings listed above

1.76

1.76

(7.)  Lower Bengal.—Average weight of 22 castings, collected by Mr. J. Scott, and stated by him to have been thrown up in the course of one or two nights

(7.) Lower Bengal.—Average weight of 22 castings, collected by Mr. J. Scott, and reported by him to have been produced over the course of one or two nights.

1.24

1.24

(8.) The heaviest of the above 22 castings

(8.) The heaviest of the 22 castings listed above

2.09

2.09

(9.) Nilgiri Mountains, S. India; average weight of the 5 largest castings collected by Dr. King. They had been exposed to the rain of the last monsoon, and must have lost some weight

(9.) Nilgiri Mountains, S. India; average weight of the 5 largest castings collected by Dr. King. They had been exposed to the rain from the last monsoon and must have lost some weight.

3.15

3.15

(10.) The heaviest of the above 5 castings

(10.) The heaviest of the above 5 castings

4.34

4.34

In this table we see that castings which had been ejected at the mouth of the same burrow, and which in most cases appeared fresh and always retained their vermiform configuration, generally exceeded an ounce in weight after being dried, and sometimes nearly equalled a quarter of a pound. On the Nilgiri mountains one casting even exceeded this latter weight. The largest castings in England were found on extremely poor pasture-land; and these, as far as I have seen, are generally larger than those on land producing a rich vegetation. It would appear that worms have to swallow a greater amount of earth on poor than on rich land, in order to obtain sufficient nutriment.

In this table, we can see that the castings ejected from the same burrow, which usually looked fresh and always kept their worm-like shape, typically weighed more than an ounce once dried, and sometimes came close to a quarter of a pound. On the Nilgiri mountains, one casting even exceeded that weight. The largest castings in England were discovered on very poor pasture land, and from what I've observed, these are generally bigger than those found on land that supports rich vegetation. It seems that worms have to consume more soil on poorer land than on richer land to get enough nutrients.

With respect to the tower-like castings near Nice (Nos. 5 and 6 in the above table), Dr. King often found five or six of them on a square foot of surface; and these, judging from their average weight, would have weighed together 7½ ounces; so that the weight of those on a square yard would have been 4 lb. 3½ oz. Dr. King collected, near the close of the year 1872, all the castings which still retained their vermiform shape, whether broken down or not, from a square foot, in a place abounding with worms, on the summit of a bank, where no castings could have rolled down from above. These castings must have been ejected, as he judged from their appearance in reference to the rainy and dry periods near Nice, within the previous five or six months; they weighed 9½ oz., or 5 lb. 5½ oz. per square yard. After an interval of four months, Dr. King collected all the castings subsequently ejected on the same square foot of surface, and they weighed 2½ oz., or 1 lb. 6½ oz. per square yard. Therefore within about ten months, or we will say for safety’s sake within a year, 12 oz. of castings were thrown up on this one square foot, or 6.75 pounds on the square yard; and this would give 14.58 tons per acre.

Regarding the tower-like castings near Nice (Nos. 5 and 6 in the table above), Dr. King often found five or six of them per square foot. Based on their average weight, they would have weighed a total of 7.5 ounces, making the weight for a square yard 4 pounds 3.5 ounces. Near the end of 1872, Dr. King collected all the castings that still had their worm-like shape, whether broken or not, from a square foot in an area rich with worms, on top of a bank where no castings could have rolled down from above. He concluded that these castings must have been ejected, based on their appearance concerning the rainy and dry periods near Nice, within the previous five or six months; they weighed 9.5 ounces, or 5 pounds 5.5 ounces per square yard. After four months, Dr. King collected all the castings that had been ejected on the same square foot, and they weighed 2.5 ounces, or 1 pound 6.5 ounces per square yard. Therefore, over about ten months—or to be safe, within a year—12 ounces of castings were produced on this one square foot, which equals 6.75 pounds per square yard, amounting to 14.58 tons per acre.

In a field at the bottom of a valley in the chalk (see No. 2 in the foregoing table), a square yard was measured at a spot where very large castings abounded; they appeared, however, almost equally numerous in a few other places. These castings, which retained perfectly their vermiform shape, were collected; and they weighed when partially dried, 1 lb. 13½ oz. This field had been rolled with a heavy agricultural roller fifty-two days before, and this would certainly have flattened every single casting on the land. The weather had been very dry for two or three weeks before the day of collection, so that not one casting appeared fresh or had been recently ejected. We may therefore assume that those which were weighed had been ejected within, we will say, forty days from the time when the field was rolled,—that is, twelve days short of the whole intervening period. I had examined the same part of the field shortly before it was rolled, and it then abounded with fresh castings. Worms do not work in dry weather during the summer, or in winter during severe frosts. If we assume that they work for only half the year—though this is too low an estimate—then the worms in this field would eject during the year, 8.387 pounds per square yard; or 18.12 tons per acre, assuming the whole surface to be equally productive in castings.

In a field at the bottom of a valley in the chalk (see No. 2 in the table above), a square yard was measured at a spot where a lot of large castings were found; they also seemed to be almost as numerous in a few other areas. These castings, which still had their worm-like shape, were collected; they weighed 1 lb. 13½ oz when partially dried. This field had been rolled with a heavy agricultural roller fifty-two days earlier, which definitely would have flattened every casting on the land. The weather had been very dry for two or three weeks before the day of collection, so none of the castings looked fresh or had been recently ejected. Therefore, we can assume that the ones which were weighed had been ejected within about forty days from when the field was rolled—twelve days short of the entire period. I had looked at the same area of the field just before it was rolled, and it had been full of fresh castings then. Worms don’t work in dry weather during the summer or when it’s really cold in the winter. If we assume they work for only half the year—though that's a low estimate—then the worms in this field would produce about 8.387 pounds per square yard during the year, or about 18.12 tons per acre, assuming the whole surface was equally productive in castings.

In the foregoing cases some of the necessary data had to be estimated, but in the two following cases the results are much more trustworthy. A lady, on whose accuracy I can implicitly rely, offered to collect during a year all the castings thrown up on two separate square yards, near Leith Hill Place, in Surrey. The amount collected was, however, somewhat less than that originally ejected by the worms; for, as I have repeatedly observed, a good deal of the finest earth is washed away, whenever castings are thrown up during or shortly before heavy rain. Small portions also adhered to the surrounding blades of grass, and it required too much time to detach every one of them.

In the previous examples, some of the necessary data had to be estimated, but in the next two cases, the results are much more reliable. A lady, whose accuracy I can completely trust, agreed to collect all the castings produced over the course of a year from two separate square yards near Leith Hill Place in Surrey. However, the amount collected was somewhat less than what was originally ejected by the worms. As I have often observed, a lot of the finer soil gets washed away whenever castings are thrown up during or just before heavy rain. Small bits also stuck to the surrounding blades of grass, and it took too much time to remove each one.

On sandy soil, as in the present instance, castings are liable to crumble after dry weather, and particles were thus often lost. The lady also occasionally left home for a week or two, and at such times the castings must have suffered still greater loss from exposure to the weather. These losses were, however, compensated to some extent by the collections having been made on one of the squares for four days, and on the other square for two days more than the year.

On sandy soil, like in this case, the castings tend to break apart after dry weather, causing some particles to be lost. The lady also sometimes left home for a week or two, and during those times, the castings likely faced even greater losses from exposure to the weather. However, these losses were partially offset by the fact that collections were made on one of the squares for four days and on the other square for two days longer than the previous year.

A space was selected (October 9th, 1870) for one of the squares on a broad, grass-covered terrace, which had been mowed and swept during many years. It faced the south, but was shaded during part of the day by trees. It had been formed at least a century ago by a great accumulation of small and large fragments of sandstone, together with some sandy earth, rammed down level. It is probable that it was at first protected by being covered with turf. This terrace, judging from the number of castings on it, was rather unfavourable for the existence of worms, in comparison with the neighbouring fields and an upper terrace. It was indeed surprising that as many worms could live here as were seen; for on digging a hole in this terrace, the black vegetable mould together with the turf was only four inches in thickness, beneath which lay the level surface of light-coloured sandy soil, with many fragments of sandstone. Before any castings were collected all the previously existing ones were carefully removed. The last day’s collection was on October 14th, 1871. The castings were then well dried before a fire; and they weighed exactly 3½ lbs. This would give for an acre of similar land 7.56 tons of dry earth annually ejected by worms.

A spot was chosen (October 9th, 1870) for one of the squares on a wide, grassy terrace that had been mowed and cleaned over many years. It faced south but was partially shaded during the day by trees. This terrace was created at least a century ago from a large buildup of small and large pieces of sandstone, along with some sandy soil that had been compacted down to a level surface. It’s likely that it was originally protected by being covered with grass. This terrace, based on the number of castings found on it, was not very favorable for worms compared to the nearby fields and an upper terrace. It was surprising that as many worms lived here as were observed; digging a hole in this terrace revealed that the black vegetable soil and grass were only four inches thick, underneath which lay a level layer of light-colored sandy soil scattered with many pieces of sandstone. Before collecting any castings, all the previously existing ones were carefully removed. The final day of collection was October 14th, 1871. The castings were then thoroughly dried by the fire and weighed exactly 3½ lbs. This would indicate that for an acre of similar land, worms could annually eject 7.56 tons of dry earth.

The second square was marked on unenclosed common land, at a height of about 700 ft. above the sea, at some little distance from Leith Hill Tower. The surface was clothed with short, fine turf, and had never been disturbed by the hand of man. The spot selected appeared neither particularly favourable nor the reverse for worms; but I have often noticed that castings are especially abundant on common land, and this may, perhaps, be attributed to the poorness of the soil. The vegetable mould was here between three and four inches in thickness. As this spot was at some distance from the house where the lady lived, the castings were not collected at such short intervals of time as those on the terrace; consequently the loss of fine earth during rainy weather must have been greater in this than in the last case. The castings moreover were more sandy, and in collecting them during dry weather they sometimes crumbled into dust, and much was thus lost. Therefore it is certain that the worms brought up to the surface considerably more earth than that which was collected. The last collection was made on October 27th, 1871; i.e., 367 days after the square had been marked out and the surface cleared of all pre-existing castings. The collected castings, after being well dried, weighed 7.453 pounds; and this would give, for an acre of the same kind of land, 16.1 tons of annually ejected dry earth.

The second square was marked on open common land, at an elevation of about 700 ft. above sea level, not far from Leith Hill Tower. The ground was covered with short, fine grass and had never been disturbed by human activity. The chosen spot didn’t seem particularly good or bad for worms; however, I’ve often noticed that worm castings are especially plentiful on common land, which might be due to the poor quality of the soil. The topsoil here was about three to four inches thick. Since this spot was a bit far from the lady’s house, the castings weren’t collected as frequently as those on the terrace; therefore, the loss of fine soil during rainy weather must have been greater here than in the previous case. The castings were also more sandy, and when collecting them during dry weather, they sometimes crumbled into dust, resulting in significant loss. So, it's clear that the worms brought up considerably more soil than was actually collected. The last collection was made on October 27th, 1871; that is, 367 days after the square was marked and the surface was cleared of all previous castings. The collected castings, after being thoroughly dried, weighed 7.453 pounds, which would translate to 16.1 tons of dry earth ejected annually per acre of similar land.

Summary of the four foregoing cases.

Summary of the four prior cases.

(1.) Castings ejected near Nice within about a year, collected by Dr. King on a square foot of surface, calculated to yield per acre 14.58 tons.

(1.) Castings ejected near Nice within about a year, collected by Dr. King on a square foot of surface, calculated to yield per acre 14.58 tons.

(2.) Castings ejected during about 40 days on a square yard, in a field of poor pasture at the bottom of a large valley in the Chalk, calculated to yield annually per acre 18.12 tons.

(2.) Castings removed over roughly 40 days from a square yard in a field of poor pasture at the bottom of a large valley in the Chalk, estimated to yield annually per acre 18.12 tons.

(3.) Castings collected from a square yard on an old terrace at Leith Hill Place, during 369 days, calculated to yield annually per acre 7.56 tons.

(3.) Castings gathered from a square yard on an old terrace at Leith Hill Place, over 369 days, estimated to yield annually per acre 7.56 tons.

(4.) Castings collected from a square yard on Leith Hill Common during 367 days, calculated to yield annually per acre 16.1 tons.

(4.) Castings collected from a square yard on Leith Hill Common over 367 days are estimated to produce 16.1 tons per acre each year.

The thickness of the layer of mould, which castings ejected during a year would form if uniformly spread out.—As we know, from the two last cases in the above summary, the weight of the dried castings ejected by worms during a year on a square yard of surface, I wished to learn how thick a layer of ordinary mould this amount would form if spread uniformly over a square yard. The dry castings were therefore broken into small particles, and whilst being placed in a measure were well shaken and pressed down. Those collected on the Terrace amounted to 124.77 cubic inches; and this amount, if spread out over a square yard, would make a layer 0.9627 inch in thickness. Those collected on the Common amounted to 197.56 cubic inches, and would make a similar layer 0.1524 inch in thickness.

The thickness of the layer of mold, which castings ejected during a year would form if evenly distributed.—Based on the last two cases in the summary above, I wanted to find out how thick a layer of regular mold the weight of dried castings ejected by worms in a year would create if spread uniformly over a square yard. The dry castings were broken into small pieces, and while being measured, they were shaken and packed down. The amount collected on the Terrace totaled 124.77 cubic inches; if spread over a square yard, this would create a layer 0.9627 inches thick. The amount collected on the Common totaled 197.56 cubic inches, which would create a similar layer 0.1524 inches thick.

These thicknesses must, however, be corrected, for the triturated castings, after being well shaken down and pressed, did not make nearly so compact a mass as vegetable mould, though each separate particle was very compact. Yet mould is far from being compact, as is shown by the number of air-bubbles which rise up when the surface is flooded with water. It is moreover penetrated by many fine roots. To ascertain approximately by how much ordinary vegetable mould would be increased in bulk by being broken up into small particles and then dried, a thin oblong block of somewhat argillaceous mould (with the turf pared off) was measured before being broken up, was well dried and again measured. The drying caused it to shrink by 1/7 of its original bulk, judging from exterior measurements alone. It was then triturated and partly reduced to powder, in the same manner as the castings had been treated, and its bulk now exceeded (notwithstanding shrinkage from drying) by 1/16 that of the original block of damp mould. Therefore the above calculated thickness of the layer, formed by the castings from the Terrace, after being damped and spread over a square yard, would have to be reduced by 1/16; and this will reduce the layer to 0.09 of an inch, so that a layer 0.9 inch in thickness would be formed in the course of ten years. On the same principle the castings from the Common would make in the course of a single year a layer 0.1429 inch, or in the course of 10 years 1.429 inch, in thickness. We may say in round numbers that the thickness in the former case would amount to nearly 1 inch, and in the second case to nearly 1½ inch in 10 years.

These thicknesses need to be adjusted because the ground-up castings, after being shaken and pressed down, didn’t create as compact a mass as vegetable soil, even though each particle was very compact. However, soil isn’t very compact at all, as shown by the air bubbles that rise when the surface is covered with water. It's also penetrated by many fine roots. To estimate how much regular vegetable soil would expand when broken into small particles and then dried, a thin oblong block of slightly clay-like soil (with the turf removed) was measured before being broken up, then dried well and measured again. The drying caused it to shrink by 1/7 of its original size based on outer measurements alone. It was then ground down to powder, just like the castings were treated, and its bulk now exceeded that of the original block of damp soil by 1/16, despite the shrinkage from drying. Therefore, the previously calculated thickness of the layer formed by the castings from the Terrace, after being dampened and spread over a square yard, would need to be reduced by 1/16, making the layer 0.09 of an inch thick, so that a layer 0.9 inch thick would form over ten years. Similarly, the castings from the Common would create a layer of 0.1429 inch in one year, or 1.429 inch over ten years. We can round this to say that the thickness in the first case would be about 1 inch, and in the second case about 1½ inch over ten years.

In order to compare these results with those deduced from the rates at which small objects left on the surfaces of grass-fields become buried (as described in the early part of this chapter), we will give the following summary:—

In order to compare these results with those derived from the rates at which small objects left on the surfaces of grass fields become buried (as described in the early part of this chapter), we will provide the following summary:—

Summary of the thickness of the Mould accumulated over Objects left strewed on the Surface, in the course of ten years.

Summary of the thickness of the mold that formed on objects left on the surface over a ten-year period..

The accumulation of mould during 14¾ years on the surface of a dry, sandy, grass-field near Maer Hall, amounted to 2.2 inches in 10 years.

The buildup of mold over 14¾ years on the surface of a dry, sandy grass field near Maer Hall reached 2.2 inches in 10 years.

The accumulation during 21½ years on a swampy field near Maer Hall, amounted to nearly 1.9 inch in 10 years.

The buildup over 21½ years in a muddy area close to Maer Hall was nearly 1.9 inches in 10 years.

The accumulation during 7 years on a very swampy field near Maer Hall amounted to 2.1 inches in 10 years.

The buildup over 7 years on a very swampy area near Maer Hall reached 2.1 inches in 10 years.

The accumulation during 29 years, on good, argillaceous pasture-land over the Chalk at Down, amounted to 2.2 inches in 10 years.

The buildup over 29 years on good, clayey pasture land over the Chalk at Down was 2.2 inches in 10 years.

The accumulation during 30 years on the side of a valley over the Chalk at Down, the soil being argillaceous, very poor, and only just converted into pasture (so that it was for some years unfavourable for worms), amounted to 0.83 inch in 10 years.

The buildup over 30 years on the side of a valley above the Chalk at Down, where the soil was clayey and very poor, and had just been turned into pasture (making it unfavorable for worms for several years), totaled 0.83 inches in 10 years.

In these cases (excepting the last) it may be seen that the amount of earth brought to the surface during 10 years is somewhat greater than that calculated from the castings which were actually weighed. This excess may be partly accounted for by the loss which the weighed castings had previously undergone through being washed by rain, by the adhesion of particles to the blades of the surrounding grass, and by their crumbling when dry. Nor must we overlook other agencies which in all ordinary cases add to the amount of mould, and which would not be included in the castings that were collected, namely, the fine earth brought up to the surface by burrowing larvæ and insects, especially by ants. The earth brought up by moles generally has a somewhat different appearance from vegetable mould; but after a time would not be distinguishable from it. In dry countries, moreover, the wind plays an important part in carrying dust from one place to another, and even in England it must add to the mould on fields near great roads. But in our country these latter several agencies appear to be of quite subordinate importance in comparison with the action of worms.

In these cases (excluding the last one), it's clear that the amount of earth brought to the surface over 10 years is a bit more than what was calculated from the castings that were actually weighed. This excess can be partly explained by the loss the weighed castings experienced due to rain washing them, particles sticking to the blades of nearby grass, and them crumbling when dry. We shouldn't ignore other factors that typically increase the amount of mold and wouldn't be counted in the collected castings, such as the fine earth brought to the surface by burrowing larvae and insects, especially ants. The earth brought up by moles usually looks somewhat different from vegetable mold, but over time it becomes indistinguishable. In dry regions, the wind significantly contributes to moving dust around, and even in England, it must add to the mold in fields close to major roads. However, in our country, these additional factors seem to be much less important compared to the impact of worms.

We have no means of judging how great a weight of earth a single full-sized worm ejects during a year. Hensen estimates that 53,767 worms exist in an acre of land; but this is founded on the number found in gardens, and he believes that only about half as many live in corn-fields. How many live in old pasture land is unknown; but if we assume that half the above number, or 26,886 worms live on such land, then taking from the previous summary 15 tons as the weight of the castings annually thrown up on an acre of land, each worm must annually eject 20 ounces. A full-sized casting at the mouth of a single burrow often exceeds, as we have seen, an ounce in weight; and it is probable that worms eject more than 20 full-sized castings during a year. If they eject annually more than 20 ounces, we may infer that the worms which live in an acre of pasture land must be less than 26,886 in number.

We can't really tell how much soil a single full-sized worm pushes out in a year. Hensen estimates that there are 53,767 worms per acre; however, this estimate comes from the number found in gardens, and he thinks that only about half that many are found in cornfields. The number of worms in old pastures is unknown, but if we assume that there are about half of the previous estimate, or 26,886 worms living in such land, then based on the earlier summary of 15 tons being the weight of the castings produced each year per acre, each worm would have to push out 20 ounces annually. A single full-sized casting at the opening of a burrow often weighs more than an ounce; therefore, it's likely that worms produce more than 20 full-sized castings each year. If they push out more than 20 ounces, we can conclude that the worms living in an acre of pasture land must number fewer than 26,886.

Worms live chiefly in the superficial mould, which is usually from 4 or 5 to 10 and even 12 inches in thickness; and it is this mould which passes over and over again through their bodies and is brought to the surface. But worms occasionally burrow into the subsoil to a much greater depth, and on such occasions they bring up earth from this greater depth; and this process has gone on for countless ages. Therefore the superficial layer of mould would ultimately attain, though at a slower and slower rate, a thickness equal to the depth to which worms ever burrow, were there not other opposing agencies at work which carry away to a lower level some of the finest earth which is continually being brought to the surface by worms. How great a thickness vegetable mould ever attains, I have not had good opportunities for observing; but in the next chapter, when we consider the burial of ancient buildings, some facts will be given on this head. In the two last chapters we shall see that the soil is actually increased, though only to a small degree, through the agency of worms; but their chief work is to sift the finer from the coarser particles, to mingle the whole with vegetable débris, and to saturate it with their intestinal secretions.

Worms mainly live in the upper layer of soil, which is typically about 4 to 5 to 10 or even 12 inches thick; this soil constantly passes through their bodies and is brought to the surface. However, worms sometimes burrow into the subsoil much deeper, and during these times, they bring up earth from these greater depths. This process has been happening for countless ages. As a result, the upper layer of soil would eventually reach a thickness equal to how deep worms burrow, although at a slower and slower rate, if it weren't for other factors that remove some of the finer soil constantly brought to the surface by worms. I haven't had many opportunities to observe how thick vegetable soil can get, but in the next chapter, when we discuss the burial of ancient buildings, I will provide some facts on this topic. In the last two chapters, we will see that the soil actually increases, though only slightly, thanks to worms; their main job is to separate the finer from the coarser particles, mix everything with plant debris, and enrich it with their intestinal secretions.

Finally, no one who considers the facts given in this chapter—on the burying of small objects and on the sinking of great stones left on the surface—on the vast number of worms which live within a moderate extent of ground on the weight of the castings ejected from the mouth of the same burrow—on the weight of all the castings ejected within a known time on a measured space—will hereafter, as I believe, doubt that worms play an important part in nature.

Finally, no one who looks at the facts presented in this chapter—about the burying of small objects and the sinking of large stones left on the surface—about the immense number of worms that live in a relatively small area, based on the weight of the castings expelled from the mouth of the same burrow—about the weight of all the castings ejected over a known period on a measured area—will, I believe, question that worms play a vital role in nature.

p. 164CHAPTER IV.
THE ROLE OF WORMS IN THE BURIAL OF ANCIENT BUILDINGS.

The accumulation of rubbish on the sites of great cities independent of the action of worms—The burial of a Roman villa at Abinger—The floors and walls penetrated by worms—Subsidence of a modern pavement—The buried pavement at Beaulieu Abbey—Roman villas at Chedworth and Brading—The remains of the Roman town at Silchester—The nature of the débris by which the remains are covered—The penetration of the tesselated floors and walls by worms—Subsidence of the floors—Thickness of the mould—The old Roman city of Wroxeter—Thickness of the mould—Depth of the foundations of some of the Buildings—Conclusion.

The buildup of trash in major cities, regardless of worm activity—The burial of a Roman villa in Abinger—Floors and walls affected by worms—Settlement of a modern pavement—The buried pavement at Beaulieu Abbey—Roman villas at Chedworth and Brading—The remnants of the Roman town at Silchester—The type of debris covering the remains—The intrusion of worms into the tiled floors and walls—Settlement of the floors—Thickness of the soil—The ancient Roman city of Wroxeter—Thickness of the soil—Depth of the foundations of some buildings—Conclusion.

Archæologists are probably not aware how much they owe to worms for the preservation of many ancient objects. Coins, gold ornaments, stone implements, &c., if dropped on the surface of the ground, will infallibly be buried by the castings of worms in a few years, and will thus be safely preserved, until the land at some future time is turned up. For instance, many years ago a grass-field was ploughed on the northern side of the Severn, not far from Shrewsbury; and a surprising number of iron arrow-heads were found at the bottom of the furrows, which, as Mr. Blakeway, a local antiquary, believed, were relics of the battle of Shrewsbury in the year 1403, and no doubt had been originally left strewed on the battle-field. In the present chapter I shall show that not only implements, &c., are thus preserved, but that the floors and the remains of many ancient buildings in England have been buried so effectually, in large part through the action of worms, that they have been discovered in recent times solely through various accidents. The enormous beds of rubbish, several yards in thickness, which underlie many cities, such as Rome, Paris, and London, the lower ones being of great antiquity, are not here referred to, as they have not been in any way acted on by worms. When we consider how much matter is daily brought into a great city for building, fuel, clothing and food, and that in old times when the roads were bad and the work of the scavenger was neglected, a comparatively small amount was carried away, we may agree with Élie de Beaumont, who, in discussing this subject, says, “pour une voiture de matériaux qui en sort, on y en fait entrer cent.” [166a] Nor should we overlook the effects of fires, the demolition of old buildings, and the removal of rubbish to the nearest vacant space.

Archaeologists probably don't realize how much they owe to worms for preserving many ancient objects. Coins, gold ornaments, stone tools, etc., if dropped on the ground, will inevitably be buried by the castings of worms within a few years, thus safely preserved until the land is disturbed at some point in the future. For example, many years ago, a grass field was plowed on the northern side of the Severn, not far from Shrewsbury; a surprising number of iron arrowheads were found at the bottom of the furrows, which Mr. Blakeway, a local antiquarian, believed were remnants of the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403, originally left scattered on the battlefield. In this chapter, I will show that not only tools and such are preserved this way, but that the floors and remains of many ancient buildings in England have been buried so effectively, largely due to the actions of worms, that they have only been discovered in modern times through various accidents. The massive layers of debris, several yards thick, that underlie many cities like Rome, Paris, and London, with the lower layers being very ancient, are not included here, as they haven’t been affected by worms. When we consider how much material is brought into a large city daily for construction, fuel, clothing, and food, and that in old times, when the roads were poor and waste collection was neglected, relatively little was removed, we may agree with Élie de Beaumont, who, discussing this topic, says, “for every load of materials taken out, a hundred are brought in.” [166a] We should also consider the effects of fires, the demolition of old buildings, and the removal of waste to the nearest empty spaces.

Abinger, Surrey.—Late in the autumn of 1876, the ground in an old farm-yard at this place was dug to a depth of 2 to 2½ feet, and the workmen found various ancient remains. This led Mr. T. H. Farrer of Abinger Hall to have an adjoining ploughed field searched. On a trench being dug, a layer of concrete, still partly covered with tesseræ (small red tiles), and surrounded on two sides by broken-down walls, was soon discovered. It is believed, [166b] that this room formed part of the atrium or reception-room of a Roman villa. The walls of two or three other small rooms were afterwards discovered. Many fragments of pottery, other objects, and coins of several Roman emperors, dating from 133 to 361, and perhaps to 375 A.D., were likewise found. Also a half-penny of George I., 1715. The presence of this latter coin seems an anomaly; but no doubt it was dropped on the ground during the last century, and since then there has been ample time for its burial under a considerable depth of the castings of worms. From the different dates of the Roman coins we may infer that the building was long inhabited. It was probably ruined and deserted 1400 or 1500 years ago.

Abinger, Surrey.—Late in the autumn of 1876, the ground in an old farmyard at this location was dug to a depth of 2 to 2½ feet, and the workers uncovered various ancient remains. This prompted Mr. T. H. Farrer of Abinger Hall to have a nearby ploughed field investigated. When a trench was dug, they quickly found a layer of concrete, still partially covered with tesseræ (small red tiles), and surrounded on two sides by crumbling walls. It is believed, [166b] that this room was part of the atrium or reception area of a Roman villa. The walls of two or three other small rooms were discovered afterward. Many fragments of pottery, various objects, and coins from several Roman emperors, dating from 133 to 361, and possibly to 375 CE, were also found. Additionally, there was a half-penny from the reign of George I, 1715. The presence of this latter coin seems unusual; however, it was likely dropped on the ground during the last century, and since then, there has been plenty of time for it to become buried under a significant layer of worm castings. From the different dates of the Roman coins, we can infer that the building was occupied for a long time. It was probably ruined and abandoned around 1400 or 1500 years ago.

I was present during the commencement of the excavations (August 20, 1877) and Mr. Farrer had two deep trenches dug at opposite ends of the atrium, so that I might examine the nature of the soil near the remains. The field sloped from east to west at an angle of about 7°; and one of the two trenches, shown in the accompanying section (Fig. 8) was at the upper or eastern end. The diagram is on a scale of 1/20 of an inch to an inch; but the trench, which was between 4 and 5 feet broad, and in parts above 5 feet deep, has necessarily been reduced out of all proportion. The fine mould over the floor of the atrium varied in thickness from 11 to 16 inches; and on the side of the trench in the section was a little over 13 inches. After the mould had been removed, the floor appeared as a whole moderately level; but it sloped in parts at an angle of 1°, and in one place near the outside at as much as 8° 30′. The wall surrounding the pavement was built of rough stones, and was 23 inches in thickness where the trench was dug. Its broken summit was here 13 inches, but in another part 15 inches, beneath the surface of the field, being covered by this thickness of mould. In one spot, however, it rose to within 6 inches of the surface. On two sides of the room, where the junction of the concrete floor with the bounding walls could be carefully examined, there was no crack or separation. This trench afterwards proved to have been dug within an adjoining room (11 ft. by 11 ft. 6 in. in size), the existence of which was not even suspected whilst I was present.

I was there when the excavations started (August 20, 1877), and Mr. Farrer had two deep trenches dug at opposite ends of the atrium so I could check out the soil around the remains. The field sloped from east to west at about a 7° angle; one of the trenches, shown in the accompanying section (Fig. 8), was at the upper or eastern end. The diagram is on a scale of 1/20 of an inch to an inch, but the trench, which was between 4 and 5 feet wide and over 5 feet deep in some spots, has been reduced significantly. The fine soil over the atrium floor varied in thickness from 11 to 16 inches, and the side of the trench in the section had just over 13 inches. Once the soil was removed, the floor looked fairly level overall; however, it sloped in parts at a 1° angle, and in one area near the outside, it sloped as much as 8° 30′. The wall around the pavement was made of rough stones and was 23 inches thick where the trench was dug. Its broken top was 13 inches here, but in another spot, it was 15 inches below the surface of the field, covered by that thickness of soil. In one place, though, it rose to within 6 inches of the surface. On two sides of the room, where I could closely examine the join between the concrete floor and the walls, there were no cracks or separations. This trench ended up being dug within an adjoining room (11 ft. by 11 ft. 6 in. in size), the existence of which I had no idea about while I was there.

On the side of the trench farthest from the buried wall (W), the mould varied from 9 to 14 inches in thickness; it rested on a mass (B) 23 inches thick of blackish earth, including many large stones. Beneath this was a thin bed of very black mould (C), then a layer of earth full of fragments of mortar (D), and then another thin bed (about 3 inches thick) (E) of very black mould, which rested on the undisturbed subsoil (F) of firm, yellowish, argillaceous sand. The 23-inch bed (B) was probably made ground, as this would have brought up the floor of the room to a level with that of the atrium. The two thin beds of black mould at the bottom of the trench evidently marked two former land-surfaces. Outside the walls of the northern room, many bones, ashes, oyster-shells, broken pottery and an entire pot were subsequently found at a depth of 16 inches beneath the surface.

On the side of the trench farthest from the buried wall (W), the soil thickness varied from 9 to 14 inches; it rested on a layer (B) that was 23 inches thick of dark earth, containing many large stones. Below this was a thin layer of very dark soil (C), then a layer of earth filled with bits of mortar (D), and then another thin layer (about 3 inches thick) (E) of very dark soil, which rested on the undisturbed subsoil (F) of solid, yellowish, clay-like sand. The 23-inch layer (B) was likely made ground, as this would have raised the floor of the room to the same level as that of the atrium. The two thin layers of dark soil at the bottom of the trench clearly indicated two former land surfaces. Outside the walls of the northern room, many bones, ashes, oyster shells, broken pottery, and an entire pot were later found at a depth of 16 inches below the surface.

The second trench was dug on the western or lower side of the villa: the mould was here only 6½ inches in thickness, and it rested on a mass of fine earth full of stones, broken tiles and fragments of mortar, 34 inches in thickness, beneath which was the undisturbed sand. Most of this earth had probably been washed down from the upper part of the field, and the fragments of stones, tiles, &c., must have come from the immediately adjoining ruins.

The second trench was dug on the western or lower side of the villa: the layer was only 6½ inches thick here, and it sat on a mass of fine soil filled with stones, broken tiles, and bits of mortar, 34 inches thick, beneath which was the undisturbed sand. Most of this soil had likely been washed down from the higher part of the field, and the fragments of stones, tiles, etc., must have come from the nearby ruins.

It appears at first sight a surprising fact that this field of light sandy soil should have been cultivated and ploughed during many years, and that not a vestige of these buildings should have been discovered. No one even suspected that the remains of a Roman villa lay hidden close beneath the surface. But the fact is less surprising when it is known that the field, as the bailiff believed, had never been ploughed to a greater depth than 4 inches. It is certain that when the land was first ploughed, the pavement and the surrounding broken walls must have been covered by at least 4 inches of soil, for otherwise the rotten concrete floor would have been scored by the ploughshare, the tesseræ torn up, and the tops of the old walls knocked down.

At first glance, it seems surprising that this light sandy field has been farmed and plowed for many years without any signs of buildings being found. No one had any idea that the remains of a Roman villa were hidden just beneath the surface. However, the situation becomes less surprising when you consider that, according to the bailiff, the field had never been plowed deeper than 4 inches. It's clear that when the land was first tilled, the pavement and the broken walls around it must have been covered by at least 4 inches of soil; otherwise, the plow would have damaged the crumbling concrete floor, uprooted the small tiles, and knocked down the tops of the old walls.

When the concrete and tesseræ were first cleared over a space of 14 by 9 ft., the floor which was coated with trodden-down earth exhibited no signs of having been penetrated by worms; and although the overlying fine mould closely resembled that which in many places has certainly been accumulated by worms, yet it seemed hardly possible that this mould could have been brought up by worms from beneath the apparently sound floor. It seemed also extremely improbable that the thick walls, surrounding the room and still united to the concrete, had been undermined by worms, and had thus been caused to sink, being afterwards covered up by their castings. I therefore at first concluded that all the fine mould above the ruins had been washed down from the upper parts of the field; but we shall soon see that this conclusion was certainly erroneous, though much fine earth is known to be washed down from the upper part of the field in its present ploughed state during heavy rains.

When the concrete and small tiles were first cleared over an area of 14 by 9 ft., the floor, which was covered with packed-down dirt, showed no signs of being disturbed by worms. Even though the fine topsoil closely resembled what has definitely been built up by worms in many places, it seemed unlikely that this soil was brought up by worms from beneath the apparently intact floor. It also seemed very improbable that the thick walls surrounding the room, still connected to the concrete, had been eaten away by worms, causing them to sink and later be covered by their droppings. So, at first, I thought that all the fine soil above the ruins had washed down from the upper part of the field; however, we will soon see that this conclusion was clearly incorrect, although it is known that a lot of fine dirt does wash down from the upper part of the field in its current ploughed state during heavy rains.

Although the concrete floor did not at first appear to have been anywhere penetrated by worms, yet by the next morning little cakes of the trodden-down earth had been lifted up by worms over the mouths of seven burrows, which passed through the softer parts of the naked concrete, or between the interstices of the tesseræ. On the third morning twenty-five burrows were counted; and by suddenly lifting up the little cakes of earth, four worms were seen in the act of quickly retreating. Two castings were thrown up during the third night on the floor, and these were of large size. The season was not favourable for the full activity of worms, and the weather had lately been hot and dry, so that most of the worms now lived at a considerable depth. In digging the two trenches many open burrows and some worms were encountered at between 30 and 40 inches beneath the surface; but at a greater depth they became rare. One worm, however, was cut through at 48½, and another at 51½ inches beneath the surface. A fresh humus-lined burrow was also met with at a depth of 57 and another at 65½ inches. At greater depths than this, neither burrows nor worms were seen.

Although the concrete floor didn't initially seem to have been affected by worms, by the next morning, little mounds of compressed soil had been pushed up by worms over the openings of seven burrows, which went through the softer parts of the bare concrete or between the gaps in the tiles. By the third morning, twenty-five burrows were counted; and when lifting the little mounds of soil, four worms were spotted quickly retreating. Two large castings were found on the floor during the third night. The season wasn't ideal for worms to be very active, as it had been hot and dry lately, so most worms were living quite deep down. In digging the two trenches, many open burrows and some worms were encountered at depths of 30 to 40 inches below the surface, but they became less common at greater depths. One worm, however, was cut at 48½ inches, and another at 51½ inches beneath the surface. A fresh humus-lined burrow was also found at a depth of 57 inches and another at 65½ inches. No burrows or worms were seen at greater depths than this.

As I wished to learn how many worms lived beneath the floor of the atrium—a space of about 14 by 9 feet—Mr. Farrer was so kind as to make observations for me, during the next seven weeks, by which time the worms in the surrounding country were in full activity, and were working near the surface. It is very improbable that worms should have migrated from the adjoining field into the small space of the atrium, after the superficial mould in which they prefer to live, had been removed. We may therefore conclude that the burrows and the castings which were seen here during the ensuing seven weeks were the work of the former inhabitants of the space. I will now give a few extracts from Mr. Farrer’s notes.

As I wanted to find out how many worms lived under the floor of the atrium—a space about 14 by 9 feet—Mr. Farrer kindly agreed to observe for me over the next seven weeks. By that time, the worms in the surrounding area were very active and worked near the surface. It’s very unlikely that worms migrated from the nearby field into the small atrium after the topsoil they prefer had been removed. Therefore, we can conclude that the burrows and the castings observed here during those seven weeks were made by the original inhabitants of the space. Now, I will share a few excerpts from Mr. Farrer’s notes.

Aug. 26th, 1877; that is, five days after the floor had been cleared. On the previous night there had been some heavy rain, which washed the surface clean, and now the mouths of forty burrows were counted. Parts of the concrete were seen to be solid, and had never been penetrated by worms, and here the rain-water lodged.

Aug. 26, 1877; that is, five days after the floor had been cleared. The night before, there had been heavy rain that washed the surface clean, and now forty burrow entrances were counted. Some parts of the concrete were solid and had never been burrowed into by worms, and this is where the rainwater collected.

Sept. 5th.—Tracks of worms, made during the previous night, could be seen on the surface of the floor, and five or six vermiform castings had been thrown up. These were defaced.

Sept. 5th.—Worm tracks from the previous night were visible on the floor, and five or six worm castings had been pushed up. These were damaged.

Sept. 12th.—During the last six days, the worms have not been active, though many castings have been ejected in the neighbouring fields; but on this day the earth was a little raised over the mouths of the burrows, or castings were ejected, at ten fresh points. These were defaced. It should be understood that when a fresh burrow is spoken of, this generally means only that an old burrow has been re-opened. Mr. Farrer was repeatedly struck with the pertinacity with which the worms re-opened their old burrows, even when no earth was ejected from them. I have often observed the same fact, and generally the mouths of the burrows are protected by an accumulation of pebbles, sticks or leaves. Mr. Farrer likewise observed that the worms living beneath the floor of the atrium often collected coarse grains of sand, and such little stones as they could find, round the mouths of their burrows.

Sept. 12th.—In the past six days, the worms haven't been active, although many castings have appeared in the nearby fields. However, today the earth was slightly raised over the entrances of the burrows, or castings were ejected at ten new points. These were damaged. It's important to note that when a new burrow is mentioned, it usually means that an old burrow has been reopened. Mr. Farrer was consistently impressed by how determined the worms were to reopen their old burrows, even when no earth was being ejected from them. I've often noticed the same thing, and typically, the entrances of the burrows are covered by a pile of pebbles, sticks, or leaves. Mr. Farrer also noticed that the worms living beneath the atrium floor often gathered coarse grains of sand and small stones around the entrances of their burrows.

Sept. 13th; soft wet weather. The mouths of the burrows were re-opened, or castings were ejected, at 31 points; these were all defaced.

Sept. 13th; soft, wet weather. The entrances of the burrows were reopened, or waste was ejected, at 31 points; these were all damaged.

Sept. 14th; 34 fresh holes or castings; all defaced.

Sept. 14th; 34 new holes or castings; all damaged.

Sept. 15th; 44 fresh holes, only 5 castings; all defaced.

Sept. 15th; 44 new holes, only 5 castings; all damaged.

Sept. 18th; 43 fresh holes, 8 castings; all defaced.

Sept. 18th; 43 new holes, 8 castings; all damaged.

The number of castings on the surrounding fields was now very large.

The number of castings in the nearby fields was now quite high.

Sept. 19th; 40 holes, 8 castings; all defaced.

Sept. 19th; 40 holes, 8 castings; all damaged.

Sept. 22nd; 43 holes, only a few fresh castings; all defaced.

Sept. 22nd; 43 holes, only a few new castings; all damaged.

Sept. 23rd; 44 holes, 8 castings.

Sept. 23rd; 44 holes, 8 castings.

Sept. 25th; 50 holes, no record of the number of castings.

Sept. 25th; 50 holes, no record of how many times it was cast.

Oct. 13th; 61 holes, no record of the number of castings.

Oct. 13th; 61 holes, no record of the number of castings.

After an interval of three years, Mr. Farrer, at my request, again looked at the concrete floor, and found the worms still at work.

After three years, Mr. Farrer, at my request, checked the concrete floor again and discovered that the worms were still active.

Knowing what great muscular power worms possess, and seeing how soft the concrete was in many parts, I was not surprised at its having been penetrated by their burrows; but it is a more surprising fact that the mortar between the rough stones of the thick walls, surrounding the rooms, was found by Mr. Farrer to have been penetrated by worms. On August 26th, that is, five days after the ruins had been exposed, he observed four open burrows on the broken summit of the eastern wall (W in Fig. 8); and, on September 15th, other burrows similarly situated were seen. It should also be noted that in the perpendicular side of the trench (which was much deeper than is represented in Fig. 8) three recent burrows were seen, which ran obliquely far down beneath the base of the old wall.

Knowing how strong worms really are and seeing how soft the concrete was in many areas, I wasn’t surprised that their burrows had made their way through it. However, it was more surprising to find that the mortar between the rough stones of the thick walls surrounding the rooms had also been penetrated by worms, as discovered by Mr. Farrer. On August 26th, just five days after the ruins were uncovered, he noticed four open burrows on the broken top of the eastern wall (W in Fig. 8); and on September 15th, he saw more burrows in the same area. It’s also worth mentioning that in the steep side of the trench (which was much deeper than shown in Fig. 8), three recent burrows were observed, which ran at an angle far down below the base of the old wall.

We thus see that many worms lived beneath the floor and the walls of the atrium at the time when the excavations were made; and that they afterwards almost daily brought up earth to the surface from a considerable depth. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that worms have acted in this manner ever since the period when the concrete was sufficiently decayed to allow them to penetrate it; and even before that period they would have lived beneath the floor, as soon as it became pervious to rain, so that the soil beneath was kept damp. The floor and the walls must therefore have been continually undermined; and fine earth must have been heaped on them during many centuries, perhaps for a thousand years. If the burrows beneath the floor and walls, which it is probable were formerly as numerous as they now are, had not collapsed in the course of time in the manner formerly explained, the underlying earth would have been riddled with passages like a sponge; and as this was not the case, we may feel sure that they have collapsed. The inevitable result of such collapsing during successive centuries, will have been the slow subsidence of the floor and of the walls, and their burial beneath the accumulated worm-castings. The subsidence of a floor, whilst it still remains nearly horizontal, may at first appear improbable; but the case presents no more real difficulty than that of loose objects strewed on the surface of a field, which, as we have seen, become buried several inches beneath the surface in the course of a few years, though still forming a horizontal layer parallel to the surface. The burial of the paved and level path on my lawn, which took place under my own observation, is an analogous case. Even those parts of the concrete floor which the worms could not penetrate would almost certainly have been undermined, and would have sunk, like the great stones at Leith Hill Place and Stonehenge, for the soil would have been damp beneath them. But the rate of sinking of the different parts would not have been quite equal, and the floor was not quite level. The foundations of the boundary walls lie, as shown in the section, at a very small depth beneath the surface; they would therefore have tended to subside at nearly the same rate as the floor. But this would not have occurred if the foundations had been deep, as in the case of some other Roman ruins presently to be described.

We can see that many worms lived under the floor and the walls of the atrium when the excavations were done; and that they almost daily brought earth to the surface from a considerable depth. There’s no reason to doubt that worms have been acting this way ever since the concrete was decayed enough for them to get through it; even before that, they would have lived beneath the floor as soon as it could let in rain, keeping the soil underneath damp. Therefore, the floor and the walls must have been continuously undermined, and fine earth must have built up on them over many centuries, possibly for a thousand years. If the burrows under the floor and walls, which were likely as numerous as they are now, hadn't collapsed over time as previously explained, the underlying earth would have been full of passages like a sponge; since that’s not the case, we can be sure that they have collapsed. The inevitable result of such collapses over centuries would have been the slow sinking of the floor and walls, burying them beneath the accumulated worm castings. The idea of a floor sinking while still remaining almost horizontal might seem unlikely at first; but it’s no more complicated than loose objects scattered on a field’s surface, which can become buried several inches below the surface within a few years while still forming a horizontal layer. The sinking of the paved and level path on my lawn, which I observed, is a similar case. Even the parts of the concrete floor that the worms couldn't get through would almost certainly have been undermined, causing them to sink, like the large stones at Leith Hill Place and Stonehenge, because the soil underneath them would have been damp. However, the rate of sinking for different parts wouldn't have been exactly the same, and the floor wasn't completely level. The foundations of the boundary walls are, as shown in the section, at a very shallow depth beneath the surface; therefore, they would have tended to sink at nearly the same rate as the floor. But this wouldn’t have happened if the foundations had been deep, as seen in some other Roman ruins that will be described later.

Finally, we may infer that a large part of the fine vegetable mould, which covered the floor and the broken-down walls of this villa, in some places to a thickness of 16 inches, was brought up from below by worms. From facts hereafter to be given there can be no doubt that some of the finest earth thus brought up will have been washed down the sloping surface of the field during every heavy shower of rain. If this had not occurred a greater amount of mould would have accumulated over the ruins than that now present. But beside the castings of worms and some earth brought up by insects, and some accumulation of dust, much fine earth will have been washed over the ruins from the upper parts of the field, since it has been under cultivation; and from over the ruins to the lower parts of the slope; the present thickness of the mould being the resultant of these several agencies.

Finally, we can conclude that a significant amount of the rich soil covering the floor and the crumbling walls of this villa, in some areas up to 16 inches thick, was brought up from below by worms. From facts that will be presented later, there’s no doubt that some of the best soil brought up will have been washed down the slope of the field during every heavy rain shower. If this hadn’t happened, more soil would have built up over the ruins than what we see now. Aside from the worm castings and some soil brought up by insects, as well as a bit of dust accumulation, a lot of fine soil will have been washed over the ruins from the higher parts of the field, as it has been farmed; and from above the ruins down to the lower parts of the slope; the current thickness of the soil being the result of these various processes.

 

I may here append a modern instance of the sinking of a pavement, communicated to me in 1871 by Mr. Ramsay, Director of the Geological Survey of England. A passage without a roof, 7 feet in length by 3 feet 2 inches in width, led from his house into the garden, and was paved with slabs of Portland stone. Several of these slabs were 16 inches square, others larger, and some a little smaller. This pavement had subsided about 3 inches along the middle of the passage, and two inches on each side, as could be seen by the lines of cement by which the slabs had been originally joined to the walls. The pavement had thus become slightly concave along the middle; but there was no subsidence at the end close to the house. Mr. Ramsay could not account for this sinking, until he observed that castings of black mould were frequently ejected along the lines of junction between the slabs; and these castings were regularly swept away. The several lines of junction, including those with the lateral walls, were altogether 39 feet 2 inches in length. The pavement did not present the appearance of ever having been renewed, and the house was believed to have been built about eighty-seven years ago. Considering all these circumstances, Mr. Ramsay does not doubt that the earth brought up by the worms since the pavement was first laid down, or rather since the decay of the mortar allowed the worms to burrow through it, and therefore within a much shorter time than the eighty-seven years, has sufficed to cause the sinking of the pavement to the above amount, except close to the house, where the ground beneath would have been kept nearly dry.

I can share a modern example of pavement sinking that Mr. Ramsay, the Director of the Geological Survey of England, told me about in 1871. There was a roofless passage, 7 feet long and 3 feet 2 inches wide, that led from his house to the garden, and it was paved with Portland stone slabs. Some of the slabs were 16 inches square, while others were larger, and a few were slightly smaller. The pavement had sunk about 3 inches in the middle of the passage and 2 inches on each side, which was visible from the cement lines that originally connected the slabs to the walls. This made the pavement slightly concave in the middle, but there was no sinking near the house. Mr. Ramsay couldn’t explain the sinking until he noticed black mold frequently appearing along the joints between the slabs, which were regularly swept away. The total length of the joints, including those with the walls, was 39 feet 2 inches. The pavement didn’t look like it had ever been replaced, and the house was believed to have been built about 87 years ago. Given all these factors, Mr. Ramsay believes that the soil brought up by worms since the pavement was first laid—or more accurately, since the decay of the mortar allowed the worms to tunnel through—has caused the pavement to sink that much, except near the house, where the ground beneath would have stayed mostly dry.

Beaulieu Abbey, Hampshire.—This abbey was destroyed by Henry VIII., and there now remains only a portion of the southern aisle-wall. It is believed that the king had most of the stones carried away for building a castle; and it is certain that they have been removed. The positions of the nave and transepts were ascertained not long ago by the foundations having been found; and the place is now marked by stones let into the ground. Where the abbey formerly stood, there now extends a smooth grass-covered surface, which resembles in all respects the rest of the field. The guardian, a very old man, said the surface had never been levelled in his time. In the year 1853, the Duke of Buccleuch had three holes dug in the turf within a few yards of one another, at the western end of the nave; and the old tesselated pavement of the abbey was thus discovered. These holes were afterwards surrounded by brickwork, and protected by trap-doors, so that the pavement might be readily inspected and preserved. When my son William examined the place on January 5, 1872, he found that the pavement in the three holes lay at depths of 6¾, 10 and 11½ inches beneath the surrounding turf-covered surface. The old guardian asserted that he was often forced to remove worm-castings from the pavement; and that he had done so about six months before. My son collected all from one of the holes, the area of which was 5.32 square feet, and they weighed 7.97 ounces. Assuming that this amount had accumulated in six months, the accumulation during a year on a square yard would be 1.68 pounds, which, though a large amount, is very small compared with what, as we have seen, is often ejected on fields and commons. When I visited the abbey on June 22, 1877, the old man said that he had cleared out the holes about a month before, but a good many castings had since been ejected. I suspect that he imagined that he swept the pavements oftener than he really did, for the conditions were in several respects very unfavourable for the accumulation of even a moderate amount of castings. The tiles are rather large, viz., about 5½ inches square, and the mortar between them was in most places sound, so that the worms were able to bring up earth from below only at certain points. The tiles rested on a bed of concrete, and the castings in consequence consisted in large part (viz., in the proportion of 19 to 33) of particles of mortar, grains of sand, little fragments of rock, bricks or tile; and such substances could hardly be agreeable, and certainly not nutritious, to worms.

Beaulieu Abbey, Hampshire.—This abbey was destroyed by Henry VIII, and now only a part of the southern aisle wall remains. It's believed that the king had most of the stones taken away to build a castle, and it's clear that they have been removed. The locations of the nave and transepts were determined not long ago when the foundations were found, and the area is now marked by stones set into the ground. Where the abbey once stood, there's now a smooth grass-covered surface that looks exactly like the rest of the field. The caretaker, an elderly man, said the surface has never been leveled during his time. In 1853, the Duke of Buccleuch had three holes dug in the turf, just a few yards apart at the western end of the nave, leading to the discovery of the old tiled pavement of the abbey. These holes were later surrounded by brickwork and protected by trapdoors, allowing for easy inspection and preservation of the pavement. When my son William visited the site on January 5, 1872, he found that the pavement in the three holes was 6¾, 10, and 11½ inches below the surrounding turf-covered surface. The old caretaker claimed he often had to remove worm castings from the pavement, having done so about six months prior. My son collected all the castings from one of the holes, which measured 5.32 square feet and weighed 7.97 ounces. Assuming this amount accumulated in six months, the total accumulation for a year on a square yard would be 1.68 pounds, which is quite a bit, but still small compared to what we've previously seen on fields and commons. When I visited the abbey on June 22, 1877, the old man mentioned that he had cleared out the holes about a month earlier, but a fair amount of castings had been ejected since then. I suspect he believed he cleaned the pavements more often than he actually did, as conditions were not particularly favorable for the accumulation of even a moderate amount of castings. The tiles are relatively large, about 5½ inches square, and the mortar between them was mostly intact, meaning worms could only bring up earth from below at certain points. The tiles rested on a bed of concrete, so the castings mostly consisted of (in a ratio of 19 to 33) particles of mortar, grains of sand, small rock fragments, bricks, or tiles; these materials would hardly be appealing or nutritious to worms.

My son dug holes in several places within the former walls of the abbey, at a distance of several yards from the above described bricked squares. He did not find any tiles, though these are known to occur in some other parts, but he came in one spot to concrete on which tiles had once rested. The fine mould beneath the turf on the sides of the several holes, varied in thickness from only 2 to 2¾ inches, and this rested on a layer from 8¾ to above 11 inches in thickness, consisting of fragments of mortar and stone-rubbish with the interstices compactly filled up with black mould. In the surrounding field, at a distance of 20 yards from the abbey, the fine vegetable mould was 11 inches thick.

My son dug holes in several spots within the old abbey walls, a few yards away from the brick squares mentioned earlier. He didn't find any tiles, even though they are known to be in other areas, but he did come across some concrete that once held tiles. The rich soil beneath the grass in the various holes ranged in thickness from just 2 to 2¾ inches, resting on a layer that was between 8¾ and more than 11 inches thick, made up of bits of mortar and stones, with the gaps filled tightly with dark soil. In the nearby field, 20 yards from the abbey, the rich soil measured 11 inches thick.

We may conclude from these facts that when the abbey was destroyed and the stones removed, a layer of rubbish was left over the whole surface, and that as soon as the worms were able to penetrate the decayed concrete and the joints between the tiles, they slowly filled up the interstices in the overlying rubbish with their castings, which were afterwards accumulated to a thickness of nearly three inches over the whole surface. If we add to this latter amount the mould between the fragments of stones, some five or six inches of mould must have been brought up from beneath the concrete or tiles. The concrete or tiles will consequently have subsided to nearly this amount. The bases of the columns of the aisles are now buried beneath mould and turf. It is not probable that they can have been undermined by worms, for their foundations would no doubt have been laid at a considerable depth. If they have not subsided, the stones of which the columns were constructed must have been removed from beneath the former level of the floor.

We can conclude from these facts that when the abbey was destroyed and the stones taken away, a layer of debris was left over the entire surface. As soon as the worms could get into the decayed concrete and the gaps between the tiles, they gradually filled the spaces in the overlying debris with their castings, which later built up to a thickness of nearly three inches across the whole area. If we add to this the mold between the pieces of stone, about five or six inches of mold must have been brought up from beneath the concrete or tiles. Therefore, the concrete or tiles have likely subsided by almost this amount. The bases of the columns in the aisles are now buried under mold and grass. It's unlikely that they were undermined by worms since their foundations were probably laid at a significant depth. If they haven’t sunk, then the stones making up the columns must have been removed from below the previous floor level.

Chedworth, Gloucestershire.—The remains of a large Roman villa were discovered here in 1866, on ground which had been covered with wood from time immemorial. No suspicion seems ever to have been entertained that ancient buildings lay buried here, until a gamekeeper, in digging for rabbits, encountered some remains. [183] But subsequently the tops of some stone walls were detected in parts of the wood, projecting a little above the surface of the ground. Most of the coins found here belonged to Constans (who died 350 A.D.) and the Constantine family. My sons Francis and Horace visited the place in November 1877, for the sake of ascertaining what part worms may have played in the burial of these extensive remains. But the circumstances were not favourable for this object, as the ruins are surrounded on three sides by rather steep banks, down which earth is washed during rainy weather. Moreover most of the old rooms have been covered with roofs, for the protection of the elegant tesselated pavements.

Chedworth, Gloucestershire.—The remains of a large Roman villa were uncovered here in 1866, in an area that had been forested for as long as anyone could remember. No one seemed to know that ancient structures were buried here until a gamekeeper, while digging for rabbits, found some remains. [183] Later, the tops of some stone walls were noticed in parts of the woods, sticking up slightly above the ground. Most of the coins found here belonged to Constans (who died in 350 CE) and the Constantine family. My sons Francis and Horace visited the site in November 1877, to find out what role worms might have played in burying these extensive remains. However, the conditions weren't ideal for this purpose, as the ruins are surrounded on three sides by steep banks that wash dirt down during rainy weather. Additionally, most of the old rooms have been covered with roofs to protect the beautiful mosaic floors.

A few facts may, however, be given on the thickness of the soil over these ruins. Close outside the northern rooms there is a broken wall, the summit of which was covered by 5 inches of black mould; and in a hole dug on the outer side of this wall, where the ground had never before been disturbed, black mould, full of stones, 26 inches in thickness, was found, resting on the undisturbed sub-soil of yellow clay. At a depth of 22 inches from the surface a pig’s jaw and a fragment of a tile were found. When the excavations were first made, some large trees grew over the ruins; and the stump of one has been left directly over a party-wall near the bath-room, for the sake of showing the thickness of the superincumbent soil, which was here 38 inches. In one small room, which, after being cleared out, had not been roofed over, my sons observed the hole of a worm passing through the rotten concrete, and a living worm was found within the concrete. In another open room worm-castings were seen on the floor, over which some earth had by this means been deposited, and here grass now grew.

A few facts can be shared about the thickness of the soil over these ruins. Just outside the northern rooms, there's a broken wall, the top of which was covered by 5 inches of black mold. In a hole dug on the outside of this wall, where the ground had never been disturbed, there was 26 inches of black mold filled with stones resting on the undisturbed yellow clay sub-soil. At 22 inches deep, we found a pig's jaw and a piece of tile. When the excavations first began, some large trees were growing over the ruins, and we left the stump of one directly over a party wall near the bathroom to show the thickness of the soil above, which was 38 inches here. In a small room that was cleared out but not re-roofed, my sons noticed a worm hole passing through the rotten concrete, and a live worm was found inside the concrete. In another open room, we saw worm castings on the floor, over which some dirt had been deposited, and grass has now started to grow there.

Brading, Isle of Wight.—A fine Roman villa was discovered here in 1880; and by the end of October no less than 18 chambers had been more or less cleared. A coin dated 337 A.D. was found. My son William visited the place before the excavations were completed; and he informs me that most of the floors were at first covered with much rubbish and fallen stones, having their interstices completely filled up with mould, abounding, as the workmen said, with worms, above which there was mould without any stones. The whole mass was in most places from 3 to above 4 ft. in thickness. In one very large room the overlying earth was only 2 ft. 6 in. thick; and after this had been removed, so many castings were thrown up between the tiles that the surface had to be almost daily swept. Most of the floors were fairly level. The tops of the broken-down walls were covered in some places by only 4 or 5 inches of soil, so that they were occasionally struck by the plough, but in other places they were covered by from 13 to 18 inches of soil. It is not probable that these walls could have been undermined by worms and subsided, as they rested on a foundation of very hard red sand, into which worms could hardly burrow. The mortar, however, between the stones of the walls of a hypocaust was found by my son to have been penetrated by many worm-burrows. The remains of this villa stand on land which slopes at an angle of about 3°; and the land appears to have been long cultivated. Therefore no doubt a considerable quantity of fine earth has been washed down from the upper parts of the field, and has largely aided in the burial of these remains.

Brading, Isle of Wight.—A remarkable Roman villa was uncovered here in 1880; and by the end of October, at least 18 rooms had been partially cleared. A coin dated 337 CE was discovered. My son William visited the site before the excavations were finished; and he tells me that most of the floors were initially covered with a lot of debris and fallen stones, completely filled with mold, which, as the workers said, was full of worms, with more mold on top and no stones. In many areas, the whole mass was from 3 to over 4 ft. thick. In one very large room, the top layer of earth was only 2 ft. 6 in. thick; and once this was cleared away, so many fragments were brought up between the tiles that the surface had to be swept almost daily. Most of the floors were relatively level. The tops of the collapsed walls were covered in some spots by just 4 or 5 inches of soil, so they were sometimes hit by the plow, while in other areas they had 13 to 18 inches of soil on top. It's unlikely that these walls could have been undermined by worms and sunk, as they were built on a very solid foundation of hard red sand, which was difficult for worms to dig into. However, my son found that the mortar between the stones of a hypocaust had been penetrated by numerous worm burrows. The remains of this villa are located on land that slopes at about a 3° angle; and the land seems to have been cultivated for a long time. Therefore, it's likely that a significant amount of fine soil has been washed down from the upper parts of the field, which has greatly contributed to the burial of these remains.

Silchester, Hampshire.—The ruins of this small Roman town have been better preserved than any other remains of the kind in England. A broken wall, in most parts from 15 to 18 feet in height and about 1½ mile in compass, now surrounds a space of about 100 acres of cultivated land, on which a farm-house and a church stand. [187] Formerly, when the weather was dry, the lines of the buried walls could be traced by the appearance of the crops; and recently very extensive excavations have been undertaken by the Duke of Wellington, under the superintendence of the late Rev. J. G. Joyce, by which means many large buildings have been discovered. Mr. Joyce made careful coloured sections, and measured the thickness of each bed of rubbish, whilst the excavations were in progress; and he has had the kindness to send me copies of several of them. When my sons Francis and Horace visited these ruins, he accompanied them, and added his notes to theirs.

Silchester, Hampshire.—The ruins of this small Roman town have been better preserved than any other remains of the same kind in England. A crumbling wall, mostly standing between 15 and 18 feet tall and about 1½ miles around, now encloses an area of about 100 acres of farmland, where a farmhouse and a church are located. [187] In the past, when the weather was dry, the outlines of the buried walls could be seen in the crops; and recently, extensive excavations have been carried out by the Duke of Wellington, overseen by the late Rev. J. G. Joyce, which revealed many large buildings. Mr. Joyce created detailed colored sections and measured the thickness of each layer of debris while the excavations were happening; he kindly sent me copies of several of them. When my sons Francis and Horace visited these ruins, he went along with them and added his notes to theirs.

Mr. Joyce estimates that the town was inhabited by the Romans for about three centuries; and no doubt much matter must have accumulated within the walls during this long period. It appears to have been destroyed by fire, and most of the stones used in the buildings have since been carried away. These circumstances are unfavourable for ascertaining the part which worms have played in the burial of the ruins; but as careful sections of the rubbish overlying an ancient town have seldom or never before been made in England, I will give copies of the most characteristic portions of some of those made by Mr. Joyce. They are of too great length to be here introduced entire.

Mr. Joyce estimates that the Romans lived in the town for about three centuries, and there's no doubt that a lot of material must have built up within the walls during that time. It seems to have been destroyed by fire, and most of the stones from the buildings have since been removed. These conditions make it difficult to determine the role worms have played in the burial of the ruins; however, since detailed sections of the debris covering an ancient town have rarely, if ever, been done in England, I will provide copies of the most significant parts of some of those made by Mr. Joyce. They are too lengthy to include here in full.

An east and west section, 30 ft. in length, was made across a room in the Basilica, now called the Hall of the Merchants (Fig. 9). The hard concrete floor, still covered here and there with tesseræ, was found at 3 ft. beneath the surface of the field, which was here level. On the floor there were two large piles of charred wood, one alone of which is shown in the part of the section here given. This pile was covered by a thin white layer of decayed stucco or plaster, above which was a mass, presenting a singularly disturbed appearance, of broken tiles, mortar, rubbish and fine gravel, together 27 inches in thickness. Mr. Joyce believes that the gravel was used in making the mortar or concrete, which has since decayed, some of the lime probably having been dissolved. The disturbed state of the rubbish may have been due to its having been searched for building stones. This bed was capped by fine vegetable mould, 9 inches in thickness. From these facts we may conclude that the Hall was burnt down, and that much rubbish fell on the floor, through and from which the worms slowly brought up the mould, now forming the surface of the level field.

An east and west section, 30 ft. long, was made across a room in the Basilica, now called the Hall of the Merchants (Fig. 9). The hard concrete floor, still scattered with tesseræ, was found 3 ft. beneath the surface of the level field. On the floor, there were two large piles of charred wood, with one of them shown in the section provided here. This pile was covered by a thin white layer of decayed stucco or plaster, above which was a mass that looked unusually disturbed, containing broken tiles, mortar, rubbish, and fine gravel, all together 27 inches thick. Mr. Joyce believes the gravel was used in making the mortar or concrete, which has since decayed, with some of the lime probably dissolved. The disturbed state of the rubbish may have resulted from searching for building stones. This layer was topped by fine vegetable mold, 9 inches thick. From these details, we can conclude that the Hall was burned down, and much debris fell onto the floor, through which worms gradually brought up the mold now forming the surface of the level field.

A section across the middle of another hall in the Basilica, 32 feet 6 inches in length, called the Ærarium, is shown in Fig. 10. It appears that we have here evidence of two fires, separated by an interval of time, during which the 6 inches of “mortar and concrete with broken tiles” was accumulated. Beneath one of the layers of charred wood, a valuable relic, a bronze eagle, was found; and this shows that the soldiers must have deserted the place in a panic. Owing to the death of Mr. Joyce, I have not been able to ascertain beneath which of the two layers the eagle was found. The bed of rubble overlying the undisturbed gravel originally formed, as I suppose, the floor, for it stands on a level with that of a corridor, outside the walls of the Hall; but the corridor is not shown in the section as here given. The vegetable mould was 16 inches thick in the thickest part; and the depth from the surface of the field, clothed with herbage, to the undisturbed gravel, was 40 inches.

A section across the middle of another hall in the Basilica, 32 feet 6 inches long, called the Ærarium, is shown in Fig. 10. It seems we have evidence of two fires, separated by some time, during which the 6 inches of “mortar and concrete with broken tiles” built up. Under one of the layers of charred wood, a valuable relic, a bronze eagle, was found; this suggests that the soldiers must have abandoned the place in a panic. Because of Mr. Joyce's passing, I haven't been able to find out under which of the two layers the eagle was discovered. The bed of rubble over the undisturbed gravel likely formed the floor, as it is level with that of a corridor outside the Hall's walls; however, the corridor is not shown in the section provided here. The vegetable soil was 16 inches thick at its deepest point, and the depth from the surface of the grass-covered field to the undisturbed gravel was 40 inches.

The section shown in Fig. 11 represents an excavation made in the middle of the town, and is here introduced because the bed of “rich mould” attained, according to Mr. Joyce, the unusual thickness of 20 inches. Gravel lay at the depth of 48 inches from the surface; but it was not ascertained whether this was in its natural state, or had been brought here and had been rammed down, as occurs in some other places.

The section shown in Fig. 11 represents a dig in the center of town, and is included here because the layer of "rich soil" reached, according to Mr. Joyce, an unusual thickness of 20 inches. Gravel was found at a depth of 48 inches from the surface, but it wasn't determined whether this was in its natural state or if it had been brought in and compacted, as is the case in some other locations.

The section shown in Fig. 12 was taken in the centre of the Basilica, and though it was 5 feet in depth, the natural sub-soil was not reached. The bed marked “concrete” was probably at one time a floor; and the beds beneath seem to be the remnants of more ancient buildings. The vegetable mould was here only 9 inches thick. In some other sections, not copied, we likewise have evidence of buildings having been erected over the ruins of older ones. In one case there was a layer of yellow clay of very unequal thickness between two beds of débris, the lower one of which rested on a floor with tesseræ. The ancient broken walls appear to have been sometimes roughly cut down to a uniform level, so as to serve as the foundations for a temporary building; and Mr. Joyce suspects that some of these buildings were wattled sheds, plastered with clay, which would account for the above-mentioned layer of clay.

The section shown in Fig. 12 was taken in the center of the Basilica, and although it was 5 feet deep, the natural sub-soil had not been reached. The layer labeled “concrete” was likely once a floor, and the layers underneath appear to be remnants of older buildings. The organic soil here was only 9 inches thick. In some other sections, not included here, we also have evidence of buildings built on the ruins of older ones. In one instance, there was a layer of yellow clay of varying thickness between two layers of debris, with the lower layer resting on a floor with tesserae. The ancient broken walls seem to have been roughly cut down to a uniform level, likely to serve as foundations for a temporary building; Mr. Joyce suspects that some of these structures were wattle sheds covered with clay, which would explain the mentioned layer of clay.

Turning now to the points which more immediately concern us. Worm-castings were observed on the floors of several of the rooms, in one of which the tesselation was unusually perfect. The tesseræ here consisted of little cubes of hard sandstone of about 1 inch, several of which were loose or projected slightly above the general level. One or occasionally two open worm-burrows were found beneath all the loose tesseræ. Worms have also penetrated the old walls of these ruins. A wall, which had just been exposed to view during the excavations then in progress, was examined; it was built of large flints, and was 18 inches in thickness. It appeared sound, but when the soil was removed from beneath, the mortar in the lower part was found to be so much decayed that the flints fell apart from their own weight. Here, in the middle of the wall, at a depth of 29 inches beneath the old floor and of 49½ inches beneath the surface of the field, a living worm was found, and the mortar was penetrated by several burrows.

Now let's focus on the points that are more relevant to us. Worm castings were seen on the floors of several rooms, one of which had particularly well-made tile work. The tiles here were small cubes of hard sandstone, about 1 inch in size, some of which were loose or slightly raised above the overall surface. One or occasionally two open worm burrows were discovered beneath all the loose tiles. Worms have also made their way into the old walls of these ruins. A wall that had just been uncovered during the ongoing excavations was examined; it was made of large flints and was 18 inches thick. It appeared to be in good condition, but when the soil was cleared away from beneath, the mortar at the bottom was found to be so decayed that the flints came apart under their own weight. Here, in the center of the wall, at a depth of 29 inches below the old floor and 49½ inches below the field surface, a live worm was found, and the mortar was punctured by several burrows.

A second wall was exposed to view for the first time, and an open burrow was seen on its broken summit. By separating the flints this burrow was traced far down in the interior of the wall; but as some of the flints cohered firmly, the whole mass was disturbed in pulling down the wall, and the burrow could not be traced to the bottom. The foundations of a third wall, which appeared quite sound, lay at a depth of 4 feet beneath one of the floors, and of course at a considerably greater depth beneath the level of the ground. A large flint was wrenched out of the wall at about a foot from the base, and this required much force, as the mortar was sound; but behind the flint in the middle of the wall, the mortar was friable, and here there were worm-burrows. Mr. Joyce and my sons were surprised at the blackness of the mortar in this and in several other cases, and at the presence of mould in the interior of the walls. Some may have been placed there by the old builders instead of mortar; but we should remember that worms line their burrows with black humus. Moreover open spaces would almost certainly have been occasionally left between the large irregular flints; and these spaces, we may feel sure, would be filled up by the worms with their castings, as soon as they were able to penetrate the wall. Rain-water, oozing down the burrows would also carry fine dark-coloured particles into every crevice. Mr. Joyce was at first very sceptical about the amount of work which I attributed to worms; but he ends his notes with reference to the last-mentioned wall by saying, “This case caused me more surprise and brought more conviction to me than any other. I should have said, and did say, that it was quite impossible such a wall could have been penetrated by earth-worms.”

A second wall was revealed for the first time, and an open burrow was visible at its broken top. By separating the flints, this burrow was traced deep into the wall's interior; however, since some of the flints were firmly attached, the entire structure was disturbed when the wall was taken down, and the burrow couldn’t be followed to the bottom. The foundations of a third wall, which seemed solid, were found at a depth of 4 feet beneath one of the floors and significantly deeper below ground level. A large flint was pulled from the wall about a foot from the base, requiring considerable force due to the soundness of the mortar; yet behind the flint in the middle of the wall, the mortar was crumbly, and there were worm burrows. Mr. Joyce and my sons were surprised by the blackness of the mortar here and in several other areas, as well as the presence of mold inside the walls. Some of this might have been put there by the original builders instead of using mortar; but we should bear in mind that worms line their burrows with black humus. Additionally, open spaces would likely have been left between the large, irregular flints; and we can be sure that worms would fill these gaps with their castings as soon as they were able to access the wall. Rainwater seeping down the burrows would also carry small dark particles into every crevice. Mr. Joyce was initially very skeptical about the extent of work I attributed to worms; but he concluded his notes on the last wall by saying, “This case surprised me more and convinced me more than any other. I would have said, and did say, that it was impossible for earthworms to penetrate such a wall.”

In almost all the rooms the pavement has sunk considerably, especially towards the middle; and this is shown in the three following sections. The measurements were made by stretching a string tightly and horizontally over the floor. The section, Fig. 13, was taken from north to south across a room, 18 feet 4 inches in length, with a nearly perfect pavement, next to the “Red Wooden Hut.” In the northern half, the subsidence amounted to 5¾ inches beneath the level of the floor as it now stands close to the walls; and it was greater in the northern than in the southern half; but, according to Mr. Joyce, the entire pavement has obviously subsided. In several places, the tesseræ appeared as if drawn a little away from the walls; whilst in other places they were still in close contact with them.

In almost all the rooms, the floor has sunk a lot, especially in the middle; and this is illustrated in the three sections below. The measurements were taken by stretching a string tightly and horizontally across the floor. The section, Fig. 13, was measured from north to south across a room that was 18 feet 4 inches long, with a nearly perfect floor, next to the “Red Wooden Hut.” In the northern half, the subsidence measured 5¾ inches below the current floor level, close to the walls; and it was greater in the northern half than in the southern. However, according to Mr. Joyce, the entire floor has clearly sunk. In several spots, the tiles seemed to be slightly pulled away from the walls, while in other areas, they were still tight against them.

In Fig. 14, we see a section across the paved floor of the southern corridor or ambulatory of a quadrangle, in an excavation made near “The Spring.” The floor is 7 feet 9 inches wide, and the broken-down walls now project only ¾ of an inch above its level. The field, which was in pasture, here sloped from north to south, at an angle of 30°, 40′. The nature of the ground at some little distance on each side of the corridor is shown in the section. It consisted of earth full of stones and other débris, capped with dark vegetable mould which was thicker on the lower or southern than on the northern side. The pavement was nearly level along lines parallel to the side-walls, but had sunk in the middle as much as 7¾ inches.

In Fig. 14, we see a cross-section of the paved floor of the southern corridor or walkway of a quadrangle, from an excavation made near “The Spring.” The floor is 7 feet 9 inches wide, and the crumbling walls now extend only ¾ of an inch above its level. The area, which used to be pasture, slopes from north to south at an angle of 30°, 40′. The ground's composition on either side of the corridor is illustrated in the section. It consisted of soil mixed with stones and other debris, topped with dark organic matter, which was thicker on the southern side than on the northern side. The pavement was nearly level along lines parallel to the side walls but had sunk in the middle by as much as 7¾ inches.

A small room at no great distance from that represented in Fig. 13, had been enlarged by the Roman occupier on the southern side, by an addition of 5 feet 4 inches in breadth. For this purpose the southern wall of the house had been pulled down, but the foundations of the old wall had been left buried at a little depth beneath the pavement of the enlarged room. Mr. Joyce believes that this buried wall must have been built before the reign of Claudius II., who died 270 A.D. We see in the accompanying section, Fig. 15, that the tesselated pavement has subsided to a less degree over the buried wall than elsewhere; so that a slight convexity or protuberance here stretched in a straight line across the room. This led to a hole being dug, and the buried wall was thus discovered.

A small room, not far from the one shown in Fig. 13, was expanded by the Roman occupier on the southern side by adding 5 feet 4 inches in width. To do this, the southern wall of the house was taken down, but the foundation of the old wall was left buried a little below the surface of the new room's floor. Mr. Joyce believes this buried wall was built before the reign of Claudius II, who died in 270 A.D. In the section accompanying this description, Fig. 15, we can see that the tiled floor has sunk less over the buried wall than in other areas, creating a slight bump that stretches in a straight line across the room. This led to a hole being dug, which revealed the buried wall.

We see in these three sections, and in several others not given, that the old pavements have sunk or sagged considerably. Mr. Joyce formerly attributed this sinking solely to the slow settling of the ground. That there has been some settling is highly probable, and it may be seen in Fig. 15 that the pavement for a width of 5 feet over the southern enlargement of the room, which must have been built on fresh ground, has sunk a little more than on the old northern side. But this sinking may possibly have had no connection with the enlargement of the room; for in Fig. 13 one half of the pavement has subsided more than the other half without any assignable cause. In a bricked passage to Mr. Joyce’s own house, laid down only about six years ago, the same kind of sinking has occurred as in the ancient buildings. Nevertheless it does not appear probable that the whole amount of sinking can be thus accounted for. The Roman builders excavated the ground to an unusual depth for the foundations of their walls, which were thick and solid; it is therefore hardly credible that they should have been careless about the solidity of the bed on which their tesselated and often ornamented pavements were laid. The sinking must, as it appears to me, be attributed in chief part to the pavement having been undermined by worms, which we know are still at work. Even Mr. Joyce at last admitted that this could not have failed to have produced a considerable effect. Thus also the large quantity of fine mould overlying the pavements can be accounted for, the presence of which would otherwise be inexplicable. My sons noticed that in one room in which the pavement had sagged very little, there was an unusually small amount of overlying mould.

In these three sections, and several others not included, we can see that the old pavements have sunk or sagged significantly. Mr. Joyce previously attributed this sinking solely to the gradual settling of the ground. It’s very likely that some settling has occurred, and as shown in Fig. 15, the pavement across a 5-foot section over the southern expansion of the room, which must have been built on newly disturbed ground, has sunk a bit more than that on the old northern side. However, this sinking may not be related to the room's expansion; in Fig. 13, one half of the pavement has sunk more than the other half without any clear reason. In a bricked walkway leading to Mr. Joyce’s own house, laid down only about six years ago, a similar type of sinking has happened as in the ancient buildings. Still, it doesn’t seem likely that the entire amount of sinking can be fully explained this way. The Roman builders dug down to an unusual depth for the foundations of their thick and solid walls; it’s hard to believe they would have been careless about the stability of the ground beneath their tiled and often decorated pavements. In my view, the sinking can mostly be attributed to the pavement being undermined by worms, which we know are still active. Even Mr. Joyce eventually acknowledged that this must have had a significant impact. This also explains the large amount of fine soil covering the pavements, the existence of which would otherwise be puzzling. My sons observed that in one room where the pavement had sunk very little, there was an unusually small amount of soil above it.

As the foundations of the walls generally lie at a considerable depth, they will either have not subsided at all through the undermining action of worms, or they will have subsided much less than the floor. This latter result would follow from worms not often working deep down beneath the foundations; but more especially from the walls not yielding when penetrated by worms, whereas the successively formed burrows in a mass of earth, equal to one of the walls in depth and thickness, would have collapsed many times since the desertion of the ruins, and would consequently have shrunk or subsided. As the walls cannot have sunk much or at all, the immediately adjoining pavement from adhering to them will have been prevented from subsiding; and thus the present curvature of the pavement is intelligible.

Since the foundations of the walls are generally set quite deep, they either haven’t sunk at all due to the erosion from worms, or they’ve sunk much less than the floor. The latter would happen because worms don’t usually work deep beneath the foundations; but more importantly, the walls wouldn’t give way when worms invade them. Meanwhile, the burrows that form in the surrounding earth, which is equal to the walls in depth and thickness, would have collapsed multiple times since the ruins were abandoned, causing them to shrink or settle. Since the walls likely haven't sunk much or at all, the pavement directly next to them would have been prevented from sinking as well; this makes the current curvature of the pavement understandable.

The circumstance which has surprised me most with respect to Silchester is that during the many centuries which have elapsed since the old buildings were deserted, the vegetable mould has not accumulated over them to a greater thickness than that here observed. In most places it is only about 9 inches in thickness, but in some places 12 or even more inches. In Fig. 11, it is given as 20 inches, but this section was drawn by Mr. Joyce before his attention was particularly called to this subject. The land enclosed within the old walls is described as sloping slightly to the south; but there are parts which, according to Mr. Joyce, are nearly level, and it appears that the mould is here generally thicker than elsewhere. The surface slopes in other parts from west to east, and Mr. Joyce describes one floor as covered at the western end by rubbish and mould to a thickness of 28½ inches, and at the eastern end by a thickness of only 11½ inches. A very slight slope suffices to cause recent castings to flow downwards during heavy rain, and thus much earth will ultimately reach the neighbouring rills and streams and be carried away. By this means, the absence of very thick beds of mould over these ancient ruins may, as I believe, be explained. Moreover most of the land here has long been ploughed, and this would greatly aid the washing away of the finer earth during rainy weather.

The thing that surprises me the most about Silchester is that over the many centuries since the old buildings were abandoned, the soil hasn't piled up over them more than it has here. In most places, it's only about 9 inches thick, but in some areas, it's 12 inches or even more. In Fig. 11, it shows as 20 inches thick, but this section was drawn by Mr. Joyce before he focused on this issue. The land inside the old walls is described as gently sloping to the south, but there are parts that, according to Mr. Joyce, are almost level, and it seems that the soil is generally thicker here than elsewhere. The surface slopes in other areas from west to east, and Mr. Joyce notes that one floor is covered at the western end with debris and soil to a thickness of 28½ inches, while at the eastern end it's only 11½ inches thick. A slight slope is enough for recent rain to wash soil downwards, which eventually takes a lot of earth to the nearby streams and rivers. I believe this explains why there aren't very thick layers of soil over these ancient ruins. Additionally, most of the land has been ploughed for a long time, which would help wash away the finer soil during rainy days.

The nature of the beds immediately beneath the vegetable mould in some of the sections is rather perplexing. We see, for instance, in the section of an excavation in a grass meadow (Fig. 14), which sloped from north to south at an angle of 3° 40′, that the mould on the upper side is only six inches and on the lower side nine inches in thickness. But this mould lies on a mass (25½ inches in thickness on the upper side) “of dark brown mould,” as described by Mr. Joyce, “thickly interspersed with small pebbles and bits of tiles, which present a corroded or worn appearance.” The state of this dark-coloured earth is like that of a field which has long been ploughed, for the earth thus becomes intermingled with stones and fragments of all kinds which have been much exposed to the weather. If during the course of many centuries this grass meadow and the other now cultivated fields have been at times ploughed, and at other times left as pasture, the nature of the ground in the above section is rendered intelligible. For worms will continually have brought up fine earth from below, which will have been stirred up by the plough whenever the land was cultivated. But after a time a greater thickness of fine earth will thus have been accumulated than could be reached by the plough; and a bed like the 25½-inch mass, in Fig. 14, will have been formed beneath the superficial mould, which latter will have been brought to the surface within more recent times, and have been well sifted by the worms.

The nature of the soil just under the vegetable layer in some sections is quite puzzling. For example, in the section of an excavation in a grassy meadow (Fig. 14), which slopes from north to south at an angle of 3° 40′, the soil on the upper side is only six inches thick, while on the lower side, it's nine inches. However, this upper layer rests on a mass (25½ inches thick on the top) described by Mr. Joyce as “dark brown soil,” heavily mixed with small pebbles and bits of tiles, which look worn or corroded. The condition of this dark soil resembles that of a field that has been plowed for a long time, as it becomes mixed with stones and various fragments that have been exposed to the elements. If, over many centuries, this grassy meadow and other currently cultivated fields have been plowed at times and left as pasture at others, the nature of the soil in this section starts to make sense. Worms would have constantly brought up fine soil from below, which would have been disturbed by the plow whenever the land was worked. Eventually, more fine soil would have built up than could be reached by the plow, creating a layer like the 25½-inch mass shown in Fig. 14, which formed beneath the surface vegetable layer and was brought up more recently and well sifted by worms.

Wroxeter, Shropshire.—The old Roman city of Uriconium was founded in the early part of the second century, if not before this date; and it was destroyed, according to Mr. Wright, probably between the middle of the fourth and fifth century. The inhabitants were massacred, and skeletons of women were found in the hypocausts. Before the year 1859, the sole remnant of the city above ground, was a portion of a massive wall about 20 ft. in height. The surrounding land undulates slightly, and has long been under cultivation. It had been noticed that the corn-crops ripened prematurely in certain narrow lines, and that the snow remained unmelted in certain places longer than in others. These appearances led, as I was informed, to extensive excavations being undertaken. The foundations of many large buildings and several streets have thus been exposed to view. The space enclosed within the old walls is an irregular oval, about 1¾ mile in length. Many of the stones or bricks used in the buildings must have been carried away; but the hypocausts, baths, and other underground buildings were found tolerably perfect, being filled with stones, broken tiles, rubbish and soil. The old floors of various rooms were covered with rubble. As I was anxious to know how thick the mantle of mould and rubbish was, which had so long concealed these ruins, I applied to Dr. H. Johnson, who had superintended the excavations; and he, with the greatest kindness, twice visited the place to examine it in reference to my questions, and had many trenches dug in four fields which had hitherto been undisturbed. The results of his observations are given in the following Table. He also sent me specimens of the mould, and answered, as far as he could, all my questions.

Wroxeter, Shropshire.—The ancient Roman city of Uriconium was established in the early part of the second century, if not earlier; and it was destroyed, according to Mr. Wright, likely between the middle of the fourth and fifth centuries. The inhabitants were killed, and the skeletons of women were found in the hypocausts. Before 1859, the only visible remnant of the city above ground was a section of a massive wall about 20 ft. tall. The surrounding land is slightly hilly and has been farmed for a long time. It was noted that the grain crops ripened earlier in certain narrow lines, and that snow remained un-melted in some spots for longer than others. These observations led, as I was told, to extensive excavations being carried out. The foundations of many large buildings and several streets have thus been uncovered. The area enclosed by the old walls is an irregular oval, about 1¾ miles long. Many of the stones or bricks used in the buildings must have been taken away; however, the hypocausts, baths, and other underground structures were found to be in fairly good condition, filled with stones, broken tiles, debris, and soil. The old floors of various rooms were covered with rubble. Eager to know how thick the layer of soil and debris was that had long hidden these ruins, I reached out to Dr. H. Johnson, who had overseen the excavations; he kindly visited the site twice to investigate my queries and had numerous trenches dug in four fields that had previously been untouched. The results of his observations are presented in the following Table. He also sent me samples of the soil and answered all my questions as best as he could.

Measurements taken by Dr. H. Johnson of the thickness of the topsoil over the Roman ruins at Wroxeter.

Trenches dug in a field called “Old Works.”

Trenches dug in a field called "Old Works."

 

Thickness of mould in inches.

Mould thickness in inches.

1. At a depth of 36 inches undisturbed sand was reached

1. At a depth of 36 inches, we found undisturbed sand.

20

20

2. At a depth of 33 inches concrete was reached

2. Concrete was found at a depth of 33 inches.

21

21

3. At a depth of 9 inches concrete was reached

3. Concrete was found at a depth of 9 inches.

9

9

Trenches dug in a field called “Shop Leasows;” this is the highest field within the old walls, and slopes down from a sub-central point on all sides at about an angle of 2°.

Trenches dug in a field called "Shop Leasows;" this is the highest field within the old walls, and it slopes down from a central point on all sides at an angle of about 2°.

 

Thickness of mould in inches.

Mould thickness in inches.

4. Summit of field, trench 45 inches deep

4. Top of the field, trench 45 inches deep

40

40

5. Close to summit of field, trench 36 inches deep

5. Near the top of the field, the trench is 36 inches deep.

26

26

6. Close to summit of field, trench 28 inches deep

6. Near the top of the field, the trench is 28 inches deep.

28

28

7. Near summit of field, trench 36 inches deep

7. Near the top of the field, a trench 36 inches deep

24

24

8. Near summit of field, trench at one end 39 inches deep; the mould here graduated into the underlying undisturbed sand, and its thickness (24 inches) is somewhat arbitrary. At the other end of the trench, a causeway was encountered at a depth of only 7 inches, and the mould was here only 7 inches thick

8. Near the top of the field, there's a trench at one end that is 39 inches deep; the soil here gradually changes into the undisturbed sand beneath, and its thickness (24 inches) is somewhat arbitrary. At the other end of the trench, a causeway was found at a depth of only 7 inches, and the soil here was only 7 inches thick.

24

24

9. Trench close to the last, 28 inches in depth

9. Trench close to the end, 28 inches deep

24

24

10. Lower part of same field, trench 30 inches deep

10. Lower section of the same field, trench 30 inches deep

15

15

11. Lower part of same field, trench 31 inches deep

11. Lower part of the same field, trench 31 inches deep

17

17

12. Lower part of same field, trench 36 inches deep, at which depth undisturbed sand was reached

12. Lower part of the same field, trench 36 inches deep, where undisturbed sand was found.

28

28

13. In another part of same field, trench 9½ inches deep stopped by concrete

13. In another part of the same field, a trench 9½ inches deep was stopped by concrete.

9.5

14. In another part of same field, trench 9 inches deep, stopped by concrete

14. In another part of the same field, a trench 9 inches deep was stopped by concrete.

9

9

15. In another part of the same field, trench 24 inches deep, when sand was reached

15. In another section of the same field, trench 24 inches deep, when sand was reached

16

16

16. In another part of same field, trench 30 inches deep, when stones were reached; at one end of the trench mould 12 inches, at the other end 14 inches thick

16. In another part of the same field, there was a trench 30 inches deep, reaching stones; at one end of the trench, the mold was 12 inches thick, and at the other end, it was 14 inches thick.

13

13

Small field between “Old Works” and “Shop Leasows,” I believe nearly as high as the upper part of the latter field.

Small field between “Old Works” and “Shop Leasows,” I believe it's almost as high as the upper part of the latter field.

 

Thickness of mould in inches.

Mould thickness in inches.

17. Trench 26 inches deep

17. Trench 26 inches deep

24

24

18. Trench 10 inches deep, and then came upon a causeway

18. Dig a trench 10 inches deep, and then you will find a causeway.

10

10

19. Trench 34 inches deep

Trench 34 inches deep

30

30

20. Trench 31 inches deep

Trench 31 inches deep

31

31

Field on the western side of the space enclosed within the old walls.

Field on the west side of the area surrounded by the old walls.

 

Thickness of mould in inches.

Mould thickness in inches.

21. Trench 28 inches deep, when undisturbed sand was reached

21. Dig a trench 28 inches deep until you hit undisturbed sand.

16

16

22. Trench 29 inches deep, when undisturbed sand was reached

22. Dig a trench 29 inches deep until you hit undisturbed sand.

15

15

23. Trench 14 inches deep, and then came upon a building

23. Dig a trench 14 inches deep, and then you will find a building.

14

14

Dr. Johnson distinguished as mould the earth which differed, more or less abruptly, in its dark colour and in its texture from the underlying sand or rubble. In the specimens sent to me, the mould resembled that which lies immediately beneath the turf in old pasture-land, excepting that it often contained small stones, too large to have passed through the bodies of worms. But the trenches above described were dug in fields, none of which were in pasture, and all had been long cultivated. Bearing in mind the remarks made in reference to Silchester on the effects of long-continued culture, combined with the action of worms in bringing up the finer particles to the surface, the mould, as so designated by Dr. Johnson, seems fairly well to deserve its name. Its thickness, where there was no causeway, floor or walls beneath, was greater than has been elsewhere observed, namely, in many places above 2 ft., and in one spot above 3 ft. The mould was thickest on and close to the nearly level summit of the field called “Shop Leasows,” and in a small adjoining field, which, as I believe, is of nearly the same height. One side of the former field slopes at an angle of rather above 2°, and I should have expected that the mould, from being washed down during heavy rain, would have been thicker in the lower than in the upper part; but this was not the case in two out of the three trenches here dug.

Dr. Johnson identified the soil as mold, which varied in its dark color and texture compared to the underlying sand or rubble. In the samples sent to me, the mold resembled what is found just below the grass in old pastures, except it often contained small stones too large to have come from worms. However, the trenches I described were dug in fields that hadn’t been pastured for a long time and had all been actively farmed. Considering the notes about Silchester regarding the impact of long-term farming and worms bringing finer particles to the surface, the mold that Dr. Johnson referred to seems justified. Its thickness, where there weren’t any pathways, floors, or walls underneath, was greater than seen elsewhere, exceeding 2 ft in many areas and in one spot even over 3 ft. The mold was thickest at and near the nearly flat top of the field known as “Shop Leasows,” and in a small neighboring field that appears to be at a similar elevation. One side of the former field slopes slightly over 2°, and I would have thought that the mold, being washed down during heavy rain, would be thicker in the lower area than in the upper part; however, that wasn't the case in two out of the three trenches that were dug here.

In many places, where streets ran beneath the surface, or where old buildings stood, the mould was only 8 inches in thickness; and Dr. Johnson was surprised that in ploughing the land, the ruins had never been struck by the plough as far as he had heard. He thinks that when the land was first cultivated the old walls were perhaps intentionally pulled down, and that hollow places were filled up. This may have been the case; but if after the desertion of the city the land was left for many centuries uncultivated, worms would have brought up enough fine earth to have covered the ruins completely; that is if they had subsided from having been undermined. The foundations of some of the walls, for instance those of the portion still standing about 20 feet above the ground, and those of the marketplace, lie at the extraordinary depth of 14 feet; but it is highly improbable that the foundations were generally so deep. The mortar employed in the buildings must have been excellent, for it is still in parts extremely hard. Wherever walls of any height have been exposed to view, they are, as Dr. Johnson believes, still perpendicular. The walls with such deep foundations cannot have been undermined by worms, and therefore cannot have subsided, as appears to have occurred at Abinger and Silchester. Hence it is very difficult to account for their being now completely covered with earth; but how much of this covering consists of vegetable mould and how much of rubble I do not know. The market-place, with the foundations at a depth of 14 feet, was covered up, as Dr. Johnson believes, by between 6 and 24 inches of earth. The tops of the broken-down walls of a caldarium or bath, 9 feet in depth, were likewise covered up with nearly 2 feet of earth. The summit of an arch, leading into an ash-pit 7 feet in depth, was covered up with not more than 8 inches of earth. Whenever a building which has not subsided is covered with earth, we must suppose, either that the upper layers of stone have been at some time carried away by man, or that earth has since been washed down during heavy rain, or blown down during storms, from the adjoining land; and this would be especially apt to occur where the land has long been cultivated. In the above cases the adjoining land is somewhat higher than the three specified sites, as far as I can judge by maps and from information given me by Dr. Johnson. If; however, a great pile of broken stones, mortar, plaster, timber and ashes fell over the remains of any building, their disintegration in the course of time, and the sifting action of worms, would ultimately conceal the whole beneath fine earth.

In many areas where streets are underground or where old buildings stand, the mold is only 8 inches thick; and Dr. Johnson was surprised that when plowing the land, the ruins had never been disturbed by the plow as far as he knew. He believes that when the land was first farmed, the old walls were perhaps intentionally demolished, and that any empty spaces were filled in. This might have been true, but if the city was abandoned and the land left uncultivated for many centuries, worms would have brought up enough fine soil to completely cover the ruins; that is, if they had settled due to being undermined. The foundations of some walls, like those still standing about 20 feet above ground and those in the marketplace, are found at an impressive depth of 14 feet; however, it's very unlikely that the foundations were generally that deep. The mortar used in the buildings must have been of high quality, as it is still extremely hard in some places. Wherever walls of any height have been uncovered, they are, as Dr. Johnson suggests, still vertical. The walls with such deep foundations couldn't have been undermined by worms, so they couldn't have settled, as seems to have happened at Abinger and Silchester. Therefore, it’s quite challenging to explain why they are now entirely covered with soil; but I don’t know how much of this covering is vegetable mold and how much is rubble. The marketplace, with its foundations at a depth of 14 feet, was thought by Dr. Johnson to be covered by 6 to 24 inches of soil. The tops of the crumbled walls of a caldarium or bath, which is 9 feet deep, were also covered with almost 2 feet of earth. The top of an arch leading into an ash pit that is 7 feet deep was covered with no more than 8 inches of soil. Whenever a building that hasn’t settled is covered with earth, we must assume that either the upper layers of stone were at some point removed by people, or that soil has since washed down during heavy rains or been blown down during storms from the surrounding land; this is especially likely in areas that have been cultivated for a long time. In the cases mentioned, the adjacent land is slightly higher than the three sites, based on maps and information provided by Dr. Johnson. However, if a large pile of rubble, mortar, plaster, wood, and ashes fell over the remains of any building, their breakdown over time and the sifting action of worms would eventually hide everything beneath fine soil.

 

Conclusion.—The cases given in this chapter show that worms have played a considerable part in the burial and concealment of several Roman and other old buildings in England; but no doubt the washing down of soil from the neighbouring higher lands, and the deposition of dust, have together aided largely in the work of concealment. Dust would be apt to accumulate wherever old broken-down walls projected a little above the then existing surface and thus afforded some shelter. The floors of the old rooms, halls and passages have generally sunk, partly from the settling of the ground, but chiefly from having been undermined by worms; and the sinking has commonly been greater in the middle than near the walls. The walls themselves, whenever their foundations do not lie at a great depth, have been penetrated and undermined by worms, and have consequently subsided. The unequal subsidence thus caused, probably explains the great cracks which may be seen in many ancient walls, as well as their inclination from the perpendicular.

Conclusion.—The cases presented in this chapter demonstrate that worms have significantly contributed to the burying and hiding of several Roman and other ancient buildings in England. However, the washing away of soil from the surrounding higher lands and the accumulation of dust have also played a major role in this process. Dust tends to settle wherever old crumbling walls rise slightly above the current surface, providing some shelter. The floors of the old rooms, halls, and passages have generally sunk, partly because of ground settling and mainly due to being eroded by worms; the sinking is often deeper in the center than near the walls. The walls themselves, when their foundations are not set very deep, have been penetrated and eroded by worms, leading to their subsidence. This uneven sinking likely explains the large cracks visible in many ancient walls, as well as their tilt away from vertical.

p. 209CHAPTER V.
THE ROLE OF WORMS IN SOIL EROSION.

Evidence of the amount of denudation which the land has undergone—Sub-aerial denudation—The deposition of dust—Vegetable mould, its dark colour and fine texture largely due to the action of worms—The disintegration of rocks by the humus-acids—Similar acids apparently generated within the bodies of worms—The action of these acids facilitated by the continued movement of the particles of earth—A thick bed of mould checks the disintegration of the underlying soil and rocks. Particles of stone worn or triturated in the gizzards of worms—Swallowed stones serve as mill-stones—The levigated state of the castings—Fragments of brick in the castings over ancient buildings well rounded. The triturating power of worms not quite insignificant under a geological point of view.

Evidence of how much the land has been worn down—Surface erosion—The buildup of dust—Vegetable soil, its dark color and fine texture mainly because of worms—The breakdown of rocks by humus acids—Similar acids seem to be produced inside worms—This acidic action is supported by the continual movement of soil particles—A thick layer of soil prevents the breakdown of the soil and rocks beneath it. Stones that are worn down or ground up in worms' gizzards—Swallowed stones act like grinders—The smooth state of the castings—Pieces of brick in the castings from ancient buildings are well-rounded. The grinding ability of worms is not insignificant from a geological perspective.

No one doubts that our world at one time consisted of crystalline rocks, and that it is to their disintegration through the action of air, water, changes of temperature, rivers, waves of the sea, earthquakes and volcanic outbursts, that we owe our sedimentary formations. These after being consolidated and sometimes recrystallized, have often been again disintegrated. Denudation means the removal of such disintegrated matter to a lower level. Of the many striking results due to the modern progress of geology there are hardly any more striking than those which relate to denudation. It was long ago seen that there must have been an immense amount of denudation; but until the successive formations were carefully mapped and measured, no one fully realised how great was the amount. One of the first and most remarkable memoirs ever published on this subject was that by Ramsay, [210] who in 1846 showed that in Wales from 9000 to 11,000 feet in thickness of solid rock had been stripped off large tracks of country. Perhaps the plainest evidence of great denudation is afforded by faults or cracks, which extend for many miles across certain districts, with the strata on one side raised even ten thousand feet above the corresponding strata on the opposite side; and yet there is not a vestige of this gigantic displacement visible on the surface of the land. A huge pile of rock has been planed away on one side and not a remnant left.

No one doubts that at one time our world was made up of crystalline rocks, and it's their breakdown due to air, water, temperature changes, rivers, ocean waves, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that has created our sedimentary formations. After being solidified and sometimes recrystallized, these formations have often been broken down again. Denudation refers to the process of removing this broken-down material to a lower level. Among the many impressive findings from modern geology, few are as striking as those related to denudation. It was recognized long ago that a significant amount of denudation must have occurred; however, until the various formations were meticulously mapped and measured, no one fully grasped the extent. One of the first and most remarkable studies on this topic was by Ramsay, [210] who, in 1846, demonstrated that in Wales, 9,000 to 11,000 feet of solid rock had been removed from large areas of land. Perhaps the clearest evidence of significant denudation is found in faults or cracks that stretch for many miles across certain regions, with the layers on one side raised as much as ten thousand feet above those on the other side; yet there's no trace of this massive displacement visible on the land’s surface. A huge mass of rock has been worn away on one side, leaving no remnants behind.

Until the last twenty or thirty years, most geologists thought that the waves of the sea were the chief agents in the work of denudation; but we may now feel sure that air and rain, aided by streams and rivers, are much more powerful agents,—that is if we consider the whole area of the land. The long lines of escarpment which stretch across several parts of England were formerly considered to be undoubtedly ancient coast-lines; but we now know that they stand up above the general surface merely from resisting air, rain and frost better than the adjoining formations. It has rarely been the good fortune of a geologist to bring conviction to the minds of his fellow-workers on a disputed point by a single memoir; but Mr. Whitaker, of the Geological Survey of England, was so fortunate when, in 1867, he published his paper “On sub-aerial Denudation, and on Cliffs and Escarpments of the Chalk.” [211] Before this paper appeared, Mr. A. Tylor had adduced important evidence on sub-aerial denudation, by showing that the amount of matter brought down by rivers must infallibly lower the level of their drainage basins by many feet in no immense lapse of time. This line of argument has since been followed up in the most interesting manner by Archibald Geikie, Croll and others, in a series of valuable memoirs. [212] For the sake of those who have never attended to this subject, a single instance may be here given, namely, that of the Mississippi, which is chosen because the amount of sediment brought down by this great river has been investigated with especial care by order of the United States Government. The result is, as Mr. Croll shows, that the mean level of its enormous area of drainage must be lowered 1/4566 of a foot annually, or 1 foot in 4566 years. Consequently, taking the best estimate of the mean height of the North American continent, viz. 748 feet, and looking to the future, the whole of the great Mississippi basin will be washed away, and “brought down to the sea-level in less than 4,500,000 years, if no elevation of the land takes place.” Some rivers carry down much more sediment relatively to their size, and some much less than the Mississippi.

Until the last twenty or thirty years, most geologists believed that ocean waves were the main contributors to erosion. However, we now understand that air and rain, supported by streams and rivers, are actually much more significant factors—especially when considering the entire land area. The extensive escarpments found in various parts of England were once thought to be ancient coastlines, but we now realize they rise above the surrounding land simply because they resist air, rain, and frost better than the neighboring formations. Generally, it's rare for a geologist to convince their peers about a controversial issue with a single paper, but Mr. Whitaker from the Geological Survey of England achieved this in 1867 when he published his work "On Sub-Aerial Denudation, and on Cliffs and Escarpments of the Chalk." [211] Before this publication, Mr. A. Tylor had presented crucial evidence about sub-aerial denudation by demonstrating that the sediment carried away by rivers inevitably lowers the level of their drainage basins by several feet over a relatively short period. This argument has since been further explored by Archibald Geikie, Croll, and others in a series of valuable papers. [212] For those who haven’t engaged with this topic, one example can be given: the Mississippi River. This river is particularly noteworthy because the amount of sediment it transports has been closely studied at the request of the United States Government. The findings, as shown by Mr. Croll, indicate that the average level of its extensive drainage area must decrease by 1/4566 of a foot each year, or 1 foot every 4566 years. Therefore, using the best estimate of the mean height of the North American continent, which is 748 feet, and looking toward the future, the entire Mississippi basin will be eroded down to sea level in less than 4.5 million years, assuming no uplift of the land occurs. Some rivers carry much more sediment relative to their size, while others transport significantly less than the Mississippi.

Disintegrated matter is carried away by the wind as well as by running water. During volcanic outbursts much rock is triturated and is thus widely dispersed; and in all arid countries the wind plays an important part in the removal of such matter. Wind-driven sand also wears down the hardest rocks. I have shown [213] that during four months of the year a large quantity of dust is blown from the north-western shores of Africa, and falls on the Atlantic over a space of 1600 miles in latitude, and for a distance of from 300 to 600 miles from the coast. But dust has been seen to fall at a distance of 1030 miles from the shores of Africa. During a stay of three weeks at St. Jago in the Cape Verde Archipelago, the atmosphere was almost always hazy, and extremely fine dust coming from Africa was continually falling. In some of this dust which fell in the open ocean at a distance of between 330 and 380 miles from the African coast, there were many particles of stone, about 1/1000 of an inch square. Nearer to the coast the water has been seen to be so much discoloured by the falling dust, that a sailing vessel left a track behind her. In countries, like the Cape Verde Archipelago, where it seldom rains and there are no frosts, the solid rock nevertheless disintegrates; and in conformity with the views lately advanced by a distinguished Belgian geologist, De Koninck, such disintegration may be attributed in chief part to the action of the carbonic and nitric acids, together with the nitrates and nitrites of ammonia, dissolved in the dew.

Disintegrated matter is carried away by both the wind and flowing water. During volcanic eruptions, a lot of rock is crushed and spread widely; in all dry regions, the wind plays a key role in moving this matter. Wind-blown sand can also erode even the hardest rocks. I have shown [213] that for four months of the year, a significant amount of dust is blown from the northwestern shores of Africa and settles over the Atlantic across an area of 1,600 miles in latitude and up to 600 miles from the coast. Dust has even been observed falling 1,030 miles away from Africa’s shores. During a three-week stay in St. Jago in the Cape Verde Archipelago, the atmosphere was almost always hazy, with fine dust from Africa constantly falling. Some of this dust, which landed in the open ocean between 330 and 380 miles from the African coast, contained many tiny particles of stone, about 1/1000 of an inch square. Closer to the coast, the water has been seen to be so discolored by the falling dust that a sailing vessel left a trail behind it. In places like the Cape Verde Archipelago, where it rarely rains and there are no frosts, solid rock still breaks down; and according to recent views put forth by the notable Belgian geologist De Koninck, this disintegration is mainly due to the action of carbonic and nitric acids, along with ammonia nitrates and nitrites, dissolved in the dew.

In all humid, even moderately humid, countries, worms aid in the work of denudation in several ways. The vegetable mould which covers, as with a mantle, the surface of the land, has all passed many times through their bodies. Mould differs in appearance from the subsoil only in its dark colour, and in the absence of fragments or particles of stone (when such are present in the subsoil), larger than those which can pass through the alimentary canal of a worm. This sifting of the soil is aided, as has already been remarked, by burrowing animals of many kinds, especially by ants. In countries where the summer is long and dry, the mould in protected places must be largely increased by dust blown from other and more exposed places. For instance, the quantity of dust sometimes blown over the plains of La Plata, where there are no solid rocks, is so great, that during the “gran seco,” 1827 to 1830, the appearance of the land, which is here unenclosed, was so completely changed that the inhabitants could not recognise the limits of their own estates, and endless lawsuits arose. Immense quantities of dust are likewise blown about in Egypt and in the south of France. In China, as Richthofen maintains, beds appearing like fine sediment, several hundred feet in thickness and extending over an enormous area, owe their origin to dust blown from the high lands of central Asia. [215] In humid countries like Great Britain, as long as the land remains in its natural state clothed with vegetation, the mould in any one place can hardly be much increased by dust; but in its present condition, the fields near high roads, where there is much traffic, must receive a considerable amount of dust, and when fields are harrowed during dry and windy weather, clouds of dust may be seen to be blown away. But in all these cases the surface-soil is merely transported from one place to another. The dust which falls so thickly within our houses consists largely of organic matter, and if spread over the land would in time decay and disappear almost entirely. It appears, however, from recent observations on the snow-fields of the Arctic regions, that some little meteoric dust of extra mundane origin is continually falling.

In all humid, even moderately humid, countries, worms help with the process of erosion in several ways. The organic matter that covers the ground like a blanket has all passed through their bodies multiple times. This organic material looks different from the subsoil only because of its darker color and the lack of larger fragments or particles of stone (which can be found in the subsoil) that can pass through a worm's digestive system. This sifting of the soil is also supported, as previously mentioned, by various burrowing animals, especially ants. In regions where the summer is long and dry, the organic material in sheltered areas likely increases significantly due to dust blown in from more exposed locations. For example, the amount of dust that sometimes gets blown across the plains of La Plata, where there are no solid rocks, is so massive that during the "gran seco" from 1827 to 1830, the landscape, which is open, changed so dramatically that the locals could not recognize the boundaries of their own properties, leading to endless lawsuits. Huge amounts of dust are also carried around in Egypt and southern France. In China, as Richthofen points out, layers that look like fine sediment, hundreds of feet thick and covering vast areas, originate from dust blown in from the highlands of central Asia. [215] In humid countries like Great Britain, as long as the land is covered with vegetation in its natural state, the organic material in any one spot can hardly increase much due to dust; however, in its current state, fields near busy roads must collect a significant amount of dust, and when fields are plowed during dry and windy weather, clouds of dust can be seen blowing away. But in all these situations, the surface soil is just being moved from one place to another. The dust that settles so heavily in our homes is mostly organic matter, and if spread over the land, it would eventually decompose and vanish almost completely. However, recent observations on the snowfields in the Arctic suggest that a small amount of meteoric dust from beyond Earth is continuously falling.

The dark colour of ordinary mould is obviously due to the presence of decaying organic matter, which, however, is present in but small quantities. The loss of weight which mould suffers when heated to redness seems to be in large part due to water in combination being dispelled. In one sample of fertile mould the amount of organic matter was ascertained to be only 1.76 per cent.; in some artificially prepared soil it was as much as 5.5 per cent., and in the famous black soil of Russia from 5 to even 12 per cent. [217a] In leaf-mould formed exclusively by the decay of leaves the amount is much greater, and in peat the carbon alone sometimes amounts to 64 per cent.; but with these latter cases we are not here concerned. The carbon in the soil tends gradually to oxidise and to disappear, except where water accumulates and the climate is cool; [217b] so that in the oldest pasture-land there is no great excess of organic matter, notwithstanding the continued decay of the roots and the underground stems of plants, and the occasional addition of manure. The disappearance of the organic matter from mould is probably much aided by its being brought again and again to the surface in the castings of worms.

The dark color of regular mold is clearly due to the presence of decaying organic matter, which is only present in small amounts. The weight loss that mold experiences when heated to a high temperature seems to be mostly because water in combination is evaporated. In one sample of fertile mold, the amount of organic matter was determined to be just 1.76 percent; in some artificially prepared soil, it reached as much as 5.5 percent, and in the well-known black soil of Russia, it can be between 5 and even 12 percent. [217a] In leaf mold formed entirely from decaying leaves, the amount is much higher, and in peat, the carbon content can sometimes be as high as 64 percent; however, we’re not focusing on those cases here. The carbon in the soil tends to gradually oxidize and disappear unless water collects and the climate is cool; [217b] so in the oldest pasture land, there isn’t a significant excess of organic matter, despite the continuous decay of roots and underground stems from plants, and the occasional addition of manure. The loss of organic matter from mold is likely accelerated by its repeated exposure at the surface through the castings of worms.

Worms, on the other hand, add largely to the organic matter in the soil by the astonishing number of half-decayed leaves which they draw into their burrows to a depth of 2 or 3 inches. They do this chiefly for obtaining food, but partly for closing the mouths of their burrows and for lining the upper part. The leaves which they consume are moistened, torn into small shreds, partially digested, and intimately commingled with earth; and it is this process which gives to vegetable mould its uniform dark tint. It is known that various kinds of acids are generated by the decay of vegetable matter; and from the contents of the intestines of worms and from their castings being acid, it seems probable that the process of digestion induces an analogous chemical change in the swallowed, triturated, and half-decayed leaves. The large quantity of carbonate of lime secreted by the calciferous glands apparently serves to neutralise the acids thus generated; for the digestive fluid of worms will not act unless it be alkaline. As the contents of the upper part of their intestines are acid, the acidity can hardly be due to the presence of uric acid. We may therefore conclude that the acids in the alimentary canal of worms are formed during the digestive process; and that probably they are nearly of the same nature as those in ordinary mould or humus. The latter are well known to have the power of de-oxidising or dissolving per-oxide of iron, as may be seen wherever peat overlies red sand, or where a rotten root penetrates such sand. Now I kept some worms in a pot filled with very fine reddish sand, consisting of minute particles of silex coated with the red oxide of iron; and the burrows, which the worms made through this sand, were lined or coated in the usual manner with their castings, formed of the sand mingled with their intestinal secretions and the refuse of the digested leaves; and this sand had almost wholly lost its red colour. When small portions of it were placed under the microscope, most of the grains were seen to be transparent and colourless, owing to the dissolution of the oxide; whilst almost all the grains taken from other parts of the pot were coated with the oxide. Acetic acid produced hardly any effect on his sand; and even hydrochloric, nitric and sulphuric acids, diluted as in the Pharmacopoeia, produced less effect than did the acids in the intestines of the worms.

Worms contribute significantly to the organic matter in the soil by bringing in a staggering number of partially decayed leaves into their burrows, which go down about 2 or 3 inches. They mainly do this for food, but also to seal up the openings of their burrows and to line the upper part. The leaves they eat are moistened, shredded into small pieces, partly digested, and thoroughly mixed with soil; this process gives vegetable mold its consistent dark color. Various types of acids are produced during the decay of plant matter, and since the contents of worms’ intestines and their castings are acidic, it seems likely that the digestion process creates a similar chemical reaction in the swallowed, ground-up, and partially decayed leaves. The large amount of calcium carbonate produced by the calciferous glands likely helps to neutralize the acids generated, as the digestive fluid of worms only works if it’s alkaline. Since the contents of the upper part of their intestines are acidic, this acidity isn't likely from uric acid. Therefore, we can conclude that the acids found in a worm's digestive system are created during digestion, and probably resemble those in regular mold or humus. It’s well known that these acids can reduce or dissolve ferric oxide, which can be seen where peat overlays red sand, or where a decaying root goes into such sand. I kept some worms in a pot filled with very fine reddish sand made of tiny silica particles coated with red iron oxide; the burrows the worms made through this sand were lined, as usual, with their castings, which consisted of the sand mixed with their intestinal secretions and leftover digested leaves. This sand had almost completely lost its red color. When small samples were examined under a microscope, most grains appeared transparent and colorless due to the dissolved oxide, while almost all the grains from other areas of the pot were still coated with the oxide. Acetic acid had minimal effect on this sand; even dilute hydrochloric, nitric, and sulfuric acids, as per the Pharmacopoeia, had less impact than the acids found in the worms' intestines.

Mr. A. A. Julien has lately collected all the extant information about the acids generated in humus, which, according to some chemists, amount to more than a dozen different kinds. These acids, as well as their acid salts (i.e., in combination with potash, soda, and ammonia), act energetically on carbonate of lime and on the oxides of iron. It is also known that some of these acids, which were called long ago by Thénard azohumic, are enabled to dissolve colloid silica in proportion to the nitrogen which they contain. [220] In the formation of these latter acids worms probably afford some aid, for Dr. H. Johnson informs me that by Nessler’s test he found 0.018 per cent. of ammonia in their castings.

Mr. A. A. Julien has recently gathered all the available information about the acids produced in humus, which, according to some chemists, number more than a dozen different types. These acids, along with their acid salts (i.e., in combination with potash, soda, and ammonia), react strongly with calcium carbonate and iron oxides. It is also known that some of these acids, which were referred to long ago by Thénard as azohumic, can dissolve colloid silica in relation to the nitrogen they contain. [220] In the formation of these latter acids, worms likely play a role, as Dr. H. Johnson reported that he found 0.018 percent ammonia in their castings using Nessler’s test.

It may be here added that I have recently been informed by Dr. Gilbert “that several square yards on his lawn were swept clean, and after two or three weeks all the worm-castings on the space were collected and dried. These were found to contain 0.35 of nitrogen. This is from two to three times as much as we find in our ordinary arable surface-soil; more than in our ordinary pasture surface-soil; but less than in rich kitchen-garden mould. Supposing a quantity of castings equal to 10 tons in the dry state were annually deposited on an acre, this would represent a manuring of 78 lbs. of nitrogen per acre per annum; and this is very much more than the amount of nitrogen in the annual yield of hay per acre, if raised without any nitrogenous manure. Obviously, so far as the nitrogen in the castings is derived from surface-growth or from surface-soil, it is not a gain to the latter; but so far as it is derived from below, it is a gain.”

It may be noted that I have recently learned from Dr. Gilbert that several square yards of his lawn were cleared, and after two or three weeks, all the worm castings in that area were collected and dried. These were found to contain 0.35% nitrogen. This is two to three times more than what we find in our regular arable topsoil; more than in our typical pasture topsoil; but less than in rich kitchen-garden soil. If we assume that a quantity of castings equal to 10 tons in the dry state were deposited annually on an acre, this would amount to a fertilizing contribution of 78 lbs. of nitrogen per acre each year; and this is significantly more than the amount of nitrogen in the annual yield of hay per acre, if grown without any nitrogen-rich fertilizer. Clearly, as far as the nitrogen in the castings comes from surface growth or surface soil, it does not benefit the latter; but as much as it originates from below, it is advantageous.

The several humus-acids, which appear, as we have just seen, to be generated within the bodies of worms during the digestive process, and their acid salts, play a highly important part, according to the recent observations of Mr. Julien, in the disintegration of various kinds of rocks. It has long been known that the carbonic acid, and no doubt nitric and nitrous acids, which are present in rain-water, act in like manner. There is, also, a great excess of carbonic acid in all soils, especially in rich soils, and this is dissolved by the water in the ground. The living roots of plants, moreover, as Sachs and others have shown, quickly corrode and leave their impressions on polished slabs of marble, dolomite and phosphate of lime. They will attack even basalt and sandstone. [222] But we are not here concerned with agencies which are wholly independent of the action of worms.

The various humic acids that we’ve just seen being produced in worms during digestion, along with their acidic salts, play a crucial role, as noted by recent observations from Mr. Julien, in breaking down different types of rocks. It’s well-known that carbonic acid, and likely nitric and nitrous acids, found in rainwater, function similarly. Additionally, there’s a high concentration of carbonic acid in all soils, particularly rich ones, and this is dissolved by the ground water. Furthermore, living plant roots, as demonstrated by Sachs and others, quickly eat away at and leave marks on polished pieces of marble, dolomite, and calcium phosphate. They can even break down basalt and sandstone. [222] However, we’re not focusing on processes that are completely independent of worm activity.

The combination of any acid with a base is much facilitated by agitation, as fresh surfaces are thus continually brought into contact. This will be thoroughly effected with the particles of stone and earth in the intestines of worms, during the digestive process; and it should be remembered that the entire mass of the mould over every field, passes, in the course of a few years, through their alimentary canals. Moreover as the old burrows slowly collapse, and as fresh castings are continually brought to the surface, the whole superficial layer of mould slowly revolves or circulates; and the friction of the particles one with another will rub off the finest films of disintegrated matter as soon as they are formed. Through these several means, minute fragments of rocks of many kinds and mere particles in the soil will be continually exposed to chemical decomposition; and thus the amount of soil will tend to increase.

Agitating any acid with a base makes the reaction happen more easily, as it constantly brings fresh surfaces together. This process occurs thoroughly with the particles of stone and earth in the intestines of worms during digestion. It's important to note that the entire mass of soil over every field passes through their digestive systems over a few years. Additionally, as old burrows gradually collapse and fresh castings are continuously brought to the surface, the entire top layer of soil slowly moves around. The friction between the particles will wear away the finest layers of broken-down material as soon as they form. Through these various processes, tiny fragments of different types of rock and small particles in the soil are constantly exposed to chemical breakdown, which in turn helps increase the amount of soil.

As worms line their burrows with their castings, and as the burrows penetrate to a depth of 5 or 6, or even more feet, some small amount of the humus-acids will be carried far down, and will there act on the underlying rocks and fragments of rock. Thus the thickness of the soil, if none be removed from the surface, will steadily though slowly tend to increase; but the accumulation will after a time delay the disintegration of the underlying rocks and of the more deeply seated particles. For the humus-acids which are generated chiefly in the upper layer of vegetable mould, are extremely unstable compounds, and are liable to decomposition before they reach any considerable depth. [223] A thick bed of overlying soil will also check the downward extension of great fluctuations of temperature, and in cold countries will check the powerful action of frost. The free access of air will likewise be excluded. From these several causes disintegration would be almost arrested, if the overlying mould were to increase much in thickness, owing to none or little being removed from the surface. [224a] In my own immediate neighbourhood we have a curious proof how effectually a few feet of clay checks some change which goes on in flints, lying freely exposed; for the large ones which have lain for some time on the surface of ploughed fields cannot be used for building; they will not cleave properly, and are said by the workmen to be rotten. [224b] It is therefore necessary to obtain flints for building purposes from the bed of red clay overlying the chalk (the residue of its dissolution by rain-water) or from the chalk itself.

As worms line their burrows with their waste, and as these burrows reach depths of 5 or 6 feet, or even deeper, some of the humic acids will be carried down and will interact with the rocks and rock fragments below. This means that the soil thickness, as long as it isn't eroded from the surface, will gradually increase; however, this buildup will eventually slow the breakdown of the underlying rocks and deeper materials. The humic acids, mainly produced in the top layer of organic matter, are very unstable and are prone to breaking down before they reach any significant depth. [223] A thick layer of soil above will also limit the extent of large temperature fluctuations and reduce the harsh effects of frost in colder areas. It will also restrict the free flow of air. Due to these factors, disintegration would nearly stop if the top layer of soil were to thicken significantly without much being removed from the surface. [224a] In my local area, there's an interesting example of how effectively a few feet of clay can prevent changes in flints that are exposed; large flints that have been sitting on the surface of plowed fields for some time can’t be used for construction because they don’t split correctly, and workers say they are rotten. [224b] So, it is essential to source flints for building from the layer of red clay above the chalk (which is what remains after rainwater dissolves it) or from the chalk itself.

Not only do worms aid directly in the chemical disintegration of rocks, but there is good reason to believe that they likewise act in a direct and mechanical manner on the smaller particles. All the species which swallow earth are furnished with gizzards; and these are lined with so thick a chitinous membrane, that Perrier speaks of it, [225a] as “une véritable armature.” The gizzard is surrounded by powerful transverse muscles, which, according to Claparède, are about ten times as thick as the longitudinal ones; and Perrier saw them contracting energetically. Worms belonging to one genus, Digaster, have two distinct but quite similar gizzards; and in another genus, Moniligaster, the second gizzard consists of four pouches, one succeeding the other, so that it may almost be said to have five gizzards. [225b] In the same manner as gallinaceous and struthious birds swallow stones to aid in the trituration of their food, so it appears to be with terricolous worms. The gizzards of thirty-eight of our common worms were opened, and in twenty-five of them small stones or grains of sand, sometimes together with the hard calcareous concretions formed within the anterior calciferous glands, were found, and in two others concretions alone. In the gizzards of the remaining worms there were no stones; but some of these were not real exceptions, as the gizzards were opened late in the autumn, when the worms had ceased to feed and their gizzards were quite empty. [226]

Not only do worms help with the chemical breakdown of rocks, but there’s also strong evidence suggesting they physically act on smaller particles as well. All species that consume soil have gizzards, which are lined with such a thick chitinous membrane that Perrier described it as “a true framework.” The gizzard is surrounded by strong transverse muscles, which, according to Claparède, are about ten times thicker than the longitudinal ones; Perrier observed them contracting with vigor. Worms from the genus Digaster have two distinct but very similar gizzards; in another genus, Moniligaster, the second gizzard consists of four pouches, one after another, making it nearly like having five gizzards. Much like how fowl swallow stones to help grind their food, terricolous worms appear to do the same. Gizzards of thirty-eight of our common worms were examined, revealing that twenty-five contained small stones or grains of sand, sometimes along with hard calcareous concretions formed in the anterior calciferous glands, and two others contained only concretions. The gizzards of the remaining worms had no stones; however, some of these weren’t true exceptions, as their gizzards were opened late in the autumn when the worms had stopped eating and were completely empty.

When worms make their burrows through earth abounding with little stones, no doubt many will be unavoidably swallowed; but it must not be supposed that this fact accounts for the frequency with which stones and sand are found in their gizzards. For beads of glass and fragments of brick and of hard tiles were scattered over the surface of the earth, in pots in which worms were kept and had already made their burrows; and very many of these beads and fragments were picked up and swallowed by the worms, for they were found in their castings, intestines, and gizzards. They even swallowed the coarse red dust, formed by the pounding of the tiles. Nor can it be supposed that they mistook the beads and fragments for food; for we have seen that their taste is delicate enough to distinguish between different kinds of leaves. It is therefore manifest that they swallow hard objects, such as bits of stone, beads of glass and angular fragments of bricks or tiles for some special purpose; and it can hardly be doubted that this is to aid their gizzards in crushing and grinding the earth, which they so largely consume. That such hard objects are not necessary for crushing leaves, may be inferred from the fact that certain species, which live in mud or water and feed on dead or living vegetable matter, but which do not swallow earth, are not provided with gizzards, [227] and therefore cannot have the power of utilising stones.

When worms create their burrows in soil filled with small stones, it's likely that some will unintentionally swallow them; however, this shouldn't be thought of as the reason why stones and sand are often found in their gizzards. Glass beads and pieces of brick and hard tiles were spread on the surface of the earth in containers where the worms had already burrowed; and many of these beads and pieces were picked up and swallowed by the worms, as they were found in their castings, intestines, and gizzards. They even ingested the coarse red dust created by breaking up the tiles. It's also unlikely that they mistook the beads and fragments for food, since we know they have a refined sense of taste that can differentiate between various types of leaves. It’s clear that they swallow hard objects, like bits of stone, glass beads, and sharp pieces of brick or tile for a specific reason; it’s almost certain that this helps their gizzards crush and grind the soil they consume in large amounts. The fact that hard objects aren't necessary for crushing leaves can be inferred from certain species that live in mud or water and eat decaying or living plant matter but don't ingest soil; these species lack gizzards, [227] and thus can't use stones.

During the grinding process, the particles of earth must be rubbed against one another, and between the stones and the tough lining membrane of the gizzard. The softer particles will thus suffer some attrition, and will perhaps even be crushed. This conclusion is supported by the appearance of freshly ejected castings, for these often reminded me of the appearance of paint which has just been ground by a workman between two flat stones. Morren remarks that the intestinal canal is “impleta tenuissimâ terrâ, veluti in pulverem redactâ.” [228a] Perrier also speaks of “l’état de pâte excessivement fine à laquelle est réduite la terre qu’ils rejettent,” &c. [228b]

During the grinding process, earth particles need to be rubbed against each other as well as between the stones and the tough lining of the gizzard. The softer particles will wear down and may even get crushed. This is backed up by the look of freshly expelled castings, which often remind me of the appearance of paint freshly ground by a worker between two flat stones. Morren notes that the intestinal canal is “filled with the finest earth, as if turned to dust.” [228a] Perrier also talks about “the extremely fine paste to which the earth they expel is reduced,” etc. [228b]

As the amount of trituration which the particles of earth undergo in the gizzards of worms possesses some interest (as we shall hereafter see), I endeavoured to obtain evidence on this head by carefully examining many of the fragments which had passed through their alimentary canals. With worms living in a state of nature, it is of course impossible to know how much the fragments may have been worn before they were swallowed. It is, however, clear that worms do not habitually select already rounded particles, for sharply angular bits of flint and of other hard rocks were often found in their gizzards or intestines. On three occasions sharp spines from the stems of rose-bushes were thus found. Worms kept in confinement repeatedly swallowed angular fragments of hard tile, coal, cinders, and even the sharpest fragments of glass. Gallinaceous and struthious birds retain the same stones in their gizzards for a long time, which thus become well rounded; but this does not appear to be the case with worms, judging from the large number of the fragments of tiles, glass beads, stones, &c., commonly found in their castings and intestines. So that unless the same fragments were to pass repeatedly through their gizzards, visible signs of attrition in the fragments could hardly be expected, except perhaps in the case of very soft stones.

Since the amount of grinding that earth particles undergo in the gizzards of worms is somewhat interesting (as we will see later), I tried to gather evidence by carefully examining many of the fragments that had passed through their digestive systems. With worms living in the wild, it's impossible to know how much the fragments may have been worn down before they were eaten. However, it’s clear that worms don’t usually choose already rounded particles, as sharply angular pieces of flint and other hard rocks were often found in their gizzards or intestines. On three occasions, sharp spines from rose-bush stems were found this way. Worms kept in captivity often swallowed angular bits of hard tile, coal, cinders, and even sharp glass fragments. Birds, like gallinaceous and struthious ones, keep the same stones in their gizzards for a long time, causing them to become well-rounded; but this doesn’t seem to happen with worms, judging by the large number of tile fragments, glass beads, stones, etc., commonly found in their castings and intestines. So unless the same fragments passed through their gizzards repeatedly, visible signs of wear in the fragments are unlikely, except perhaps in the case of very soft stones.

I will now give such evidence of attrition as I have been able to collect. In the gizzards of some worms dug out of a thin bed of mould over the chalk, there were many well-rounded small fragments of chalk, and two fragments of the shells of a land-mollusc (as ascertained by their microscopical structure), which latter were not only rounded but somewhat polished. The calcareous concretions formed in the calciferous glands, which are often found in their gizzards, intestines, and occasionally in their castings, when of large size, sometimes appeared to have been rounded; but with all calcareous bodies the rounded appearance may be partly or wholly due to their corrosion by carbonic acid and the humus-acids. In the gizzards of several worms collected in my kitchen garden near a hothouse, eight little fragments of cinders were found, and of these, six appeared more or less rounded, as were two bits of brick; but some other bits were not at all rounded. A farm-road near Abinger Hall had been covered seven years before with brick-rubbish to the depth of about 6 inches; turf had grown over this rubbish on both sides of the road for a width of 18 inches, and on this turf there were innumerable castings. Some of them were coloured of a uniform red owing to the presence of much brick-dust, and they contained many particles of brick and of hard mortar from 1 to 3 mm. in diameter, most of which were plainly rounded; but all these particles may have been rounded before they were protected by the turf and were swallowed, like those on the bare parts of the road which were much worn. A hole in a pasture-field had been filled up with brick-rubbish at the same time, viz., seven years ago, and was now covered with turf; and here the castings contained very many particles of brick, all more or less rounded; and this brick-rubbish, after being shot into the hole, could not have undergone any attrition. Again, old bricks very little broken, together with fragments of mortar, were laid down to form walks, and were then covered with from 4 to 6 inches of gravel; six little fragments of brick were extracted from castings collected on these walks, three of which were plainly worn. There were also very many particles of hard mortar, about half of which were well rounded; and it is not credible that these could have suffered so much corrosion from the action of carbonic acid in the course of only seven years.

I will now provide the evidence of wear that I have managed to gather. In the gizzards of some worms dug out of a thin layer of soil over the chalk, there were many well-rounded small pieces of chalk, and two pieces of land mollusk shells (as determined by their microscopic structure), which were not only rounded but also somewhat polished. The solid formations in the calciferous glands, often found in their gizzards, intestines, and sometimes in their castings when large, sometimes seemed to have been rounded; however, like all calcareous materials, the rounded look might be partly or completely due to their erosion by carbonic acid and humus acids. In the gizzards of several worms collected from my kitchen garden near a greenhouse, eight small fragments of cinders were found, six of which were somewhat rounded, as were two pieces of brick; however, some other pieces were not rounded at all. A farm road near Abinger Hall had been covered seven years prior with brick debris about 6 inches deep; grass had grown over this debris on both sides of the road for a width of 18 inches, and on this grass there were countless castings. Some of them were uniformly red due to the presence of a lot of brick dust and contained many particles of brick and hard mortar from 1 to 3 mm in diameter, most of which were clearly rounded; however, all these particles may have been rounded before they were hidden by the grass and were consumed, similar to those on the bare parts of the road that were heavily worn. A hole in a pasture field had been filled with brick debris at the same time, seven years ago, and was now covered with grass; the castings here contained many brick particles, all more or less rounded, and after being dumped into the hole, this debris could not have experienced any wear. Additionally, old bricks, not significantly broken, along with pieces of mortar, were laid down to form pathways and then covered with 4 to 6 inches of gravel; six small pieces of brick were taken from castings collected on these pathways, three of which were noticeably worn. There were also many particles of hard mortar, about half of which were well-rounded; it is hard to believe that these could have experienced so much erosion from carbonic acid in just seven years.

Much better evidence of the attrition of hard objects in the gizzards of worms, is afforded by the state of the small fragments of tiles or bricks, and of concrete in the castings thrown up where ancient buildings once stood. As all the mould covering a field passes every few years through the bodies of worms, the same small fragments will probably be swallowed and brought to the surface many times in the course of centuries. It should be premised that in the several following cases, the finer matter was first washed away from the castings, and then all the particles of bricks, tiles and concrete were collected without any selection, and were afterwards examined. Now in the castings ejected between the tesseræ on one of the buried floors of the Roman villa at Abinger, there were many particles (from ½ to 2 mm. in diameter) of tiles and concrete, which it was impossible to look at with the naked eye or through a strong lens, and doubt for a moment that they had almost all undergone much attrition. I speak thus after having examined small water-worn pebbles, formed from Roman bricks, which M. Henri de Saussure had the kindness to send me, and which he had extracted from sand and gravel beds, deposited on the shores of the Lake of Geneva, at a former period when the water stood at about two metres above its present level. The smallest of these water-worn pebbles of brick from Geneva resembled closely many of those extracted from the gizzards of worms, but the larger ones were somewhat smoother.

Much clearer evidence of the wear of hard objects in the gizzards of worms comes from the condition of the small fragments of tiles, bricks, and concrete found in the castings ejected where ancient buildings once stood. Since all the soil covering a field passes through the bodies of worms every few years, the same small fragments will likely be swallowed and brought to the surface many times over the centuries. It should be noted that in the following cases, the finer materials were first washed away from the castings, and then all the particles of bricks, tiles, and concrete were collected without any selection and were later examined. In the castings ejected between the tesseræ on one of the buried floors of the Roman villa at Abinger, there were many particles (ranging from ½ to 2 mm. in diameter) of tiles and concrete, which were impossible to inspect with the naked eye or even through a strong lens without concluding that they had all undergone significant wear. I state this after examining small, water-worn pebbles made from Roman bricks, which M. Henri de Saussure kindly sent me, extracted from sand and gravel beds deposited on the shores of Lake Geneva when the water level was about two meters higher than it is now. The smallest of these water-worn pebbles of brick from Geneva closely resembled many of those extracted from the gizzards of worms, although the larger ones were somewhat smoother.

Four castings found on the recently uncovered, tesselated floor of the great room in the Roman villa at Brading, contained many particles of tile or brick, of mortar, and of hard white cement; and the majority of these appeared plainly worn. The particles of mortar, however, seemed to have suffered more corrosion than attrition, for grains of silex often projected from their surfaces. Castings from within the nave of Beaulieu Abbey, which was destroyed by Henry VIII., were collected from a level expanse of turf, overlying the buried tesselated pavement, through which worm-burrows passed; and these castings contained innumerable particles of tiles and bricks, of concrete and cement, the majority of which had manifestly undergone some or much attrition. There were also many minute flakes of a micaceous slate, the points of which were rounded. If the above supposition, that in all these cases the same minute fragments have passed several times through the gizzards of worms, be rejected, notwithstanding its inherent probability, we must then assume that in all the above cases the many rounded fragments found in the castings had all accidentally undergone much attrition before they were swallowed; and this is highly improbable.

Four castings found on the recently uncovered, tessellated floor of the great room in the Roman villa at Brading contained various particles of tile or brick, mortar, and hard white cement; most of these appeared clearly worn. The particles of mortar, however, seemed to have suffered more corrosion than wear, as grains of silex often stuck out from their surfaces. Castings from within the nave of Beaulieu Abbey, which was destroyed by Henry VIII, were collected from a flat area of grass covering the buried tessellated pavement, through which worm burrows ran; these castings contained countless particles of tiles and bricks, concrete, and cement, most of which had clearly experienced some degree of wear. There were also many tiny flakes of a micaceous slate, the tips of which were rounded. If we reject the idea that in all these cases the same tiny fragments have been through the gizzards of worms multiple times, despite its inherent likelihood, we must then conclude that in all these instances, the many rounded fragments found in the castings had accidentally experienced significant wear before being swallowed; and this is highly unlikely.

On the other hand it must be stated that fragments of ornamental tiles, somewhat harder than common tiles or bricks, which had been swallowed only once by worms kept in confinement, were with the doubtful exception of one or two of the smallest grains, not at all rounded. Nevertheless some of them appeared a little worn, though not rounded. Notwithstanding these cases, if we consider the evidence above given, there can be little doubt that the fragments, which serve as millstones in the gizzards of worms, suffer, when of a not very hard texture, some amount of attrition; and that the smaller particles in the earth, which is habitually swallowed in such astonishingly large quantities by worms, are ground together and are thus levigated. If this be the case, the “terra tenuissima,”—the “pâte excessivement fine,”—of which the castings largely consist, is in part due to the mechanical action of the gizzard; [234] and this fine matter, as we shall see in the next chapter, is that which is chiefly washed away from the innumerable castings on every field during each heavy shower of rain. If the softer stones yield at all, the harder ones will suffer some slight amount of wear and tear.

On the other hand, it must be noted that pieces of decorative tiles, which are somewhat harder than regular tiles or bricks, that had been consumed only once by worms kept in captivity, were, with the uncertain exception of one or two of the smallest grains, not rounded at all. However, some of them looked a bit worn, though not rounded. Despite these cases, if we consider the evidence provided earlier, it’s clear that the fragments which act as millstones in the gizzards of worms do experience some degree of wear when they’re not very hard; and that the smaller particles in the soil, which worms habitually consume in astonishingly large amounts, get ground together and are thereby refined. If this is true, the “terra tenuissima,”—the “pâte excessivement fine,”—that makes up a large part of the castings is partly due to the mechanical action of the gizzard; [234] and this fine matter, as we will see in the next chapter, is what primarily gets washed away from the countless castings on every field during heavy rainfall. If the softer stones wear down at all, the harder ones will experience some minor wear and tear.

The trituration of small particles of stone in the gizzards of worms is of more importance under a geological point of view than may at first appear to be the case; for Mr. Sorby has clearly shown that the ordinary means of disintegration, namely, running water and the waves of the sea, act with less and less power on fragments of rock the smaller they are. “Hence,” as he remarks, “even making no allowance for the extra buoying up of very minute particles by a current of water, depending on surface cohesion, the effects of wearing on the form of the grains must vary directly as their diameter or thereabouts. If so, a grain of 1/10 an inch in diameter would be worn ten times as much as one of an inch in diameter, and at least a hundred times as much as one of 1/100 an inch in diameter. Perhaps, then, we may conclude that a grain 1/10 of an inch in diameter would be worn as much or more in drifting a mile as a grain 1/1000 of an inch in being drifted 100 miles. On the same principle a pebble one inch in diameter would be worn relatively more by being drifted only a few hundred yards.” [236] Nor should we forget, in considering the power which worms exert in triturating particles of rock, that there is good evidence that on each acre of land, which is sufficiently damp and not too sandy, gravelly or rocky for worms to inhabit, a weight of more than ten tons of earth annually passes through their bodies and is brought to the surface. The result for a country of the size of Great Britain, within a period not very long in a geological sense, such as a million years, cannot be insignificant; for the ten tons of earth has to be multiplied first by the above number of years, and then by the number of acres fully stocked with worms; and in England, together with Scotland, the land which is cultivated and is well fitted for these animals, has been estimated at above 32 million acres. The product is 320 million million tons of earth.

The grinding of tiny stone particles in the gizzards of worms is more important from a geological perspective than it might seem at first. Mr. Sorby has clearly shown that the usual methods of breaking down rocks, like flowing water and ocean waves, become less effective on smaller fragments. “Therefore,” as he points out, “even without considering the extra lift of very tiny particles by a water current due to surface tension, the impact on the shape of the grains must be directly related to their diameter or something similar. If that’s the case, a grain that's 1/10 of an inch in diameter would wear down ten times more than a grain that’s one inch in diameter, and at least a hundred times more than one that’s 1/100 of an inch. Thus, we might conclude that a grain 1/10 of an inch in diameter could be worn as much or more in drifting a mile than a grain 1/1000 of an inch being carried 100 miles. By the same reasoning, a pebble measuring one inch in diameter would be worn relatively more by being moved only a few hundred yards.” [236] Additionally, we should remember that, when considering the impact worms have on grinding rock particles, there’s solid evidence that across every acre of land that is damp enough and not too sandy, gravelly, or rocky for worms to thrive, over ten tons of earth passes through their bodies and is brought to the surface each year. The cumulative effect for a country the size of Great Britain, within a timeframe that isn’t very long geologically, like a million years, could be significant; since those ten tons of earth must be multiplied by the number of years, and then by the number of acres that are well-suited for these creatures. In England and Scotland, the land suitable for cultivation and for worms is estimated to be over 32 million acres. The total comes to 320 million million tons of earth.

p. 237CHAPTER VI.
LAND DESTRUCTION—continued.

Denudation aided by recently ejected castings flowing down inclined grass-covered surfaces—The amount of earth which annually flows downwards—The effect of tropical rain on worm castings—The finest particles of earth washed completely away from castings—The disintegration of dried castings into pellets, and their rolling down inclined surfaces—The formation of little ledges on hill-sides, in part due to the accumulation of disintegrated castings—Castings blown to leeward over level land—An attempt to estimate the amount thus blown—The degradation of ancient encampments and tumuli—The preservation of the crowns and furrows on land anciently ploughed—The formation and amount of mould over the Chalk formation.

Denudation helped by recently ejected castings flowing down sloped, grass-covered surfaces—The amount of soil that flows downward each year—The impact of tropical rain on worm castings—The finest particles of soil fully washed away from castings—The breaking apart of dried castings into pellets and their rolling down slopes—The creation of small ledges on hillsides, partly due to the buildup of disintegrated castings—Castings blown downwind across flat land—An attempt to estimate the amount blown away—The erosion of ancient camps and burial mounds—The preservation of the crowns and furrows on land that was once plowed—The formation and amount of soil over the Chalk formation.

We are now prepared to consider the more direct part which worms take in the denudation of the land. When reflecting on sub-aerial denudation, it formerly appeared to me, as it has to others, that a nearly level or very gently inclined surface, covered with turf, could suffer no loss during even a long lapse of time. It may, however, be urged that at long intervals, debacles of rain or water-spouts would remove all the mould from a very gentle slope; but when examining the steep, turf-covered slopes in Glen Roy, I was struck with the fact how rarely any such event could have happened since the Glacial period, as was plain from the well-preserved state of the three successive “roads” or lake-margins. But the difficulty in believing that earth in any appreciable quantity can be removed from a gently inclined surface, covered with vegetation and matted with roots, is removed through the agency of worms. For the many castings which are thrown up during rain, and those thrown up some little time before heavy rain, flow for a short distance down an inclined surface. Moreover much of the finest levigated earth is washed completely away from the castings. During dry weather castings often disintegrate into small rounded pellets, and these from their weight often roll down any slope. This is more especially apt to occur when they are started by the wind, and probably when started by the touch of an animal, however small. We shall also see that a strong wind blows all the castings, even on a level field, to leeward, whilst they are soft; and in like manner the pellets when they are dry. If the wind blows in nearly the direction of an inclined surface, the flowing down of the castings is much aided.

We are now ready to look at the more direct role that worms play in the erosion of the land. When thinking about surface erosion, I used to believe, as many do, that a nearly flat or gently sloping area covered with grass wouldn't lose any soil over time. However, one could argue that from time to time, heavy rain or flash floods could wash away soil from a gentle slope. Yet, when I examined the steep, grassy slopes in Glen Roy, I was struck by how rare such events must have been since the Ice Age, as shown by the well-preserved state of the three successive "roads" or lake edges. The challenge of believing that any significant amount of soil can be removed from a gently sloping surface, packed with vegetation and roots, is solved by the activity of worms. The numerous castings produced during rain, as well as those made just before heavy rainfall, can travel a short distance down a slope. Additionally, much of the finest soil is washed away from these castings. In dry weather, castings often break down into small, rounded pellets, which can roll down any slope because of their weight. This is especially likely to happen when they are nudged by the wind or even by the slightest touch from an animal. We'll also see that a strong wind blows all the castings, even on flat ground, downwind while they are still soft, and similarly for the pellets when they dry out. If the wind blows nearly parallel to a sloped surface, it greatly facilitates the movement of the castings downward.

The observations on which these several statements are founded must now be given in some detail. Castings when first ejected are viscid and soft; during rain, at which time worms apparently prefer to eject them, they are still softer; so that I have sometimes thought that worms must swallow much water at such times. However this may be, rain, even when not very heavy, if long continued, renders recently-ejected castings semi-fluid; and on level ground they then spread out into thin, circular, flat discs, exactly as would so much honey or very soft mortar, with all traces of their vermiform structure lost. This latter fact was sometimes made evident, when a worm had subsequently bored through a flat circular disc of this kind, and heaped up a fresh vermiform mass in the centre. These flat subsided discs have been repeatedly seen by me after heavy rain, in many places on land of all kinds.

The observations that these various statements are based on need to be explained in detail. Castings, when first ejected, are sticky and soft; during rain, when worms seem to prefer to eject them, they are even softer. Because of this, I’ve sometimes thought that worms must take in a lot of water at those times. Regardless of the reason, rain, even if it’s not heavy, if it lasts long enough, makes recently-ejected castings semi-fluid; on level ground, they then spread out into thin, circular, flat discs, just like honey or very soft mortar, losing all traces of their worm-like structure. This was sometimes made clear when a worm later burrowed through one of these flat circular discs and piled up a new worm-like mass in the center. I have seen these flat, sunken discs many times after heavy rain, in various locations on all kinds of land.

On the flowing of wet castings, and the rolling of dry disintegrated castings down inclined surfaces.—When castings are ejected on an inclined surface during or shortly before heavy rain, they cannot fail to flow a little down the slope. Thus, on some steep slopes in Knole Park, which were covered with coarse grass and had apparently existed in this state from time immemorial, I found (Oct. 22, 1872) after several wet days that almost all the many castings were considerably elongated in the line of the slope; and that they now consisted of smooth, only slightly conical masses. Whenever the mouths of the burrows could be found from which the earth had been ejected, there was more earth below than above them. After some heavy storms of rain (Jan. 25, 1872) two rather steeply inclined fields near Down, which had formerly been ploughed and were now rather sparsely clothed with poor grass, were visited, and many castings extended down the slopes for a length of 5 inches, which was twice or thrice the usual diameter of the castings thrown up on the level parts of these same fields. On some fine grassy slopes in Holwood Park, inclined at angles between 8° and 11° 30′ with the horizon, where the surface apparently had never been disturbed by the hand of man, castings abounded in extraordinary numbers: and a space 16 inches in length transversely to the slope and 6 inches in the line of the slope, was completely coated, between the blades of grass, with a uniform sheet of confluent and subsided castings. Here also in many places the castings had flowed down the slope, and now formed smooth narrow patches of earth, 6, 7, and 7½ inches in length. Some of these consisted of two castings, one above the other, which had become so completely confluent that they could hardly be distinguished. On my lawn, clothed with very fine grass, most of the castings are black, but some are yellowish from earth having been brought up from a greater depth than usual, and the flowing-down of these yellow castings after heavy rain, could be clearly seen where the slope was 5°; and where it was less than 1° some evidence of their flowing down could still be detected. On another occasion, after rain which was never heavy, but which lasted for 18 hours, all the castings on this same gently inclined lawn had lost their vermiform structure; and they had flowed, so that fully two-thirds of the ejected earth lay below the mouths of the burrows.

On the movement of wet castings, and the rolling of dry, broken castings down sloped surfaces.—When castings are released onto a sloped surface during or just before heavy rain, they inevitably slide down a bit. So, on some steep slopes in Knole Park, which were covered with coarse grass and seemed to have been that way forever, I noticed (Oct. 22, 1872) after several rainy days that nearly all the castings were significantly elongated in the direction of the slope; and they now appeared as smooth, slightly conical shapes. Wherever I could locate the openings of the burrows from which the earth had been pushed out, there was more earth below them than above. After some heavy rainstorms (Jan. 25, 1872), I visited two steeply inclined fields near Down, which had previously been plowed and were now sparsely covered with poor grass, and many castings extended down the slopes for 5 inches, which was two or three times the usual diameter of the castings found on the flat areas of these fields. On some nice grassy slopes in Holwood Park, inclined at angles between 8° and 11° 30′ to the horizon, where the surface seemed to have never been disturbed by humans, there were an extraordinary number of castings: a space 16 inches long across the slope and 6 inches down the slope was completely covered, between the blades of grass, with a uniform layer of merged and settled castings. Here too, in many spots, the castings had flowed down the slope, forming smooth, narrow patches of earth, measuring 6, 7, and 7½ inches in length. Some of these were made up of two castings, stacked one on top of the other, which had merged so thoroughly that they were hardly distinguishable. On my lawn, covered with very fine grass, most of the castings are black, but some are yellowish because earth has been brought up from deeper than usual, and the movement of these yellow castings after heavy rain was clearly visible where the slope was 5°; and even where it was less than 1°, some signs of their movement could still be seen. On another occasion, after light rain that lasted 18 hours, all the castings on this same gently sloped lawn had lost their worm-like structure; and they had flowed, so that about two-thirds of the ejected earth lay beneath the openings of the burrows.

These observations led me to make others with more care. Eight castings were found on my lawn, where the grass-blades are fine and close together, and three others on a field with coarse grass. The inclination of the surface at the eleven places where these castings were collected varied between 4° 30′ and 17° 30′; the mean of the eleven inclinations being 9° 26′. The length of the castings in the direction of the slope was first measured with as much accuracy as their irregularities would permit. It was found possible to make these measurements within about ⅛ of an inch, but one of the castings was too irregular to admit of measurement. The average length in the direction of the slope of the remaining ten castings was 2.03 inches. The castings were then divided with a knife into two parts along a horizontal line passing through the mouth of the burrow, which was discovered by slicing off the turf; and all the ejected earth was separately collected, namely, the part above the hole and the part below. Afterwards these two parts were weighed. In every case there was much more earth below than above; the mean weight of that above being 103 grains, and of that below 205 grains; so that the latter was very nearly double the former. As on level ground castings are commonly thrown up almost equally round the mouths of the burrows, this difference in weight indicates the amount of ejected earth which had flowed down the slope. But very many more observations would be requisite to arrive at any general result; for the nature of the vegetation and other accidental circumstances, such as the heaviness of the rain, the direction and force of the wind, &c., appear to be more important in determining the quantity of the earth which flows down a slope than its angle. Thus with four castings on my lawn (included in the above eleven) where the mean slope was 7° 19′, the difference in the amount of earth above and below the burrows was greater than with three other castings on the same lawn where the mean slope was 12° 5′.

These observations led me to make others with more care. I found eight castings on my lawn, where the grass blades are fine and close together, and three more in a field with coarse grass. The slope of the surface at the eleven places where these castings were collected varied between 4° 30′ and 17° 30′, with an average of 9° 26′. The length of the castings in the direction of the slope was measured with as much accuracy as their unevenness allowed. It was possible to measure these within about ⅛ of an inch, but one of the castings was too irregular to measure. The average length in the direction of the slope of the ten remaining castings was 2.03 inches. The castings were then cut with a knife into two parts along a horizontal line passing through the mouth of the burrow, which was uncovered by slicing off the turf; and all the ejected earth was separately collected, specifically the part above the hole and the part below. Afterwards, these two parts were weighed. In every case, there was much more earth below than above; the average weight of the earth above was 103 grains, and that below was 205 grains, so the latter was almost double the former. Since on level ground, castings are usually thrown almost equally around the mouths of the burrows, this difference in weight shows the amount of ejected earth that flowed down the slope. However, many more observations would be needed to achieve any general conclusion; the type of vegetation and other accidental factors, like heavy rain, wind direction and strength, etc., seem to play a bigger role in determining how much earth flows down a slope than the angle itself. For example, with four castings on my lawn (included in the eleven above) where the average slope was 7° 19′, the difference in the amount of earth above and below the burrows was greater than with three other castings on the same lawn where the average slope was 12° 5′.

We may, however, take the above eleven cases, which are accurate as far as they go, and calculate the weight of the ejected earth which annually flows down a slope having a mean inclination of 9° 26′. This was done by my son George. It has been shown that almost exactly two-thirds of the ejected earth is found below the mouth of the burrow and one-third above it. Now if the two-thirds which is below the hole be divided into two equal parts, the upper half of this two-thirds exactly counterbalances the one-third which is above the hole, so that as far as regards the one-third above and the upper half of the two-thirds below, there is no flow of earth down the hill-side. The earth constituting the lower half of the two-thirds is, however, displaced through distances which are different for every part of it, but which may be represented by the distance between the middle point of the lower half of the two-thirds and the hole. So that the average distance of displacement is a half of the whole length of the worm-casting. Now the average length of ten out of the above eleven castings was 2.03 inches, and half of this we may take as being 1 inch. It may therefore be concluded that one-third of the whole earth brought to the surface was in these cases carried down the slope through 1 inch. [244]

We can take the eleven cases mentioned, which are accurate as far as they go, and calculate the amount of soil that gets washed down a slope with an average angle of 9° 26′ each year. My son George did this. It turns out that almost exactly two-thirds of the expelled soil is found below the entrance of the burrow, while one-third is above it. If we split the two-thirds below the entrance into two equal parts, the upper half of this two-thirds perfectly balances out the one-third above the entrance, meaning that concerning the one-third above and the upper half of the two-thirds below, there’s no movement of soil down the slope. However, the lower half of the two-thirds is moved over varying distances, which can be measured from the midpoint of the lower half to the entrance. Thus, the average distance of movement is half the total length of the worm casting. The average length of ten out of the eleven castings was 2.03 inches, so half of this is about 1 inch. Therefore, we can conclude that one-third of the total soil brought to the surface in these cases was moved down the slope by 1 inch. [244]

It was shown in the third chapter that on Leith Hill Common, dry earth weighing at least 7.453 lbs. was brought up by worms to the surface on a square yard in the course of a year. If a square yard be drawn on a hillside with two of its sides horizontal, then it is clear that only 1/36 part of the earth brought up on that square yard would be near enough to its lower side to cross it, supposing the displacement of the earth to be through one inch. But it appears that only ⅓ of the earth brought up can be considered to flow downwards; hence ⅓ of 1/36 or 1/108 of 7.453 lbs. will cross the lower side of our square yard in a year. Now 1/108 of 7.453 lbs. is 1.1 oz. Therefore 1.1 oz. of dry earth will annually cross each linear yard running horizontally along a slope having the above inclination; or very nearly 7 lbs. will annually cross a horizontal line, 100 yards in length, on a hill-side having this inclination.

In the third chapter, it was shown that on Leith Hill Common, worms brought up dry earth weighing at least 7.453 lbs. to the surface over a square yard in a year. If we draw a square yard on a hillside with two of its sides horizontal, it's clear that only 1/36 of the earth brought up on that square yard would be close enough to its lower side to cross it, assuming the earth is displaced by one inch. However, it seems that only ⅓ of the earth brought up can be considered to flow downwards; therefore, ⅓ of 1/36 or 1/108 of 7.453 lbs. will cross the lower side of our square yard in a year. Now, 1/108 of 7.453 lbs. is 1.1 oz. Thus, 1.1 oz. of dry earth will annually cross each linear yard running horizontally along a slope with the above inclination; or nearly 7 lbs. will annually cross a horizontal line 100 yards long on a hillside with this slope.

A more accurate, though still very rough, calculation can be made of the bulk of earth, which in its natural damp state annually flows down the same slope over a yard-line drawn horizontally across it. From the several cases given in the third chapter, it is known that the castings annually brought to the surface on a square yard, if uniformly spread out would form a layer 0.2 of an inch in thickness: it therefore follows by a calculation similar to the one already given, that ⅓ of 0.2 × 36, or 2.4 cubic inches of damp earth will annually cross a horizontal line one yard in length on a hillside with the above inclination. This bulk of damp castings was found to weigh 1.85 oz. Therefore 11.56 lbs. of damp earth, instead of 7 lbs. of dry earth as by the former calculation, would annually cross a line 100 yards in length on our inclined surface.

A more accurate, though still very rough, calculation can be made of the bulk of earth, which in its natural damp state flows down the same slope over a yard-line drawn horizontally across it every year. Based on the examples provided in the third chapter, it’s known that the earth brought to the surface on a square yard, if spread out evenly, would create a layer 0.2 inches thick. Therefore, similar to the earlier calculation, ⅓ of 0.2 × 36, or 2.4 cubic inches of damp earth will flow across a horizontal line one yard long on a hillside with that slope each year. This amount of damp earth was found to weigh 1.85 oz. Consequently, 11.56 lbs. of damp earth, instead of 7 lbs. of dry earth as previously calculated, would flow across a line 100 yards long on our inclined surface each year.

In these calculations it has been assumed that the castings flow a short distance downwards during the whole year, but this occurs only with those ejected during or shortly before rain; so that the above results are thus far exaggerated. On the other hand, during rain much of the finest earth is washed to a considerable distance from the castings, even where the slope is an extremely gentle one, and is thus wholly lost as far as the above calculations are concerned. Castings ejected during dry weather and which have set hard, lose in the same manner a considerable quantity of fine earth. Dried castings, moreover, are apt to disintegrate into little pellets, which often roll or are blown down any inclined surface. Therefore the above result, namely, that 24 cubic inches of earth (weighing 1.85 oz. whilst damp) annually crosses a yard-line of the specified kind, is probably not much if at all exaggerated.

In these calculations, it’s assumed that the castings flow a short distance downward throughout the entire year, but this only happens with those that are ejected during or shortly before rain. So, the results mentioned above are somewhat exaggerated. On the other hand, during rain, much of the finest soil is washed away a significant distance from the castings, even on very gentle slopes, and this soil is completely lost for the purposes of the calculations. Castings ejected during dry weather that have hardened also lose a considerable amount of fine soil in the same way. Additionally, dried castings tend to break apart into small pellets, which often roll or are blown down any sloped surface. Therefore, the result indicated above—namely, that 24 cubic inches of soil (weighing 1.85 oz. when damp) crosses a yard line of the specified kind each year—is likely not much, if at all, exaggerated.

This amount is small; but we should bear in mind how many branching valleys intersect most countries, the whole length of which must be very great; and that earth is steadily travelling down both turf-covered sides of each valley. For every 100 yards in length in a valley with sides sloping as in the foregoing cases, 480 cubic inches of damp earth, weighing above 23 pounds, will annually reach the bottom. Here a thick bed of alluvium will accumulate, ready to be washed away in the course of centuries, as the stream in the middle meanders from side to side.

This amount is small; but we should remember how many branching valleys cross most countries, which combined must be very extensive; and that soil is constantly moving down both grassy sides of each valley. For every 100 yards of length in a valley with slopes like those mentioned earlier, 480 cubic inches of moist soil, weighing over 23 pounds, will reach the bottom each year. Here, a thick layer of sediment will build up, ready to be washed away over the centuries as the stream in the center winds back and forth.

If it could be shown that worms generally excavate their burrows at right angles to an inclined surface, and this would be their shortest course for bringing up earth from beneath, then as the old burrows collapsed from the weight of the superincumbent soil, the collapsing would inevitably cause the whole bed of vegetable mould to sink or slide slowly down the inclined surface. But to ascertain the direction of many burrows was found too difficult and troublesome. A straight piece of wire was, however, pushed into twenty-five burrows on several sloping fields, and in eight cases the burrows were nearly at right angles to the slope; whilst in the remaining cases they were indifferently directed at various angles, either upwards or downwards with respect to the slope.

If it could be demonstrated that worms typically dig their burrows at right angles to an inclined surface, and that this would be the quickest way for them to bring up earth from below, then as the old burrows collapsed under the weight of the soil above, this collapse would inevitably cause the entire layer of vegetable matter to sink or slide slowly down the slope. However, figuring out the direction of many burrows proved to be too difficult and tedious. A straight piece of wire was pushed into twenty-five burrows across several sloping fields, and in eight cases, the burrows were almost at right angles to the slope; while in the other cases, they were directed at various angles, either upward or downward in relation to the slope.

In countries where the rain is very heavy, as in the tropics, the castings appear, as might have been expected, to be washed down in a greater degree than in England. Mr. Scott informs me that near Calcutta the tall columnar castings (previously described), the diameter of which is usually between 1 and 1½ inch, subside on a level surface, after heavy rain, into almost circular, thin, flat discs, between 3 and 4 and sometimes 5 inches in diameter. Three fresh castings, which had been ejected in the Botanic Gardens “on a slightly inclined, grass-covered, artificial bank of loamy clay,” were carefully measured, and had a mean height of 2.17, and a mean diameter of 1.43 inches; these after heavy rain, formed elongated patches of earth, with a mean length in the direction of the slope of 5.83 inches. As the earth had spread very little up the slope, a large part, judging from the original diameter of these castings, must have flowed bodily downwards about 4 inches. Moreover some of the finest earth of which they were composed must have been washed completely away to a still greater distance. In drier sites near Calcutta, a species of worm ejects its castings, not in vermiform masses, but in little pellets of varying sizes: these are very numerous in some places, and Mr. Scott says that they “are washed away by every shower.”

In regions with heavy rainfall, like the tropics, the castings tend to get washed away more than in England. Mr. Scott tells me that near Calcutta, the tall columnar castings (described earlier), which normally have a diameter of about 1 to 1½ inches, flatten out into almost circular, thin discs measuring between 3 and 5 inches in diameter after heavy rain. Three fresh castings, which had been ejected in the Botanic Gardens “on a slightly inclined, grass-covered, artificial bank of loamy clay,” were carefully measured and had an average height of 2.17 inches and an average diameter of 1.43 inches; after heavy rain, they formed elongated patches of earth, averaging 5.83 inches long in the direction of the slope. Since the earth spread very little uphill, a significant portion, based on the original diameter of these castings, appears to have flowed downwards about 4 inches. Additionally, some of the finest soil that made up these castings seems to have been washed away to an even greater distance. In drier areas near Calcutta, a type of worm produces its castings not in the usual worm-shaped masses, but in small pellets of various sizes: these are very numerous in some spots, and Mr. Scott notes that they “are washed away by every shower.”

I was led to believe that a considerable quantity of fine earth is washed quite away from castings during rain, from the surfaces of old ones being often studded with coarse particles. Accordingly a little fine precipitated chalk, moistened with saliva or gum-water, so as to be slightly viscid and of the same consistence as a fresh casting, was placed on the summits of several castings and gently mixed with them. These castings were then watered through a very fine rose, the drops from which were closer together than those of rain, but not nearly so large as those in a thunderstorm; nor did they strike the ground with nearly so much force as drops during heavy rain. A casting thus treated subsided with surprising slowness, owing as I suppose to its viscidity. It did not flow bodily down the grass-covered surface of the lawn, which was here inclined at an angle of 16° 20′; nevertheless many particles of the chalk were found three inches below the casting. The experiment was repeated on three other castings on different parts of the lawn, which sloped at 2° 30′, 3° and 6°; and particles of chalk could be seen between 4 and 5 inches below the casting; and after the surface had become dry, particles were found in two cases at a distance of 5 and 6 inches. Several other castings with precipitated chalk placed on their summits were left to the natural action of the rain. In one case, after rain which was not heavy, the casting was longitudinally streaked with white. In two other cases the surface of the ground was rendered somewhat white for a distance of one inch from the casting; and some soil collected at a distance of 2½ inches, where the slope was 7°, effervesced slightly when placed in acid. After one or two weeks, the chalk was wholly or almost wholly washed away from all the castings on which it had been placed, and these had recovered their natural colour.

I was led to believe that a significant amount of fine soil is washed away from castings during rain, as the surfaces of old ones often have rough particles. So, I put a little fine precipitated chalk, mixed with saliva or gum-water to make it slightly sticky and the same consistency as a fresh casting, on top of several castings and gently blended it in. These castings were then watered with a very fine rose, where the drops were closer together than rain but not as large as those in a thunderstorm; they also didn’t hit the ground with nearly as much force as drops from heavy rain. A casting treated this way settled surprisingly slowly, probably because of its stickiness. It didn’t flow down the grassy surface of the lawn, which was inclined at an angle of 16° 20′; however, many chalk particles were found three inches below the casting. The experiment was repeated on three other castings in different parts of the lawn, sloping at 2° 30′, 3°, and 6°; chalk particles were visible between 4 and 5 inches below the casting, and once the surface dried, particles were found in two cases at 5 and 6 inches away. Several other castings with chalk on top were left to the natural effects of rain. In one instance, after light rain, the casting had longitudinal white streaks. In two other cases, the surface of the ground became slightly white for about an inch from the casting; and some soil collected 2½ inches away, where the slope was 7°, effervesced slightly when acid was added. After one or two weeks, the chalk was completely or almost completely washed away from all the castings it had been placed on, and they regained their natural color.

It may be here remarked that after very heavy rain shallow pools may be seen on level or nearly level fields, where the soil is not very porous, and the water in them is often slightly muddy; when such little pools have dried, the leaves and blades of grass at their bottoms are generally coated with a thin layer of mud. This mud I believe is derived in large part from recently ejected castings.

It’s worth noting that after heavy rain, shallow pools can often be seen on flat or nearly flat fields where the soil isn't very porous, and the water in them is usually a bit muddy. When these small pools dry up, the leaves and blades of grass at the bottom are typically covered with a thin layer of mud. I think this mud mostly comes from recently expelled castings.

Dr. King informs me that the majority of the before described gigantic castings, which he found on a fully exposed, bare, gravelly knoll on the Nilgiri Mountains in India, had been more or less weathered by the previous north-east monsoon; and most of them presented a subsided appearance. The worms here eject their castings only during the rainy season; and at the time of Dr. King’s visit no rain had fallen for 110 days. He carefully examined the ground between the place where these huge castings lay, and a little watercourse at the base of the knoll, and nowhere was there any accumulation of fine earth, such as would necessarily have been left by the disintegration of the castings if they had not been wholly removed. He therefore has no hesitation in asserting that the whole of these huge castings are annually washed during the two monsoons (when about 100 inches of rain fall) into the little water-course, and thence into the plains lying below at a depth of 3000 or 4000 feet.

Dr. King tells me that most of the huge castings he found on a completely exposed, gravelly hill in the Nilgiri Mountains of India had been somewhat worn down by the previous northeast monsoon, and most of them looked like they had settled. The worms here only produce their castings during the rainy season, and when Dr. King visited, it hadn’t rained for 110 days. He carefully checked the ground between the spot where these large castings were and a small stream at the foot of the hill, and there was no buildup of fine dirt, which would have been left behind from the breakdown of the castings if they hadn’t been completely washed away. Therefore, he confidently states that all of these large castings are washed away every year during the two monsoons (when around 100 inches of rain falls) into the small stream and then into the plains below at a depth of 3000 or 4000 feet.

Castings ejected before or during dry weather become hard, sometimes surprisingly hard, from the particles of earth having been cemented together by the intestinal secretions. Frost seems to be less effective in their disintegration than might have been expected. Nevertheless they readily disintegrate into small pellets, after being alternately moistened with rain and again dried. Those which have flowed during rain down a slope, disintegrate in the same manner. Such pellets often roll a little down any sloping surface; their descent being sometimes much aided by the wind. The whole bottom of a broad dry ditch in my grounds, where there were very few fresh castings, was completely covered with these pellets or disintegrated castings, which had rolled down the steep sides, inclined at an angle of 27°.

Castings that are ejected before or during dry weather become hard, sometimes surprisingly so, because the particles of earth get stuck together by intestinal secretions. Frost appears to be less effective at breaking them down than one might think. Still, they easily break apart into small pellets after being alternately soaked by rain and dried out. Those that have flowed down a slope during rain break apart in the same way. These pellets often roll down any sloping surface, with their movement sometimes significantly helped by the wind. The entire bottom of a wide dry ditch on my property, where there were very few fresh castings, was completely covered with these pellets or disintegrated castings that had rolled down the steep sides, which are inclined at a 27° angle.

Near Nice, in places where the great cylindrical castings, previously described, abound, the soil consists of very fine arenaceo-calcareous loam; and Dr. King informs me that these castings are extremely liable to crumble during dry weather into small fragments, which are soon acted on by rain, and then sink down so as to be no longer distinguishable from the surrounding soil. He sent me a mass of such disintegrated castings, collected on the top of a bank, where none could have rolled down from above. They must have been ejected within the previous five or six months, but they now consisted of more or less rounded fragments of all sizes, from ¾ of an inch in diameter to minute grains and mere dust. Dr. King witnessed the crumbling process whilst drying some perfect castings, which he afterwards sent me. Mr. Scott also remarks on the crumbling of the castings near Calcutta and on the mountains of Sikkim during the hot and dry season.

Near Nice, in areas where the large cylindrical castings mentioned earlier are abundant, the soil is made up of very fine sandy-limestone loam. Dr. King tells me that these castings easily break apart during dry weather into small pieces, which are quickly affected by rain and then settle down so they’re no longer distinguishable from the surrounding soil. He sent me a sample of these broken castings, collected from the top of a bank, where none could have rolled down from above. They must have been ejected within the last five or six months, but now they consisted of rounded fragments of various sizes, from ¾ of an inch in diameter to tiny grains and even dust. Dr. King observed the crumbling process while drying some perfect castings, which he later sent to me. Mr. Scott also comments on the crumbling of the castings near Calcutta and in the Sikkim mountains during the hot and dry season.

When the castings near Nice had been ejected on an inclined surface, the disintegrated fragments rolled downwards, without losing their distinctive shape; and in some places could “be collected in basketfuls.” Dr. King observed a striking instance of this fact on the Corniche road, where a drain, about 2½ feet wide and 9 inches deep, had been made to catch the surface drainage from the adjoining hill-side. The bottom of this drain was covered for a distance of several hundred yards, to a depth of from 1½ to 3 inches, by a layer of broken castings, still retaining their characteristic shape. Nearly all these innumerable fragments had rolled down from above, for extremely few castings had been ejected in the drain itself. The hill-side was steep, but varied much in inclination, which Dr. King estimated at from 30° to 60° with the horizon. He climbed up the slope, and “found every here and there little embankments, formed by fragments of the castings that had been arrested in their downward progress by irregularities of the surface, by stones, twigs, &c. One little group of plants of Anemone hortensis had acted in this manner, and quite a small bank of soil had collected round it. Much of this soil had crumbled down, but a great deal of it still retained the form of castings.” Dr. King dug up this plant, and was struck with the thickness of the soil which must have recently accumulated over the crown of the rhizoma, as shown by the length of the bleached petioles, in comparison with those of other plants of the same kind, where there had been no such accumulation. The earth thus accumulated had no doubt been secured (as I have everywhere seen) by the smaller roots of the plants. After describing this and other analogous cases, Dr. King concludes: “I can have no doubt that worms help greatly in the process of denudation.”

When the castings near Nice were ejected onto an inclined surface, the broken fragments rolled downward without losing their unique shape; in some areas, they could “be collected in basketfuls.” Dr. King noted a striking example of this on the Corniche road, where a drain, about 2½ feet wide and 9 inches deep, was created to catch surface runoff from the nearby hillside. The bottom of this drain was covered for several hundred yards with a layer of broken castings, still holding their characteristic shape, to a depth of 1½ to 3 inches. Most of these countless fragments had rolled down from above, as very few castings had been ejected in the drain itself. The hillside was steep but varied in slope, which Dr. King estimated to be between 30° and 60° relative to the horizon. He climbed up the slope and “found here and there little banks formed by fragments of the castings that had been stopped in their downward movement by surface irregularities, stones, twigs, etc. One small group of Anemone hortensis plants had acted in this way, and a small amount of soil had gathered around it. Much of this soil had washed away, but a lot of it still held the shape of the castings.” Dr. King dug up this plant and was impressed by the thickness of the soil that must have recently built up over the crown of the rhizome, as indicated by the length of the bleached petioles compared to those of other plants of the same species that had not experienced such accumulation. The soil that had collected was undoubtedly secured (as I have witnessed everywhere) by the smaller roots of the plants. After detailing this and other similar instances, Dr. King concludes: “I have no doubt that worms significantly assist in the process of erosion.”

Ledges of earth on steep hill-sides.—Little horizontal ledges, one above another, have been observed on steep grassy slopes in many parts of the world. The formation has been attributed to animals travelling repeatedly along the slope in the same horizontal lines while grazing, and that they do thus move and use the ledges is certain; but Professor Henslow (a most careful observer) told Sir J. Hooker that he was convinced that this was not the sole cause of their formation. Sir J. Hooker saw such ledges on the Himalayan and Atlas ranges, where there were no domesticated animals and not many wild ones; but these latter would, it is probable, use the ledges at night while grazing like our domesticated animals. A friend observed for me the ledges on the Alps of Switzerland, and states that they ran at 3 or 4 ft. one above the other, and were about a foot in breadth. They had been deeply pitted by the feet of grazing cows. Similar ledges were observed by the same friend on our Chalk downs, and on an old talus of chalk-fragments (thrown out of a quarry) which had become clothed with turf.

Ledges of earth on steep hill-sides.—Small horizontal ledges, stacked one above the other, have been found on steep grassy slopes in various parts of the world. This formation has been linked to animals repeatedly walking along the slope in the same horizontal lines while grazing, and it's definitely clear that they do move along the ledges as part of their grazing habits; however, Professor Henslow (a very careful observer) mentioned to Sir J. Hooker that he was convinced this wasn't the only reason for their formation. Sir J. Hooker spotted similar ledges in the Himalayan and Atlas ranges, where there were no domesticated animals and very few wild ones; but it's likely that those wild animals used the ledges at night while grazing, just like our domesticated animals do. A friend of mine observed the ledges in the Alps of Switzerland and noted that they were spaced 3 to 4 feet apart, one above the other, and were about a foot wide. They had been deeply marked by the hooves of grazing cows. My friend also found similar ledges on our Chalk downs and on an old talus of chalk fragments (which had been discarded from a quarry) that had become covered in grass.

My son Francis examined a Chalk escarpment near Lewes; and here on a part which was very steep, sloping at 40° with the horizon, about 30 flat ledges extended horizontally for more than 100 yards, at an average distance of about 20 inches, one beneath the other. They were from 9 to 10 inches in breadth. When viewed from a distance they presented a striking appearance, owing to their parallelism; but when examined closely, they were seen to be somewhat sinuous, and one often ran into another, giving the appearance of the ledge having forked into two. They are formed of light-coloured earth, which on the outside, where thickest, was in one case 9 inches, and in another case between 6 and 7 inches in thickness. Above the ledges, the thickness of the earth over the chalk was in the former case 4 and in the latter only 3 inches. The grass grew more vigorously on the outer edges of the ledges than on any other part of the slope, and here formed a tufted fringe. Their middle part was bare, but whether this had been caused by the trampling of sheep, which sometimes frequent the ledges, my son could not ascertain. Nor could he feel sure how much of the earth on the middle and bare parts, consisted of disintegrated worm-castings which had rolled down from above; but he felt convinced that some had thus originated; and it was manifest that the ledges with their grass-fringed edges would arrest any small object rolling down from above.

My son Francis investigated a chalk cliff near Lewes, and here on a steep part, sloping at 40° to the horizon, about 30 flat ledges stretched horizontally for over 100 yards, with an average distance of about 20 inches between them, stacked one beneath the other. They were 9 to 10 inches wide. From a distance, they looked impressive due to their parallel lines, but up close, they appeared somewhat wavy, with one ledge often merging into another, making it look like the ledge had split into two. They were made of light-colored soil, which in the thickest areas was 9 inches in one spot and between 6 and 7 inches in another. Above the ledges, the soil thickness over the chalk was 4 inches in the first case and only 3 inches in the latter. The grass grew more robustly on the outer edges of the ledges than anywhere else on the slope, creating a tufted border. The middle parts were bare, but my son couldn't determine if this was due to sheep trampling, as they sometimes visit the ledges. He also couldn't be sure how much of the bare soil was made up of disintegrated worm castings that had rolled down from above, but he believed some did originate that way. It was clear that the ledges with their grass-fringed edges would catch any small objects rolling down from above.

At one end or side of the bank bearing these ledges, the surface consisted in parts of bare chalk, and here the ledges were very irregular. At the other end of the bank, the slope suddenly became less steep, and here the ledges ceased rather abruptly; but little embankments only a foot or two in length were still present. The slope became steeper lower down the hill, and the regular ledges then reappeared. Another of my sons observed, on the inland side of Beachy Head, where the surface sloped at about 25°, many short little embankments like those just mentioned. They extended horizontally and were from a few inches to two or three feet in length. They supported tufts of grass growing vigorously. The average thickness of the mould of which they were formed, taken from nine measurements, was 4.5 inches; while that of the mould above and beneath them was on an average only 3.2 inches, and on each side, on the same level, 3.1 inches. On the upper parts of the slope, these embankments showed no signs of having been trampled on by sheep, but in the lower parts such signs were fairly plain. No long continuous ledges had here been formed.

At one end of the bank with these ledges, the surface was partly bare chalk, and the ledges were really uneven. At the other end of the bank, the slope suddenly got less steep, and the ledges stopped pretty abruptly; however, there were still small embankments about a foot or two long. The slope got steeper further down the hill, and the regular ledges reappeared. One of my sons noticed, on the inland side of Beachy Head, where the surface sloped at about 25°, many short little embankments like the ones I just mentioned. They extended horizontally and were a few inches to two or three feet long. They supported tufts of grass growing strongly. The average thickness of the soil they were made of, based on nine measurements, was 4.5 inches, while the soil above and below them averaged only 3.2 inches, and on each side, at the same level, it was 3.1 inches. On the upper parts of the slope, these embankments showed no signs of being trampled by sheep, but in the lower parts, such signs were quite clear. No long continuous ledges had formed here.

If the little embankments above the Corniche road, which Dr. King saw in the act of formation by the accumulation of disintegrated and rolled worm-castings, were to become confluent along horizontal lines, ledges would be formed. Each embankment would tend to extend laterally by the lateral extension of the arrested castings; and animals grazing on a steep slope would almost certainly make use of every prominence at nearly the same level, and would indent the turf between them; and such intermediate indentations would again arrest the castings. An irregular ledge when once formed would also tend to become more regular and horizontal by some of the castings rolling laterally from the higher to the lower parts, which would thus be raised. Any projection beneath a ledge would not afterwards receive disintegrated matter from above, and would tend to be obliterated by rain and other atmospheric agencies. There is some analogy between the formation, as here supposed, of these ledges, and that of the ripples of wind-drifted sand as described by Lyell. [259]

If the small hills above the Corniche road, which Dr. King observed being formed by the build-up of broken-down and rolled worm castings, were to come together along horizontal lines, ledges would be created. Each hill would likely extend sideways due to the sideways movement of the stopped castings; and animals grazing on a steep slope would almost definitely use every bump at roughly the same height, creating indentations in the grass between them; and these indentations would then capture the castings again. Once an uneven ledge formed, it would also likely become more regular and horizontal as some of the castings rolled sideways from the higher areas to the lower ones, which would then be elevated. Any part underneath a ledge wouldn't receive broken-down material from above anymore and would likely be worn away by rain and other weather conditions. There's a similar process in how these ledges form and how the ripples of windblown sand develop, as described by Lyell. [259]

The steep, grass-covered sides of a mountainous valley in Westmoreland, called Grisedale, was marked in many places with innumerable lines of miniature cliffs, with almost horizontal, little ledges at their bases. Their formation was in no way connected with the action of worms, for castings could not anywhere be seen (and their absence is an inexplicable fact), although the turf lay in many places over a considerable thickness of boulder-clay and moraine rubbish. Nor, as far as I could judge, was the formation of these little cliffs at all closely connected with the trampling of cows or sheep. It appeared as if the whole superficial, somewhat argillaceous earth, while partially held together by the roots of the grasses, had slided a little way down the mountain sides; and in thus sliding, had yielded and cracked in horizontal lines, transversely to the slope.

The steep, grassy slopes of a mountainous valley in Westmoreland, known as Grisedale, were marked in many places by countless lines of tiny cliffs, with nearly horizontal ledges at their bases. Their formation had nothing to do with the activity of worms, since no castings could be found anywhere (and their absence is puzzling), even though the turf sat over a considerable thickness of boulder clay and debris. Also, as far as I could tell, the formation of these little cliffs wasn’t closely related to the trampling of cows or sheep. It seemed like the entire surface of somewhat clayey soil, while partially held together by grass roots, had slid down the mountainsides a bit; and in doing so, it had yielded and cracked in horizontal lines, across the slope.

Castings blown to leeward by the wind.—We have seen that moist castings flow, and that disintegrated castings roll down any inclined surface; and we shall now see that castings, recently ejected on level grass-covered surfaces, are blown during gales of wind accompanied by rain to leeward. This has been observed by me many times on many fields during several successive years. After such gales, the castings present a gently inclined and smooth, or sometimes furrowed, surface to windward, while they are steeply inclined or precipitous to leeward, so that they resemble on a miniature scale glacier-ground hillocks of rock. They are often cavernous on the leeward side, from the upper part having curled over the lower part. During one unusually heavy south-west gale with torrents of rain, many castings were wholly blown to leeward, so that the mouths of the burrows were left naked and exposed on the windward side. Recent castings naturally flow down an inclined surface, but on a grassy field, which sloped between 10° and 15°, several were found after a heavy gale blown up the slope. This likewise occurred on another occasion on a part of my lawn where the slope was somewhat less. On a third occasion, the castings on the steep, grass-covered sides of a valley, down which a gale had blown, were directed obliquely instead of straight down the slope; and this was obviously due to the combined action of the wind and gravity. Four castings on my lawn, where the downward inclination was 0° 45′, 1°, 3° and 3° 30′ (mean 2° 45′) towards the north-east, after a heavy south-west gale with rain, were divided across the mouths of the burrows and weighed in the manner formerly described. The mean weight of the earth below the mouths of burrows and to leeward, was to that above the mouths and on the windward side as 2¾ to 1; whereas we have seen that with several castings which had flowed down slopes having a mean inclination of 9° 26′, and with three castings where the inclination was above 12°; the proportional weight of the earth below to that above the burrows was as only 2 to 1. These several cases show how efficiently gales of wind accompanied by rain act in displacing recently ejected castings. We may therefore conclude that even a moderately strong wind will produce some slight effect on them.

Castings blown downwind by the wind.—We've observed that wet castings flow, and that broken castings roll down any sloped surface; now we'll see that castings recently pushed out onto flat, grass-covered surfaces are blown downwind during strong winds accompanied by rain. I've seen this many times in various fields over several years. After such storms, the castings show a gently sloped and smooth or sometimes furrowed surface facing into the wind, while they are steeply sloped or sheer on the downwind side, resembling small glacier-sculpted hillocks of rock. They often have hollow sections on the downwind side because the top part has curled over the bottom part. During one particularly heavy south-west gale with heavy rain, many castings were completely blown downwind, leaving the openings of the burrows bare and exposed on the upwind side. Fresh castings typically flow down a slope, but on a grassy field sloping between 10° and 15°, several were found blown up the slope after a strong gale. This also happened another time on a part of my lawn with a slightly gentler slope. On a third occasion, the castings on the steep, grassy sides of a valley, where the wind had blown, were directed at an angle rather than straight down the slope; this was clearly due to the combined effects of the wind and gravity. Four castings on my lawn, where the downward incline was 0° 45′, 1°, 3° and 3° 30′ (average 2° 45′) towards the north-east, after a heavy south-west gale with rain, were split across the openings of the burrows and weighed as previously described. The average weight of the soil below the openings of the burrows and downwind was to that above the openings and upwind as 2¾ to 1; whereas several castings that had flowed down slopes averaging 9° 26′ and three castings with inclines over 12° had a weight ratio of below to above the burrows of only 2 to 1. These instances demonstrate how effectively strong winds with rain can displace recently pushed-out castings. We can therefore conclude that even a moderately strong wind will have some effect on them.

Dry and indurated castings, after their disintegration into small fragments or pellets, are sometimes, probably often, blown by a strong wind to leeward. This was observed on four occasions, but I did not sufficiently attend to this point. One old casting on a gently sloping bank was blown quite away by a strong south-west wind. Dr. King believes that the wind removes the greater part of the old crumbling castings near Nice. Several old castings on my lawn were marked with pins and protected from any disturbance. They were examined after an interval of 10 weeks, during which time the weather had been alternately dry and rainy. Some, which were of a yellowish colour had been washed almost completely away, as could be seen by the colour of the surrounding ground. Others had completely disappeared, and these no doubt had been blown away. Lastly, others still remained and would long remain, as blades of grass had grown through them. On poor pasture-land, which has never been rolled and has not been much trampled on by animals, the whole surface is sometimes dotted with little pimples, through and on which grass grows; and these pimples consist of old worm-castings.

Dry and hardened castings, after breaking down into small fragments or pellets, are sometimes, likely often, blown away by a strong wind. This was noticed on four occasions, but I didn't pay enough attention to it. One old casting on a gentle slope was blown completely away by a strong southwest wind. Dr. King thinks the wind carries off most of the old crumbling castings near Nice. Several old castings on my lawn were marked with pins and kept safe from any disturbances. They were checked after 10 weeks, during which the weather alternated between dry and rainy. Some, which were yellowish, had been almost entirely washed away, as shown by the color of the surrounding ground. Others had completely vanished, and these had likely been blown away. Finally, some still remained and would likely remain for a long time since blades of grass had grown through them. On poor pasture land, which has never been rolled and hasn't been heavily trampled by animals, the entire surface is sometimes dotted with little bumps, through and on which grass grows; these bumps consist of old worm castings.

In all the many observed cases of soft castings blown to leeward, this had been effected by strong winds accompanied by rain. As such winds in England generally blow from the south and south-west, earth must on the whole tend to travel over our fields in a north and north-east direction. This fact is interesting, because it might be thought that none could be removed from a level, grass-covered surface by any means. In thick and level woods, protected from the wind, castings will never be removed as long as the wood lasts; and mould will here tend to accumulate to the depth at which worms can work. I tried to procure evidence as to how much mould is blown, whilst in the state of castings, by our wet southern gales to the north-east, over open and flat land, by looking to the level of the surface on opposite sides of old trees and hedge-rows; but I failed owing to the unequal growth of the roots of trees and to most pasture-land having been formerly ploughed.

In all the many cases observed of soft castings being blown away, this occurred during strong winds accompanied by rain. Since these winds in England usually come from the south and southwest, earth tends to move across our fields in a north and northeast direction. This is interesting because one might think that nothing could be removed from a flat, grass-covered surface. In dense, flat woods that are protected from the wind, castings will never be removed as long as the woods exist, and soil will tend to build up to the depth where worms can work. I tried to gather evidence on how much soil is blown, while in the form of castings, by our wet southern gales toward the northeast, over wide and flat land, by examining the surface level on opposite sides of old trees and hedgerows; however, I was unsuccessful due to the uneven growth of tree roots and the fact that most pasture land had been plowed in the past.

On an open plain near Stonehenge, there exist shallow circular trenches, with a low embankment outside, surrounding level spaces 50 yards in diameter. These rings appear very ancient, and are believed to be contemporaneous with the Druidical stones. Castings ejected within these circular spaces, if blown to the north-east by south-west winds would form a layer of mould within the trench, thicker on the north-eastern than on any other side. But the site was not favourable for the action of worms, for the mould over the surrounding Chalk formation with flints, was only 3.37 inches in thickness, from a mean of six observations made at a distance of 10 yards outside the embankment. The thickness of the mould within two of the circular trenches was measured every 5 yards all round, on the inner sides near the bottom. My son Horace protracted these measurements on paper; and though the curved line representing the thickness of the mould was extremely irregular, yet in both diagrams it could be seen to be thicker on the north-eastern side than elsewhere. When a mean of all the measurements in both the trenches was laid down and the line smoothed, it was obvious that the mould was thickest in the quarter of the circle between north-west and north-east; and thinnest in the quarter between south-east and south-west, especially at this latter point. Besides the foregoing measurements, six others were taken near together in one of the circular trenches, on the north-east side; and the mould here had a mean thickness of 2.29 inches; while the mean of six other measurements on the south-west side was only 1.46 inches. These observations indicate that the castings had been blown by the south-west winds from the circular enclosed space into the trench on the north-east side; but many more measurements in other analogous cases would be requisite for a trustworthy result.

On an open plain near Stonehenge, there are shallow circular trenches with a low embankment outside, surrounding flat areas about 50 yards in diameter. These rings look very old and are thought to be from the same period as the Druidical stones. Materials ejected within these circular areas, blown to the northeast by southwest winds, would create a layer of soil in the trench, thicker on the northeastern side than anywhere else. However, the site wasn’t good for the action of worms, as the soil over the surrounding Chalk formation with flints was only 3.37 inches thick, based on an average from six measurements taken 10 yards outside the embankment. The thickness of the soil inside two of the circular trenches was measured every 5 yards all around, on the inner sides near the bottom. My son Horace recorded these measurements on paper, and although the curve representing the soil thickness was quite irregular, it was clear in both diagrams that it was thicker on the northeastern side than on the others. When the average of all the measurements from both trenches was plotted and the line smoothed out, it became evident that the soil was thickest in the section of the circle between northwest and northeast; and thinnest in the section between southeast and southwest, particularly at the latter point. In addition to these measurements, six more were taken closely together in one of the circular trenches on the northeast side; here, the soil had an average thickness of 2.29 inches, while the average of six other measurements on the southwest side was only 1.46 inches. These observations suggest that the materials were blown by the southwest winds from the circular enclosed area into the trench on the northeast side, but a lot more measurements in similar situations would be needed for a reliable conclusion.

The amount of fine earth brought to the surface under the form of castings, and afterwards transported by the winds accompanied by rain, or that which flows and rolls down an inclined surface, no doubt is small in the course of a few scores of years; for otherwise all the inequalities in our pasture fields would be smoothed within a much shorter period than appears to be the case. But the amount which is thus transported in the course of thousands of years cannot fail to be considerable and deserves attention. É. de Beaumont looks at the vegetable mould which everywhere covers the land as a fixed line, from which the amount of denudation may be measured. [265] He ignores the continued formation of fresh mould by the disintegration of the underlying rocks and fragments of rock; and it is curious to find how much more philosophical were the views maintained long ago, by Playfair, who, in 1802, wrote, “In the permanence of a coat of vegetable mould on the surface of the earth, we have a demonstrative proof of the continued destruction of the rocks.” [266]

The amount of fine soil brought to the surface in the form of castings and then carried by the wind along with rain, or that which flows and rolls down a slope, is probably small over a span of a few decades; otherwise, the unevenness in our pasture fields would be smoothed out much faster than it seems to be. However, the amount that gets transported over thousands of years must be significant and is worth noting. É. de Beaumont considers the layer of topsoil that covers the land as a baseline from which we can measure erosion. [265] He overlooks the ongoing formation of new topsoil from the breaking down of the underlying rocks and rock fragments, and it's interesting to see how much more insightful the ideas were from long ago, such as those by Playfair, who wrote in 1802, “The existence of a layer of topsoil on the Earth proves that rocks continue to erode.” [266]

Ancient encampments and tumuli.—É. de Beaumont adduces the present state of many ancient encampments and tumuli and of old ploughed fields, as evidence that the surface of the land undergoes hardly any degradation. But it does not appear that he ever examined the thickness of the mould over different parts of such old remains. He relies chiefly on indirect, but apparently trustworthy, evidence that the slopes of the old embankments are the same as they originally were; and it is obvious that he could know nothing about their original heights. In Knole Park a mound had been thrown up behind the rifle-targets, which appeared to have been formed of earth originally supported by square blocks of turf. The sides sloped, as nearly as I could estimate them, at an angle of 45° or 50° with the horizon, and they were covered, especially on the northern side, with long coarse grass, beneath which many worm-castings were found. These had flowed bodily downwards, and others had rolled down as pellets. Hence it is certain that as long as a mound of this kind is tenanted by worms, its height will be continually lowered. The fine earth which flows or rolls down the sides of such a mound accumulates at its base in the form of a talus. A bed, even a very thin bed, of fine earth is eminently favourable for worms; so that a greater number of castings would tend to be ejected on a talus thus formed than elsewhere; and these would be partially washed away by every heavy shower and be spread over the adjoining level ground. The final result would be the lowering of the whole mound, whilst the inclination of the sides would not be greatly lessened. The same result would assuredly follow with ancient embankments and tumuli; except where they had been formed of gravel or of nearly pure sand, as such matter is unfavourable for worms. Many old fortifications and tumuli are believed to be at least 2000 years old; and we should bear in mind that in many places about one inch of mould is brought to the surface in 5 years or two inches in 10 years. Therefore in so long a period as 2000 years, a large amount of earth will have been repeatedly brought to the surface on most old embankments and tumuli, especially on the talus round their bases, and much of this earth will have been washed completely away. We may therefore conclude that all ancient mounds, when not formed of materials unfavourable to worms, will have been somewhat lowered in the course of centuries, although their inclinations may not have been greatly changed.

Ancient encampments and tumuli.—É. de Beaumont points out that many ancient encampments, tumuli, and old plowed fields show that the surface of the land experiences very little degradation. However, it appears he never looked into the thickness of the soil over different parts of these old sites. He mainly relies on indirect, but seemingly reliable, evidence that the slopes of the old embankments remain the same as they originally were; and it’s clear that he wouldn't know their original heights. In Knole Park, there's a mound created behind the rifle targets, which seems to have been made of earth originally supported by square pieces of turf. The sides slope, based on my estimates, at an angle of 45° to 50° with the horizon, and they are covered, especially on the northern side, with long coarse grass, underneath which many worm castings were found. These had flowed downwards in bulk, while others rolled down like pellets. This confirms that as long as a mound like this is occupied by worms, its height will keep decreasing. The fine soil that flows or rolls down the sides of such a mound collects at its base as a talus. A layer, even a very thin layer, of fine soil is particularly favorable for worms; therefore, a larger number of castings would be produced on such a talus than elsewhere, and these would be partially washed away by every heavy rain, spreading over the nearby flat ground. The end result would be the overall lowering of the mound, while the angle of the sides wouldn't change much. The same would definitely happen with ancient embankments and tumuli, except when they are made of gravel or nearly pure sand, as such materials are not ideal for worms. Many old fortifications and tumuli are thought to be at least 2000 years old; we should remember that in many locations, about one inch of soil is brought to the surface in 5 years or two inches in 10 years. Therefore, over a lengthy period like 2000 years, a significant amount of earth will have been repeatedly brought to the surface on most old embankments and tumuli, especially on the talus around their bases, and much of this soil will have been completely washed away. Thus, we can conclude that all ancient mounds, unless made of materials that are not favorable to worms, will have somewhat decreased in height over the centuries, though their slopes may not have changed significantly.

Fields formerly ploughed.—From a very remote period and in many countries, land has been ploughed, so that convex beds, called crowns or ridges, usually about 8 feet across and separated by furrows, have been thrown up. The furrows are directed so as to carry off the surface water. In my attempts to ascertain how long a time these crowns and furrows last, when ploughed land has been converted into pasture, obstacles of many kinds were encountered. It is rarely known when a field was last ploughed; and some fields which were thought to have been in pasture from time immemorial were afterwards discovered to have been ploughed only 50 or 60 years before. During the early part of the present century, when the price of corn was very high, land of all kinds seems to have been ploughed in Britain. There is, however, no reason to doubt that in many cases the old crowns and furrows have been preserved from a very ancient period. [269] That they should have been preserved for very unequal lengths of time would naturally follow from the crowns, when first thrown up, having differed much in height in different districts, as is now the case with recently ploughed land.

Previously Ploughed Fields.—From a very early time and in many places, land has been ploughed, creating raised beds known as crowns or ridges, typically about 8 feet wide and separated by furrows. The furrows are designed to drain surface water. In my efforts to determine how long these crowns and furrows remain visible after ploughed land is turned into pasture, I faced many difficulties. It's rarely known when a field was last ploughed, and some fields thought to have been in pasture for ages were later found to have been ploughed only 50 or 60 years ago. During the early part of this century, when corn prices were very high, all types of land in Britain seemed to have been ploughed. However, there is no doubt that in many instances the old crowns and furrows have been preserved since ancient times. [269] The preservation of these features for unequal periods would naturally result from the crowns, when first formed, differing significantly in height across different regions, similar to what we see with recently ploughed fields today.

In old pasture fields, the mould, wherever measurements were made, was found to be from ½ to 2 inches thicker in the furrows than on the crowns; but this would naturally follow from the finer earth having been washed from the crowns into the furrows before the land was well clothed with turf; and it is impossible to tell what part worms may have played in the work. Nevertheless from what we have seen, castings would certainly tend to flow and to be washed during heavy rain from the crowns into the furrows. But as soon as a bed of fine earth had by any means been accumulated in the furrows, it would be more favourable for worms than the other parts, and a greater number of castings would be thrown up here than elsewhere; and as the furrows on sloping land are usually directed so as to carry off the surface water, some of the finest earth would be washed from the castings which had been here ejected and be carried completely away. The result would be that the furrows would be filled up very slowly, while the crowns would be lowered perhaps still more slowly by the flowing and rolling of the castings down their gentle inclinations into the furrows.

In old pasture fields, the soil was found to be ½ to 2 inches thicker in the furrows than on the crowns, no matter where measurements were taken. This makes sense since the finer dirt was washed from the crowns into the furrows before the land was fully covered with grass. It's hard to say how much worms contributed to this process. However, from what we've observed, castings would likely flow and be washed from the crowns into the furrows during heavy rain. Once a layer of fine soil accumulated in the furrows, it would be more beneficial for worms than the other areas, leading to more castings being produced there. Since the furrows on sloping land are usually designed to drain surface water, some of the finest soil would be washed away from the castings that had been deposited there. As a result, the furrows would fill up very slowly, while the crowns might also be lowered, perhaps even more gradually, as the castings flowed and rolled down their gentle slopes into the furrows.

Nevertheless it might be expected that old furrows, especially those on a sloping surface, would in the course of time be filled up and disappear. Some careful observers, however, who examined fields for me in Gloucestershire and Staffordshire could not detect any difference in the state of the furrows in the upper and lower parts of sloping fields, supposed to have been long in pasture; and they came to the conclusion that the crowns and furrows would last for an almost endless number of centuries. On the other hand the process of obliteration seems to have commenced in some places. Thus in a grass field in North Wales, known to have been ploughed about 65 years ago, which sloped at an angle of 15° to the north-east, the depth of the furrows (only 7 feet apart) was carefully measured, and was found to be about 4½ inches in the upper part of the slope, and only 1 inch near the base, where they could be traced with difficulty. On another field sloping at about the same angle to the south-west, the furrows were scarcely perceptible in the lower part; although these same furrows when followed on to some adjoining level ground were from 2½ to 3½ inches in depth. A third and closely similar case was observed. In a fourth case, the mould in a furrow in the upper part of a sloping field was 2½ inches, and in the lower part 4½ inches in thickness.

However, it might be expected that old furrows, especially those on a slope, would eventually fill in and disappear over time. Some careful observers, though, who looked at fields for me in Gloucestershire and Staffordshire, couldn't see any difference in the state of the furrows in the upper and lower parts of sloping fields believed to have been in pasture for a long time; they concluded that the crowns and furrows would last for nearly endless centuries. On the other hand, the process of disappearing seems to have started in some areas. For example, in a grass field in North Wales, known to have been plowed about 65 years ago, which sloped at a 15° angle to the northeast, the depth of the furrows (only 7 feet apart) was carefully measured and found to be about 4½ inches at the top of the slope and only 1 inch near the bottom, where they were hard to trace. In another field sloping at about the same angle to the southwest, the furrows were barely noticeable in the lower part; however, those same furrows, when followed onto some adjacent level ground, were between 2½ to 3½ inches deep. A third similar case was also observed. In a fourth case, the soil in a furrow in the upper part of a sloping field was 2½ inches thick, while in the lower part it was 4½ inches thick.

On the Chalk Downs at about a mile distance from Stonehenge, my son William examined a grass-covered, furrowed surface, sloping at from 8° to 10 °, which an old shepherd said had not been ploughed within the memory of man. The depth of one furrow was measured at 16 points in a length of 68 paces, and was found to be deeper where the slope was greatest and where less earth would naturally tend to accumulate, and at the base it almost disappeared. The thickness of the mould in this furrow in the upper part was 2½ inches, which increased to 5 inches, a little above the steepest part of the slope; and at the base, in the middle of the narrow valley, at a point which the furrow if continued would have struck, it amounted to 7 inches. On the opposite side of the valley, there were very faint, almost obliterated, traces of furrows. Another analogous but not so decided a case was observed at a few miles’ distance from Stonehenge. On the whole it appears that the crowns and furrows on land formerly ploughed, but now covered with grass, tend slowly to disappear when the surface is inclined; and this is probably in large part due to the action of worms; but that the crowns and furrows last for a very long time when the surface is nearly level.

On the Chalk Downs about a mile from Stonehenge, my son William looked at a grass-covered, uneven surface sloping at about 8° to 10°. An old shepherd said it hadn’t been plowed in living memory. We measured the depth of one furrow at 16 points along 68 paces and found it to be deeper where the slope was steepest, where less earth would accumulate, and it nearly vanished at the base. The thickness of the soil in this furrow at the top was 2½ inches, increasing to 5 inches just above the steepest part of the slope, and at the base, in the middle of the narrow valley where the furrow would have continued, it reached 7 inches. On the opposite side of the valley, there were very faint, nearly erased traces of furrows. We observed another similar but less clear case a few miles from Stonehenge. Overall, it seems that the crowns and furrows on land that used to be plowed but is now covered in grass gradually disappear on sloped surfaces, probably largely due to the activity of worms; however, the crowns and furrows last a very long time on nearly level ground.

Formation and amount of mould over the Chalk Formation.—Worm-castings are often ejected in extraordinary numbers on steep, grass-covered slopes, where the Chalk comes close to the surface, as my son William observed near Winchester and elsewhere. If such castings are largely washed away during heavy rains, it is difficult to understand at first how any mould can still remain on our Downs, as there does not appear any evident means for supplying the loss. There is, moreover, another cause of loss, namely, in the percolation of the finer particles of earth into the fissures in the chalk and into the chalk itself. These considerations led me to doubt for a time whether I had not exaggerated the amount of fine earth which flows or rolls down grass-covered slopes under the form of castings; and I sought for additional information. In some places, the castings on Chalk Downs consist largely of calcareous matter, and here the supply is of course unlimited. But in other places, for instance on a part of Teg Down near Winchester, the castings were all black and did not effervesce with acids. The mould over the chalk was here only from 3 to 4 inches in thickness. So again on the plain near Stonehenge, the mould, apparently free from calcareous matter, averaged rather less than 3½ inches in thickness. Why worms should penetrate and bring up chalk in some places and not in others I do not know.

Formation and amount of mold over the Chalk Formation.—Worm castings are often ejected in huge numbers on steep, grassy slopes where the Chalk is near the surface, as my son William noted near Winchester and elsewhere. If such castings are mostly washed away during heavy rains, it’s hard to see how any mold can still be left on our Downs, since there doesn’t seem to be a clear way to replace the loss. Additionally, there’s another reason for loss: the finer particles of soil seep into the cracks in the chalk and into the chalk itself. These points made me question for a while whether I had overstated the amount of fine soil that flows or rolls down grassy slopes as castings, so I looked for more information. In some areas, the castings on Chalk Downs consist mainly of calcareous material, and here the supply is, of course, endless. But in other areas, like a part of Teg Down near Winchester, the castings were entirely black and didn’t fizz with acids. The mold over the chalk here was only about 3 to 4 inches thick. Similarly, on the plain near Stonehenge, the mold, apparently free from calcareous matter, averaged just under 3½ inches in thickness. I don’t know why worms should bring up chalk in some places and not in others.

In many districts where the land is nearly level, a bed several feet in thickness of red clay full of unworn flints overlies the Upper Chalk. This overlying matter, the surface of which has been converted into mould, consists of the undissolved residue from the chalk. It may be well here to recall the case of the fragments of chalk buried beneath worm-castings on one of my fields, the angles of which were so completely rounded in the course of 29 years that the fragments now resembled water-worn pebbles. This must have been effected by the carbonic acid in the rain and in the ground, by the humus-acids, and by the corroding power of living roots. Why a thick mass of residue has not been left on the Chalk, wherever the land is nearly level, may perhaps be accounted for by the percolation of the fine particles into the fissures, which are often present in the chalk and are either open or are filled up with impure chalk, or into the solid chalk itself. That such percolation occurs can hardly be doubted. My son collected some powdered and fragmentary chalk beneath the turf near Winchester; the former was found by Colonel Parsons, R. E., to contain 10 per cent., and the fragments 8 per cent. of earthy matter. On the flanks of the escarpment near Abinger in Surrey, some chalk close beneath a layer of flints, 2 inches in thickness and covered by 8 inches of mould, yielded a residue of 3.7 per cent. of earthy matter. On the other hand the Upper Chalk properly contains, as I was informed by the late David Forbes who had made many analyses, only from 1 to 2 per cent. of earthy matter; and two samples from pits near my house contained 1.3 and 0.6 per cent. I mention these latter cases because, from the thickness of the overlying bed of red clay with flints, I had imagined that the underlying chalk might here be less pure than elsewhere. The cause of the residue accumulating more in some places than in others, may be attributed to a layer of argillaceous matter having been left at an early period on the chalk, and this would check the subsequent percolation of earthy matter into it.

In many areas where the land is mostly flat, there's a layer several feet thick of red clay filled with unweathered flints that sits on top of the Upper Chalk. This upper layer, which has turned into soil, is made up of the leftover material from the chalk that hasn’t dissolved. It’s worth noting the case of the chalk fragments buried under worm castings in one of my fields; over the course of 29 years, the edges of these fragments became so rounded that they now look like river-worn pebbles. This rounding must have happened due to the carbonic acid in the rain and soil, the humus acids, and the eroding effect of living roots. The reason a thick layer of residue hasn’t formed on the Chalk wherever the land is almost flat could be explained by the fine particles percolating into the cracks often found in the chalk, which are either open or filled with impure chalk, or even into the solid chalk itself. It’s hard to doubt that this percolation happens. My son collected some powdered and broken chalk beneath the grass near Winchester; Colonel Parsons, R. E., found that the powder contained 10 percent earthy matter, and the fragments held 8 percent. On the slopes of the escarpment near Abinger in Surrey, some chalk found just below a 2-inch thick layer of flints, covered by 8 inches of soil, provided a residue of 3.7 percent earthy matter. In contrast, the Upper Chalk typically contains, as I learned from the late David Forbes who conducted many analyses, only 1 to 2 percent earthy matter; two samples from pits near my home contained 1.3 and 0.6 percent. I mention these latter cases because, given the thick layer of red clay with flints above, I assumed that the underlying chalk might be less pure than in other areas. The reason the residue builds up more in some places than in others could be due to a layer of clay-like material being left on the chalk early on, which would prevent further percolation of earthy material into it.

From the facts now given we may conclude that castings ejected on our Chalk Downs suffer some loss by the percolation of their finer matter into the chalk. But such impure superficial chalk, when dissolved, would leave a larger supply of earthy matter to be added to the mould than in the case of pure chalk. Besides the loss caused by percolation, some fine earth is certainly washed down the sloping grass-covered surfaces of our Downs. The washing-down process, however, will be checked in the course of time; for although I do not know how thin a layer of mould suffices to support worms, yet a limit must at last be reached; and then their castings would cease to be ejected or would become scanty.

Based on the facts we have, we can conclude that the castings produced on our Chalk Downs lose some of their finer particles to the chalk below. However, this less pure surface chalk, when dissolved, would provide a greater supply of earthy matter to add to the mold compared to pure chalk. In addition to the loss from percolation, some fine soil is definitely washed down the sloped, grass-covered surfaces of our Downs. The washing process, though, will slow down over time; while I’m not sure how thin a layer of soil is needed to support worms, there must be an eventual limit, after which their castings would either stop being produced or become less frequent.

The following cases show that a considerable quantity of fine earth is washed down. The thickness of the mould was measured at points 12 yards apart across a small valley in the Chalk near Winchester. The sides sloped gently at first; then became inclined at about 20°; then more gently to near the bottom, which transversely was almost level and about 50 yards across. In the bottom, the mean thickness of the mould from five measurements was 8.3 inches; whilst on the sides of the valley, where the inclination varied between 14° and 20°, its mean thickness was rather less than 3.5 inches. As the turf-covered bottom of the valley sloped at an angle of only between 2° and 3°, it is probable that most of the 8.3-inch layer of mould had been washed down from the flanks of the valley, and not from the upper part. But as a shepherd said that he had seen water flowing in this valley after the sudden thawing of snow, it is possible that some earth may have been brought down from the upper part; or, on the other hand, that some may have been carried further down the valley. Closely similar results, with respect to the thickness of the mould, were obtained in a neighbouring valley.

The following cases demonstrate that a significant amount of fine soil is washed down. The thickness of the soil was measured at points 12 yards apart across a small valley in the Chalk near Winchester. The sides sloped gently at first, then became steeper at about a 20° angle, and finally sloped more gently near the bottom, which was almost level and about 50 yards across. At the bottom, the average thickness of the soil from five measurements was 8.3 inches, while on the sides of the valley, where the slope varied between 14° and 20°, the average thickness was just under 3.5 inches. Since the turf-covered bottom of the valley sloped at only a 2° to 3° angle, it's likely that most of the 8.3-inch layer of soil was washed down from the sides of the valley, rather than from the upper part. However, a shepherd mentioned that he had seen water flowing in this valley after a sudden thaw of snow, so it's possible that some soil was brought down from the upper area, or, conversely, that some may have been carried further down the valley. Very similar results regarding the thickness of the soil were found in a nearby valley.

St. Catherine’s Hill, near Winchester, is 327 feet in height, and consists of a steep cone of chalk about ¼ of a mile in diameter. The upper part was converted by the Romans, or, as some think, by the ancient Britons, into an encampment, by the excavation of a deep and broad ditch all round it. Most of the chalk removed during the work was thrown upwards, by which a projecting bank was formed; and this effectually prevents worm-castings (which are numerous in parts), stones, and other objects from being washed or rolled into the ditch. The mould on the upper and fortified part of the hill was found to be in most places only from 2½ to 3½ inches in thickness; whereas it had accumulated at the foot of the embankment above the ditch to a thickness in most places of from 8 to 9½ inches. On the embankment itself the mould was only 1 to 1½ inch in thickness; and within the ditch at the bottom it varied from 2½ to 3½, but was in one spot 6 inches in thickness. On the north-west side of the hill, either no embankment had ever been thrown up above the ditch, or it had subsequently been removed; so that here there was nothing to prevent worm-castings, earth and stones being washed into the ditch, at the bottom of which the mould formed a layer from 11 to 22 inches in thickness. It should however be stated that here and on other parts of the slope, the bed of mould often contained fragments of chalk and flint which had obviously rolled down at different times from above. The interstices in the underlying fragmentary chalk were also filled up with mould.

St. Catherine’s Hill, near Winchester, is 327 feet high and has a steep cone of chalk that’s about a quarter of a mile in diameter. The Romans, or as some believe, the ancient Britons, turned the upper part into a camp by digging a deep, wide ditch all around it. Most of the chalk that was dug out was pushed upwards, creating a raised bank that effectively keeps worm castings (which are common in some areas), stones, and other things from washing or rolling into the ditch. The soil on the top, fortified part of the hill is mostly only 2.5 to 3.5 inches thick, while it accumulated at the foot of the bank above the ditch to a thickness of about 8 to 9.5 inches in most areas. On the bank itself, the soil is only 1 to 1.5 inches thick; within the ditch, it ranges from 2.5 to 3.5 inches, but in one spot, it reaches 6 inches thick. On the north-west side of the hill, either no bank was ever built above the ditch, or it has since been removed, allowing worm castings, dirt, and stones to wash into the ditch, where the soil forms a layer between 11 to 22 inches thick. It should be noted, however, that in this area and on other parts of the slope, the soil often contains pieces of chalk and flint that have obviously rolled down at different times from above. The gaps in the underlying broken chalk were also filled with soil.

My son examined the surface of this hill to its base in a south-west direction. Beneath the great ditch, where the slope was about 24°, the mould was very thin, namely, from 1½ to 2½ inches; whilst near the base, where the slope was only 3° to 4°, it increased to between 8 and 9 inches in thickness. We may therefore conclude that on this artificially modified hill, as well as in the natural valleys of the neighbouring Chalk Downs, some fine earth, probably derived in large part from worm-castings, is washed down, and accumulates in the lower parts, notwithstanding the percolation of an unknown quantity into the underlying chalk; a supply of fresh earthy matter being afforded by the dissolution of the chalk through atmospheric and other agencies.

My son looked over the surface of this hill down to its base in a southwest direction. Below the large ditch, where the slope was about 24°, the soil was quite thin, ranging from 1½ to 2½ inches. However, near the base, where the slope was only 3° to 4°, it thickened to between 8 and 9 inches. Therefore, we can conclude that on this artificially shaped hill, as well as in the natural valleys of the nearby Chalk Downs, some fine soil, likely mostly from worm castings, gets washed down and collects in the lower areas, even though some seeps down into the underlying chalk. A fresh supply of soil comes from the dissolution of the chalk due to atmospheric and other processes.

p. 280CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUSION.

Summary of the part which worms have played in the history of the world—Their aid in the disintegration of rocks—In the denudation of the land—In the preservation of ancient remains—In the preparation of the soil for the growth of plants—Mental powers of worms—Conclusion.

Summary of the role worms have played in the history of the world—Their help in breaking down rocks—In the erosion of land—In the preservation of ancient remains—In preparing the soil for plant growth—Cognitive abilities of worms—Conclusion.

Worms have played a more important part in the history of the world than most persons would at first suppose. In almost all humid countries they are extraordinarily numerous, and for their size possess great muscular power. In many parts of England a weight of more than ten tons (10,516 kilogrammes) of dry earth annually passes through their bodies and is brought to the surface on each acre of land; so that the whole superficial bed of vegetable mould passes through their bodies in the course of every few years. From the collapsing of the old burrows the mould is in constant though slow movement, and the particles composing it are thus rubbed together. By these means fresh surfaces are continually exposed to the action of the carbonic acid in the soil, and of the humus-acids which appear to be still more efficient in the decomposition of rocks. The generation of the humus-acids is probably hastened during the digestion of the many half-decayed leaves which worms consume. Thus the particles of earth, forming the superficial mould, are subjected to conditions eminently favourable for their decomposition and disintegration. Moreover, the particles of the softer rocks suffer some amount of mechanical trituration in the muscular gizzards of worms, in which small stones serve as mill-stones.

Worms have had a bigger impact on world history than most people might initially think. In nearly all humid countries, they are incredibly numerous and have significant muscular strength for their size. In many areas of England, more than ten tons (10,516 kilograms) of dry soil pass through their bodies each year, rising to the surface on every acre of land; this means the top layer of vegetable soil passes through them every few years. As the old burrows collapse, the soil is in constant, albeit slow, movement, causing the particles to rub against each other. This action continually exposes fresh surfaces to the carbonic acid in the soil and humus acids, which seem to be even more effective in breaking down rocks. The production of humus acids is likely sped up by the worms' digestion of the many partially decayed leaves they eat. As a result, the soil particles that make up the top layer are subjected to conditions that are highly favorable for their breakdown and disintegration. Additionally, the softer rock particles undergo some mechanical grinding in the worms' muscular gizzards, where small stones act as millstones.

The finely levigated castings, when brought to the surface in a moist condition, flow during rainy weather down any moderate slope; and the smaller particles are washed far down even a gently inclined surface. Castings when dry often crumble into small pellets and these are apt to roll down any sloping surface. Where the land is quite level and is covered with herbage, and where the climate is humid so that much dust cannot be blown away, it appears at first sight impossible that there should be any appreciable amount of sub-aerial denudation; but worm-castings are blown, especially whilst moist and viscid, in one uniform direction by the prevalent winds which are accompanied by rain. By these several means the superficial mould is prevented from accumulating to a great thickness; and a thick bed of mould checks in many ways the disintegration of the underlying rocks and fragments of rock.

The finely sifted castings, when brought to the surface in a wet state, flow down any moderate slope during rainy weather; the smaller particles get washed far down even a gently sloped surface. When dry, castings often break apart into small pellets, which can easily roll down any incline. In areas that are quite flat and covered with grass, where the climate is humid so that dust can't be easily blown away, it might seem at first that there would be no significant amount of surface erosion. However, worm castings are blown, especially when they are moist and sticky, in one consistent direction by the prevailing winds accompanied by rain. Through these various processes, the topsoil is kept from building up to a significant thickness, and a thick layer of soil hinders the breakdown of the underlying rocks and rock fragments in many ways.

The removal of worm-castings by the above means leads to results which are far from insignificant. It has been shown that a layer of earth, 0.2 of an inch in thickness, is in many places annually brought to the surface; and if a small part of this amount flows, or rolls, or is washed, even for a short distance, down every inclined surface, or is repeatedly blown in one direction, a great effect will be produced in the course of ages. It was found by measurements and calculations that on a surface with a mean inclination of 9° 26′, 2.4 cubic inches of earth which had been ejected by worms crossed, in the course of a year, a horizontal line one yard in length; so that 240 cubic inches would cross a line 100 yards in length. This latter amount in a damp state would weigh 11½ pounds. Thus a considerable weight of earth is continually moving down each side of every valley, and will in time reach its bed. Finally this earth will be transported by the streams flowing in the valleys into the ocean, the great receptacle for all matter denuded from the land. It is known from the amount of sediment annually delivered into the sea by the Mississippi, that its enormous drainage-area must on an average be lowered .00263 of an inch each year; and this would suffice in four and half million years to lower the whole drainage-area to the level of the sea-shore. So that, if a small fraction of the layer of fine earth, 0.2 of an inch in thickness, which is annually brought to the surface by worms, is carried away, a great result cannot fail to be produced within a period which no geologist considers extremely long.

The removal of worm castings by the methods mentioned leads to results that are far from trivial. It's been demonstrated that a layer of soil, 0.2 inches thick, is brought to the surface every year in many areas; and if even a small portion of this amount flows, rolls, or is washed down any slope, or is repeatedly blown in one direction, it will have a significant effect over time. Measurements and calculations have shown that on a surface with an average slope of 9° 26′, 2.4 cubic inches of soil expelled by worms travels a horizontal distance of one yard in a year; thus, 240 cubic inches would cover a distance of 100 yards. This amount, when wet, would weigh 11½ pounds. Therefore, a considerable weight of soil is constantly moving down the sides of every valley, and over time it will reach the bottom. Ultimately, this soil will be carried by streams flowing through the valleys into the ocean, which serves as the ultimate destination for all the materials eroded from the land. Based on the amount of sediment the Mississippi River delivers to the sea each year, it's estimated that its vast drainage area must be lowered by an average of .00263 inches annually; this means that in four and a half million years, the entire drainage area would be lowered to sea level. So, if even a small fraction of the 0.2-inch layer of fine soil brought to the surface by worms is removed, it will undoubtedly lead to significant changes within a time frame that no geologist would consider excessively long.

 

Archæologists ought to be grateful to worms, as they protect and preserve for an indefinitely long period every object, not liable to decay, which is dropped on the surface of the land, by burying it beneath their castings. Thus, also, many elegant and curious tesselated pavements and other ancient remains have been preserved; though no doubt the worms have in these cases been largely aided by earth washed and blown from the adjoining land, especially when cultivated. The old tesselated pavements have, however, often suffered by having subsided unequally from being unequally undermined by the worms. Even old massive walls may be undermined and subside; and no building is in this respect safe, unless the foundations lie 6 or 7 feet beneath the surface, at a depth at which worms cannot work. It is probable that many monoliths and some old walls have fallen down from having been undermined by worms.

Archaeologists should be thankful for worms because they protect and preserve every non-decaying object that gets dropped on the ground by burying it under their castings for a very long time. This is how many beautiful and interesting tiled pavements and other ancient artifacts have been kept safe, although it's likely that worms have been largely helped by soil washed and blown in from nearby cultivated land. However, the old tiled pavements often suffer from uneven sinking due to being undermined unevenly by worms. Even old sturdy walls can be undermined and sink; no building is truly safe unless its foundations are 6 or 7 feet below the surface, where worms can't reach. It's likely that many monoliths and some old walls have collapsed due to being undermined by worms.

 

Worms prepare the ground [284] in an excellent manner for the growth of fibrous-rooted plants and for seedlings of all kinds. They periodically expose the mould to the air, and sift it so that no stones larger than the particles which they can swallow are left in it. They mingle the whole intimately together, like a gardener who prepares fine soil for his choicest plants. In this state it is well fitted to retain moisture and to absorb all soluble substances, as well as for the process of nitrification. The bones of dead animals, the harder parts of insects, the shells of land-molluscs, leaves, twigs, &c., are before long all buried beneath the accumulated castings of worms, and are thus brought in a more or less decayed state within reach of the roots of plants. Worms likewise drag an infinite number of dead leaves and other parts of plants into their burrows, partly for the sake of plugging them up and partly as food.

Worms prepare the ground [284] perfectly for fibrous-rooted plants and seedlings of all types. They regularly expose the soil to air and sift it so that no stones larger than what they can swallow are left behind. They mix everything together, like a gardener getting fine soil ready for their best plants. In this state, the soil is great for retaining moisture and absorbing all soluble substances, as well as for the nitrification process. The bones of dead animals, the tougher parts of insects, the shells of land snails, leaves, twigs, etc., are soon buried beneath the accumulated worm castings and brought in a more or less decayed state within reach of plant roots. Worms also pull countless dead leaves and other plant parts into their burrows, partly to plug them up and partly for food.

The leaves which are dragged into the burrows as food, after being torn into the finest shreds, partially digested, and saturated with the intestinal and urinary secretions, are commingled with much earth. This earth forms the dark coloured, rich humus which almost everywhere covers the surface of the land with a fairly well-defined layer or mantle. Hensen [285] placed two worms in a vessel 18 inches in diameter, which was filled with sand, on which fallen leaves were strewed; and these were soon dragged into their burrows to a depth of 3 inches. After about 6 weeks an almost uniform layer of sand, a centimeter (0.4 inch) in thickness, was converted into humus by having passed through the alimentary canals of these two worms. It is believed by some persons that worm-burrows, which often penetrate the ground almost perpendicularly to a depth of 5 or 6 feet, materially aid in its drainage; notwithstanding that the viscid castings piled over the mouths of the burrows prevent or check the rain-water directly entering them. They allow the air to penetrate deeply into the ground. They also greatly facilitate the downward passage of roots of moderate size; and these will be nourished by the humus with which the burrows are lined. Many seeds owe their germination to having been covered by castings; and others buried to a considerable depth beneath accumulated castings lie dormant, until at some future time they are accidentally uncovered and germinate.

The leaves that are dragged into the burrows as food, after being shredded into fine pieces, partially digested, and soaked with intestinal and urinary secretions, mix with a lot of soil. This soil forms the dark, rich humus that covers the land almost everywhere with a well-defined layer. Hensen [285] placed two worms in a vessel 18 inches in diameter, filled with sand topped with fallen leaves; these worms quickly dragged the leaves into their burrows to a depth of 3 inches. After about 6 weeks, an almost uniform layer of sand, a centimeter (0.4 inch) thick, was transformed into humus after passing through these two worms' digestive systems. Some people believe that worm burrows, which often go straight down into the ground to depths of 5 or 6 feet, significantly help with drainage, despite the sticky castings piled over their openings that prevent or slow rainwater from getting in. They allow air to penetrate deep into the soil. They also greatly assist the downward growth of moderately sized roots, which are nourished by the humus lining the burrows. Many seeds germinate after being covered by castings; others buried deep under accumulated castings remain dormant until they are accidentally uncovered in the future and begin to grow.

Worms are poorly provided with sense-organs, for they cannot be said to see, although they can just distinguish between light and darkness; they are completely deaf, and have only a feeble power of smell; the sense of touch alone is well developed. They can therefore learn but little about the outside world, and it is surprising that they should exhibit some skill in lining their burrows with their castings and with leaves, and in the case of some species in piling up their castings into tower-like constructions. But it is far more surprising that they should apparently exhibit some degrees of intelligence instead of a mere blind instinctive impulse, in their manner of plugging up the mouths of their burrows. They act in nearly the same manner as would a man, who had to close a cylindrical tube with different kinds of leaves, petioles, triangles of paper, &c., for they commonly seize such objects by their pointed ends. But with thin objects a certain number are drawn in by their broader ends. They do not act in the same unvarying manner in all cases, as do most of the lower animals; for instance, they do not drag in leaves by their foot-stalks, unless the basal part of the blade is as narrow as the apex, or narrower than it.

Worms have very few sense organs; they can't truly see but can tell light from dark. They are completely deaf and have only a minimal sense of smell; their sense of touch, however, is well developed. Because of this, they can learn very little about the outside world, making it surprising that they can skillfully line their burrows with their waste and leaves, and some species even stack their waste into tower-like structures. Even more surprising is that they seem to show a degree of intelligence, rather than just blind instinct, when plugging the openings of their burrows. They behave similarly to a person who needs to seal a cylindrical tube with various kinds of leaves, stems, or bits of paper, as they usually grab these objects by their pointed ends. However, with thinner items, they sometimes pull them in by their wider ends. Unlike most low-order animals, they don't always behave in the same predictable way; for instance, they won't drag in leaves by their stalks unless the bottom part of the leaf is as narrow as the tip or narrower.

 

When we behold a wide, turf-covered expanse, we should remember that its smoothness, on which so much of its beauty depends, is mainly due to all the inequalities having been slowly levelled by worms. It is a marvellous reflection that the whole of the superficial mould over any such expanse has passed, and will again pass, every few years through the bodies of worms. The plough is one of the most ancient and most valuable of man’s inventions; but long before he existed the land was in fact regularly ploughed, and still continues to be thus ploughed by earth-worms. It may be doubted whether there are many other animals which have played so important a part in the history of the world, as have these lowly organized creatures. Some other animals, however, still more lowly organized, namely corals, have done far more conspicuous work in having constructed innumerable reefs and islands in the great oceans; but these are almost confined to the tropical zones.

When we look at a vast, grassy area, we should remember that its smoothness, which is a big part of its beauty, is mostly due to worms gradually leveling out any bumps. It’s amazing to think that the top layer of soil over such an area has been, and will continue to be, cycled through the bodies of worms every few years. The plow is one of humanity's oldest and most valuable inventions; however, long before humans existed, the land was regularly plowed, and it still is by earthworms today. It’s questionable whether any other animals have played such a significant role in the world's history as these simple creatures. That said, some even simpler organisms, like corals, have made a much more visible impact by creating countless reefs and islands in the vast oceans, although these are mostly found in tropical areas.

FOOTNOTES.

[2] ‘Leçons de Géologie Pratique,’ tom. i. 1845, p. 140.

[2] 'Lessons in Practical Geology,' vol. 1, 1845, p. 140.

[3] ‘Transactions Geolog. Soc.’ vol. v. p. 505. Read November 1, 1837.

[3] ‘Transactions Geolog. Soc.’ vol. 5, p. 505. Read November 1, 1837.

[4a] ‘Histoire des progrès de la Géologie,’ tom. i. 1847, p. 224.

[4a] ‘History of Geological Progress,’ vol. 1. 1847, p. 224.

[4b] ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoologie,’ B. xxviii. 1877, p. 361.

[4b] ‘Journal of Scientific Zoology,’ Vol. 28, 1877, p. 361.

[5] ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ April 17, 1869, p. 418.

[5] ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ April 17, 1869, p. 418.

[6] Mr. Darwin’s attention was called by Professor Hensen to P. E. Müller’s work on Humus in ‘Tidsskrift for Skovbrug,’ Band iii. Heft 1 and 2, Copenhagen, 1878. He had, however, no opportunity of consulting Müller’s work. Dr. Müller published a second paper in 1884 in the same periodical—a Danish journal of forestry. His results have also been published in German, in a volume entitled ‘Studien über die natürlichen Humusformen, unter deren Einwirkung auf Vegetation und Boden,’ 8vo., Berlin, 1887.

[6] Mr. Darwin was alerted by Professor Hensen to P. E. Müller’s work on Humus in ‘Tidsskrift for Skovbrug,’ Volume iii, Issues 1 and 2, Copenhagen, 1878. However, he didn't have the chance to look into Müller’s work. Dr. Müller published a follow-up paper in 1884 in the same journal—a Danish forestry journal. His findings were also published in German, in a book titled ‘Studien über die natürlichen Humusformen, unter deren Einwirkung auf Vegetation und Boden,’ 8vo., Berlin, 1887.

[8a] ‘Bidrag till Skandinaviens Oligochætfauna,’ 1871.

[8a] 'Contributions to the Oligochaete Fauna of Scandinavia,' 1871.

[8b] ‘Die bis jetzt bekannten Arten aus der Familie der Regenwürmer,’ 1845.

[8b] ‘The species of earthworms known so far,’ 1845.

[9b] There is even some reason to believe that pressure is actually favourable to the growth of grasses, for Professor Buckman, who made many observations on their growth in the experimental gardens of the Royal Agricultural College, remarks (‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ 1854, p. 619): “Another circumstance in the cultivation of grasses in the separate form or small patches, is the impossibility of rolling or treading them firmly, without which no pasture can continue good.”

[9b] There’s even some evidence to suggest that pressure actually helps grasses grow. Professor Buckman, who observed their growth in the experimental gardens at the Royal Agricultural College, notes in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle’ (1854, p. 619): “Another consideration in cultivating grasses in separate spots or small patches is that they cannot be rolled or trodden down firmly, which is essential for maintaining good pasture.”

[11] I shall have occasion often to refer to M. Perrier’s admirable memoir, ‘Organisation des Lombriciens terrestres’ in ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ tom. iii. 1874, p. 372. C. F. Morren (‘De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.’ 1829, p. 14) found that worms endured immersion for fifteen to twenty days in summer, but that in winter they died when thus treated.

[11] I will often refer to M. Perrier’s excellent paper, ‘Organisation des Lombriciens terrestres’ in ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ vol. iii, 1874, p. 372. C. F. Morren (‘De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.’ 1829, p. 14) found that worms could survive being submerged for fifteen to twenty days in summer, but they died under the same conditions in winter.

[12] Morren, ‘De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.’ &c., 1829, p. 67.

[12] Morren, ‘De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.’ &c., 1829, p. 67.

[14] ‘De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.’ &c., p. 14.

[14] 'On Earthworms History. Nat.' &c., p. 14.

[17] Histolog. Untersuchungen über die Regenwürmer. ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoologie,’ B. xix., 1869, p. 611.

[17] Histological studies on earthworms. ‘Journal of Scientific Zoology,’ Vol. xix, 1869, p. 611.

[18a] For instance, Mr. Bridgman and Mr. Newman (‘The Zoologist,’ vol. vii. 1849, p. 2576), and some friends who observed worms for me.

[18a] For example, Mr. Bridgman and Mr. Newman (‘The Zoologist,’ vol. vii. 1849, p. 2576), along with some friends who studied worms for me.

[18b] ‘Familie der Regenwürmer,’ 1845, p. 18.

[18b] ‘Family of Earthworms,’ 1845, p. 18.

[31] ‘The Zoologist,’ vol. vii. 1849, p. 2576.

[31] ‘The Zoologist,’ vol. vii. 1849, p. 2576.

[32] ‘Familie der Regenwürmer,’ p. 13. Dr. Sturtevant states in the ‘New York Weekly Tribune’ (May 19, 1880) that he kept three worms in a pot, which was allowed to become extremely dry; and these worms were found “all entwined together, forming a round mass and in good condition.”

[32] ‘Family of the Earthworms,’ p. 13. Dr. Sturtevant mentions in the ‘New York Weekly Tribune’ (May 19, 1880) that he kept three worms in a pot that was allowed to dry out completely; and these worms were found “all twisted together, forming a round mass and in good condition.”

[33] ‘De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.’ p. 19.

[33] ‘On Earthworms Natural History’ p. 19.

[34] ‘Archives de Zoologie expérimentale,’ tom. vii. 1878, p. 394. When I wrote the above passage, I was not aware that Krukenberg (‘Untersuchungen a. d. physiol. Inst. d. Univ. Heidelberg,’ Bd. ii. p. 37, 1877) had previously investigated the digestive juice of Lumbricus. He states that it contains a peptic, and diastatic, as well as a tryptic ferment.

[34] ‘Archives de Zoologie expérimentale,’ vol. vii, 1878, p. 394. When I wrote the passage above, I didn't realize that Krukenberg (‘Investigations at the Physiological Institute of the University of Heidelberg,’ vol. ii, p. 37, 1877) had already studied the digestive juice of Lumbricus. He notes that it contains a peptic, diastatic, and tryptic enzyme.

[35a] On the action of the pancreatic ferment, see ‘A Text-Book of Physiology,’ by Michael Foster, 2nd edit. pp. 198–203. 1878.

[35a] For information on how pancreatic enzymes work, refer to ‘A Text-Book of Physiology’ by Michael Foster, 2nd edition, pages 198–203, published in 1878.

[35b] Schmulewitsch, ‘Action des Sucs digestifs sur la Cellulose.’ Bull. de l’Acad. Imp. de St. Pétersbourg, tom. xxv. p. 549. 1879.

[35b] Schmulewitsch, ‘Action of Digestive Juices on Cellulose.’ Bulletin of the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg, vol. xxv, p. 549. 1879.

[40] Claparède doubts whether saliva is secreted by worms: see ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoologie,’ B. xix. 1869, p. 601.

[40] Claparède questions whether worms produce saliva: see ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoologie,’ vol. xix. 1869, p. 601.

[41a] Perrier, ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ July, 1874, pp. 416, 419.

[41a] Perrier, ‘Archives of Experimental Zoology’ July, 1874, pp. 416, 419.

[41b] ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoologie,’ B. xix, 1869, pp. 603–606.

[41b] ‘Journal of Scientific Zoology,’ Vol. 19, 1869, pp. 603–606.

[46] De Vries, ‘Landwirth. Jahrbücher,’ 1881, p. 77.

[46] De Vries, ‘Agricultural Yearbooks,’ 1881, p. 77.

[49] M. Foster, ‘A Text-Book of Physiology,’ 2nd edit. 1878, p. 243.

[49] M. Foster, ‘A Text-Book of Physiology,’ 2nd ed. 1878, p. 243.

[50] M. Foster, ut sup. p. 200.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ M. Foster, as above p. 200.

[53] Claparède remarks (‘Zeitschrift für wisseuschaft. Zoolog.’ B. 19, 1869, p. 602) that the pharynx appears from its structure to be adapted for suction.

[53] Claparède points out (‘Zeitschrift für wisseuschaft. Zoolog.’ B. 19, 1869, p. 602) that the pharynx, based on its design, seems to be suited for suction.

[58] An account of her observations is given in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ March 28th, 1868, p. 324.

[58] An account of her observations is given in the 'Gardeners' Chronicle,' March 28, 1868, p. 324.

[59a] London’s ‘Gard. Mag.’ xvii. p. 216, as quoted in the ‘Catalogue of the British Museum Worms,’ 1865, p. 327.

[59a] London’s ‘Gard. Mag.’ xvii. p. 216, as quoted in the ‘Catalogue of the British Museum Worms,’ 1865, p. 327.

[59b] ‘Familie der Regenwürmer,’ p. 19.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ 'Earthworm Family,' p. 19.

[79] In these narrow triangles the apical angle is 9° 34′, and the basal angles 85° 13′. In the broader triangles the apical angle is 19° 10′ and the basal angles 80° 25′.

[79] In these narrow triangles, the top angle is 9° 34′, and the bottom angles are 85° 13′. In the wider triangles, the top angle is 19° 10′ and the bottom angles are 80° 25′.

[89a] See his interesting work, ‘Souvenirs entomologiques,’ 1879, pp. 168–177.

[89a] Check out his fascinating work, ‘Insect Souvenirs,’ 1879, pp. 168–177.

[89b] Möbius, ‘Die Bewegungen der Thiere,’ &c., 1873, p. 111.

[89b] Möbius, ‘The Movements of Animals,’ etc., 1873, p. 111.

[90] ‘Annals and Mag. of N. History,’ series ii. vol. ix. 1852, p. 333.

[90] 'Annals and Mag. of N. History,' series ii. vol. ix. 1852, p. 333.

[93] ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ tom. iii. 1874, p. 405.

[93] ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ vol. iii. 1874, p. 405.

[97] I state this on the authority of Semper, ‘Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen,’ Th. ii. 1877, p. 30.

[97] I'm making this statement based on Semper's work, ‘Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen,’ vol. ii, 1877, p. 30.

[101] Dr. King gave me some worms collected near Nice, which, as he believes, had constructed these castings. They were sent to M. Perrier, who with great kindness examined and named them for me: they consisted of Perichæta affinis, a native of Cochin China and of the Philippines; P. Luzonica, a native of Luzon in the Philippines; and P. Houlleti, which lives near Calcutta. M. Perrier informs me that species of Perichæta have been naturalized in the gardens near Montpellier and in Algiers. Before I had any reason to suspect that the tower-like castings from Nice had been formed by worms not endemic in the country, I was greatly surprised to see how closely they resembled castings sent to me from near Calcutta, where it is known that species of Perichæta abound.

[101] Dr. King gave me some worms he found near Nice, which he thinks created these castings. They were sent to M. Perrier, who kindly examined and identified them for me: they included Perichæta affinis, found in Cochin China and the Philippines; P. Luzonica, native to Luzon in the Philippines; and P. Houlleti, which is found near Calcutta. M. Perrier informed me that species of Perichæta have been established in gardens near Montpellier and in Algiers. Before I had any reason to suspect that the tower-like castings from Nice were made by worms that aren't native to the area, I was really surprised to see how much they looked like the castings sent to me from near Calcutta, where it’s known that species of Perichæta are plentiful.

[102] ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoolog.’ B. xxviii. 1877, p. 364.

[102] 'Journal of Scientific Zoology' Vol. xxviii. 1877, p. 364.

[108] ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoolog.’ B. xxviii. 1877, p. 356.

[108] ‘Journal of Scientific Zoology’ Vol. 28, 1877, p. 356.

[113] Perrier, ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ tom. 3, p. 378, 1874.

[113] Perrier, ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ vol. 3, p. 378, 1874.

[126] This case is given in a postscript to my paper in the ‘Transact. Geolog. Soc.’ (Vol. v. p. 505), and contains a serious error, as in the account received I mistook the figure 30 for 80. The tenant, moreover, formerly said that he had marled the field thirty years before, but was now positive that this was done in 1809, that is twenty-eight years before the first examination of the field by my friend. The error, as far as the figure 80 is concerned, was corrected in an article by me, in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ 1844, p. 218.

[126] This case is mentioned in a postscript to my paper in the ‘Transactions of the Geological Society’ (Vol. v. p. 505), and it includes a significant mistake because I misread the figure 30 as 80. Additionally, the tenant had previously stated that he had marled the field thirty years earlier but was now sure that it was done in 1809, which is twenty-eight years before my friend first examined the field. The mistake regarding the figure 80 was corrected in an article I wrote in the ‘Gardeners’ Chronicle,’ 1844, p. 218.

[128] These pits or pipes are still in process of formation. During the last forty years I have seen or heard of five cases, in which a circular space, several feet in diameter, suddenly fell in, leaving on the field an open hole with perpendicular sides, some feet in depth. This occurred in one of my own fields, whilst it was being rolled, and the hinder quarters of the shaft horse fell in; two or three cart-loads of rubbish were required to fill up the hole. The subsidence occurred where there was a broad depression, as if the surface had fallen in at several former periods. I heard of a hole which must have been suddenly formed at the bottom of a small shallow pool, where sheep had been washed during many years, and into which a man thus occupied fell to his great terror. The rain-water over this whole district sinks perpendicularly into the ground, but the chalk is more porous in certain places than in others. Thus the drainage from the overlying clay is directed to certain points, where a greater amount of calcareous matter is dissolved than elsewhere. Even narrow open channels are sometimes formed in the solid chalk. As the chalk is slowly dissolved over the whole country, but more in some parts than in others, the undissolved residue—that is the overlying mass of red clay with flints,—likewise sinks slowly down, and tends to fill up the pipes or cavities. But the upper part of the red clay holds together, aided probably by the roots of plants, for a longer time than the lower parts, and thus forms a roof, which sooner or later falls in, as in the above mentioned five cases. The downward movement of the clay may be compared with that of a glacier, but is incomparably slower; and this movement accounts for a singular fact, namely, that the much elongated flints which are embedded in the chalk in a nearly horizontal position, are commonly found standing nearly or quite upright in the red clay. This fact is so common that the workmen assured me that this was their natural position. I roughly measured one which stood vertically, and it was of the same length and of the same relative thickness as one of my arms. These elongated flints must get placed in their upright position, on the same principle that a trunk of a tree left on a glacier assumes a position parallel to the line of motion. The flints in the clay which form almost half its bulk, are very often broken, though not rolled or abraded; and this may be accounted for by their mutual pressure, whilst the whole mass is subsiding. I may add that the chalk here appears to have been originally covered in parts by a thin bed of fine sand with some perfectly rounded flint pebbles, probably of Tertiary age; for such sand often partly fills up the deeper pits or cavities in the chalk.

[128] These pits or pipes are still forming. Over the last forty years, I've seen or heard about five instances where a circular area, several feet across, suddenly collapsed, leaving an open hole in the ground with vertical sides, several feet deep. This happened in one of my own fields while it was being rolled, and the back end of the harness horse fell in; it took two or three cartloads of debris to fill the hole. The subsidence occurred in a broad depression, as if the surface had caved in several times before. I heard about a hole that must have formed suddenly at the bottom of a small shallow pool, where sheep had been washed for many years, and into which a man unexpectedly fell, much to his terror. Rainwater in this entire area sinks straight into the ground, but the chalk is more porous in some places than others. Consequently, the drainage from the overlying clay is directed to specific points, where a larger amount of calcareous material is dissolved than elsewhere. Sometimes, even narrow open channels form in the solid chalk. As the chalk slowly dissolves across the region, but more in some areas than in others, the undissolved residue—the overlying layer of red clay with flints—also sinks gradually down, filling the pipes or cavities. However, the top part of the red clay holds together longer, likely aided by plant roots, and forms a roof that eventually collapses, as seen in the five cases mentioned above. The downward movement of the clay can be compared to that of a glacier, but it's incomparably slower; this movement explains a curious fact: the elongated flints embedded in the chalk are typically found nearly or completely upright in the red clay. This is so common that the workers assured me this was their natural position. I roughly measured one standing vertically, and it was about the same length and thickness as one of my arms. These elongated flints must end up in their upright position due to the same principle that causes a tree trunk left on a glacier to align parallel to the direction of movement. The flints in the clay, which comprise almost half its mass, are often broken, though not rolled or worn down; this can be attributed to the pressure they exert on each other while the whole mass is sinking. I should add that the chalk here seems to have originally been partly covered by a thin layer of fine sand with some perfectly rounded flint pebbles, likely from the Tertiary period; this sand often partially fills the deeper pits or cavities in the chalk.

[131] S. W. Johnson, ‘How Crops Feed,’ 1870, p. 139.

[131] S. W. Johnson, ‘How Crops Feed,’ 1870, p. 139.

[136a] ‘Nature,’ November 1877, p. 28.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ ‘Nature,’ Nov 1877, p. 28.

[136b] ‘Proc. Phil. Soc.’ of Manchester, 1877, p. 247.

[136b] ‘Proc. Phil. Soc.’ of Manchester, 1877, p. 247.

[138a] ‘Trans. of the New Zealand Institute,’ vol. xii., 1880, p. 152.

[138a] 'Translation of the New Zealand Institute,' vol. 12, 1880, p. 152.

[138b] Mr. Lindsay Carnagie, in a letter (June 1838) to Sir C. Lyell, remarks that Scotch farmers are afraid of putting lime on ploughed land until just before it is laid down for pasture, from a belief that it has some tendency to sink. He adds: “Some years since, in autumn, I laid lime on an oat-stubble and ploughed it down; thus bringing it into immediate contact with the dead vegetable matter, and securing its thorough mixture through the means of all the subsequent operations of fallow. In consequence of the above prejudice, I was considered to have committed a great fault; but the result was eminently successful, and the practice was partially followed. By means of Mr. Darwin’s observations, I think the prejudice will be removed.”

[138b] Mr. Lindsay Carnagie, in a letter (June 1838) to Sir C. Lyell, states that Scottish farmers are hesitant to apply lime to ploughed fields until just before they turn them into pasture, due to a belief that it might cause sinking. He adds: “A few years ago, in the autumn, I put lime on an oat stubble and ploughed it in; this allowed it to mix immediately with the dead plant matter and ensured a thorough blend through all the subsequent fallow operations. Because of this belief, I was seen as making a significant mistake, but the outcome was remarkably successful, and the method was partially adopted. I believe that Mr. Darwin’s observations will help dispel this prejudice.”

[139] This conclusion, which, as we shall immediately see, is fully justified, is of some little importance, as the so-called bench-stones, which surveyors fix in the ground as a record of their levels, may in time become false standards. My son Horace intends at some future period to ascertain how far this has occurred.

[139] This conclusion, which we will soon demonstrate is completely justified, is somewhat significant because the so-called benchmark stones that surveyors set in the ground to record their levels can, over time, become inaccurate standards. My son Horace plans to find out how much this has happened in the future.

[147] Mr. R. Mallet remarks (‘Quarterly Journal of Geolog. Soc.’ vol. xxxiii., 1877, p. 745) that “the extent to which the ground beneath the foundations of ponderous architectural structures, such as cathedral towers, has been known to become compressed, is as remarkable as it is instructive and curious. The amount of depression in some cases may be measured by feet.” He instances the Tower of Pisa, but adds that it was founded on “dense clay.”

[147] Mr. R. Mallet notes (‘Quarterly Journal of Geolog. Soc.’ vol. xxxiii., 1877, p. 745) that “the degree to which the ground underneath heavy architectural structures, like cathedral towers, can become compressed is as impressive as it is informative and intriguing. In some cases, the amount of sinking can be measured in feet.” He mentions the Tower of Pisa but points out that it was built on “dense clay.”

[148] ‘Zeitschrift für wissensch. Zoolog.’ Bd. xxviii., 1877, p. 360.

[148] ‘Journal of Scientific Zoology’ Vol. 28, 1877, p. 360.

[149] See Mr. Dancer’s paper in ‘Proc. Phil. Soc. of Manchester,’ 1877, p. 248.

[149] See Mr. Dancer’s article in ‘Proc. Phil. Soc. of Manchester,’ 1877, p. 248.

[166a] ‘Leçons de Géologie pratique,’ 1845, p. 142.

[166a] ‘Practical Lessons in Geology,’ 1845, p. 142.

[166b] A short account of this discovery was published in ‘The Times’ of January 2, 1878; and a fuller account in ‘The Builder,’ January 5, 1878.

[166b] A brief report on this discovery was published in 'The Times' on January 2, 1878; and a more detailed report appeared in 'The Builder' on January 5, 1878.

[183] Several accounts of these ruins have been published; the best is by Mr. James Farrer in ‘Proc. Soc. of Antiquaries of Scotland,’ vol. vi., Part II., 1867, p. 278. Also J. W. Grover, ‘Journal of the British Arch. Assoc.’ June 1866. Professor Buckman has likewise published a pamphlet, ‘Notes on the Roman Villa at Chedworth,’ 2nd edit. 1873 Cirencester.

[183] Several reports on these ruins have been released; the most notable one is by Mr. James Farrer in ‘Proc. Soc. of Antiquaries of Scotland,’ vol. vi., Part II., 1867, p. 278. There’s also J. W. Grover’s article in the ‘Journal of the British Arch. Assoc.’ from June 1866. Professor Buckman has also published a pamphlet, ‘Notes on the Roman Villa at Chedworth,’ 2nd edition, 1873 Cirencester.

[187] These details are taken from the ‘Penny Cyclopædia,’ article Hampshire.

[187] These details are from the ‘Penny Cyclopædia,’ article on Hampshire.

[210] “On the denudation of South Wales,” &c., ‘Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain,’ vol. 1., p. 297, 1846.

[210] “On the erosion of South Wales,” &c., ‘Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain,’ vol. 1., p. 297, 1846.

[211] ‘Geological Magazine,’ October and November, 1867, vol. iv. pp. 447 and 483. Copious references on the subject are given in this remarkable memoir.

[211] ‘Geological Magazine,’ October and November, 1867, vol. iv. pp. 447 and 483. This remarkable memoir provides extensive references on the subject.

[212] A. Tylor “On changes of the sea-level,” &c., ‘ Philosophical Mag.’ (Ser. 4th) vol. v., 1853, p. 258. Archibald Geikie, Transactions Geolog. Soc. of Glasgow, vol. iii., p. 153 (read March, 1868). Croll “On Geological Time,” ‘Philosophical Mag.,’ May, August, and November, 1868. See also Croll, ‘Climate and Time,’ 1875, Chap. XX. For some recent information on the amount of sediment brought down by rivers, see ‘Nature,’ Sept. 23rd, 1880. Mr. T. Mellard Reade has published some interesting articles on the astonishing amount of matter brought down in solution by rivers. See Address, Geolog. Soc., Liverpool, 1876–77.

[212] A. Tylor “On Changes in Sea Level,” etc., ‘Philosophical Mag.’ (4th Series) vol. v., 1853, p. 258. Archibald Geikie, Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, vol. iii., p. 153 (read March, 1868). Croll “On Geological Time,” ‘Philosophical Mag.,’ May, August, and November, 1868. See also Croll, ‘Climate and Time,’ 1875, Chap. XX. For some recent information on the amount of sediment carried by rivers, see ‘Nature,’ Sept. 23rd, 1880. Mr. T. Mellard Reade has published some interesting articles on the surprising amount of matter carried in solution by rivers. See Address, Geological Society, Liverpool, 1876–77.

[213] “An account of the fine dust which often falls on Vessels in the Atlantic Ocean,” Proc. Geolog. Soc. of London, June 4th, 1845.

[213] “A report on the fine dust that often settles on ships in the Atlantic Ocean,” Proc. Geolog. Soc. of London, June 4th, 1845.

[215] For La Plata, see my ‘Journal of Researches,’ during the voyage of the Beagle, 1845, p. 133. Élie de Beaumont has given (‘Leçons de Géolog. pratique,’ tom. I. 1845, p. 183) an excellent account of the enormous quantity of dust which is transported in some countries. I cannot but think that Mr. Proctor has somewhat exaggerated (‘Pleasant Ways in Science,’ 1879, p. 379) the agency of dust in a humid country like Great Britain. James Geikie has given (‘Prehistoric Europe,’ 1880, p. 165) a full abstract of Richthofen’s views, which, however, he disputes.

[215] For La Plata, check my ‘Journal of Researches’ from the voyage of the Beagle, 1845, p. 133. Élie de Beaumont provided an excellent description of the huge amount of dust transported in some countries in his work (‘Leçons de Géolog. pratique,’ tom. I. 1845, p. 183). I can’t help but feel that Mr. Proctor has somewhat overstated the role of dust in a humid country like Great Britain (‘Pleasant Ways in Science,’ 1879, p. 379). James Geikie has presented a comprehensive summary of Richthofen’s views, which he challenges, in his book (‘Prehistoric Europe,’ 1880, p. 165).

[217a] These statements are taken from Hensen in ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoologie.’ Bd. xxviii., 1877, p. 360. Those with respect to peat are taken from Mr. A. A. Julien in ‘Proc. American Assoc. Science,’ 1879, p. 354.

[217a] These statements are from Hensen in ‘Journal of Scientific Zoology,’ Vol. 28, 1877, p. 360. The ones about peat are from Mr. A. A. Julien in ‘Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,’ 1879, p. 354.

[217b] I have given some facts on the climate necessary or favourable for the formation of peat, in my ‘Journal of Researches,’ 1845, p. 287.

[217b] I have provided some information about the climate needed or conducive to the formation of peat in my ‘Journal of Researches,’ 1845, p. 287.

[220] A. A. Julien “On the Geological action of the Humus-acids,” ‘Proc. American Assoc. Science,’ vol. xxviii., 1879, p. 311. Also on “Chemical erosion on Mountain Summits;” ‘New York Academy of Sciences,’ Oct. 14, 1878, as quoted in the ‘American Naturalist.’ See also, on this subject, S. W. Johnson, ‘How Crops Feed,’ 1870, p. 138.

[220] A. A. Julien “On the Geological Action of Humic Acids,” ‘Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,’ vol. 28, 1879, p. 311. Also on “Chemical Erosion on Mountain Summits;” ‘New York Academy of Sciences,’ Oct. 14, 1878, as quoted in the ‘American Naturalist.’ See also, on this subject, S. W. Johnson, ‘How Crops Feed,’ 1870, p. 138.

[222] See, for references on this subject, S. W. Johnson, ‘How Crops Feed,’ 1870, p. 326.

[222] For references on this topic, see S. W. Johnson, ‘How Crops Feed,’ 1870, p. 326.

[223] This statement is taken from Mr. Julien, ‘Proc. American Assoc. Science,’ vol. xxviii., 1879, p. 330.

[223] This statement is from Mr. Julien, ‘Proc. American Assoc. Science,’ vol. 28, 1879, p. 330.

[224a] The preservative power of a layer of mould and turf is often shown by the perfect state of the glacial scratches on rocks when first uncovered. Mr. J. Geikie maintains, in his last very interesting work (‘Prehistoric Europe,’ 1881), that the more perfect scratches are probably due to the last access of cold and increase of ice, during the long-continued, intermittent glacial period.

[224a] The protective quality of a layer of mold and grass is often demonstrated by the pristine condition of glacial scratches on rocks when they are first revealed. Mr. J. Geikie argues in his latest intriguing book (‘Prehistoric Europe,’ 1881) that the more well-preserved scratches are likely a result of the most recent cold snap and the increase of ice during the prolonged and sporadic glacial period.

[224b] Many geologists have felt much surprise at the complete disappearance of flints over wide and nearly level areas, from which the chalk has been removed by subaerial denudation. But the surface of every flint is coated by an opaque modified layer, which will just yield to a steel point, whilst the freshly fractured, translucent surface will not thus yield. The removal by atmospheric agencies of the outer modified surfaces of freely exposed flints, though no doubt excessively slow, together with the modification travelling inwards, will, as may be suspected, ultimately lead to their complete disintegration, notwithstanding that they appear to be so extremely durable.

[224b] Many geologists have been quite surprised by the total disappearance of flints over large, flat areas where chalk has been removed by weathering. However, each flint's surface is coated with an opaque layer that can be scratched with a steel point, while the freshly broken, clear surface cannot be. The slow removal of the outer modified layers of exposed flints by atmospheric forces, along with the inward modification, will eventually lead to their complete breakdown, despite their apparent durability.

[225a] ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ tom. iii. 1874, p. 409.

[225a] 'Archives de Zoolog. expérimentales' vol. iii, 1874, p. 409.

[225b] ‘Nouvelles Archives du Muséum,’ tom. viii. 1872, pp. 95, 131.

[225b] ‘New Archives of the Museum,’ vol. viii. 1872, pp. 95, 131.

[226] Morren, in speaking of the earth in the alimentary canals of worms, says, “præsepè cum lapillis commixtam vidi:” ‘De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.’ &c., 1829, p. 16.

[226] Morren, when discussing the soil in the digestive systems of worms, says, “I saw it mixed with small stones:” 'De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.' &c., 1829, p. 16.

[227] Perrier, ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ tom. iii. 1874, p. 419.

[227] Perrier, ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ vol. iii. 1874, p. 419.

[228a] Morren, ‘De Lumbrici terrestris Hist. Nat.’ &c., p. 16.

[228a] Morren, ‘The Earthworm Natural History’ &c., p. 16.

[228b] ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ tom. iii. 1874, p. 418.

[228b] ‘Archives de Zoolog. expér.’ vol. iii. 1874, p. 418.

[234] This conclusion reminds me of the vast amount of extremely fine chalky mud which is found within the lagoons of many atolls, where the sea is tranquil and waves cannot triturate the blocks of coral. This mud must, as I believe (‘The Structure and Distribution of Coral-Reefs,’ 2nd edit. 1874, p. 19), be attributed to the innumerable annelids and other animals which burrow into the dead coral, and to the fishes, Holothurians, &c., which browse on the living corals.

[234] This conclusion makes me think of the large amount of very fine chalky mud found in the lagoons of many atolls, where the sea is calm and waves cannot break down the coral blocks. This mud must, as I believe (‘The Structure and Distribution of Coral-Reefs,’ 2nd ed. 1874, p. 19), come from the countless annelids and other animals that dig into the dead coral, as well as the fish, holothurians, etc., that feed on the living corals.

[236] Anniversary Address: ‘The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Soc.’ May 1880, p. 59.

[236] Anniversary Address: ‘The Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society.’ May 1880, p. 59.

[244] Mr. James Wallace has pointed out that it is necessary to take into consideration the possibility of burrows being made at right angles to the surface instead of vertically down, in which case the lateral displacement of the soil would be increased.

[244] Mr. James Wallace has noted that we need to consider the possibility of burrows being created at right angles to the surface rather than straight down, as this would increase the lateral movement of the soil.

[259] ‘Elements of Geology,’ 1865, p. 20.

[259] ‘Elements of Geology,’ 1865, p. 20.

[265] ‘Leçons de Géologie pratique, 1845; cinquième Leçon. All Élie de Beaumont’s arguments are admirably controverted by Prof. A. Geikie in his essay in Transact. Geolog. Soc. of Glasgow, vol. iii. p. 153, 1868.

[265] ‘Practical Geology Lessons, 1845; Fifth Lesson. All of Élie de Beaumont’s arguments are expertly countered by Prof. A. Geikie in his essay in the Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow, vol. iii. p. 153, 1868.

[266] ‘Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth,’ p. 107.

[266] ‘Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth,’ p. 107.

[269] Mr. E. Tylor in his Presidential address (‘Journal of the Anthropological Institute,’ May 1880, p. 451) remarks: “It appears from several papers of the Berlin Society as to the German ‘high-fields’ or ‘heathen-fields’ (Hochäcker, and Heidenäcker) that they correspond much in their situation on hills and wastes with the ‘elf-furrows’ of Scotland, which popular mythology accounts for by the story of the fields having been put under a Papal interdict, so that people took to cultivating the hills. There seems reason to suppose that, like the tilled plots in the Swedish forest which tradition ascribes to the old ‘hackers,’ the German heathen-fields represent tillage by an ancient and barbaric population.”

[269] Mr. E. Tylor in his presidential address (‘Journal of the Anthropological Institute,’ May 1880, p. 451) states: “Several papers from the Berlin Society discuss the German ‘high-fields’ or ‘heathen-fields’ (Hochäcker and Heidenäcker), showing that their locations on hills and barren land are similar to the ‘elf-furrows’ found in Scotland. According to local folklore, these elf-furrows came about because the fields were placed under a Papal ban, leading people to farm the higher ground. It seems likely that, similar to the cultivated areas in the Swedish forest linked to the old ‘hackers,’ the German heathen-fields are evidence of farming by an ancient and primitive population.”

[284] White of Selborne has some good remarks on the service performed by worms in loosening, &c., the soil. Edit, by L. Jenyns, 1843, p. 281.

[284] White of Selborne has some insightful comments about the role worms play in aerating and enriching the soil. Edit, by L. Jenyns, 1843, p. 281.

[285] ‘Zeitschrift für wissenschaft. Zoolog.’ B. xxviii. 1877, p. 360.

[285] ‘Journal of Scientific Zoology’ Vol. 28, 1877, p. 360.


Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!