Of course there is much more. I have texts from the early part of the 20th Century that propose solid -- ice -- surfaces to the giant planets (based on the cold temperatures which could be both observed and inferred.) Venus swampland was taken for granted, and everyone agreed (well, except for some cranky and contrarian Brits) that Mars was criss-crossed with canals and that vegetation was sparse but present on the surface.

The nature of Lunar craters (called "ring-mountains") was subject to some controversy, but consensus generally agreed that they were volcanic products. Impact was not generally accepted as a commonplace phenomenon at any time in the solar system's history

One of our favorite space artists was illustrating the cores of giant planets as being formed of "ice" (with little crystals and all) well into the seventies, and texts still refer to "ice" cores -- though now it is more often explained that "ice" in context does not mean "ice".

While it's correct to refer to this sort of thing as "myth," at the time it was propounded it was "science." Maybe deep in error, but science nonetheless.

And key to understanding this previous view of the solar system was evolutionary theory and uniformitarianism.

Obviously some of what I prattle on about from time to time comes out of that era -- in part because it's good to review, but also because there is a tendency, especially in the planetary realm, to throw out observations and insights from the past whenever something new comes along or there's a new kid in town, when in fact good observations were being done, and some of the insights derived from them might still be relevant.

That wider picture is always fascinating, so thanks for getting into it!

Cheers, BR