Letter | Published:

The Origin of Ores

Nature volume 114, page 12 (05 July 1924) | Download Citation



REFERRING to the very kind review by Prof. H. Louis of my book “The Geology of the Metalliferous Deposits” in NATURE of June 7, p. 812, I wish to direct attention to one point. Prof. Louis quotes the following sentence: “It would perhaps be too much to say in the present state of our knowledge that all primary ore-deposits are of igneous origin, but this is a view which may very likely be established as a result of future work.” He then goes on to instance the hæmatite deposits of Cumberland as ores which are certainly not of igneous origin. With this, of course, I entirely agree, and I wish to say that my statement was certainly never meant to include them, as may be seen by referring to p. 330 of my book. The emphasis in the sentence quoted is on the word primary, whereas I regard the hæmatites of Cumberland and northern Spain as secondary ores. Should a second edition of the book be called for, steps will be taken to make this point quite clear.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Author information


  1. Christ's College, Cambridge.

    • R. H. RASTALL


  1. Search for R. H. RASTALL in:

About this article

Publication history





By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.