Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
RASTALL, R. The Origin of Ores. Nature 114, 12 (1924). https://doi.org/10.1038/114012a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/114012a0
Comments
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.