No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Since the earlier edition on the geology of Kinta was written much fresh evidence has been brought to light on the subject of the origin of the clays and boulder-clays and the tin-bearing deposits showing bedding at Gopeng. The effect of this evidence has not been to lessen the objections to the glacial hypothesis put forward by myself, but at the same time it still remains the only explanation that meets the facts in a way that can be called at all satisfactory. It may be that long acquaintance with the subject has made me see difficulties in the way of other explanations where in fact no difficulties exist, and my position regarding the question is somewhat akin to that of a doctor versed in tropical medicine who once informed me that the result of many years study of the etiology of beri-beri was that he felt he could raise fatal objections to any theory that had been proposed. I have not seen sufficient reason as yet, however, to change my views on the subject of these clays and boulder-clays. Certain sections to be noted later militate against a glacial origin, but the evidence of these deposits, including those showing bedding at Gopeng, being older than the granite of the Main Range is stronger than it was before. In the following paragraphs I will attempt to give briefly a statement of the points for and against all possible explanations of the peculiarities observed in these important sources of tin-ore.
page 157 note 1 The subjoined note which accompanied this article from the author to the Editor of the Geological Magazine was received on January 8, 1918, when Mr. Scrivenor was leaving for France:—
Sir,—With reference to Mr. W. R. Jones's paper in No. 287 of the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, pp. 165–94 (issued November 23, 1917), on the “Secondary Stanniferous Deposits of the Kinta District”, I shall be grateful if you will publish the following article on the “Origin of the Clays and Boulder-clays”. This was written before I left the Malay States and before I had seen Mr. Jones's paper. I note that on p. 176 of his paper the latter says that at Kacha, Tambun, Lahat, and Papan, clays and boulder-clays can be traced into partly decomposed phyllites exhibiting distinct foliation. I do not remember Mr. Jones offering to show me these occurrences. The section at Siputeh mentioned in the fourth paragraph of p. 177 is that described by myself, and I took Mr. Jones to the mine to see it.
page 161 note 1 Mr. Jones now seeks to explain this vein as an effect of different coloration in the clays, but if the Kramat Pulai vein can be thus explained the same holds good for all the kaolin veins. I am quoted as describing a case at Pusing Bahui which Mr. Jones says is similar, although he did not see it. It was, as a matter of fact, different from the Kramat Pulai vein in that it had no sharp boundaries and did not consist of kaolin.