Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Professor Gregory, in a very interesting paper published in the Transactions of the Faraday Society, has advanced various arguments against the theory of the magmatic origin of the Sudbury nickel deposits and has quoted several authorities as opposing that theory. His brief account of the subject presents, unintentionally of course, only one side of the controversy in regard to those ores, and lest the deservedly great authority of his opinion should seem to settle the question, I wish to place before English geologists an outline of the arguments on the other side.
page 108 note 1 Trans. Faraday Soc., No. 60, vol. xx, pt. iii, 1925, pp. 449–58.Google Scholar
page 108 note 2 Wandke, and Hoffman, in Econ. Geol., vol. xix, 1924, p. 200.Google Scholar
page 110 note 1 Howe, , Econ. Geology, vol. ix, 1914, pp. 503, etc.Google Scholar
page 110 note 2 Bateman, , Econ. Geology, vol. xii, 1917, pp. 391, etc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 111 note 1 Roberts, H. M. and Longyear, R. D., “Genesis of the Sudbury Nickel-Copper Ores as Indicated by Recent Explorations”: Trans. Am. Inst. Mining Engineers, 1918.Google Scholar