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
I Have already answered this question in the affirmative in my papers on “Metamorphism in the Malvern Hills,” though I am aware that the assertion has been contested. Nevertheless, the possibility that diorite and quartzite may have a common origin was suggested by Prof. Zirkel as far back as 1876; and in 1892 Mr. W. S. Bayley, of the Geological Survey of Minnesota, distinctly affirmed that a certain quartzite was nothing more or less than “a completely altered gabbro.” My conclusion, therefore, is not without support, and, though it has been strongly attacked, it refuses to succumb. I trust I shall be allowed in the present paper to reply to one or two of the objections to it. My remarks refer only to the Malvern area.
page 220 note 1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc., August, 1889, pp. 485, 486; August, 1893, pp. 418–420.Google Scholar
page 221 note 1 Since the above was written, the “Annals of British Geology” for 1893 has appeared, in which the Rev. J. F. Blake (p. xxi) falls into the astonishing error of attributing to me the precisely opposite opinion. It is not surprising that new views should make slow progress when they are thus misunderstood and mis-represented.
page 222 note 1 In addition, of course, to other bases.