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 am much obliged to General McMahon for criticising my recent paper in the Geological Magazine (Dec. 1893, p. 535) on the “ Conversion of Chlorite into Biotite,” because I have been puzzled to know the exact nature of the opposition to my views on rock-inetarnorphism at Malvern, and I have been haunted by the fear that perhaps after all I might have overlooked something fundamental. Happily my curiosity is now gratified, and my fear is removed, so far as one important branch of the enquiry is concerned. As my critic is so good a chemist, I may conclude that the worst has been said that can be said from the chemical point of view.
page 217 note 1 Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Aug. 1889, p. 487.Google Scholar
page 218 note 1 I have not taken any account of the alumina, since the percentages of that oxide in the chlorite and the biotite are roughly equal.
page 219 note 1 Not necessarily contemporaneously as potassium carbonate.
page 219 note 2 Professor Redway, of Mount Yernon, New York, commenting on my Malvern papers (“ Science,” February 9th, 1894), describes the fusion in the shear-zones as “ sufficiently complete to produce plasticity.”