San Francisco Paper - The Geology of the Tonopah Mining-District

Two Opposed Interpretations of the Tonopuh Structure.—The important geological publications concerning the Tonopah min-ing-district are those of Spurrl aud of Burgess.² In these publications are presented fundamental differences of interpretation, which are the more interesting because both authorities have had ample opportunity for observation, and because both are geologists of proved ability. I was vastly puzzled to know which had the better of it, and in order that I might reach a conclusion in my own mind, I recently spent some time in the district going over the physical evidence. Surprising as it may seem, this evidence looks conclusive. A review of it will, I believe, be of interest to those who are familiar with the previous publications. The general geological features of Tonopah are shown in Fig. 1, and the differences of interpretation referred to are outlined in the accompanying notes. Brieflyj Burgees regards the various rocks as flows, lying in the order of their deposition. Spurr regards them in part as flows, and in part as flat-lying intrusives. The disagreement, then, concerns the rocks regarded on the one hand as intrusives, and, on the other hand, as flows. These rocks are chiefly the so-called calcitic andesitc, the upper rhyolite, and the lower rhyolite. Economic Importance of the Question of Interpretation.—The economic importance of the question of interpretation is, of course, limited to its bearing on the probable distribution of