The crystal size distribution model that is now in frequent use in the geosciences was first introduced by Marsh (1988) and by Cashman and Marsh (1988). In a recent paper, however, Pan (2001) questioned the validity of this model and concluded that there is an inherited correlation of −3 ln(L) versus L, which predominates, and which flaws the analysis to the extent that the parameters controlling crystal growth cannot be correctly inferred. In this comment we re-examine the mathematical treatment of Pan (2001) and find that his conclusions are erroneous, and thus that there are no new...

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.