Abstract

This paper is a discussion of an article by Dr. N. Wing Easton that appeared recently in this JOURNAL. The writer is not in agreement with many of the views expressed by Dr. Easton. A resume of his views is given and evidence is presented: (1) that there is one granite instead of two; (2) that the depth of granitic intrusion and of mineralization was deep instead of practically at the surface; (3) that some contact-metamorphism is actually present; (4) that minor dark intrusives are not known from the tin granites on Banca and Billiton; (5) that the sedimentary ridges are not the result of elevation by younger granite intrusions but result from differential erosion; (6) that the tin mineralization is not Pliocene but is post-Triassic and pre-Neogene, probably pre-Cenoman; (7) that the base levelling (and accumulation of residual tin) was not Mesozoic, but Quaternary, and that the residual tin accumulated under a humid tropical climate; (8) that some zonal arrangement of mineralization does exist.

First Page Preview

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