Abstract

Published metallogenic maps and literature concerning them show much variation in objectives, terminology, and methods of representation. This review of early and recent examples is offered because it is evident that distributional studies and maps to illustrate them are increasing, and that more agreement on terminology and other matters is desirable. The main conclusions are that the term "minerogenetic" is preferable if nonmetals as well as metals are treated; that metallogenic or minerogenetic maps should illustrate provinces, not mineral economics, unless the latter is done incidentally and without detracting from metallogenic detail; that standard metallogenic maps should deal with recognizable mineral occurrences or places where more than "trace" amounts have been shown by assays; and that maps showing distribution of smaller amounts of metals should be regarded as special metallogenic maps treating trace-element or geochemical data.

First Page Preview

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