Abstract

Reply is made to several critical discussions published since the publication of the original paper in 1964 (for reference, see this Bibliography Vol. 29, Mookherjee 1; see also Vol. 29, Mookherjee 2; Vol. 30, Poddar 2; Vol. 31, No. 4, 02 E67-02447; Vol. 32, No. 1, 02 E68-00608). The deposit is regarded as a product of ascending hydrothermal solutions. Textural and geothermometric considerations militate against an origin by tectonic remobilization of wall-rock constituents. Differences of opinion on various aspects of structural and regional geology are discussed.

First Page Preview

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