Discussion of Papers Published Prior to 1955 - Structure and Mineralization at Silver Bell, Arizona (1954) 199, p. 1095

Thomas W. Mitcham (Strategic Minerals, Inc., Grand Junction, Colo.)—The authors have presented a significant contribution to the field of mining geology. The article is graphic, remarkably concise, and crisply original. The presentation is made on only three pages with two maps, but their Silver Bell story is entirely adequate in background, development, and conclusion. Most of their colleagues would agree that this paper reflects the high quality of the work which these unusually capable men have done in the Silver Bell area over the past few years. The Silver Bell area is one of complex tectonic structure, and time and spatial relationships are by no means apparent. Actually, most of the observations and interpretations in this paper are new to published geologic literature on the Silver Bell area. I am in agreement with these interpretations with two possible exceptions, which are discussed below. One might well define the three roughly parallel west-northwest faults, shown on the insert of Fig. 2, as the major structural elements of the area. North to south, I propose that these be named the Ragged Mountain fault, the Silver Bell fault zone, and the Waterman thrust, after the mountain ranges which are the results of these major structures. While I would agree with the authors that the northern two of these major structures are high-angle faults of the Laramide revolution, my impression is that the southern structure is a low-angle thrust of approximately Miocene age. In support of this opinion, I submit the following observations: 1) irregularity of the fault in strike; 2) scarcity of Laramide intrusives and alteration of sediments along the fault; 3) present high re- lief of the Waterman Range which indicates youth or certainly rejuvenation; and 4) existence of a series of parallel structures farther to the south which results in an outcrop pattern suggesting imbricate thrusting. The authors have stated that Laramide igneous activity began with the intrusion of alaskite. Some dacite flows appear to be conformable with Cretaceous beds, and thus my impression was that alaskite followed the intrusion and extrusion of dacite. I would be interested to learn of evidence in support of the reverse relationship suggested by the authors. Kenyon Richard and J. H. Courtright (authors' reply)—The authors appreciate Mr. Mitcham's attention to this paper. The names he proposed for the major faults seem appropriate. His suggestion that the Waterman fault is a thrust may be correct because he did more work in that particular area than the authors. However, it is believed that no direct evidence of a low-angle thrust relationship has been recognized, and the authors consider that indirect evidence favors a high-angle fault interpretation. The pre-dacite flow age of the alaskite is definitely established, the authors believe, by the fact that the flows rest on an erosion surface which was carved in the dacite porphyry, an intrusive clearly younger than the alaskite, as evidenced by inclusions of alaskite occurring in dacite porphyry. No direct evidence of Cretaceous sediment-flow rock relationships was found at Silver Bell, but in the nearby Tucson mountains dacite agglomerates, megascopically similar to those at Silver Bell, overlie a basal conglomerate which in turn rests on the truncated edges of steep-dipping Cretaceous arkosic beds.