New York Paper - Recrystallization of Limestone at Igneous Contacts (with Discussion)

At the outset I would like to make it clear that I do not enter this discussion in a controversial spirit, but in an attempt to contribute something helpful to an understanding of a difficult problem. I have too high regard for the- sterling quality of the work of the men who have studied this subject in detail to offer anything in the way of essential contradiction to their statements of fact. Difference of opinion arises from differing valuation of the possible alternative hypothesis which these facts suggest. Some degree of recrystallization in limestone contact zones has been recognized by many investigators. Earlier investigators, for the most part, assigned an important, if not the most important, ro1e to recrystallization in development of these zones. With the growing recognition of introduction of ores and gangue materials into the contact zone from igneous rocks through the medium of primary magmatic solutions, there has been a tendency to ascribe to this process most, if not all, of the chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the contact zonc. This has involved a correspondingly diminished emphasis on recrystallization of substances already there as a factor in the process, and in some cases even the complete elimination of this hypothesis. From detailed study of a few contacts, casual observation of others, and a general familiarity with the literature, some of us have been led in recent years to raisc the question whether the pendulum has not swung too far away from recrystallization toward direct introduction from igneous sources, and to argue for more recognition of the part played by recrysta11ization.l The inevitable sequence has been that those of us who have .taken this view have been charged, at least by inference, with emphasizing recrystallization to the total exclusion of the alternative process. Scientists, like other men, like to classify and pigeon-hole views under simple and definite designations, leaving out qualifications which would tend to make the classification more difficult to state. This has made the problem seem more definite and simple, but has tended to obscure the fact that the disagreement is primarily not one relating to essential facts, but one of