The Emerald Deposits of Muzo, Colombia (14b1b3af-9d9c-44e3-9454-26e1af5caf33)

EDGAR .T. WHERRY,* Washington, D. C. (communication to the Secretary ?).-Dr. Pogue's presentation of the facts concerning the emerald deposits is very clear and convincing, and the only addition that I can suggest is a summary of previous theories of origin. He makes it evident that the pegmatite theory is the only one capable of explaining the existing relations, but upon certain details there may be some difference of opinion. If I understand the term pneumatolytic, it does not imply that all the elements concerned in a given deposit were transported as gases, but rather that the crystallization of these elements into the various minerals was favored by the presence of certain gaseous substances, notably H20, C02 and HF. It is highly improbable that the oxides of glucinum, aluminum, chromium, and silicon, which enter into the composition of the mineral emerald could have been transported in the gaseous form. The same is true of the metallic constituents of the parisite and other associated minerals. The explanation suggested, that solutions separated into liquid and gaseous portions, the latter ascending and forming the emerald in the upper portions of the rock only, therefore, seems to me untenable. When two formations exist side by side and one, A, is mineralized while the other, B, is barren, the possible explanations may he classed as (1) chemical, and (2) physical. 1. Some chemical feature of A not found in B might have caused crystallization of certain minerals in the former, which did not appear in the latter. In the present instance both rocks appear to be so similar chemically that no such effect can be looked for. Pogue mentions carbon as a possible precipitating agent, but describes both formations as carbonaceous, so that the difference in the minerals of the two can not be thus explained.