The Geology Of The Tonopah Mining-District,

San Francisco Meeting, October, 1911.) Two Opposed Interpretations of the Tonopah Structure.-The important geological publications concerning the Tonopah mining-district are those of Spurr 1 and of Burgess.2 In these publications are presented fundamental differences of interpretation, which are the more interesting because both authorities have had ample opportunity for observation, and because both are geologists of proved ability. I was vastly puzzled to know which had the better of it, and in order that I might reach a conclusion in my own mind, I recently spent some time in the district going over the physical evidence. Surprising as it may seem, this evidence looks agreeably conclusive. A review of it will, I believe, be of interest to those who are familiar with the previous publications. The general geological features of Tonopah are shown in Fig. 1, and the differences of interpretation referred to are outlined in the accompanying notes. Briefly, Burgess regards the various rocks as flows, lying in the order of their deposition. Spurr regards them in part as flows, and in part as flat-lying intrusives. The disagreement, then, concerns the rocks regarded on the one hand as intrusives, and, on the other hand, as flows. These rocks are chiefly the so-called calcitic andesite, the upper rhyolite, and the lower rhyolite. Economic Importance of the Question of Interpretation.-The economic importance of the question of interpretation is, of course, limited to its bearing on the probable distribution of 1 Geology of the Tonopah Mining District, Nevada, Professional Paper No. 42, U. S. Geological Survey (1905). Report on the Geology of the Property of the Montana-Tonopah Mining Co. (1910). An abstract of this report is given in the Mining and Scientific Press, vol. cii., No. 16,p. 560 (Apr. 22, 1911). 2 The Geology of the Producing Part of the Tonopah Mining District, Economic Geology, vol. iv., No. 8, pp. 681 to 712 (Dec., 1909).