Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:30:06.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II.—The Parent-rock of the Diamond. Reply to a Criticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

T. G. Bonney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A short time since Mr. G. Trubenbach, Managing Director of the Newlands Diamond Mine, West Griqualand, drew my attention to a notice by Professor Beck of the paper which I read to the Royal Society last June, on the Parent-rock of the Diamond in South Africa, kindly sending me a translation of the original. As Professor Beck's criticisms are founded on such a travesty of my published opinions that I can only suppose his knowledge of our language to be very imperfect, and as the hypothesis which he advances appears to me untenable, I ask permission to reply to the one and point out the improbability of the other.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 7 , Issue 6 , June 1900 , pp. 246 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1900

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 246 note 1 Zeitschrift für Praktische Geologie, 12, 1899Google Scholar.

page 246 note 2 Proc. Royal Soc., lxv, p. 223Google Scholar.

page 246 note 3 I quote from the translation sent to me by Mr. Trubenbach, though I have occasionally made a slight alteration in the terms used.

page 246 note 4 See, for instance, Cotta on Rocks, translated by Lawrence, , 1878, p. 310Google Scholar.

page 247 note 1 The italics are mine.

page 247 note 2 My views will be found on pp. 235, 236.

page 247 note 3 The boulders, pebbles, and mineral grits in this would be scattered like shot from a gun.

page 248 note 1 I do not deny—nay, I expect—that large masses of peridotite (probably also diamantiferous) exist in the crystalline floor, but not ‘kimberlite’ as defined by Professor Carvill Lewis. A little lower down, Professor Beck seems to admit the ‘kimberlite’ to be a breccia. If so, how can it be a ‘magma,’ unless he means that the unbroken material exists somewhere down below, in which case it is not likely to be ‘kimberlite,’ but some ordinary variety of peridotite.