We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
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.
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.
