The trend of evidence in recent years has favored the conclusion that the principal ores associated with igneous rocks have not developed at very great depths. Even within our narrow range of observation there is a difference in favor of the shallower depths, and the greatest depths we can observe are after all but trivial on the scale of the earth.
A survey of the ore deposits of Utah has suggested the generalization that ores are more commonly related to intrusive stocks than to the forms known as laccoliths, and that within and about intrusive stocks the ores are much more abundant near the top or apex of a stock than lower down.3 In parts of the region where erosion has removed all but the deeper portions of the stocks, ore bodies are less abundant. It will be of interest to follow the testing of this generalization in other parts of the world.
The scientist is constantly groping for underlying simple truth. Such glimpses of order and symmetry in the distribution of ore around igneous rocks as are afforded by the facts above stated, tempt the imagination to a conception of a simple type or pattern of ore distribution around intrusions. For this reason we should not lose sight of the fact that, in the present state of knowledge, the common and obvious case is one of irregular and heterogeneous distribution, and that there are many variations and contradictions even to the simplest generalization that can be made. The observer is repeatedly struck by the freakish distribution of ores about igneous masses, as compared with their regularity of arrangement under sedimentary processes to be discussed later. It is yet unexplained how an intrusive like the Butte granite can produce so many different types of ores at different places along its periphery or within its mass, and yet all apparently under much the same general conditions and range of time. It is difficult also to discern the laws under which successive migrations of magma, from what seems to be a single deep-seated source or melting-pot, may carry widely