This comparative geochemical study of jasperoid in the northern Great Basin is based on 65 samples from 10 Carlin-type gold deposits and 22 similar but apparently barren hydro-thermal systems. Multielement geochemistry coupled with oxygen isotope data indicate that hydrothermal fluids in barren and mineralized systems evolved in different ways, and that there are fundamental geochemical differences among the various gold-producing deposits of the area.

Much of the variation in the jasperoid geochemical data can be explained in terms of seven abstract end-member components obtained through factor analysis. Three of these components (factors) dominate the results and are related to common products of alteration and mineralization in epithermal systems of the northern Great Basin. Element associations for these factors are: factor 1: Ti02, Al203, La, K20, Sr, Fe203, Th; factor 2: Au, Ag, Sb, Si02> As, Pb; and factor 3: W, B, V, Zn, Co, Au, CaO, Ni, Mn, Cu.

Brian K. Jones and Richard A. Leveille raise a number of points regarding the way in which our comparative study of jasperoid geochemistry (Holland et al., 1988) was framed and the implications that might be drawn from our results. Their primary concerns are with (a) the lack of geologic control for samples, (b) the accuracy of analyses for several critical elements, (c) the specific interpretation of factor 3 and its subsequent use in a discussion of genetic implications, and (d) the evaluation of analytical data by means of Q-mode factor analysis. We will address each of these concerns in turn.

A correlation exists between the quality of the rock record and the diversity of fossils recorded from that rock record but what drives that correlation, and how consistent that correlation is across different environments, remain to be determined. Palaeontologists wishing to investigate past diversity patterns need to first address issues of geological bias in their data.

We used samples from six Finnish ore deposits to evaluate the efficiency of sample pretreatment procedures — crushing, splitting and grinding — and to compare three analytical methods based on the atomic absorption determination of gold following: (1) classical lead fire assay (FA); (2) the aqua regia leach (AR) followed by Hg coprecipitation of Au; and (3) the sodium cyanide (NaCN) leach. Sample size used for the method comparison is 20 g. The Au deposits and ore types were: Suurikuusikko and Osikonma¨ki, refractory ores in which Au is associated with arsenopyrite and pyrite; Pampalo and Kutemaja¨rvi ores with metallic Au and Au tellurides; and Jokisivu and Pahtavaara ores containing coarse-grained metallic Au. After crushing, the samples were split into three parts, one of which was put aside into storage. Two splits were further divided into two subsamples which were ground to two grades of fineness (<0.03 and <0.06 mm). The four subsamples thus obtained were analysed for Au using the three analytical methods. Each determination was performed five times on each of the four subsamples. According to t-tests on the FA results of the two splits, crushing and splitting produced samples of equal Au content in all six cases. Grinding to a finer grain size gave a significant difference in Au results only for the Pahtavaara ore sample. If the FA results are assumed to represent 100% recovery of Au, we obtained greater than 95% recoveries for all but the Suurikuusikko sample (87% recovery) by the AR leach method. We also obtained recoveries of over 95% by the NaCN leach method for the Pampalo, Kutemaja¨rvi and Pahtavaara samples, whereas recoveries for the other three samples varied between 73 to 92%. The AR leach was also performed on 1-g samples and the NaCN leach on 250-g samples. For three of the ore samples, decreasing sample size from 20 g to 1 g did not cause a significant difference in the variance of the Au results. Increasing the sample size from 20 g to 250 g significantly improves the representativity of only the Pahtavaara sample. For the Kutemaja¨rvi, Pahtavaara and Jokisivu ores, a sample larger than 250 g is needed in order to obtain a precision equivalent to that for reference samples.