Wilson and Parry (1995) present data pertaining to clay alteration and K-Ar age dates for samples from the Mercur gold district. Their data record a wide spread of K-Ar ages for illite ranging from 98.4 to 226 Ma. They estimate the age of gold mineralization to be between 140 and 160 Ma and explain the wide range of ages as functions of partial thermal resetting of the clay minerals and the distance from the hydrothermal conduits. Morris and Tooker (1996) in their discussion of this paper, point out that a Mesozoic age for gold mineralization at Mercur is incompatible with several lines of long-standing regional geologic evidence that suggest a Tertiary age. In their reply, Wilson and Parry (1996) defend their position for a Mesozoic age of mineralization in part by relying on new 40Ar/39Ar age data and the fact that none of the 22 age dates is Tertiary. Although the research by Wilson and Parry may represent a good study of samples in the laboratory, there are several tenuous assumptions and contradictions of the geologic observations at Mercur that must be addressed.

We would like to extend our appreciation to Morris and Tooker for their comments, discussion, and additional information that they provide pertaining to the geologic environment of the Mercur gold district, Utah. Their review of the characteristics of the Sevier orogenic belt are particularly relevant; however, such characteristics must be interpreted within the context of the additional geologic events of the region, which include the Jurassic compressional event that has been described from northern Utah and western Nevada. For this purpose, we offer the following reply.

Morris and Tooker have two main points of disagreement with our paper. First, they find the range of K-Ar ages we reported as disturbing and indicate that they date neither tectonic, hydrothermal, nor gold mineralization events; and second, they contend that all mineralized structures at Mercur must be younger than Late Cretaceous in age.

The term "Carlin-type" deposit has been applied to a number of low-grade, sedimentary rock-hosted gold deposits that have been discovered and brought into production in the western United States since the 1960s. Carlin-type deposits are characterized by replacement of carbonate and silty carbonate rocks by silica, pyrite, barite, various arsenic, mercury, antimony, and thallium minerals and by introduction of micron-size gold (Radtke and Dickson, 1974). These deposits are believed to have formed in the upper few kilometers of the earth's crust under conditions that are similar in some respects to present-day geothermal systems.

The Mercur mining district in west-central Utah contains a number of gold deposits of this type. The district is located approximately 90 km southwest of Salt Lake City in the southwest portion of the Oquirrh Mountains, a typical north-south-trending range of the Basin and Range physiographic province (Fig. 1). Two major orebodies, Mercur-Sacra-mento and Marion Hill, are present in small hills in the center of the steep, east-west-trending Mercur Canyon. Initial production of silver in the Mercur district was from an interval of silicified limestone known as the "Silver ledge" (Spurr, 1895), a term which was later changed to "Silver chert." Fine gold was discovered in 1883 in a stratigraphic interval 30 m above the Silver chert. Production terminated in 1917 after more than 1.2 million ounces of gold had been produced (Butler et al., 1920). The district was reopened in 1983 with the Getty Mining Company as the principal operator.

The first geologic description of the Mercur district was given by Spurr (1895). Butler et al. (1920) gave a concise, accurate review of the geology, stratigraphy, and mineral production at Mercur. Gilluly's (1932) work remains the most comprehensive published study of the southern Oquirrh Mountains. Lenzi (1973) published data on the background geochemistry at Mercur. Tafuri (1976) described the general geology and mineralization at Mercur.

This communication gives a detailed discussion of the hydrothermal alteration of the Mercur deposits. The discussion will provide a framework for continuing studies of the paragenesis and geochemistry at Mercur as well as allowing comparison with alteration assemblages of other Carlin-type deposits.