Mr McKay’s Geological Report.

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 8945, 21 January 1898, Page 3

Mr McKay’s Geological Report.

The following letter, signed by “ Fair Play*’’ appears in the Auckland Mining Standard;— Sib,—l wisEto draw your attention to a ciiticism of Mr Alex. MeKay’s “Geology of Cape Colville Peninsula,” which appeared recently ( in the “Herald.” The unfairness and bitterness of this criticism is very striking, especially when one easily recognises that the critic is ho other than the Mr James Park, so flatteringly allnded to* in the criticism itself. Mr James Park (for 1 am certain be is the critic) complains that there is an entire absence of plans and illustrations -he should remember that Mr McKay only had a few months in which to go over several hundred square miles; that he hiad practically no assistance, and that bis report was only meant to be a general and preliminary survey. I

read Mr Park’s report. I need say notbingas to the bad taste of Mr Perk hurryiqg his report through tie Press so as to reach the public before Mr McKay’s hook-could appear, hut I can say that if the badly drawn and im possible outlines.shown in Mr Park s report are to be‘taken as examples of plans and illustrations, then it is. just as well that Mr McKay avoided them in his own work, I quite agree.with Mr Park that it would have ’been

better that a geological survey, sinukr to that prepared by himself at tljm Thames field, should haveieehlgiven; but that even with a latgb staff of scientists would have been impossible for the wild and almost unexplored places described by Mr McKay. The Thames, as we all know, is one of the best known fields in the whole of the Auckland Province. Its sections and strata are cut by innumerable drives and shafts, and an immenseamountofinfom a ioul.adb ■< n gathered, from which Mr Park was able to draw Perhaps in another century many other parts of the renin snla will be as easy to describe as the Thames.- and it is also possible that in

less than a century some one may arise who will prove that many of Mr Park’s observations -even on the Thames field are incorrect. I do not wish to express any opinion as to whether Mr Park is right in saying that Mr McKay’s generalisations are vague and inconclusive, and his terminology loose and inaccurate. I 'can only say that no single scientist can be expected to go hurriedly over the surface of new country, and form accurate conclusions as to its geological character- As to Mr McKay’s terminology, It must be remember that that the .names given to our various rocks have not all been fixed by scientific authority, and that various writers give the rooks various

f J names. Believing the author of tb( ■ I criticism to be Mr Paik himrelf, om I cannot help seeing the egotism in the ; following passage ;—‘‘We can only re gret that the report was written before i he was able to avail himself of the fine illustrations and exact rock determin ations of Mr Park’s monograph on the geniigy and veins of the Hauraki Goldfields.” It is. I suppose, natural that scientists cannot agree altogether in the edification of’little known rocks, but it seems a pity that one scientific man should write so spitefully of another. Mr Park is quite well aware that Mr McKay s position as a Government official prevents him replying to any criticism, and it is manifestly unfair that he should be exposed to such attacks from one who has been in a similar position himself. With regard to the siza of Mr McKay’s Geological Sketch Map I am of opinion that it is quite large enough for the purpose, I and will be large enough until years of united efforts on the part of out c' mtists have thrown much more light on the geology of the peninsula ' than shines on it now. I write this letter, Mr Editor, because I think Mr McKay has been unfairly treated, and because he is prevented from defend* ing himself. I met Mr McKay on the fields iu several places, and can bear witness to his hard and conscientious work. If I have been wrong iri ; concluding that Mr Park wrote the criticism which appeared in the “ Herald,” I humbly apologise to that Tcntleman; but until he assures me or you, Mr Editor, that he did not write the criticism or was not in any way responsible for it, I continue in my own -opinion as to its authorship. Circumstances prevent me writing in my own name.