Precious metals deposits of Nevada

David A. Davis* and Joseph V. Tingley

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Mail Stop 178, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557

ABSTRACT

The Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology (NBMG) has developed a database of
known precious metal deposits in Nevada reported in the post-1930 literature. Among
the data included, when reported, are resources, reserves, production, deposit type,
host rock, Au/Ag ratio, age of mineralization, and references. The deposits were plotted
on 7.5-minute topographic maps from the best available information, and the loca-
tions were then measured in UTMs. The data were entered into a dBase-compatible
database, which is amenable to a number of GIS programs. An original gold endow-
ment was calculated for many of the deposits using the available reserve, resource,
and production data. A series of maps is produced to demonstrate the usefulness of
these data. Maps plotting deposit type and deposit type/host rock show the usual dis-
tribution with the bulk of the Carlin-type deposits confined to the northeastern third
of the state and the vein and stockwork type deposits more scattered but mostly con-
centrated in the western part of the state. These maps show the usual Carlin-type
deposit trends—Carlin, Getchell, Independence, and Battle Mountain-Eureka. They
also show other apparent trends such as a north-south trend of the Bald Mountain,
Alligator Ridge, and Yankee sediment-hosted gold deposits, a north-south trend of
mostly medium to large epithermal deposits between Goldfield and Round Mountain,
and an east-west trend of mostly small epithermal deposits across central Mineral
County. Most of the deposits are older than the Walker Lane right-lateral strike-slip
displacement and Basin and Range extension, suggesting some of the present-day
trends may change if these features were factored out. The maps show that sediment-
hosted deposits are more concentrated in the eastern part of the state, as would be
expected because the east is predominantly sedimentary and west is predominantly
volcanic. Six out of eight of the over-10-million-ounce gold deposits are Carlin-type
deposits and seven of the deposits are located on the Carlin, Getchell, and Battle
Mountain-Eureka trends. The remaining one is the volcanic-hosted Round Mountain
deposit. Although important in their time, none of the pre-1930 districts, such as the
silver-gold deposits of the Comstock Lode and Tonopah and gold-silver deposits of
Goldfield, individually yielded as much as 10 million ounces of gold. Total silver pro-
duction from the Comstock and Tonopah, however, make these major districts even
by today’s standards.
Key Words: Nevada, precious metals, deposits

*E-mail, ddavis@unr.edu

Davis, David A., and Tingley, Joseph V., 2005, Precious metals deposits of Nevada, in Rhoden, H.N., Steininger, R.C., and Vikre, P.G., eds., Geological
Society of Nevada Symposium 2005: Window to the World, Reno, Nevada, May 2005, p. 179–186.

179
180 David A. Davis and Joseph V. Tingley
INTRODUCTION
The Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology has developed
a database of known precious metal deposits in Nevada
reported in the post-1930 literature. Two older databases, the
U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Availability System/Mineral
Industry System (MASMILS) and the U. S. Geological Survey
Mineral Resources Data System (MRDS), have been available
for some time. These databases include industrial mineral and
base metal deposits as well as precious metal deposits. They
occasionally have more than one entry for the same deposit and
sometimes have inaccurate information. The NBMG database
is limited to gold and silver deposits, though other commodities
are noted when they are present with the precious metals. Each
entry in the database is meant as far as possible to refer to a dis-
crete deposit. There are no duplications, and locations, which
will be expanded upon later, are given according to the most
accurate that have been published. Data from MASMILS and
MRDS are also used when better data are not available. An ear-
lier version of this database with 538 entries was used to pro-
duce NBMG Map 120, “Gold and Silver Resources in Nevada”
(Davis and Tingley, 1999). The present database has 932 entries
and is being used to prepare a new updated edition of Map 120.
This paper is meant to demonstrate the usefulness of this new
database.
DATABASE DESCRIPTION
The data were originally entered into a Dbase-compatible
database (PCFile, version 7), which is amenable to a number of
GIS programs, and can be easily opened in programs such as
Microsoft Excel and Access. The main fields of the database
include the deposit name, any mine name, and the name of the
last reported owner or operator. Although each entry in the data-
base is meant to refer to a discrete deposit, some entries include
more than one deposit when the individual deposits were not
described separately in the available literature. It is so noted in
the Remarks field when this situation is known. The deposits
included are those reported in the literature to have or at least
were indicated (such as only production is reported) to have a
reserve or a resource after 1930. A number of these deposits
have been mined out, but are included in the database for histor-
ical purposes and to help document the change in resources and
reserves over time. The sources of the data are mainly accessi-
ble to the public and include, but are not limited to: annual
reports; articles from journals, newspapers, and the scientific
literature; company reports; environmental assessments; envi-
ronmental impact statements; Federal and State publications,
such as those from the U. S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), the U. S. Bureau of Mines, Nevada Bureau of Mines
and Geology, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the
Nevada Division of Minerals; MASMILS; MRDS; theses and
dissertations; and Internet reports. Information from oral dis-
cussions with geologists was also included.
The major commodity is given in a separate field and is
based on the dollar amount, not volume, of the commodity pro-
duced. In most cases, this is either gold or silver. Over the last
five years, the average ratio of the price of gold to the price of
silver is about 64:1 (Amy, 2005; Hilliard, 2005), so the major
commodity is listed as gold if the ratio is less than 64:1, and it is
listed as silver if the ratio is greater than 64:1. A few deposits
have the major commodity as something other than gold or
silver (such as copper, lead, or zinc) if the value of that com-
modity is higher. Commodities other than the major commodity
are listed in a separate field.
There are separate fields for the location in both legal
description (township, range, and section) and the UTM coordi-
nate system (Zone 11, 1927 North America datum). The
deposits were plotted on 7.5-minute topographic maps from the
best available information, and from those locations, the UTM
coordinates were determined. Locations determined from maps
of the deposits were found to be the most accurate. If the
deposit was shown on a map, its center point was selected as
the location for the database. If it was not shown, then the cen-
ters of any pits, shafts, adits, or other mine workings shown on
the map were selected. Locations for some deposits are more
problematic. For instance, if the only location available was a
claim block or section, then the deposit was plotted at the cen-
ter of the claim block or section or at a likely feature within that
area such as a group of prospect symbols. Uncertainties are
noted in the Remarks field.
Reserves and resources are noted in one character field,
and production is noted in another. In some cases, resources or
reserves were reported as “small” or a deposit was described as
having a “resource” or “reserve.” Such deposits are noted with
those descriptors if no numerical value is assigned. The dates
of the latest figures are given for reserves and resources, and a
date range is given for production. If the production is not
known, then only a date is given, if known.
Separate fields are provided for host rock, minimum
deposit age, deposit type, amenability to bulk mining, the min-
ing district according to Tingley (1998), 7.5-minute USGS
topographic maps, land owner according to BLM land status
maps, mine type, deposit status, and references used to make
the database. The land owner is reported according to what gov-
ernment agency manages the land, and private property is col-
lectively denoted as such. The mine type is noted as open pit or
underground and as being “old” if the workings were last active
sometime before the latest round of exploration, development,
or production. The status is noted by such descriptors as active,
inactive, exploration, and reclamation, and the date of last
activity is given if known.
Separate fields are provided for the gold:silver ratio for
production and for reserves/resources. These are calculated
from volume data and not dollar amounts. The ratio from
reserves/resources data gives a more accurate value for a
deposit, because the production data ratio can be influenced by
recovery percentages.
 Precious metals deposits of Nevada 181

A remarks field is included to note things such as discrep-

ancies in the data, deposits with no location data, data that need
further discussion, and related issues.

BRIEF ANALYSES OF DEPOSITS BY

SIZE, TYPE, AND DISTRIBUTION

To demonstrate the usefulness of the database, we first cal-

culated an original gold endowment for many of the deposits
using the available reserve, resource, and production data. It
should be noted that the literature commonly refers to clusters
of deposits such as those at Goldstrike, Jerritt Canyon and
Round Mountain as if they were each a single large deposit.
The database lists these as complexes of smaller deposits. The
literature also commonly provided resources, reserves, and pro-
duction data for these complexes as a whole, and only rarely for
individual deposits. For the analyses of such deposits in this
paper, the large deposit designations were used. This usage,
combined with the rejection of entries with too little data,
reduced the 932 database entries to 309 deposits.
From the reduced data set, a series of maps was produced
to evaluate any patterns and trends that appeared. This has been
done for decades using other data sets and compilations
(Roberts, 1960; Jerome and Cook, 1967; Cox et al., 1991,
Wendt, 2003). This database, however, contains the latest pub-
licly available data, which may help to refine some of the older
observations.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of deposits by host rock.
Volcanic-hosted deposits are more concentrated in the western
part of the state, as would be expected, because the bedrock in
the western part of the state is predominantly volcanic. The Figure 1. Map showing deposits by host rocks.
sediment-hosted deposits are more scattered across the state than
the volcanic-hosted deposits, but tend to be more concentrated in
the eastern part of the state, as also would be expected, because seven more deposits with gold endowments that fall between 5
the bedrock in the eastern part of the state is predominantly sedi- and 10 million ounces, all are sediment hosted, and six are
mentary (Stewart, and Carlson, 1978; Stewart, 1980). Figure 2 Carlin-type deposits that all fall on the Carlin, Independence,
shows the distribution of deposits by type. The bulk of the and Battle Mountain-Eureka trends. The epithermal stockwork
Carlin-type deposits are confined to the northeastern third of the vein Florida Canyon deposit is the only one of these deposits
state, which would be expected because Carlin-type deposits are that is off trend.
sediment-hosted by definition (Berger, 1986). The vein and Interestingly, an analysis of the deposits within the Battle
stockwork type deposits, though more scattered, are mostly con- Mountain-Eureka trend shows a zonation. Figure 2 shows that
centrated in the western part of the state, which would also be in the other three trends, disseminated deposits, mostly Carlin-
expected because most of them are volcanic-hosted. type, are individually or concentrated as groups spread along
Figure 3 shows the distribution of deposits by size, and the trend with rarely more than 25 km separating them. Figure 4
Table 1 lists the deposits with gold endowments over 5 million shows that near its northwest end, the Battle Mountain-Eureka
ounces. Figures 2 and 3 also show the commonly recognized trend contains a 40-km gap in the distribution of disseminated
mineral trends—Carlin, Getchell, Independence, and Battle deposits with the Battle Mountain Complex, a complex of poly-
Mountain-Eureka (Wendt, 2003). Carlin-type deposits appear metallic replacement and skarn deposits, at the northwest end
concentrated in these trends and help define them. Also, of the of this gap. Also, as illustrated in Figure 5, the skarn and poly-
eight deposits with gold endowments over 10 million ounces, metallic vein and replacement deposits of the Battle Mountain-
seven of which are sediment-hosted and six of which are Eureka trend are concentrated into two zones with the exception
Carlin-type, seven are located on the Carlin, Getchell, and of the Mill Canyon skarn deposit near the center of this gap.
Battle Mountain-Eureka trends. The one off-trend deposit is the One concentration is the disseminated deposit-free zone just
volcanic-hosted Round Mountain hot-spring deposit. Of the noted, and the other is the southeast third of the trend.
182 David A. Davis and Joseph V. Tingley

Figure 3. Map showing trends and deposits by the size of its gold
Figure 2. Map showing trends and deposits by deposit type. The trends endowment. The numbered deposits are listed in Table 1. The trends
are: BME—Battle Mountain-Eureka trend, C—Carlin trend, G— are: BME—Battle Mountain-Eureka trend, C—Carlin trend, G—
Getchell trend, I—Independence trend, and W—Walker Lane. Getchell trend, I—Independence trend, and W—Walker Lane.

TABLE 1. DEPOSITS WITH A GOLD ENDOWMENT OF MORE THAN 5 MILLION OUNCES.

Figure 3 District Deposit Type Host Rock Gold Endowment Silver Endowment
Location (Ounces) (Ounces)
1 Goldstrike Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 39,400,000
2 Gold Quarry Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 20,500,000
3 Battle Mtn. Complex Polymetallic Replacement/Skarn Sedimentary 19,200,000 662,000
4 Getchell Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 15,300,000 326,000
5 Bootstrap Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 15,100,000 68,000
6 Marigold Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 13,800,000 11,500
7 Twin Creeks Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 13,700,000 1,800,000
8 Round Mountain Hot Spring Volcanic 13,400,000 5,000,000
9 Meikle Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 9,000,000 1,300,000
10 Pipeline Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 8,700,000
11 Mike Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 8,600,000
12 Jerritt Canyon Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 8,500,000 41,000
13 South Meikle Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 7,000,000
14 Florida Canyon Epithermal Stockwork Sedimentary 5,200,000 1,000,000
15 Carlin Disseminated Carlin Sedimentary 5,000,000
See Figure 3 for locations.
 Precious metals deposits of Nevada
Figure 4. Map of the Battle Mountain-Eureka trend showing the gap
between the concentrations of disseminated deposits. The trends are:
BME—Battle Mountain-Eureka trend, C—Carlin trend, and G—
Getchell trend.
Figure 6 shows that several additional trends are also
noticeable. GBM refers to a Griffon-Bald Mountain trend that
runs northerly from the sediment-hosted disseminated Griffon
deposit (at the south end of the Battle Mountain-Eureka trend)
to the sediment-hosted disseminated Bald Mountain deposit at
the north end. RR refers to a Rain-Railroad trend that runs
from the small, mostly sediment-hosted disseminated deposits
183
Figure 5. Map of the Battle Mountain-Eureka trend showing the main
concentrations of polymetallic replacement, polymetallic vein, and
skarn deposits. The Mill Canyon deposit is indicated by MC. The
trends are: BME—Battle Mountain-Eureka trend, C—Carlin trend,
and G—Getchell trend.
of the Railroad and Robinson Mountain districts at its south
end to the Rain deposit (which is also part of the Carlin trend)
at its north end. The Carlin trend is usually defined as extend-
ing about 60 km southeastward from the Dee Mine to the Rain
Mine (Flaherty and King, 1991; Teal and Jackson, 2002), though
Wendt (2003) also included several deposits to the northwest
of Dee. However, in the past, it has been suggested that the
184 David A. Davis and Joseph V. Tingley
Figure 6. Map showing apparent trends other than the main trends and
deposits by deposit type. The main trends are: BME—Battle Moun-
tain-Eureka trend, C—Carlin trend, G—Getchell trend, I—Indepen-
dence trend, and W—Walker Lane. The apparent trends are:
AS—Aurora-Sullivan trend, GBM—Griffon-Bald Mountain trend,
GRM—Goldfield-Round Mountain trend, and RR—Rain-Railroad
and Robinson Mountain Districts trend. The deposits noted in the text
are: A—Aurora, D—Dee, BM—Bald Mountain, GF—Goldfield,
GR—Griffin, I—Illipah, RRMD—Railroad and Robinson Mountain
Districts, R—Rain, RM—Round Mountain, and S—Sullivan.
Carlin trend may continue southeastward from Rain to at least
as far as the sediment-hosted disseminated Illipah deposit and
to include the deposits of the Railroad and Robinson Mountain
districts, and the Bald Mountain and adjacent deposits (Dean,
1991; Figure 6).
Other less apparent trends are also noted on Figure 6. GRM
refers to a Goldfield-Round Mountain trend of mostly medium
to large epithermal deposits with Goldfield at the south end and
Round Mountain at the north end. Deposits in the southern two-
thirds of this trend are volcanic-hosted, and those in the north-
ern third are mostly sediment-hosted. Of the seven deposits that
have been dated, six are Miocene. AS refers to an Aurora-
Sullivan trend across central Mineral County of mostly small
epithermal deposits, with several polymetallic vein and dissem-
inated deposits included. The Aurora deposit is at the west end
and the Sullivan deposit is at the east end. These are noted only
as examples of aligned groups of deposits, and more research
would be needed to confirm any genetic connection among the
deposits.
BRIEF ANALYSIS OF DEPOSITS BY AGE
Ages of mineralization are available for slightly more than a
third of the deposits, and this age data is not presented in the lit-
erature consistently. Some ages are reported in years while others
are given only by epoch or period. The ages were entered into
the database as reported in the literature; however, for rough
analysis of the data, we converted them to epoch or period.
Ages are reported for 55 of the disseminated deposits, most
of which are Carlin-type. These reported ages range from Juras-
sic to Miocene, but 51 of the deposit ages are fairly evenly dis-
tributed in the Cretaceous, Eocene, and Oligocene. The
Cretaceous to Miocene ages generally agree with ages dis-
cussed in Teal and Jackson (2002) for the Carlin-type deposits
of the Carlin trend. Ongoing research on the ages of Carlin-type
and other deposits will better constrain these ages. For exam-
ple, the possibility exists that most Carlin-trend deposits are
Eocene in age (Ressel and others, 2000).
Ages are reported for 32 of the epithermal vein and stock-
work deposits. Of this 32, 24 are Miocene, and the remainder is
distributed about evenly among the Cretaceous, Eocene, and
Oligocene. Most of the Miocene ages coincide with the onset
of widespread andesitic volcanism across western Nevada. The
distribution of most of the epithermal deposits shown in Fig-
ure 2 also coincides with the areal extent of this volcanism
(Stewart and Carlson, 1978; Stewart, 1980; Silberman, 1985;
White, 1985; John, 2001).
Fifteen of the polymetallic vein and replacement deposits
have ages reported. These are distributed about evenly among
the Cretaceous, Oligocene, and Miocene, and two are Eocene.
Nine of the hot spring deposits have ages reported. One is Oligo-
cene, two are Tertiary to Quaternary, and six are Miocene.
Interestingly, most of the deposits are older than the Walker
Lane right-lateral strike-slip displacement and Basin and Range
extension. Basin and Range extension probably began about
40 Ma but did not become widespread until about 17 Ma.
Extension is generally between 30 and 100 percent (Stewart,
1980), although extension is clearly less than 30 percent locally.
Extensional and right-lateral strike-slip faulting along the
Walker Lane locally may have began as long ago as 24 Ma,
though most of it probably started after 17 Ma, and the slip may
be as much as 100 km locally (Stewart, 1992). At least some of
the deposits within the Walker Lane were emplaced during its
formation (Albino, 1992). This suggests that the direction and
geometry of some of the present-day trends might change if
Basin and Range extension and Walker Lane faulting were fac-
tored out.
 Precious metals deposits of Nevada 185

TABLE 2. GOLD DISTRICTS WITH A PRE-1930 GOLD ENDOWMENT OF MORE THAN 1 MILLION OUNCES
Figure 7 District Deposit Type Host Rock Gold Endowment Silver Endowment
Location (Ounces) (Ounces)
1 Comstock Lode Epithermal Vein Volcanic 8,300,000 192,000,000
2 Goldfield Epithermal Vein Volcanic 4,200,000 1,500,000
3 Aurora Epithermal Vein Volcanic 2,000,000 2,100,000
4 Tonopah Epithermal Vein Volcanic 1,800,000 165,500,000
5 Eureka Polymetallic Replacement Sedimentary 1,700,000 45,700,000
6 Pioche Polymetallic Replacement Sedimentary 1,200,000 26,200,000
(Ransome and others, 1909; Lincoln, 1923; Nolan, 1930, 1962; Westgate and Knopf, 1932; Ross, 1961; Roberts and others,
1967; Smith and Tingley, 1998; J. Tingley, unpublished data). See Figure 7 for locations.

PRE-1930 COMPARISON

Although important in their time, none of the pre-1930 dis-

tricts yielded as much as 10 million ounces of gold, though six
of them did produce more than 1 million ounces as listed
(Table 2). Figure 7 shows the distribution of deposits from
Table 2. Aurora, Goldfield, and the Comstock Lode are also
listed in the database as post-1930 producers, but most of their
production occurred prior to 1930. In the Eureka district, the
Ruby Hill deposit had a post-1930 gold endowment of about
1.2 million ounces, which is not included with the pre-1930 fig-
ure. Four of the deposits were volcanic-hosted epithermal
deposits in the Walker Lane. The other two were sediment-
hosted mostly polymetallic vein and replacement deposits of
which one falls within the lower polymetallic zone in the Battle
Mountain-Eureka trend, and the other is in eastern Nevada
away from the main gold-producing trends. Most are associated
with a relatively large endowment of silver. The total silver pro-
duction from the Comstock and Tonopah, however, make these
major districts even by today’s standards, and the gold endow-
ments of Aurora, Eureka, and Picohe are comparable to that of
modern deposits such as Bullfrog, Pinson, Rodeo, and Denton-
Rawhide, which have gold endowments ranging between 1.24
and 1.85 million ounces.

CONCLUSION

The NBMG precious metals deposits database is a compi-

lation of information on individual gold and silver deposits
listing reserves, resources, and/or production published since
1930. This paper demonstrates the usefulness of this database
by showing how the data can be used to compare and contrast
deposits by type, age, size, and other factors. The data can
also be used to better delineate known mineral trends and find Figure 7. Map showing trends and pre-1930 deposits listed in Table 2.
other potential mineral trends. As shown with the Battle The trends are: BME—Battle Mountain-Eureka trend, C—Carlin
Mountain-Eureka trend, it can be used to show potential trend, G—Getchell trend, I—Independence trend, and W—Walker
zonation within trends. Though earlier databases such as Lane.
MASMILS and MRDS have been used to show the same gen-
eral features, the NBMG database contains more up-to-date
data on the gold and silver deposits that can be used to refine
these earlier findings.
186 David A. Davis and Joseph V. Tingley
REFERENCES
Albino, G. V., 1992, Lithologic and structural setting of gold deposits of the
Santa Fe district, Mineral County, Nevada, in Craig, S. D. (editor),
Structure, tectonics, and mineralization of the Walker Lane, Walker
Lane Symposium Proceedings Volume: Geological Society of Nevada,
April 24, 1992, p. 187–211.
Amy, E. B., 2005, Gold; United States Geological Survey Commodity Sum-
maries, January, 2005, p. 72–73.
Berger, B. R., 1986, Descriptive model of carbonate-hosted Au-Ag; in Cox, D.
P., and Singer, D. A., (editors) Mineral deposit models, U. S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1693, p. 175.
Cox, D. P., Ludington, S., Sherlock, M. G., Singer, D. A., Berger, B. R., and
Tingley, J. V., 1991, Mineralization patterns in time and space in the
Great Basin of Nevada, in Raines, G. L., Lisle, R. E., Schafer, R. W.,
and Wilkinson, W. H., (editors), Geology and ore deposits of the Great
Basin Symposium Proceedings Volume I: Geological Society of Nevada
and U. S. Geological Survey, April 1–5, 1990, published by Geological
Society of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 1991, p. 193–198.
Davis, D. A., and Tingley, J. V., 1999, Gold and silver resources in Nevada:
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Map 120, 1:1,000,000 scale.
Dean, D. A., 1991, Geologic overview of the southern extension of the Carlin
trend, in Raines, G. L., Lisle, R. E., Schafer, R. W., and Wilkinson, W.
H., (editors), Geology and ore deposits of the Great Basin Symposium
Proceedings Volume I: Geological Society of Nevada and U. S. Geolog-
ical Survey, April 1–5, 1990, published by Geological Society of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 1991, p. 85–93.
Flaherty, M. J., and King, G. C., 1991, Geologic overview of the Carlin trend
subdistrict, in Raines, G. L., Lisle, R. E., Schafer, R. W., and Wilkinson,
W. H., (editors), Geology and ore deposits of the Great Basin Sympo-
sium Proceedings Volume I: Geological Society of Nevada and U. S.
Geological Survey, April 1–5, 1990, published by Geological Society of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, 1991, p. 844–849.
Hilliard, H. E., 2005, Silver; United States Geological Survey Commodity
Summaries, January, 2005, p. 150–151.
Jerome, S. E., and Cook, D. R., 1967, Relation of some metal mining districts in
the western U. S. to regional tectonic environments and igneous activ-
ity: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 69, 40 p.
John, D. A., 2001, Miocene and early Pliocene epithermal gold-silver deposits
in the northern Great Basin, western United States: characteristics, dis-
tribution, and relationship to magmatism; Economic Geology, vol. 96,
p. 1827–1853.
Lincoln, F. C., 1923, Mining districts of Nevada: Nevada Newsletter Publishing
Co., Reno, Nevada, 301 p.
Nolan, T. B., 1930, The underground geology of the western part of the
Tonopah mining district, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geol-
ogy Bulletin 9, 35 p.
Nolan, T. B., 1962, The Eureka Mining district, Nevada: U. S. Geological Sur-
vey Professional Paper 406, 82 p.
Ransome, F. L., Emmons, W. H., and Garrey, G. H., 1909, The geology and ore
deposits of Goldfield, Nevada: U. S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 66, 258 p.
Ressell, M. W., Noble, D. C., Heizler, M. T., Volk, J., Lamb, J. B., Park, D. E.,
Conrad, J. E., and Mortensen, J. K., 2000, Gold-mineralized Eocene
dikes at Griffin and Meikle: bearing on age and origin of deposits of the
Carlin Trend; in Cluer, J. K., Price, J. G., Struhsacker, E. M., Hardyman,
R. F., and Morris, C. L., (editors), Geology and Ore Deposits 2000: The
Great Basin and Beyond: Geological Society of Nevada Proceedings,
May 15–18, 2000, p. 79–101.
Roberts, R. J., 1960, Alinement of mining districts in north-central Nevada:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 400-B, p. B17–B19.
Roberts, R. J., Montgomery, K. M., and Lehner, R. E., 1967, Geology and min-
eral deposits of Eureka County, Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology Bulletin 64, 163 p.
Ross, D. C., 1961, Geology and mineral resources of Mineral County, Nevada:
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 58, 105 p.
Silberman, M. L., 1985, Geochronology of hydrothermal alteration and miner-
alization: Tertiary epithermal precious-metal deposits in the Great
Basin; in Tooker, E. W. (editor), Geologic characteristics of sediment-
and volcanic-hosted disseminated gold deposits—search for an occur-
rence model: U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1646, p. 55–70.
Smith, G. H., and Tingley, J. V., 1998, The history of the Comstock Lode:
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 24, 340 p.
Stewart, J. H., 1980, Geology of Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geol-
ogy Special Publication 4, 136 p.
Stewart, J. H., 1992, Walker Lane Belt, Nevada and California—an overview, in
Craig, S. D. (editor), Structure, tectonics, and mineralization of the
Walker Lane, Walker Lane Symposium Proceedings Volume: Geologi-
cal Society of Nevada, April 24, 1992, p. 1–16.
Stewart, J. H., and Carlson, J. E., 1978, Geologic map of Nevada: U. S. Geolog-
ical Survey, 1:500,000 scale.
Teal, L., and Jackson, M., 2002, Geologic overview of the Carlin trend gold
deposits; in Thompson, T. B., Teal, L., and Meeuwig, R. O. (editors),
Gold deposits of the Carlin trend: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geol-
ogy Bulletin 111, p. 9–19.
Tingley, J. V., 1998, Mining districts of Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology Report 47, 128 p.
Wendt, C. J., 2003, Nevada mineral trends: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geol-
ogy Open File Report, 03-2, 1:1,000,000 scale.
Westgate, L. G., and Knopf, A., 1932, Geology and ore deposits of the Pioche
district, Nevada: U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 171, 87 p.
White, D. E., 1985, Vein and disseminated gold-silver deposits of the Great
Basin through space and time; in Tooker, E. W. (editor), Geologic char-
acteristics of sediment- and volcanic-hosted disseminated gold
deposits—search for an occurrence model: U. S. Geological Survey
Bulletin 1646, p. 5–14.