Correspondence—J. B. Scrivenor. 300 
THE TERM ‘LATERITE’. 
Str,—The question as to the use of the term ‘laterite’ raised by 
me in the September number of last year’s Gxrotoarcat Macazine 
has figured in so many subsequent numbers that I feel some diffidence 
in asking you to publish any further remarks on the subject. I am 
indebted to Dr. Evans for an expression of his views, based as they 
are, I note, on an intimate acquaintance with the material to which 
the name was first given. ‘There is a tone of remonstrance in 
Dr. Evans’ letter that may appear justifiable under the circumstances, 
but I venture to think that this has led the writer a little astray 
from the path of argument and to lose sight of the main issue, which 
is the practicability at the present day of forcing a new definition 
of laterite on geologists and engineers, or, indeed, the right of anyone 
to do so. Dr. Eyans is more concerned on account of my opinion 
that the term is of little use as matters stand now, and falls into 
the error of crediting me with the statement that it ‘‘ must be 
abandoned”. For my part, if I treat some of the points raised 
very briefly, 1 trust it will be clear that I do so only in order to 
save your space. 
In Dr. Evans’ third and fourth paragraphs I cannot see that 
a strong case is developed against calling highly aluminous laterite 
‘bauxite’, and would refer to the quotations in my last letter, which 
appear to have been passed over. Dr. Evans is doubtless aware 
that mm DMineral Industry some Indian laterites have been referred 
to as bauxites. Perhaps ‘aluminous laterite’ as opposed to ‘ferru- 
ginous laterite’ would be more acceptable? My point is that the 
term ‘laterite’ alone should not be held to imply the presence of free 
aluminium hydroxides in quantity, because that was not the original 
significance of the term, and because that is not implied by the chief 
users of the term at the present day. 
In paragraph 5 Dr. Evans asks what could be more suitable for 
this well-characterized formation than the name Buchanan applied 
to it over a century ago. What indeed? But why attach to the 
name Buchanan gave a new definition that has no etymological 
connexion with it? 
With regard to Dr. Evans’ eighth and final paragraph, I cordially 
agree with him that the application of the rule of priority is needed 
here, but I cannot agree with him when he says that the term 
‘laterite’ has continued in use with the same significance ever since 
1807. It is surprising that the derivation of the word should be 
so completely ignored by those who make this statement. 
It will be remembered that this correspondence commenced because 
a reviewer stated that only products of weathering containing free 
aluminium hydroxides in hot, moist climates should be considered 
as laterite. The presence of these hydroxides in Indian laterites 
became generally known in 1908, but prior to that year the name 
had spread to other countries, where it was used, not always in strict 
accordance with Buchanan’s definition, for ferruginous weathering 
products that are useful in public works. No one denies the great 
interest of the discovery that Indian and other laterites contain free 
aluminium hydroxides, but it is questionable whether that gives 
