226 J. MILNE CURRAN, 
places. But show him the associated minerals, and their more 
travelled and abraded appearance at once singles out the Bingara 
stones. 
*Mr. Norman Taylor propounded the theory that our diamonds 
were chemically formed in the drifts just where we now find them. 
Messrs. Etheridge and Davies at the date of writing their report, 
accepted the explanation offered by Mr. Taylor. They say :— 
“With regard to the source of the diamond in New South Wales 
we do not see any other course than to unhesitatingly accept the 
explanations offered by Mr. Norman Taylor, so far as the facts 
bearing on this branch of the subject have been yet gathered. 
He believes that they were chemically formed in the older Tertiary 
drifts, and in support of this view adduces the following cogent 
reasons :— 
1. The older rocks of the various diamantiferous districts have 
not been proved to be diamond bearing. 
2. The older Tertiary drifts or cements are derived from the 
denudation of these, and contain diamonds. 
3. The younger drifts are only diamantiferous when resulting 
from the destruction of the latter, and similarly the recent 
alluvium again from them. 
4. The natural conclusion is that the .diamonds have been 
formed in the drifts, and not derived from any pre-existing 
rocks,” 
*I would point out that the conclusion come to by Mr. Taylor 
does not rest on a satisfactory basis. It is quite true as he puts it 
that ‘‘the older rocks have not been proved to be diamond bearing.” 
But this is very different from saying, that the older rocks have 
been proved not to be diamond bearing. The italics are mine. 
Until we can say that the older rocks are not, or were not diamond 
bearing Mr. Taylor’s conclusion is premature. 
*J examined the drifts with great care, both in the Inverell and 
Bingara districts, and could not find any evidence of these drifts 
having been subjected to any exceptional influences such as we 
