The facts are simply, with regard to the rivers, that the winter floods break down the drifts in the banks and agitate the auriferous detritus, thus acting as natural sluices, and cause the metal to accumulate in favourable spots; whilst on the New Zealand coast the heavy seas breaking on the shingly beach, carry off the lighter particles, leaving behind the gold, which is so much heavier. These beaches are composed, as also are the “terraces” behind, of enormous glacial and fluvial deposits, all containing more or less gold, and extend inland to the foot of the mountains. It is almost certain that the usually fine gold got by hydraulicing in Californian cañons, in the gullies of the New Zealand Alps, and the great New South Wales drifts, is largely the result of the attrition of the boulders and gravel of moraines, which has thus freed, to a certain extent, the auriferous particles. But when we find large nuggety masses of high carat gold in the beds of dead rivers, another origin has to be sought. As previously stated, there is fair reason to assume that at least three salts of gold have existed, and, possibly, may still be found, in Nature--silicate, sulphide, and chloride. All of these are soluble and in the presence of certain reagents, also existing naturally, can be deposited in metallic form. Therefore, if, as is contended, reef gold was formed with the reefs from solutions in mineral waters, by inferential reasoning it can be shown that much of our alluvial gold was similarly derived. The commonly accepted theory, however, is that the alluvial gold of our drifts has been ground out of the solid siliceous lodes by glacial and fluvial action, and that the auriferous leads have been formed by the natural sluicing operations of former streams. To this, however, there are several insuperable objections. First, how comes it that alluvial gold is usually superior in purity to the “reef” gold immediately adjacent? Second, why are masses of gold, such as the huge nuggets found in Victoria and New South Wales, never been discovered in lodes? Third, why are these heavy masses which, from their specific gravity, should be found only at the very bottom of the drifts, if placed there by water action, sometimes found in all positions from the surface to the bottom of the wash? And, lastly, why is it that when an alluvial lead is traced up to, or down from, an auriferous reef, that the light, angular gold lies close to the reef, while the heavy masses are often bedded much farther away? Any one who has worked a ground sluice knows how extremely difficult it is with a strong head of water to shift from its position an ounce of solid gold. What, then, would be the fluvial force required to move the Welcome Nugget? Under certain circumstances, Niagara itself would not be equal to the task.