To the layman the reason for emphasis on origin is often not clear. The "practical" man frequently regards this phase of the subject as merely incidental to the immediate economic questions--a playground for harmless theorists. The answer of the economic geologist is that in no other way than by a knowledge of origin is it possible to arrive at an understanding of conditions which so well enables one to answer many practical questions. In the exploration for mineral deposits, it is obvious that an understanding of the kinds of geologic conditions and processes under which a given type of deposit is known to develop results in the elimination of much unpromising territory, and the concentration of work on favorable localities. In forming any estimate of mineral deposits beyond the ground immediately opened up,--for instance, in estimating depth, form, change in values, mineralogical character, or interruptions due to faulting,--it is difficult to form any intelligent conception of the probabilities unless the history of the deposit is understood. If, for instance, the ore is known to be formed by hot waters, associated with the cooling of igneous rocks, different conditions are to be expected below the zone of observation than if the ore is formed by surface waters. If the ore body is formed as a single episode under simple geologic conditions, the interpretation of the possibilities in the situation may be quite different from the interpretation applied where the history has been more complex. If the surface conditions suggest possibilities of secondary enrichment of the ores, the interpretation of the conditions underground will be different from those applied where there is no evidence of such enrichment.