Theories of ore genesis. have both practical and philosophical application-practical in that they influence our search for new ore bodies; philosophical in that they provide a test for our theories of petrogenesis-and our ingenuity.For example, the theory of granitization requires an explanation of ore genesis compatible with the general concepts of granitization.Our understanding of some processes of ore formation, such as supergene enrichment, or the formation of residual lateritic iron ores, is so complete as to permit of nq controversy.For other ores, like the oolitic iron ores of England and France, and elsewhere, or the segregations of chromite or ilmenite in basic igneous rocks, the broad principles are generally agreed on; dispute is limited to details of process.But for a wide range of ore deposits there is no such agreement. Completely incompatible hypotheses are advanced to explain' identical facts, and we have difficulty in finding new facts or criteria that will distinguish unambiguously between them.In thinking about such ores, a co:n;venient starting point is provided by Schneiderhohn's (1953) fourfold division of ore deposits:1. The secondary hydrothermal ore deposits occurring in Mesozoic-Neozoic cover strata of Europe.2. The "regenerated" younger ore deposits in Alpine type mountain chains.3. Post-Cambrian primary hydrothermal ore deposits.4. Ore deposits of the PreCambrian shields.To these we may add a fifth group:5. Stratigraphically controlled sulphide deposits.