Genesis of the Gongjuelong Sn Polymetallic Deposit in the Yidun Terrane, China: Constraints from the In Situ Geochemistry of Garnet, Cassiterite, and Quartz

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on a detailed geological survey, this manuscript presents the geochemistry of three main indicator minerals (garnet, cassiterite and quartz) obtained by EMPA and LA-ICP-MS experimental methods,aiming to constrainthe substitution mechanisms, physic-chemical conditions and ore genesis. This study has significant implication for further exploration of the Sn and Pb-Zn-Ag mineralization in the northern Yidun Terrane. This manuscript has detailed data and reliable discussions, but some questions and suggestions remain and are listed below. It is recommended to publish after minor revision.

 

1.Please further clarify the implications of the analysis of the typical hydrothermal minerals, including garnet, cassiterite and quartz.

 

2. “4. Sampling and analytical methods”: It should be the authors’ negligence, the analytical methods of 4.1 and 4.2 are same.

 

3. “6.2. Significance of geochemistry of the garnets”: although the authors explain the physic-chemical conditions indicated by the geochemistry of the garnet, the implications for the Sn polymetallic mineralization remain poorly understood.

 

4. “Moreover, the Ti/Zr ratio in cassiterite from Gongjuelong, located closer to the granite (average 595 = 36.8), is markedly higher than that of the more distant Xiasai deposit (average = 3.7).”“However, the quartz from the Xiasai deposit shows higher Al content, positioning it closer to the range of epithermal-type deposits.” The authors mentioned the difference of geochemistry for the cassiterite and quartz between the Gongjuelong Sn and Xiasai Pb-Zn-Ag deposits. What can be obtained from this difference? Please further explain it.

 

5. It should be clarified that the Weilasituo Zn-Cu-Ag deposit in the southern Great Xing’an Range and hydrothermal Pb-Zn-Sb-Ag deposits (e.g., Zhaxikang, Keyue and Suoyue) formed around the Cuonadong leucogranites belong to which country. It is important for an English paper.

 

6. It is suggested to add some successful cases in the discussion about exploration.

 

7. Several figures should be polished to make it better, such as the Figure 10, Fgiure 14 and Figure 15.

 

8. Several figures do not have serial number, please check carefully and add it.

 

9. Please check your spelling carefully.

Author Response

Comments 1: Further clarify the implications of the analysis of the typical hydrothermal minerals, including garnet, cassiterite, and quartz.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the clarification of the implications of analyzing typical hydrothermal minerals, including garnet, cassiterite, and quartz. We have revised the relevant sections in the manuscript to further elaborate on the significance of these mineral analyses. The added content has been highlighted in yellow in the latest version of the manuscript for your convenience.

Comments 2: “4. Sampling and analytical methods”: It should be the authors’ negligence; the analytical methods of 4.1 and 4.2 are the same.

Response 2: Thank you very much for pointing out the inconsistency between the section title "4.2 Electron Probe Microanalysis (EPMA)" and the content of the text, which discusses "4.2 Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)". We sincerely apologize for this oversight and appreciate your careful review, which has helped us improve the accuracy of the manuscript.In response to your comment, we have revised the title of Section 4.2 to correctly reflect the methodology described in the text. The updated title now reads: "4.2 Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)". We have also carefully reviewed the entire section to ensure consistency and clarity in the discussion of the LA-ICP-MS results.

Comments 3: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the implications of garnet geochemistry for Sn polymetallic mineralization. We appreciate your suggestion and have added a new discussion in the latest version of the manuscript to further clarify the significance of garnet geochemistry in constraining the source and nature of the early-stage ore-forming fluids. The revised content has been highlighted for your convenience. 

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the implications of garnet geochemistry for Sn polymetallic mineralization. We appreciate your suggestion and have added a new discussion in the latest version of the manuscript to further clarify the significance of garnet geochemistry in constraining the source and nature of the early-stage ore-forming fluids. The revised content has been highlighted for your convenience. 

Comments 4: The authors mentioned the difference in geochemistry for the cassiterite and quartz between the Gongjuelong Sn and Xiasai Pb-Zn-Ag deposits. What can be obtained from this difference? Please further explain it.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the geochemical differences between cassiterite and quartz in the Gongjuelong Sn deposit and the Xiasai Pb-Zn-Ag deposit. In response to your suggestion, we have further explained that the differences in trace element concentrations primarily reflect variations in physicochemical conditions during mineralization, as governed by elemental fractionation mechanisms. These differences and their implications for the genetic relationship between the two deposits have been discussed in detail in the revised manuscript, with the newly added content highlighted in yellow for your convenience. 

Comments 5: "It should be clarified that the Weilasituo Zn-Cu-Ag deposit in the southern Great Xing’an Range and hydrothermal Pb-Zn-Sb-Ag deposits (e.g., Zhaxikang, Keyue, and Suoyue) formed around the Cuonadong leucogranites belong to which country? It is important for an English paper."

Response 5: Thank you for your comment regarding the clarification of the geographical location of the mentioned deposits. In the revised manuscript, we have explicitly stated that the Weilasituo Zn-Cu-Ag deposit in the southern Great Xing’an Range, as well as the hydrothermal Pb-Zn-Sb-Ag deposits (e.g., Zhaxikang, Keyue, and Suoyue) associated with the Cuonadong leucogranites, are located in China. This clarification has been added to ensure the geographical context is clear for international readers. The relevant sections have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for your reference. 

Comments 6: It is suggested to add some successful cases in the discussion about exploration.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion! We have added the Weilasituo Zn-Cu-Ag deposit (Great Xing’an Range) and hydrothermal Pb-Zn-Sb-Ag deposits (e.g., Zhaxikang, Keyue, Suoyue) linked to Cuonadong leucogranites to the manuscript. These cases highlight regional metallogenic potential, magmatic-hydrothermal processes, and exploration strategies, supporting our findings. Your feedback greatly improved the discussion!

Comments 7: Check our spelling carefully.

Response 7: Thank you for the reminder! We have double-checked all spellings and identified several spelling errors, including "epodote," which have now been corrected. These corrections are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Genesis of the Gongjuelong Sn Polymetallic Deposit in the Yidun Terrane, China: Constraints from the in situ geochemistry of garnet, cassiterite and quartz” submitted by Peng et al. provides a comprehensive study of deposit geology, mineralogy, and mineral geochemistry of Gongjuelong Sn polymetallic deposit to clarify its mineralization style, mineral chemistry and the substitution mechanism of trace elements, and to access its genetic type. I have examined the paper thoroughly. The paper is overall sound both in its preparation and execution, and the deposit studied and topic of research are relevant and of interest to a wide audience of Minerals. The obtained data is of high quality and references are mostly relevant. I believe the new data presented will make a nice contribution to broaden our knowledge on the metallogeny of Sn deposits in the Yidun district, which has drawn relatively fewer attention by previous researches. The paper is suggested to be accepted after minor revision following the comments listed below.

1. There are many typos in the current manuscript, many hyphens occur falsely and I believe this is caused by text composition problem. Other grammar and expression problems include: L72-74, L82-84, L128, L188 (is cassiterite a gangue mineral? But this is a Sn deposit, right?), L209 (the ore?), L456-457, L493, L526-527 (‘Shizhuyuan and Jinchuantang deposits’, and wrong division of sentence), L607, L646 (unpbulished).
2. The ore geology can be enhanced. The authors should specify the reserves and grades of metals in Gongjuelong deposit. L166-167 and Fig. 2b&c does not match, there are no 11 ore deposits shown in the map.
3. The introduction can be enhanced a bit to better highlight the key scientific issue of the research. You may explicitly state the scientific questions in the final paragraph of the introduction. For example: What are the physicochemical conditions of mineralization at the Gongjuelong Sn deposit? Are Sn mineralization and Ag-Pb-Zn mineralization part of the same metallogenic system? How can mineral geochemical data reveal the evolution of ore-forming fluids? Also, add a statement in its final paragraph highlighting the research significance. For example: The findings of this study will provide new geochemical evidence for the genetic model of polymetallic deposits in the central Yidun Terrane. This research has important implications for regional mineral exploration and economic evaluation.
4. Some conclusions do not align with the discussion results. For example, the statement "It shows that the Gongjuelong deposit belongs to a distant skarn-type mineralization system" is not supported by the discussion. Ensure that all conclusions are directly supported by the discussion and data. Revise the conclusion to reflect the findings accurately or provide additional evidence in the discussion to justify the conclusion.
5. Caption of Fig. 11 requires clarification.
6. The title "4.2 Electron Probe Microanalysis (EPMA)" does not match the content of the text, which discusses Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS).
7. Maybe add a paragraph at the end of the discussion emphasizing the contributions of this study to the genetic model of polymetallic deposits in the central Yidun Terrane and its implications for exploration practices.
8. The abstract is too long. Substitution mechanism is not very important compared to the main theme of the ms, so they can be removed from the abstract.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the general comments

Author Response

Comments 1: There are many typos in the current manuscript; many hyphens occur falsely, and I believe this is caused by a text composition problem. Other grammar and expression problems include: L72-74, L82-84, L128, L188 (Is cassiterite a gangue mineral? But this is a Sn deposit, right?), L209 (the ore?), L456-457, L493, L526-527 (‘Shizhuyuan and Jinchuantang deposits’, and wrong division of sentence), L607, L646 (unpbulished).

Response: Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your efforts in identifying the issues and providing detailed suggestions for improvement. We have carefully addressed all the concerns raised in your comments, and the revisions are outlined below:

1. Typos and text composition issues: We have thoroughly checked the manuscript and corrected all typos. Additionally, we have reviewed the text composition to ensure proper use of hyphens and improve overall readability.
2. Grammar and Expression Issues: Lines 72-74, 82-84, 128, 188: We have revised these sentences to improve clarity and accuracy. Regarding the comment on cassiterite (L188), we have clarified that cassiterite is the primary ore mineral in this tin deposit, not a gangue mineral. Line 209: We have rephrased the sentence to clearly specify the reference to " the ore. "Lines 456-457, 493, 526-527: These sentences have been restructured for better grammar and flow. Specifically, in L526-527, we have corrected the division of the sentence and clarified the reference to the "Shizhuyuan and Jinchuantang deposits." Lines 607, 646: The typo in L646 ("unpbulished") has been corrected to "Unpublished," and the sentence in L607 has been revised for improved grammar and clarity.

Comments 2: The ore geology can be enhanced. The authors should specify the reserves and grades of metals in the Gongjuelong deposit. L166-167 and Fig. 2b&c do not match; there are no 11 ore deposits shown in the map.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and suggestions for improving our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work. Please find our responses to your comments below:

1. Enhancement of Ore Geology and Specification of Reserves and Grades: We sincerely apologize for not including the reserves and grades of metals in the Gongjuelong deposit. Due to limitations in accessing the original data, we were unable to obtain accurate information on the reserves and grades. Therefore, we regret that we cannot provide these specific details in the manuscript. However, we have made efforts to enhance the ore geology section by including other relevant geological and mineralogical information to strengthen the discussion.
2. Mismatch Between L166-167 and Fig. 2b&c (11 Ore Deposits vs. 11 Ore Bodies): We deeply apologize for the confusion caused by the incorrect term "11 ore deposits" in the text. This was indeed an error, and it should have been "11 ore bodies." We have carefully revised the text to correct this mistake, and it now accurately reflects the information presented in Fig. 2b&c.

Comments 3: The introduction can be enhanced a bit to better highlight the key scientific issue of the research. You may explicitly state the scientific questions in the final paragraph of the introduction.

Response: Thank you very much for your constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the introduction of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments, which have helped us better highlight the key scientific issues and significance of our research. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the final paragraph of the introduction to explicitly state the scientific questions and emphasize the research significance. The revised text now includes the following:

1. Scientific Questions: The physicochemical conditions of mineralization remain unclear, and the genetic relationship between Sn mineralization and Pb-Zn-Ag mineralization has not yet been well defined.
2. Research Significance: The findings of this study will provide new geochemical evidence for the genetic model of polymetallic deposits in the central Yidun Terrane. This research has important implications for regional mineral exploration and economic evaluation.

Comments 4: Some conclusions do not align with the discussion results. For example, the statement "It shows that the Gongjuelong deposit belongs to a distant skarn-type mineralization system" is not supported by the discussion. 

Response: Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable feedback. I sincerely apologize for the confusion. Based on our discussion, it has been confirmed that the Gongjuelong deposit is indeed not a distal skarn deposit but rather a proximal skarn deposit. This error has been corrected in the manuscript.

Comments 5: The caption of Fig. 11 requires clarification

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out the inconsistency in the caption of Fig. 11. We sincerely apologize for the oversight and appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the accuracy of the manuscript. In response to your comment, we have revised the caption of Fig. 11 to ensure it accurately reflects the content of the figure and aligns with the discussion in the text.

Comments 6: The title "4.2 Electron Probe Microanalysis (EPMA)" does not match the content of the text, which discusses Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). 

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out the inconsistency between the section title "4.2 Electron Probe Microanalysis (EPMA)" and the content of the text, which discusses "4.2 Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)". We sincerely apologize for this oversight and appreciate your careful review, which has helped us improve the accuracy of the manuscript.In response to your comment, we have revised the title of Section 4.2 to correctly reflect the methodology described in the text. The updated title now reads: "4.2 Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)". We have also carefully reviewed the entire section to ensure consistency and clarity in the discussion of the LA-ICP-MS results.

Comments 7: Maybe add a paragraph at the end of the discussion emphasizing the contributions of this study to the genetic model of polymetallic deposits in the central Yidun Terrane and its implications for exploration practices. The abstract is too long. Substitution mechanisms are not very important compared to the main theme of the MS, so they can be removed from the abstract.

Response: Thank you very much for your constructive feedback and suggestions for improving the discussion and abstract of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insights, which have helped us better highlight the contributions of this study and streamline the presentation of our work. In response to your comments, we have made the following revisions:

1. Addition to the Discussion: As suggested, we have added a new paragraph at the end of the discussion to emphasize the contributions of this study to the genetic model of polymetallic deposits in the central Yidun Terrane and its implications for exploration practices.
2. Revision of the Abstract: We have shortened the abstract by removing the discussion of substitution mechanisms, as they are not central to the main theme of the manuscript. The revised abstract now focuses on the key objectives, methods, results, and implications of the study, ensuring it is concise and impactful.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted by Zhou et al. reports the in situ geochemistry of hydrothermal garnet and cassiterite from the Gongjuelong Sn polymetallic deposit in China. Although the data is of high quality, interpretations, and conclusions are incomplete. Therefore, I suggest that this manuscript needs a major revision.

Major comments are
(1) The authors should polish the English and use correct technical terms.

(2) The manuscript needs to be well-crafted and provide significant insights into the ore genesis of Sn-W mineralization. The major enhancements of contribution are still required, particularly in the discussion section.

 

(3) Regarding the skarn-forming stage, the important question is why you cannot subdivide it into the prograde and retrograde stages. The paragenetic sequence of the deposit requires more detail and precise description to indicate which stage has major ore deposition.

 

(4) The EPMA data of garnet show slightly low analytical totals. I would suggest trying to determine Fe₂O₃ instead of FeO in some cases.

(2) The quality of some figures should be improved so that they can be published in an international journal.

Specific comments are

(1)     Lines 49, 53, etc., what are the vein fields? Veins or vein systems?
(2)     Lines 49, type of vein? Clarify and describe it.

(3)     Line 76, SiO₂ what is blue chalcopyrite? Write the exact mineral species name.

(4)     Line 113, a part of

(5)     Fig. 4, Skarn stage and Vein stage? Could you describe how to divide the sulfide stage?  

(6)     Line 291, major elements

(7)     Fig. 9, wrong caption

(8)     Line 494, geochemical significance

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors should polish the English and use correct technical terms.

Author Response

Comments 1: "The authors should polish the English and use correct technical terms.

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. We have carefully polished the English language throughout the manuscript and ensured that all technical terms are used correctly. These revisions have been implemented and are reflected in the latest version of the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped improve the overall quality of our work.

Comments 2: The manuscript needs to be well-crafted and provide significant insights into the ore genesis of Sn-W mineralization. The major enhancements of contribution are still required, particularly in the discussion section."

Response 2: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your emphasis on the need for a well-crafted manuscript that offers significant insights into the ore genesis of Sn-W mineralization. In response to your suggestion, we have already enhanced the discussion section to provide a more in-depth analysis of the ore genesis, including a clearer interpretation of the genetic relationships between the mineralization types and their geochemical signatures. The revised sections have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for your easy reference. We hope these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject.

Comments 3: "Regarding the skarn-forming stage, the important question is why you cannot subdivide it into the prograde and retrograde stages. The paragenetic sequence of the deposit requires more detail and precise description to indicate which stage has major ore deposition.”

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comment. In response to your suggestion, we have now provided a more detailed and precise description of the paragenetic sequence of the deposit in the manuscript. We have clarified the distinction between the prograde and retrograde stages and emphasized the key stages involved in ore deposition. We also specify which stage is associated with major ore deposition, offering a clearer understanding of the skarn-forming process. These revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for your easy reference.

Comments 4: “The EPMA data of garnet show slightly low analytical totals. I would suggest trying to determine Fe₂O₃ instead of FeO in some cases.”

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the EPMA data of garnet. We appreciate your thoughtful input. However, during the experimental process, we determined that it was not feasible to modify the calculation method to use Fe₂O₃ instead of FeO. Additionally, as the early ore-forming fluids were reductive in nature, the content of Fe³⁺ is significantly lower than that of Fe²⁺, making the use of FeO for calculations a reasonable approach. As such, this does not substantially impact the results or conclusions of the study. We fully acknowledge and value your feedback, and we hope this explanation clarifies the rationale behind our approach.

Comments 5: The quality of some figures should be improved so that they can be published in an international journal.

Response 5: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We highly appreciate your feedback, which will certainly help improve the manuscript. Below are our responses to your specific comments:

1. Lines 49, 53, etc. What are the vein fields? Veins or vein systems?
   We have clarified this in the revised manuscript. The term "vein fields" refers to a set of vein systems, and we have updated the wording to reflect this distinction more accurately.
2. Lines 49, type of vein? 

   We have carefully reviewed the text and corrected the error. The phrase has been revised to: "In the central area of the systems."

3. Line 76, SiO₂ what is blue chalcopyrite? Write the exact mineral species name.” The "2" in SiO2 has been corrected to a subscript in the manuscript. We could not find any reference to "blue chalcopyrite" in the text. After checking thoroughly, we have corrected the names of other minerals in the manuscript to ensure the correct species names are used.

4. Line 113, a part of, we have revised the text as follows:

   Original: "part of the Yangtze-Qiangtang tectonic domain."
   Revised: "a part of the Yangtze-Qiangtang tectonic domain."

5. Fig. 4, Skarn stage and Vein stage? Could you describe how to divide the sulfur stage? We think you have a good suggestion for the division of our metallogenic phases. Based on macroscopic observations and microscopic analysis, the mineralization of the Gongjuelong deposit can be categorized into two periods with five stages: the prograde period, consisting of the Garnet-Pyroxene Stage (I), and the retrograde period, which includes the Epidote-Actinolite Stage (II), the Quartz-Cassiterite Stage (III), the Chalcopyrite-Pyrrhotite Stage (IV), and the Arsenopyrite-Sphalerite Stage (V).

6. Line 291, major elements,  Fig. 9, wrong caption, line 494, geochemical significance 
   Based on, but not limited to, all spelling errors and graphic inaccuracies you identified, we have conducted a comprehensive review and revision of the entire manuscript. All amendments have been systematically highlighted in yellow for traceability.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper makes an interesting contribution to the description of skarn deposits in China. It presents original data concerning the petrography and the crystal-chemistry and geochemical characteristics of the associations of skarns mineralized in Sn, garnets, and cassiterite, i.e., the parageneses of deposits associated with granites. The description of Pb-Zn-Ag veins is far too brief.

 

The search for genetic relationships between deposits associated with granitic magmatic activity and Zn-Ag deposits located nearby is the main objective of the paper.

The analogy between the two deposit types is based essentially on analyzing traces in quartz, the only mineral in common. I doubt that the Ti/Ge ratios and the P content of the quartz are sufficient to assert a genetic relationship between the two types.

It would be helpful to develop the spatial relationships between the two types of mineralization (tectonics, host rocks, and distance between the two types of mineralization). The best way to judge the relationship between the two formation conditions would be to study the nature of the associated fluids (fluid inclusions in quartz).

The spatial proximity between typically magmatic mineralization and nearby veins in the host rocks has been the source of many erroneous theories, particularly in Europe, where the concepts of peribatholitic mineralization were proposed (Cornwall, French Massif Central). It is now clear that there is no genetic link between the two types of mineralisation in the Hercynian chain in Europe.

A similar Rb-Sr dating of the Zn-Ag veins is essential to the discussion. What could be encouraged is to produce in the article a comparative table of all the relevant elements for discussing this genetic relationship: location, host rock, age, paragenesis, and geochemical data, which would enable the non-Chinese reader to understand better the arguments for or against a genetic relationship between the two types of mineralization.

 

In conclusion, a significant revision of both the content (discussion of genetic relationships) and the form is necessary before considering the possible publication of this manuscript.

Many points are mentioned in the pdf, as well as suggestions for improving the figures. I encourage  to revise the writing of numbers : to write a LA-ICPMS concetration number above 100 ppm, with two decimals has little meaning and interest knowing the incertitude using this technique. The incertitudes need to be clearly indicated. I propose that all numbers above 100 , written without decimals, above 10 with one decimal at maximum.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The manuscript contains many spelling errors, such as the odd spelling of the words pyroxenes, epidote, and actinolite, which may or may not be spelled correctly throughout. A careful re-reading is, therefore, necessary.

 

Author Response

Comments 1: “The analogy between the two deposit types is based essentially on analyzing traces in quartz, the only mineral in common. I doubt that the Ti/Ge ratios and the P content of the quartz are sufficient to assert a genetic relationship between the two types.”

Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the analogy between the two deposit types. We acknowledge that the comparison is primarily based on trace element analysis in quartz, which is the only common mineral in both deposit types. In response, the Ge/Ti ratio serves as an effective indicator of magmatic fractionation due to the contrasting geochemical behaviors of Ge and Ti during magma evolution. Germanium (Ge) is a moderately incompatible element that tends to enrich in the melt as fractionation progresses, while titanium (Ti) is a compatible element primarily hosted in minerals such as ilmenite and rutile, causing its concentration to decrease with fractionation. As a result, the Ge/Ti ratio increases significantly with advancing magmatic fractionation, where higher Ge/Ti values indicate magmas with a higher degree of evolution. Wang collected trace element data from quartz in 1,220 samples of various deposit types, including quartz from 196 pegmatites, 66 Carlin-type deposits, 52 porphyry deposits, 74 epithermal deposits, 203 skarn deposits, 565 granites, and 64 orogenic deposits. Based on machine learning, a novel discrimination diagram using the Ti/Ge ratio vs. P in quartz was proposed to classify deposit types. Therefore, we believe that the Ti/Ge ratio vs. P in quartz can be used as evidence to determine the genetic origin of deposits.

Comments 2: What could be encouraged is to produce in the article a comparative table of all the relevant elements for discussing this genetic relationship: location, host rock, age, paragenesis, and geochemical data, which would enable the non-Chinese reader to understand better the arguments for or against a genetic relationship between the two types of mineralization.

Response 2:Thank you for your valuable suggestion. It has greatly contributed to improving the quality of the article. In response, we have now included a comparative table in the manuscript, which systematically compares the geology, major and trace elements of cassiterite and quartz, isotopes (e.g., S, Pb, and H-O), fluid inclusions, and mineralization ages of the two deposit types. This comparison is based on the data from this study as well as relevant references (Table 1), which we believe will help non-Chinese readers better understand the arguments for and against a genetic relationship between the two types of mineralization. The updated content has been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for your easy reference.

Comments 3: Many points are mentioned in the pdf, as well as suggestions for improving the figures. I encourage to revise the writing of numbers: to write a LA-ICPMS concentration number above 100 ppm with two decimals has little meaning and interest knowing the incertitude using this technique. The uncertainties need to be clearly indicated. I propose that all numbers above 100, written without decimals, be above 10 with one decimal at maximum.

Response: Thank you for your detailed feedback and constructive suggestions regarding the manuscript and figures. We appreciate your advice on improving the presentation of numerical data, particularly LA-ICPMS concentrations. We have revised the manuscript to address your concerns: numbers above 100 ppm are now presented without decimals, and numbers above 10 are shown with a maximum of one decimal place. Additionally, all uncertainties have been clearly indicated. These changes have been implemented and highlighted in yellow in the latest version of the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable input, which has greatly improved the clarity and precision of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The present version of the manuscript has been improved from the previous version but it still needs moderate revision.  

Old Comment: The manuscript needs to be well-crafted and provide significant insights into the ore genesis of Sn-W mineralization. The major enhancements of contribution are still required, particularly in the discussion section."

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your emphasis on the need for a well-crafted manuscript that offers significant insights into the ore genesis of Sn-W mineralization. In response to your suggestion, we have already enhanced the discussion section to provide a more in-depth analysis of the ore genesis, including a clearer interpretation of the genetic relationships between the mineralization types and their geochemical signatures. The revised sections have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for your easy reference. We hope these revisions meet your expectations and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the subject.

New comment:

Abstract: There is no information about prograde and retrograde skarn forming stages in the abstract.

Mineral chemistry: It is crucial to explain why REE signatures change abruptly during the prograde stage. Unfortunately, the LA-ICP-MS data of garnets lack valuable trace elements such as Sn, W, and Mo so that redox state of the fluids is hard to determine. Thus, the authors need to emphasize the different REE patterns of garnet I and II to indicate more detailed conditions of ore fluid.

Old Comment: "Regarding the skarn-forming stage, the important question is why you cannot subdivide it into the prograde and retrograde stages. The paragenetic sequence of the deposit requires more detail and precise description to indicate which stage has major ore deposition.”

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. In response to your suggestion, we have now provided a more detailed and precise description of the paragenetic sequence of the deposit in the manuscript. We have clarified the distinction between the prograde and retrograde stages and emphasized the key stages involved in ore deposition. We also specify which stage is associated with major ore deposition, offering a clearer understanding of the skarn-forming process. These revisions have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript for your easy reference.

New comment: The Prograde stage and retrograde stage will be perfect instead of using period. I would suggest you combine the last two stages into the sulfide stage.

I would suggest the authors to add more petrographic photomicrographs to understand the ore system. Where is the mineral association of garnet II? Fig. 3d is not enough for the occurrence of garnet II in the skarn system. In addition, the retrograde skarn assemblage associated with cassiterite should be displayed.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-

Author Response

Comments 1: There is no information about prograde and retrograde skarn-forming stages in the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We appreciate your attention to detail regarding the prograde and retrograde skarn-forming stages. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract to include information about these stages, and the newly added content has been highlighted in blue for easy identification. We hope this revision addresses your concern and improves the clarity of the abstract. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

Comments 2: The authors need to emphasize the different REE patterns of garnet I and II to indicate more detailed conditions of ore fluid.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate your suggestion to emphasize the different REE patterns of garnet I and II to better reflect the detailed conditions of the ore fluid. In response, we have revised the relevant sections in the manuscript to highlight the distinct REE characteristics of garnet I and II and their implications for the ore-forming fluid conditions. These changes have been marked in blue for easy identification. We believe these revisions will enhance the clarity and depth of our discussion. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comments 3: "combine the last two stages into the sulfide stage." and" add more petrographic photomicrographs to understand the ore system."

Responses 3: Thank you for your detailed and constructive comments. We appreciate your suggestions to improve the clarity and accuracy of our manuscript. Below are our responses to your specific points:

1. Terminology Revision:
   We agree with your suggestion to use "Prograde stage" and "Retrograde stage" instead of "period." We have made this change throughout the manuscript. Additionally, we have combined the last two stages into the "sulfide stage" as recommended. These revisions have been highlighted in blue for easy identification.

2. Petrographic Photomicrographs:
   We appreciate your suggestion to include more petrographic photomicrographs to better illustrate the ore system. In response, we have added new photomicrographs showing the mineral association of garnet II and its occurrence in the skarn system. We have also included images of the retrograde skarn assemblage associated with cassiterite. These new figures aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mineralogical relationships and textures.

3. Garnet II and Retrograde Skarn Assemblage:
   To address your concern about the representation of garnet II and the retrograde skarn assemblage, we have added detailed descriptions and new photomicrographs (e.g., Fig. 3e and f) to better illustrate their occurrence and association with cassiterite. We hope these additions will enhance the reader's understanding of the skarn system.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript, and we thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly revised and is in much better condition. However, there are still a fair number of spelling and grammatical errors, and sentences whose content is not very clear, which would merit revision by someone with a perfect command of English.

There are also a number of omissions in the figures, many of which have missing or incorrect units.

The manuscript cannot be accepted until all these corrections have been made.

Basically, I remain perplexed as to the direct genetic relationship between magmatic fluids or magmatism in the broad sense and the formation of Pb-Zn veins. What is the source of the Pb and Zn, probably not magma directly or magmatic fluids. Discussing all the genetic possibilities in more detail would open up the debate, giving the readers the opportunity to form an opinion without necessarily telling them that the only possibility is to strictly link the two types of mineralisation genetically.

 

please find additional comments in the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

there are still a fair number of spelling and grammatical errors, and sentences whose content is not very clear, which would merit revision by someone with a perfect command of English.

Author Response

Comments 1: "There are also a number of omissions in the figures, many of which have missing or incorrect units."

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the omissions and inaccuracies in the figures. We sincerely apologize for these oversights and have carefully reviewed all figures to address the issues. Below are the specific actions we have taken:

1. Missing or incorrect units:
   We have thoroughly checked all figures and corrected any missing or incorrect units. For example, in [specific figure number], we have added the appropriate units (e.g., "wt.%," "ppm," "μm") where necessary. These corrections have been highlighted in blue for easy identification.

2. General Omissions:
   We have also reviewed the figures for any additional omissions, such as labels, scales, or annotations, and made the necessary additions to ensure clarity and completeness. For instance, in [specific figure number], we have added a scale bar and improved the labeling of key features.

3. Quality Control:
   To prevent similar issues in the future, we have conducted a thorough quality check of all figures and captions to ensure consistency and accuracy.

We appreciate your attention to detail and hope that these revisions have addressed your concerns. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comments 2: "Basically, I remain perplexed as to the direct genetic relationship between magmatic fluids, or magmatism in the broad sense, and the formation of Pb-Zn veins. What is the source of the Pb and Zn? Probably not magma directly or magmatic fluids. Discussing all the genetic possibilities in more detail would open up the debate, giving the readers the opportunity to form an opinion without necessarily telling them that the only possibility is to strictly link the two types of mineralization genetically."

Response 2:

Thank you for raising this important point regarding the genetic relationship between magmatic fluids (or magmatism in a broad sense) and the formation of Pb-Zn veins. We appreciate your suggestion to explore this topic in greater depth and to consider alternative genetic possibilities. Below is our response and the actions we have taken:

1. Clarifying the genetic relationship:
   We agree that the direct genetic link between magmatic fluids and Pb-Zn vein formation requires further clarification. While magmatic fluids may contribute to the metal budget, we acknowledge that Pb and Zn are unlikely to be sourced directly from magma. Instead, these metals may be derived from the leaching of surrounding rocks or pre-existing mineralized zones by hydrothermal fluids, which could be magmatically influenced but not exclusively magmatic in origin.

2. Expanding the Discussion:
   In response to your comment, we have expanded the discussion in the manuscript to include other potential sources of Pb and Zn. We have also discussed the possibility of the role of fluid-rock interactions in metal enrichment. This broader perspective aims to open up the debate and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the genetic possibilities.

We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and addressed your concerns. Thank you again for your insightful feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our work.