Comments on the paper of B. Lehmann: Molybdenum distribution in precambrian rocks of the Colorado mineral belt

Conclusions 1. Lehman lends me statements that I have not written.2. Interesting enough, the analytical data he presents do not allow, in effect, a molybdenum geochemical province in the Colorado mineral belt to be found. However, a better differentiation of rock types would be a useful improvement.3. Neither the available results, nor the (classic) model Proposed for the large Colorado deposits, are tests of the basic theorem. Furthermore, the model implies a heritage, a logical inference tightly associated with the theorem without being in its foundation.In my opinion, it is to be desired that our journals and learned societies become, at intervals, concerned about the history of our science and concepts in order to avoid drifts, not accuse B. Lehmann. I only believe he reads (in French) too quickly.