Well, it's not really a mountain but an outlier ridge highpoint. It's not something I would generally include on sp, but it does have some interesting geology. Why not add this as a subsection of the Cusick Mountain page?
I labored with this question and must admit I went back and forth on what would be the best to do. I think it could go either way, but I treated as its own summit because its more separated, with greater height differential than other similar close peaks on SP.
It is 580 feet above the common elevation with Cusick Mt and is 1 mile away. Consider that Glacier Pk rises only 335 ft. from its common elevation with Eagle Cap and is only .75 miles away from it, I thought the case could easily be made. And for consistency perhaps should be made. Some might say Glacier should be separated because its such a spectacular rock, but for someone who knows a little more about the mountains than simply the causal look, Pt. 9,180 certainly has its own spectacular features.
I also considered whether it was proper to separated it from North Imnaha. But again comparing a rise above the common elevation of 380 ft and a summit distance of .75 miles, it still compares favorable with the Glacier/Eagle Cap situation.
I'm sure we could find people who would say combine them and others who would say keep them separate. Its a fine line. But now you at least know the thought process I used to justify the separation.
Hey, no problem. Note that this ridge highpoint would have a name in Europe. Every little bump seems to have a name over there. Why do you think it's so easy for Gangolf to make a new mountain page? Much of the information he incorporates (apart from the Overview) is used in prior pages he's created. Nothing wrong with that. His methodology is different than mine.
Nice page! Are these basalt dikes related to, or perhaps a source of some of the Imnaha Basalt flows that occured 16.6 million years ago as the beginning of the Columbia River Basalt Group? Very intriguing area, It sounds like a good excuse for a geology "field trip".
Hmmm, thanks for the info. I've been spouting a lot of geology based upon just what I read. The sources are good, but I may not always translate it correctly. I think of a dike as an intrusion as you say, but when I see a line of one rock through another I assume its a dike, like the basalt dikes. This is incorrect apparently. How would the marble run through the other rocks? Or is it even marble? Ken Pohs book, The Wallowa Mountains, is a good source for the geology of the mountains. He is a geologist and its the best part of the book. I'll try to find some time to review it and make necessary correction in the discussions. Thanks for pointing this out.
Very nice page! Great photos too. Looks like a fun summit!
Thanks again Britt.
Another good addition! Interesting geology again
Thanks again Rob.
Thanks for the vote David. Have a merrh Christmas.
Thanks again Jennifer. I need to be more timely don't I.
You too--I hope Snata brings you lots of cool climbing gadgets.
Nice job-love the Wallowas!
Thanks. Yes, the Wallowas are great.