Harrison agrees with us on the following points: that extrusives exist on the sea floor; that triangular cross-sections are probably realistic for such extrusives; and that it is worthwhile to consider their magnetic effect. For example, Hamson states that formation of a dyke causes spreading: on the contrary, it is quite conceivable, or even probable, that spreading is the cause, rather than the result of dike injection. The major disagreements involve the models employed. In our original publication we were careful to point out that our computations were for what we considered to be a probable net configuration of some extrusives on some parts of the ocean floor. These models were based on speculations and bathymetric data by several authors. By no means was the possibility of other configurations excluded. To do so would be (to say the least) a claim to substantial intuitive powers. Harrison negates our conclusions, however, completely on the basis of an inferred universal applicability of his model, thus rejecting all other alternatives. Such confidence, while impressive, is in our opinion somewhat unrealistic. Our model deliberately employed a minimum of artistic liberties, whereas Hamson invokes a relatively complex (though elegant) configuration. As he emphasizes, the models have constant upper and lower surfaces, and normal polarity fraction, and our model does not. (We find ourselves unhappy at the use of flat upper surfaces for detailed analyses, however reasonable such a practice may be for large scale conventional crustal spreading analyses) . This is quite true. But why should our models suffer these limitations, which Hamson believes are obvious? Nature has not provided these restrictions, so we do not understand why Harrison should, particularly when we were not attempting to explain the magnetic effect of all extrusive configurations. We were clearly not considering the magnetic effects of various arrangements of a fixed volume of material, but rather the effect of extrusive accumulations of different volumes, but similar shapes. It is a fact that the extrusives in our models produce a sharpening of the surface magnetic anomaly, relative to that due to a dike alone, provided the widths do not exceed one ocean depth. Harrison’s extrusives do not produce this effect. We do not believe that our point is invalidated because Harrison has a different model, unless he has evidence to show that his models are realistic and ours are not. While we find the geometry of Hamson’s models attractive, we cannot readily accept the detailed extrusiveintrusive relationships, particularly in his model 3. Hamson emphasizes that it is impossible to describe the sharpness of the magnetic anomaly produced by a group of extrusives and intrusives, by examining the anomaly produced by one. In our original paper, we clearly stated that ‘ The body could of course be composed of a series of smaller units. This would be likely to be the case, as