Could a Batholith be hard to identify? Why or why not?

I think it could be hard to identify because it does not extend to the surface. It is deep in the Earth's crust.





What do you think? What are some other reasons as to why it could be hard to identify?|||Actually, if its under the surface, it's a pluton. A batholith is a pluton that has been exposed due to erosional processes. The telltale for it is that stratigraphically, you have igneous rock atop non-igneous.|||A Batholith is easily identified because:





It's big





It is a intrusive igneous rock with properties that should be identifiable in the field by a trained geologist.





It would have internal structures that can be observed and mapped.





It would have a geophysical characteristics that may allow it to be mapped by gravity and/or seismic methods.





One can drill into it








It would be hard to identify if the batholith were:





Similar to an adjacent batholith in composition, color, texture, and structure.





If it is highly weathered on the surface.





If it is overgrown by dense vegetation or forest hiding the rock outcrops.





If it were too deep for drilling





If it were to similar to the surrounding country rock making geophysical methods more difficult.|||It shouldn't be hard to identify, because it will be very large and very safely protected from erosion. It will look like it did when it formed until it is somehow exposed to the surface, which would require a massive tectonic uplift in most areas.





Laccoliths are the tough ones to identify.|||You're pretty much right., they're huge, covering very large areas The sierra nevadas are in fact a batholith.