Reviews—Medlicott’s Southern Himalayan Ranges. 311 
mountain-region;’ so much so, indeed, that the author could not ‘trace 
even the guiding influence of simple fissures, in any definite system, 
in predetermining the lines. of drainage.’ Though the hills are some- 
times 10,000 or 12,000 feet high, yet there is mostly great sameness 
in their scenery,—‘a monotony of steep slopes, and ridges of uniform 
height, and with little variety of outline.’ Their outer limit is for 
the most part well marked by a quick change to much lower hills of 
different aspect. ‘The ridges of this third region ‘are approximately 
coincident with lines of disturbance, being usually formed by anti- 
clinals, or on the upthrow side of faults ; though, of course, Mr. Med- 
licott does not by any means imply that these Sub-Himalayan hills 
have been formed by disturbance only, as further on he says, ‘ No 
doubt, the actual contours in both cases are the immediate results 
of denudation.’ Such being the case, we do not see why the Sub- 
Himalayan hills should be called ‘ true hill-ranges,—members proper 
. of the great Himalayan, system,’ whilst, by implication, those of 
the Lower Himalaya are not. The latter are the higher and the 
nearer to the region of peaks; the mere fact that they have been 
carved out without any particular regard to lines of disturbance does 
not surely go against their being ‘true hill-ranges’!—if so, half the 
mountains in the world can hardly lay claim to the title. We suspect’ 
that Mr. Medlicott draws some subtle distinction between a ‘hill- 
range’ and a ‘range of hills,’ and somewhat confuses the former with 
a ‘line of elevation.’ Those hills that have been worn out across, and 
in defiance of, disturbances are rather more marvellous than those in 
which the denudation-surface more or less follows the geological out- 
line. These regions, however, are not marked by differences of feature 
only, but consist of ‘ two series of rocks strongly contrasting in com- 
position.’ As these are in vertical contact along their well-marked 
boundary, it would have been a difficult matter to tell which was the 
older, were there not a very large outlier of the Sub- Himalayan beds 
resting ‘on a denuded surface of the older rocks.’ 
With the remark, that ‘there is perhaps now an over-tendency to 
allow fossil evidence too exclusively to regulate our classification of 
rock-series,’ we heartily agree; but it is no reason that Mr. Medlicott 
should not have vouchsafed us a little more information about the fos- 
sils of these vast sets of beds than is given by one list, and here and 
there a few chance words, such as—although the ‘central region of 
our district . . . is the classic ground of the Fauna Sivalensis;’— 
‘These giant fossils’ (what they are we are not told) ‘are found 
through some thousands of feet in thickness of the Sivalik rocks,’ the 
uppermost member of the Sub-Himalayan Series: but Mr. Medlicott 
was unable ‘to trace one single fossil to the Nahun beds’ below, 
though he states that some letters of Col. Cautley and Dr. Falconer 
seem to point to fossils having been found in the latter. 
From the list of formations given at p. 17, we learn that the beds 
of the district consist, in descending order, of the ‘Sub-Himalayan 
Series,’ divided into the ‘ Sivalik,’ ‘Nahun,’ and ‘Subathu’ groups ; 
and the ‘Himalayan Series,’ of ‘Unmetamorphic’ (four divisions) and 
‘Metamorphic’ rocks. This, however, is not a perfect list; for at 
