306 Lieut. -General C. A. McMahon — 



4. The probability that the " volcanic rocks of Kashmir (tlie 

 amygdaloids) of about Silurian age are subserial representatives 

 of the granitic cores " (p. 278). 



5. The author also relies on the following points : — 



(a) The Trias limestone in Hazara is unmetamorphoeed 



(p. 277). 

 (6) The Infra-Trias of Hazara is metamorphosed in a minor 



degree compared with the slate series (p. 277). 

 (c) Much, if not all, of the metamorphism of the Infra-Trias 

 is attributed to the invasion of basic dykes (p. 277). 



I propose to take the above five points seriatim. 



1. The absence of metamorphism and the non-occurrence of granite 

 in Tertiary beds. — I do not see how this fact proves that the granite 

 is of Pre-Tertiary age. It would only prove, at most, that in the 

 sections in which Tertiary beds occur the granite did not rise as high 

 as the Tertiaries. Mr. Middlemiss remarks (p. 274) that the granite, 

 " if conceded a granite origin," " was formed as great laccolites, deep 

 down below the surface of the earth" (the italics are mine), "under 

 such enormous pressure of the superincumbent rock that an irruptive 

 function was generally denied it." If so, how could these deep- 

 seated laccolites be expected to appear as eruptive rocks among beds 

 as high up in the geological series as the Tertiaries ? 



The appearance of the granite, according to the author, is limited 

 to his crystalline and metamorphic zone, which in Hazara was the 

 first to rise, rose the highest, and was denuded the most (pp. 261, 

 265). The present boundaries of the Sewalik and Nahan Tertiary 

 rocks on the flanks of the Himalayas are also the limits of their 

 original deposition. ^ Mr. Medlicott foimd that " the Himalayan 

 mountain area was defined before the deposition of the Sabathu 

 nummulitic rocks," ^ and I do not gather from Mr. Middlemiss's 

 Memoir that he challenges this position for the rest of the Hima- 

 layas. Indeed, he tells us (Memoirs G.S.I., xxiv, 122) : " I think 

 we are justified in denying that they [the Eocene nummulitic 

 rocks] ever existed over those higher tracts of the outer and central 

 Himalaya where never an outlier of them has been detected." If 

 Tertiary rocks were never deposited over the zone invaded by the 

 granite, how does its non-appearance in Tertiary strata, and the 

 absence of contact-metamorphism in Tertiary beds, throw light 

 on the age of the granite ? Manifestly the points relied on do not 

 prove the author's contention. 



The second piece of evidence is the fact that Murree (Lower 

 Sewalik) beds and Nummulitic limestones rest in direct and normal 

 superposition immediately above thin-bedded rocks exhibiting dis- 

 tinct metamorphism (p. 135). 



The author relies on the evidence afi'orded by the Laichi Khun 

 section (see footnote to p. 277) to refute my theory that the granite 



1 Manual G.I. , 2nd edition, p. 468. Memoirs G.S.I., Middlemiss, xxiv, pp. 120-2 ; 

 xxvi, pp. 266-8. 



2 Memoirs G.S.I., iii, p. 174. 



