The Gneissose- Granite of the Simalayas. 347 



(6) That tlie pebbles in tbe Infra-Trias conglomerate have been 

 flattened and deformed (p. 55). 



(7) That coarse gi-ains of quartz in the Infra-Trias sandstone have 

 been powdered and drawn out to eyes (p. 56). 



I may say at once that I fully admit, and for the matter of that 

 always have admitted, the truth of the facts alleged in tlie above 

 seven points. What I have always denied, and still deny, is, that the 

 foliation of the granite was produced by crushing and shearing after 

 it became a solid mass. I have all along contended that a foliated 

 structure was impressed on the granite before its final consolidation. 



No one, I presume, doubts that the birth of the Himalayas was 

 accompanied by great earth movements, and that during the elevation 

 of these lofty mountains great compression, contortion, faulting, and. 

 shearing of the strata took place on a grand scale. I certainly have 

 never denied it ; and I have expressly admitted that the gneissose- 

 granite itself bears evidence of having suffered many things from 

 the dynamic forces of Nature. For instance, I stated in my Presi- 

 dential Address already referred to, that " the granite was forced in 

 thick sheets between beds of strata, and into the faults and fissures 

 opened up in the course of the compression, uplifting, and contortion 

 of the rocks which set in within the Himalayan area at the close of 

 the Eocene period" (loc. cit, p. 288). I pointed out that in one 

 region of special strain " the gneissose-granite passes at its edges 

 into a rock that might, without microscopical examination, be taken 

 for a mica-schist" (loc. cit., p. 288). In another paper (Geological 

 Magazine, 1887, p. 214) I said that the outer band of gneissose- 

 granite at Dalhousie " not un frequently looks, viewed macroscopi- 

 cally, as if it had been flattened under a steam-roller " ; and on 

 the same page I detailed the evidence of strain, fracture, and traction, 

 sujDplied by the microscope. 



The point at issue, therefore, is not whether the Himalayan rocks 

 generally, or the granite in particular, give evidence of having 

 suffered compression, contortion, or fracture, but whether the 

 foliation of the granite was produced prior to, or posterior to, 

 the consolidation of the rock. The production of evidence to prove 

 points not at issue is illogical. When no one denies that the rocks 

 of the Himalayas have suffered contortion and crushing, what is 

 gained by proving what is already admitted ? Moreover, as the 

 question raised concerns an igneous intrusive rock, evidence to show 

 the crushing of sedimentary rocks is really irrelevant, unless it can 

 also be shown that the crushing relied on took place after the 

 entrance of the intruder. 



The first and main point at issue in the case of the granite of the 

 Himalayas, as before said, is whether the foliation was superinduced 

 before or after the complete cooling and consolidation of the rock. 

 Evidence to be of logical value must be directed to that issue. 



From first to last I have contended that the foliation of the 

 Himalayan granite was produced before the consolidation of the 

 rock, and in my Presidential Address before referred to I tried to 

 explain briefly that lateral pressure applied to an intruded igneous 



