MAGNESIAN SANDSTONE. 89 



The group with its most characteristic rock is well seen upon Mount 

 Tilla^ but is hardl}' represented on the neighbouring Chambal Mountain. 

 It re-appears on Diljaba and Karangli (where it contains small crystals 

 of galena), and is well marked from Jalalpur towards Khewra, but 

 beyond Makrach loses much of its individuality. Its sandstones beino- 

 often separated by shales, it no louger forms marked features, its 

 best exposures being on the spurs or among the dislocations and su])ject 

 to the obscurity which they entail. Notwithstanding this, however, 

 at Makrach and a little to the westward, greenish and hard white 

 sandstones with dark, in places carbonaceous, shales and numerous 

 large fucoids on the bedding surfaces, occupy the place of this group and 

 underlie the next, proving the succession different from that apparent 

 to the east. 



Dr. Fleming unites the group No. 3 with this in one of his divisions, 



although each possesses, where well developed, 

 United with the group i • i i • i i n • 



below, &c., by other a strong lithological character of its own ; while 



o serv rs. -^^^ Theobald would, on the other hand, appa- 



rently include the present group with No. 10, with which it is seldom 

 in contact ; at least it is difficult to account for the conglomei'ates he 

 describes among the magnesian sandstones on any other grounds. 

 Conglomeratic layers there may be here and there so trifling as to escape 

 notice, but strong conglomerates form no prominent feature of the 

 group, even in its western most sandy and most divided portion. 



In the direction of Makrach and to the westward, both this group 



and No. 3 might be included in one; but even 

 Why separated. 



beyond that locality, the lower shaly zone being 



traceable much further than the overlying sandstone, &c., and both being 

 more closely related to each other than to the beds either above or below 

 them, it appears better to preserve the petrographical distinction, prin- 

 cipally because the want of palgeontological evidence makes it impossible 

 to assert that this group, like the lower one^ is siluriau. 



M ( 89 ) 



