Chap. Ill] sub-himalayan series — subatiiu group. 93 



by the upheaval of the Subathu group, and its consequent removal 

 from off the underlying rocks. It is with the time of this upheaval 

 that we are now principally concerned. 



In comparing the states of disturbance of the -rocks of the Nahun 



and Subathu groups, the same general remark 

 Somewhat greater dis- 

 turbance of the lower may be made as in the case of the latter and the 

 group. 



Himalayan rocks ; no marked contrast can be 



drawn in either case ; yet, between the two Sub-Himalayan groups a 



slight difference is, I think, noticeable ; it may be said that we nowhere 



find tlie strata of the Subathu group so little disturbed as we sometimes 



do those of the Nahun, as-, for instance, at Nahun itself. It is however 



upon disturbance in kind rather than in degree that I wish to insist. 



., Al . e ,, Among rocks so essentially alike as are the 

 No outliers of the ° J 



upper group ; several members of the Sub-Himalayan series it is 



particularly hazardous to assert, upon negative evidence, that the newer 

 members had never overlaid the older ones at any place ; remnants 

 might well be present without being noticed, yet, I am inclined to 

 think that the Subathu group here has never been so overlaid. The 

 Kasaoli beds form a really distinctive capping to the Subathu group, 

 and I have never detected any younger rock within the Subathu area.* 



* Those who may have examined the account given by D'Archiac of the section at Subathu, 

 will be surprised at the statement in the text, that no younger rocks occur within the area of 

 the Subathu group. At page 176 of the " Groupe nummulitique de l'lnde" repeated mention is 

 made of sands and conglomerates, with large mammalian remains undistinguishable from those 

 of the Sivaliks, resting conformably upon the nummulitic strata at Subathu ; the author remark- 

 ing upon the interest of this apparent intimate connection between two groups so distinctly 

 characterised. It is fortunate the error is on so large a scale, for few will be disposed to ques- 

 tion my assurance that no such rocks occur at Subathu ; unless indeed, after the similar failure 

 to confirm Lieutenant Durand's discoveries at Nahun, as noticed in the first Chapter, p. 15, one 

 may be disposed to consider me fossil-blind. In this case, however, I have succeeded in 

 obtaining an explanation from the discoverer himself, Finding no allusion to any such deposits 

 at Subathu in the original paper by Captain Vicary (Jour. Geol. Soc, London, Vol. IX., 

 p. 70, 1853) — the only authority quoted byM. D'Archiac — I wrote to that gentleman and 

 received an immediate reply, expressing astonishment at the statement referred to him : " I 



cannot think how D'Archiac's mistake originated ; I do not understand French, and never 



