1842.] of the Himmalaya Mountains. clix 



341. Nor is this question affected by the doubt as to the origin of 

 these boulders ; that is, whether they have proceeded immediately from 

 the debris of the primary strata, or immediately been formed into secon- 

 dary conglomerates. It is remarkable, that the nature of the stones is 

 the same in both deposits, the secondary rocks and the diluvium ; the 

 only difference being in arrangement, the former being distinctly stra- 

 tified, and passing into well-defined micaceous sandstone, while the 

 latter forms a confused heap of gravel, in which stones of all sizes and 

 even angular fragments sometimes are found. That they have origi- 

 nated in the breaking up of secondary strata, is I think, the most 

 probable, although we shall then be puzzled to account for the de- 

 posits in the beds of rivers where now no secondary rocks are to be 

 seen. However this may be, it is still worthy of remark that the greatest 

 accumulations are found where the secondary formations still exist. 



342. Granting that some such catastrophe in these mountains as a 

 mighty debacle, or rush of waters, must have given these beds of di- 

 luvium their present place, we shall see strong reasons for supposing, 

 that for a time these waters have been pent up in the Doons or 

 vallies, which extend along the frontier. Have they subsequently broke 

 through this range by their own accumulated pressure, or has any other 

 cause of change assisted in finding an outlet for this series of lakes ? 

 The reversal of the dip on the opposite sides of the river at Hurdwar, 

 is a curious anomaly occurring in such a place, and must, I think, strike 

 every one. Till all the circumstances be known, it is vain to speculate. 

 Whether such fact or any disturbance of the strata is to be observed at 

 the other debouches, will be interesting to determine. 



343. The theory which has identified this rush of water, traces of 

 which have been found in every part of the globe, with the deluge, as 

 described to us in the Scripture, and which has derived its chief 

 illustrations from the labors of Cuvier and Buckland, has been strongly 

 opposed by the geologists of Scotland. In particular, Dr. Fleming 

 has stated some difficulties with regard to the subject, not easily got 

 rid of. He has shewn, that the silent and quiet rising of the waters, 

 and their equally gradual subsidence, as deducible from the account 

 of Moses, cannot be confounded with a cause which has evidently been 

 sudden, vast, and overpowering. The former we see did not even 

 abrade the surface, for vegetation, and trees even, still remained, whereas 



