Geology and Mineralogy. 109 



when Noetling stated that these beds and the entire Ceratite 

 beds must be included in the Permian. Diener says that this 

 latter view "soon turned out to be incorrect " (45). The Permo- 

 Triassic boundary in the eastern Alps has also been under 

 discussion, and Diener remarks : 



"There is no unconformity between the Permian Bellero- 

 phonkalk and the shales of the lower Werfen (Seis) beds, but the 

 lithological contrast between the two groups is rather sharply 

 marked, considerably more so, as a rule, than between the Pro- 

 ductus shales and the Otoceras stage (of India). Nevertheless 

 sections have been found, where the Bellerophon limestone passes 

 gradually into the overlying shales. * * * in the vicinity of 

 Sarajevo a very interesting section has been described by E. Kittl, 

 where a bed of limestone containing fossils of the Bellerophonkalk 

 is intercalated in shales lithologically identical with those of the 

 Werfen beds. It is evident that in this section the highest beds 

 of Permian age are developed in the facies of the Triassic Werfen 

 shales and that the lithological boundary does not coincide with 

 the true limit of the two systems. * * * 



" It is true that the genus Otoceras is known outside the 

 Himalayas from Permian rocks only, a small number of species, 

 represented by a few fragmentary examples, having been collected 

 from a single locality ( Julfa on the frontier of Persia and Russian 

 Armenia). But there is not a single case of specific identity with 

 Himalayan forms. The Armenian species of Otoceras are associ- 

 ated with a rich fauna of distinctly Palaeozoic aspect. The 

 numerous types of Productidce, Orthido3, Spiriferidce, Gastri- 

 oceras, differ so widely from anything that is seen in the fauna of 

 the Indian Otoceras beds, that the presence of the genus Otoceras 

 at Julfa does not justify the assumption of its being restricted to 

 the Permian" (48-9). 



"Positive palaeontological evidence is decidedly contradictory 

 to the assumption of a Permian age for the Indian Otoceras 

 beds. The general character of the cephalopod fauna is what 

 we should expect to find in a Mesozoic horizon, the overwhelming 

 majority of the ammonites being provided with ceratitic sutures. 

 This character is not exhibited in any Permian cephalopod fauna 

 hitherto known. * * * 



" All the numerous types of Palaeozoic brachiopods, which are 

 the predominating and most characteristic element both in the 

 Productus Limestone of the Salt Range and in the Ruling shales 

 of the Himalayas, are completely absent from the Otoceras beds. 

 There is no stratigraphical break in the uninterrupted sequence 

 of beds which in the Himalayas connects the Permian and 

 Triassic systems, but there is a distinct palaeontological break or 

 hiatus at the base of the Otoceras beds. In the Himalayan 

 region there is certainly no gradual shading-off from a Palaeozoic 

 to a Mesozoic marine fauna through an intermediate group, but 

 a sharply defined limit, which none of the characteristic species 

 of Permian brachiopods transgresses. This absolute distinction 



