34 
DIENEK : TKIAS OF THE HIMALAYAS. 
interesting problems in correlation were those concerning the termina- 
tion of the Permian system. In both areas, however, the sedimentation 
introducing the Triassic system was strikingly different. In the Central 
Himalayas arenaceous deposits are entirely wanting, and the Lower 
Trias is made up of limestones and shales. In the Salt Range arena- 
ceous limestones, calcareous sandstones and marls play a very important 
part. Those rocks contain rich fossil faunae, and their classification by 
Wynne, Waagen and Noetling constitutes one of the most interesting 
chapters in Indian Geology. 
This difference in the development of the Lower Triassic deposits in 
the Himalayas and in the Salt Range renders an attempt at correlation 
difficult, notwithstanding the considerable number of species common to 
both regions. A discussion on this subject between A. v. KrafTt, 
Noetling and Diener indicates considerable confusion, and the inference 
to be drawn from a study of its results is that the palseontological 
evidence available is not sufficient for a correlation of the strata down 
to the smaller divisions of the scale. A detailed account of this discus- 
sion has been given by Diener in Vol. VI, No. 1, of the "Himalayan 
Fossils." 
The youngest Himalayan fauna from the top of the chocolate lime- 
stone of Jolinka (Byans) has been correlated with that of the upper 
Ceratite limestone by A. v. Krafft. This homotaxis has been accepted 
unanimously by all authors dealing with this subject. There is, 
indeed, a close agreement in the character of the two faunae, that of 
Jolinka consisting exclusively of species of the genus Sihirites, one of 
them very closely allied to Sibirites {Ceratites antea) inflatus Waag. 
The Hedenstroemia beds are in a general way equivalent to the 
upper division of the Ceratite marls (in Noetling's interpretation) or to 
the zone of KonnicJcites volutus Noetl. and to the Ceratite sandstone 
{Fleminyites Flemingianus beds). 
The Meekoceras beds probably correspond to the lower division of 
the Ceratite marls {zone of Prionolobus rotundatus Noetl.) and to the 
lower Ceratite limestone. 
The most obscure point in the controversy is the problem of the 
correlation of the Otoceras beds, owing to the different hthological deve- 
lopment in the two regions and to the absence of the most characteristic 
elements of the Otoceras fauna from the Salt Range. Diener looks for 
( 235 ) 
