I’AIIT 1.] 
Annual Report for IS/9. 
7 
Stoliczka’s description to be chiefly, if not altogether, formed of altered palasozoic 
rocks. Mr. Lydekker now shows that the gneissic silnrians only occur locally^ 
and that the principal mass must correspond to the ‘ central ’ gneiss (or Cambrian 
gneiss of ilr. Lj'dekker’s j^revious papers, the identity of which witlt the ‘ central ’ 
gneiss may perhaps be doubted). The conformity and transition from one to the 
other is everywhere iijiparent. The metamorphics of Eupshu are, however, all 
represented as converted Silurians. Thus we should still have to iind tlie gneiss 
that yielded the blocks in tlie Silurian slates of Ptingi, and to explain the sharp 
unconformity^ of upper silui'ian strata on granite and gneiss in Hangraug. (Re¬ 
cords, XII, 61.) 
A special interest has been noted (Manual, p. 64.3) as attaching to the great 
trough of tertiary rocks found along the course of the Indus at the southern 
base of the gneissic range in Ladak, and crossing obliquely, with the great river, 
to the noi'tli side of this gneiss at a point south of the Pangnr lake. Mi’. Lydek¬ 
ker now shows from good seetion.s that at several points of the boundai’ies, both 
with the oldest gneiss on the north and with the cai’boniferons rocks on the 
south, the natural original junction is e.vjiosed ; and this is quite enough to rule 
the case, though at other jioints slipping may have been superadded. In several 
instances the bottom conglomerates of this eocene formation were even observed 
to show a relation of distribution with reference to the actual gorges of the 
gneissic range. We may thus hcnocfoi’th dismiss from our speculations any 
thought of a former direct connexion of these conti'al Himalayan eocenes with 
those at the base of the mountains in India, although the similarity of the deposits 
is so striking. Supposing that the formations of the Zanskar and Karakoram 
basins were once continuou.s acro.ss the position of the Ladak axis, it would 
thus also be proven that a pre-eocene Himalayan elevation took place equal at 
least to th(i total thickness of the present sedimentary series from the base of the 
old gneiss to the to]) of the cretaceous; for only the unaltered ])ortion of that 
series this would amount to 16,000 feet, according to Stoliczka’s estimate. 
What the actual elevsition of the raountiiins adjoining the eocene gulph may 
have been would, of eoui’se, depend on how far erosion had kept ])ace with eleva¬ 
tion. The time required for such an erosion must be very great. 
Upon the v-ery intei’e.sting question of the amount of contortion that accom¬ 
panied that grciit pre-eocene elevation, iMr. Ijydekker seems to be slightly at 
variance v\ith bis facts, or at least his particular facts, as ho duly observes, do 
])ot su])port the opinion ho bases u])on more general observation. He con.siders 
that the contortion of the older rocks took j)kico in great part before that of the 
tertiaries, becau.se the former exhibit puckorings and crumj)liTigs not found in 
the latter; but in the only contact section given that is not one of original 
abutting deposition, in the inlier at Miru, the cai’boniferous and eocene strata are 
nearly vertical in paviillel sn]ier]>osition, so the older must have been flat at the 
time of de])Osition of the newer. It is certain that much compre.ssioii and some 
crumpling must have attended the depression of the great sedimentary series, 
when its lower memhei’s were converted into gneiss; but it seems to mo still an 
open question whether the great contortions which we now look upon as the 
special Himalayan disturbance, may not be post-eocene, though, of cour,se, their 
