Records of the Geological Surveg of India, 
[voL. xiri. 
] r.G 
prolongation of a spur of rock across tlie valley, wliich, I understand l\Ir. Ball 
to argue, would be a serious, not to say insm’mountable, difficulty in liis mind to 
the idea of a glacier ever having passed along it. To me it is nothing of the sort; 
tor I can conceive no sort or description of spur blocking or constricting a valley 
which could offer any bar to the passage of a glacier: for the jdain and simple 
reason, that wherever the stream which originally excavated the valley could go, 
a glacier could follow, and is, mor-eovei’, not so bound by hydro.statio laws as 
water is iu its fluid state. Further into the matter than this I confess my 
inability to sec. 
Of Naukatchia Tal and Sath Tal Mr. Ball expresses a confident opinion that 
their shape and suri'oundings preclude the idea of glacial agency being concerned 
iu their formation, an opinion from which I profoundly dissent, especially with 
reference to the former lake, which I consider one of the most remarkable lakes 
in Kumaiin, if not in the world, as I shall endeavour soon to show. 
There is one remark in Mr. Ball’s “conelusioiis” (p. 181 of bis paper) which 
I cannot pass without comment, as I am jjainfully compelled to own I do not 
realise its cogencj'. The remark is couched in the following words :— 
“There is one point geologically which links the throe larger lakes together, 
and that is the occurrence of trap dykes iu the vicinity of each.” Is it reasonable 
to ask us to accept this dictum for argument ? Is it not rather like clothing 
with sciontifio importance the crude geographical conceptions of honest Fluellen, 
touching the similaritjr between Monmouth and Macedon, as proved by their 
both commencing with the letter M .1’ Why, too, the smaller adjoining lakes 
should bo e.xcluded from participation in the argument supposed to accrue from 
the presence of the dykes in the vicinity of their lai'ger brethren, is not obvious. 
However, my colleague goes on to explain himself : “Now, I do not tliink it at 
all probable that the lakes are due to the original outburst of trap,” an opinion 
in which I fully coincide, considering that such an idea is wholly beyond 
the bounds of the wildest pos.sibility; but my colleague at once goes on to 
add: “But it seems not improbable that when the great upheaval and disturb¬ 
ance of the rocks of this area took place, the existence of comparatively 
rigid lines of trap may have been largely instrumental in determining the 
form which the surface assumed, and that on their flanks the soft shales, &c., 
may have been so much crushed and broken as to yield more easily to the 
sub,sequent operations of denudation, thus affording an abundant supply of mate¬ 
rials for landslip,s, which ultimately served to close the valleys and form the lakes.” 
The two prominent ideas here presented a,re/rsHy, that “ rigid lines of trap have 
determined the form" of the ground surrounding the lakes; and secondhj, that the 
lakes are merely accumulations of water, dammed up by the “ abundant supplg ’’ of 
soft shales washed off the flanks of the ‘rigid lines of trap ’ in question. To this 
I can only say that the very existence of any such “rigid lines ” is a matter of 
pure supposition on Mr. Ball’s part, without the slightest evidence, so far as I am 
aware, in support thereof; and so far from the barriers which hold uj) the lakes 
'The preacuoe of .m obstractins spur beve lias inoro weight against the glaeial liypotliesis 
than tlio absence of such spurs at Naini has in favour of it.—H. 13. M. 
