236 Records of the Geological Survey of India. [voi.. xiii. 
superficially, in the river deposits. To quote an example: Near Riasi, on the 
Chinah, an enormous limestone ‘ erratic ’ was pointed out by me to my colleagues, 
Messrs. Medlicott and Lydekker, in proof of glacial conditions having necessarily 
been involved in its transpoi't, but as it rested on a thick deposit of river gravels, 
my argument was held to be discredited. In these cases, as in all others that I 
have seen, this ‘ erratic ’ block rested on the river deposits, but the true signi¬ 
ficance of this fact was not then fully comprehended by any of ns, and was looked 
on as fortuitous, in place of being the normal position of these blocks with refer¬ 
ence to the old river gravels. 
Considering then, as I do, that the distinct relation of a newer glacial 
deposit, consisting mainly of ‘ erratic' blocks, to an older] fluviatile deposit, as 
established beyond controversy by the sections seen in the Kanhar river, and 
the consequent extension of an isothermal line compatible with the existence of 
glaciers, to so low a level as between 2,000 and 3,000 feet in the Northern Punjab, 
I would here add a few words on the various objections which have been adduced 
against the possibility of such a condition of things elsewhere. 
In my paper on the ancient glaciers of the Kangra district (Records VII, 
p. 86), I endeavoured to show that the ‘erratics’ originally described by 
Mr. Medlicott as ‘glacial debris of the Dhauladhar’ (Memoirs, III, Part 2, 
p. 155) were really due to moraine transport; but I did not then comprehend 
the true key of their seeming anomalous relation to fluviatile deposits wherever 
they are seen to rest. I did not then apprehend that they only rested on such 
deposits and were not enveloped in them. But I did comy)reJiend and claim 
to have distinctly asserted that they were of moraine origin, and, what is more, 
that there should he no possible misapprehension (though in this I was vastly 
mistaken), I divided the area into three vertical zones or areas, naming each 
respectively pre-glacial, glacial, and post-glacial. I quote my own words (1. c. 
p. 93). “ The Kangra district may be ideally divided into three vei’tical areas 
or zones : 
Firstly, a pre-glacial area embracing the whole country, which contributed 
from peak to plain to the genesis, and development of the glaciers under con¬ 
sideration ; speaking roundly and without any measured data to check the 
estimate, the above zone or area embraces all ground higher than from 250 
to 300 feet above the mean level of the present streams. 
Secondly, a glacial area proper, embracing the entire area either occupied or 
excavated by the glaciers, which may be approximately fixed as commencing 
at the bottom of the above division and terminating below, at a level of about 
150 feet more or loss above the mean level of the present streams. 
Thirdly, a post-glacial area, embracing the whole of the ground below the 
basal limit of the last division and the result of aerial denudation subsequent 
to the cessation of glacial conditions.” 
The precise figures used are, of course, open to correction, but no possible 
exegesis can render the above words clearer than they are, as they stand, and yet 
Mr. J. R. Campbell, P.G.S., with my paper in his hand, actually potters about, 
looking for glacial markings within my post-glacial area, and finding none, 
pronounced my theory discredited (see Journal, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 
