^{page 97 note 1} A. S. Beng. 36. pt. 2.

^{page 98 note 1} In this publication my colleague has scarcely given an accurate view of my statements or opinions. His suggestion that I thought the Indus had abandoned its deep rocky gorge at the Chita range since this was formed is not warranted by anything I have written. His view that stones from the bed of that river were carried up to villages on the summits of the range named, by their inhabitants for the purpose of decorating graves, had of course suggested itself to me, and been rejected for want of evidence that such villages or the graves of their inhabitants ever existed there. He classes me by implication as one of his Antiglacialists, because I have refrained from advocating his theory, for want of conclusive evidence. With these exceptions, and a few others of minor importance as to his limitation of the localities occupied by the travelled blocks, I only regret that the paper seems to prove nothing in support of the author's views as to the connexion between the blocks and glaciation at low levels in India.

^{page 98 note 2} In the paper alluded to before, Mr. Theobald argues that the Indus did not cross the Chita Eange at a higher level, because he failed to find its erratics {i.e. transported debris), caught in clefts between the limestone crags of the range. From his reference it would appear likely that he only crossed one or other of the low passes of the range by road, where the limited nature of his observations might lessen their force, if this were not entirely set aside by the fact that the mountain surface of that period must long since have been removed by denudation. The argument, however, was not that the river had wandered, but that it ran at a much higher level nearly at the same place.