RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
The highly sinuous and deeply incised Vishwamitri
river exhibits a compressed meandering morphology.
Lithological control in the formation of meanders in the
Vishwamitri river is ruled out as it flows through an allu-
vial plain. Uplift and/or tilting of the land surface could
be the major factors influencing rivers18–20 in which
lithological control is negligible. The deeply incised me-
ander valleys are found in rivers where there is uplift up-
stream18. In the Vishwamitri basin a similar situation
occurs, where the river descends from the tectonically up-
lifted area resulting in incision, as suggested by Alexan-
der and Leeder14. The meanders of the Vishwamitri river
could be called confined meanders21 as they are confined
within high valley banks. The distortions in the meanders
are controlled by the subsurface structures. The course of
the Vishwamitri river in the alluvial plain does not follow
the SW regional slope and instead follows NNE–SSW
trending course. The asymmetry of the drainage basin,
high values of sinuosity and entrenched nature of mean-
ders suggest tectonics as the major influence on the chan-
nel morphology of the river. The orientations of the
meander loops point to the general direction of the shift
of the river channel towards the east. Presence of palaeo-
drainage in the western side of the present-day channel
substantiates this fact. A comparison of the river channels
between 1969 and 2003 also corroborates this fact. In
view of the structural set-up and neo-tectonic activity8 we
infer that eastward tilting of the area is responsible for the
eastward migration of the Vishwamitri river.
1. Nanson, G. C. and Knighton, A. D., Anabranching rivers: their
cause, character and classification. Earth Surf. Processes Land-
forms, 1996, 21, 217–239.
2. Leopold, L. B. and Wolman, M. G., River channel patterns:
braided, meandering and straight. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap.,
1957, 282, 39–85.
3. Burnett, A. and Schumm, S. A., Neotectonics and alluvial river res-
ponse. Science, 1983, 222, 49–50.
4. Schumm, S. A., Khan, H. R., Winkley, B. R. and Robbins, L. G.,
Variability of river patterns. Nature, 1972, 237, 75–76.
5. Schumm, S. A., Dumont, J. F. and Holbrook, J. M., Active Tecton-
ics and Alluvial Rivers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
2000, p. 276.
6. Merh, S. S., Geology of Gujarat, Geological Society of India,
Bangalore, 1995, p. 212.
7. Mukherjee, M. K., The Quaternary landforms of Broach block of
Cambay basin – Importance of these in petroleum exploration. Pa-
per presented in National Seminar on Quaternary Environments
with Special Reference to Western India, M.S. University, Baroda,
1979.
8. Maurya, D. M., Rachna Raj and Chamyal, L. S., History of tec-
tonic evolution of Gujarat alluvial plains, western India during
Quaternary: a review. J. Geol. Soc. India, 2000, 55, 343–366.
9. Chamyal, L. S., Maurya, D. M., Bhandari, S. and Rachna Raj, Late
Quaternary geomorphic evolution of the lower Narmada valley,
western India: implications for neotectonic activity along the
Narmada–Son Fault. J. Geomorphol., 2002, 46, 177–202.
10. Chamyal, L. S., Maurya, D. M. and Rachna Raj, Fluvial systems
of the drylands of western India: a synthesis of Late Quaternary
environmental and tectonic changes. J. Quat. Int., 2003, 104, 69–86.
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2004
11. Juyal, N., Rachna Raj, Maurya, D. M., Chamyal, L. S. and Singhvi,
A. K., Chronology of Late Pleistocene environmental changes in
the lower Mahi basin, western India. J. Quat. Sci., 2000, 15, 501–
508.
12. Kusumgar, S., Rachna Raj, Chamyal, L. S. and Yadav, M. G.,
Holocene palaeoenvironmental changes in the lower Mahi basin,
western India. Radiocarbon, 1998, 40, 819–823.
13. Cox, R. T., Van Arsdale, R. B. and Harris, J. B., Identification of
possible Quaternary deformation in the northwestern Mississippi
Embayment using quantitative geomorphic analysis of drainage
basin asymmetry. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 2001, 113, 615–624.
14. Alexander, J. and Leeder, M. K., Active tectonic control of allu-
vial architecture. In Recent Developments in Fluvial Sedimento-
logy (eds Ethridge, F. G., Flores, R. M. and Harvey, M. D.),
SEPM, Spl. Publ., 1987, vol. 39, pp. 243–252.
15. Nanson, G. C., A regional trend to meander migration. J. Geol.,
1980, 88, 100–108.
16. Langbein, W. B. and Leopold, L. B., River meanders – Theory of
the minimum variance. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap., 1966, 422-H,
H1–H15.
17. Brice, J., Meander pattern of the White River in Indiana – An
analysis. In Fluvial Geomorphology (ed. Morisawa, M.), 1981,
pp. 178–200.
18. Hunt, C. B., Geological history of the Colorado river. U.S. Geol.
Surv. Prof. Pap., 1969, 669, 59–130.
19. Gardner, T. W., The history of part of the Colorado river and its
tributaries: An experimental study. Four Corners Geological So-
ciety Guidebook, Field Conference (Canyonlands), 1975, vol. 9,
pp. 87–95.
20. Schumm, S. A., The Fluvial System, Wiley, New York, 1977,
p. 388.
21. Lewin, J. and Brindle, B. J., Confined meanders. In River Channel
Changes (ed. Gregory, K. J.), Wiley, 1977, pp. 221–233.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Research grant to R. R. received from De-
partment of Science and Technology (SR/FTP/ES-11/2000) is grate-
fully acknowledged.
Received 5 June 2003; revised accepted 14 January 2004
Discovery of Precambrian–Cambrian
boundary protoconodonts from the
Gangolihat Dolomite of Inner Kumaun
Lesser Himalaya: Implication on age
and correlation
R. J. Azmi* and S. K. Paul
Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, 33, General Mahadeo Singh
Road, Dehra Dun 248 001, India
The Gangolihat Dolomite (Deoban Formation) of the
Calc Zone of Pithoragarh in the Inner Kumaun Lesser
Himalaya, hitherto regarded of Mesoproterozoic age
(~1600–1000 Ma) on the basis of the so-called Riphean
stromatolites, has yielded numerous earliest Cambrian
protoconodont sclerites characterizing the Precam-
*For correspondence. (e-mail: azmirj@rediffmail.com)
1653
RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
brian–Cambrian boundary (~544 Ma). This fossil dis-
covery fosters a firm chronostratigraphic correlation
between the Inner Carbonate Belt and the Krol Belt
(Outer Carbonate Belt), now both of Vendian–Early
Cambrian age. The present contribution thus resolves
an important stratigraphic correlation problem of the
Lesser Himalayan geology. And it has a major impli-
cation on the tectonic interpretation of the Lesser
Himalaya, which is crucial for its palinspastic recon-
struction.
PROTOCONODONTS are small (~0.5–1 mm) organo-phos-
phatic grasping spines with deep inner cavity and are re-
garded as the fossil remains of the oldest chaetognaths1–3
(arrow worms). Protoconodont sclerites are widely distri-
buted in the basal Cambrian as manifestation of the
‘Cambrian explosion’ and are recorded up to the Early
Ordovician2. The grasping apparatus of protoconodonts is
among the first evidence of biomineralization in metazoa
globally at or near the Precambrian–Cambrian (Pª–ª)
boundary (e.g. India, China, Mongolia, Siberia, Kazakh-
stan, Iran, Australia, Canada, etc.), following the Ediaca-
ran soft-bodied animals of the latest Precambrian. The
protoconodont genus Protohertzina Missarzhevsky is a
significant taxon of the oldest small shelly fossil (SSF)
assemblage zone (Anabarites–Circotheca–Protohertzina
Assemblage Zone), which defines the base of the Cam-
brian or the Pª–ª boundary4, particularly in the phospho-
rite–carbonate facies where the designated global
stratotype boundary marker trace fossil Trichophycus pedum
(Seilacher) is invariably absent. Here we report the dis-
covery of abundant protoconodont sclerites from the
Gangolihat Dolomite of the Inner Carbonate Belt of the
Kumaun Lesser Himalaya (Figure 1 a), which is of vital
age significance because the formation is commonly
regarded as Mesoproterozoic (~1600–1000 Ma) due to
stromatolites comparable to Riphean forms5. The conse-
quences of the discovery in the prevailing Lesser Hima-
layan stratigraphy, age and correlation are discussed. As
an initial announcement, the discovery was put on record
in the WIHG Annual Report6.
The Gangolihat Dolomite7 constitutes the lower part of
the Tejam Group of the autochthonous Calc Zone of
Pithoragarh in the Inner Kumaun Lesser Himalaya. The
formation embodies the characteristic development of
coarsely crystalline magnesite deposits along with some
occurrences of base metal mineralization. The extension
of the Gangolihat Dolomite in Chakrata Hills of western
Garhwal is called Deoban Formation, which also has spe-
ctacular development of stromatolites but lacks magnesite
deposits7. The lithostratigraphic classification of the Tejam
Group7 showing the position of the protoconodont-yield-
ing level is given in Table 1.
Protoconodont-yielding samples were collected by the
authors in September 2001 from the Jhiroli Magnesite
Mine of Almora Magnesite Limited, Bageshwar District
1654
Uttaranchal (Figure 1 b). In Pit 1A of the open cast mine
(Figure 2) at 1600 MRL (GPS location: N29° 46.000;
E079° 44.742), ~4.5 m thick grey concretionary dolomite
of the footwall, immediately below the lensoidal magne-
site body, was sampled at 1 m interval for reconnaissance
micropalaeontological study. Interestingly, all three con-
cretionary dolomite samples (JH1–JH3) weighing 3 kg,
were found highly productive (about 200 specimens) with
15% glacial acetic acid dissolution technique commonly
used to isolate conodonts. Detailed stratigraphic position
of the samples is shown in Figures 1 c, d and 2. The fossi-
liferous zone forms the lower part of the Chandak Mem-
ber of the Gangolihat Dolomite (=Deoban Formation).
The concretionary dolomite of the footwall in contact
with the magnesite is consistent all along its 1.5 km strike
continuity in the Jhiroli mine area. The stratigraphic con-
sistency of the concretionary dolomite with respect to the
magnesite has also been observed in the neighbouring
Bauri area and far beyond, at least up to 35 to 40 km in
the southeasterly direction in Bans and Chandak areas of
Pithoragarh (Figure 1 a).
The protoconodont assemblage (Figure 3) recovered
from the Jhiroli Magnesite Mine comprises Protohertzina
anabarica Missarzhevsky, P. robusta Qian (natural clus-
ters and isolated individuals), P. siciformis Missarzhevsky,
P. unguliformis Missarzhevsky, Protohertzina sp. and a
Prooneotodus tenuis (Müller) natural cluster. Specimens are
grayish-black in colour, suggesting the effect of thermal
alteration. A low degree recrystallization is evident in all
specimens. The recovered protoconodont assemblage is
typical of the earliest Cambrian Meishucunian Zone I of
China and the Nemakit–Daldynian horizons of Siberian
Platform, Kazakhstan, Inner Mongolia, Northwest Can-
ada, and elsewhere that defines the base of the Cambrian
or the Pª–ª boundary4,8. In India, the assemblage is
characterized by a fairly good population of Protohertz-
ina spp. in the Lower Tal Mussoorie Phosphorites of the
Krol Belt, where it is predominantly present in the Pª–ª
boundary marker small shelly fossil assemblage9,10. Rare
occurrence of this genus was also recorded from the up-
permost part of the dolomitic limestone of Krol D in
Mussoorie Syncline11. The present discovery of abundant
Protohertzina, therefore, clearly indicates that the Pª–ª
boundary is certainly present in the Gangolihat Dolomite
of the Calc Zone of Pithoragarh. Broadly, the boundary
would lie in the lower part of the Chandak Member of the
Gangolihat Dolomite, and at least 4.5 m below the mag-
nesite zone in the Jhiroli mine section. The level yielding
Protohertzina in the Gangolihat Dolomite thus can satis-
factorily be correlated with the Krol–Tal transition beds
of the Krol Belt in Outer Lesser Himalaya. It appears that
the Lower Tal Chert–Phosphorite Member is broadly
equivalent to the magnesite-rich zone of the Chandak
Member, since both are of early Early Cambrian age. It is
also of great stratigraphic significance that the Gangolihat
magnesites and biohermal dolomites are phosphatic12,
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2004
 RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Figure 1. a, Part of the geological map of northeastern Inner Kumaun Lesser Himalaya (after Valdiya7). b, Geological detail around Jhiroli
Village40, Bageshwar District, Uttaranchal. A–A′ is the section line of the geological cross-section. c, Geological cross-section passing
through 1600 MRL of Pit 1A, showing the position of protoconodont-yielding concretionary dolomite horizon, immediately below the
magnesite body. Rectangle shows the approximate area photographed in Figure 2. d, Litholog with sample positions at the protoconodont-
yielding level indicated in Figures 1 c and 2.

which corresponds with the global phosphogenesis near
the Pª–ª boundary13.
The age and correlation of the Inner Lesser Himalayan
carbonates have been conjectural since nearly the beginning
of the last century. Initially, these carbonates were cor-
related with Krol carbonates, and later accepted as that of
late Paleozoic–Mesozoic age14–17. But with the recognition
of the stromatolites construed to be of Riphean age, first in
the Pithoragarh area by Valdiya18 and subsequently by other
workers (refs 5, 19 and references therein) throughout
in the Inner Lesser Himalayan carbonates (carbonates of
Sirban, Jammu, Shali, Deoban, Gangolihat, Dhading and
Buxa), contiguously extending from the Hazara–Jammu
region in the west through Himachal–Garhwal–Kumaun–

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2004 1655

RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Table 1. Lithostratigraphic classification of the Tejam Group, Inner Kumaun Lesser Himalaya (after Valdiya7)

Mandhali Formation Thalkedar Limestone Blue-grey banded limestone, often with chert laminae and nodules and argillaceous
limestone alternating with calcareous grey phyllite
Sor Slate Light green and grey-green sandstone

Deoban Formation
(Gangolihat Dolomite)
Dhari Member Blue-grey limestone with calc slate and marlite
Chandak Member* Dolomite limestone characterized by spectacular development of stromatolites. Pockets of
flat pebbles intraformational conglomerates, conspicuous chain of lentiform deposits of
magnesites
Hiunpani Member Fine-grained cherty dolomite of pink and white colours alternating with chert laminae
Chhera Member Pink, violet and maroon slate-phyllite interbedded with subordinate pink, green and white
marble, often sandy

*Fossil-yielding.

this temporal proximity was the realization that the Deo-

Figure 2. Panoramic view of Jhiroli Magnesite Mine showing the
magnesite quarries under operation in Pit 1A and the underlying north-
easterly dipping dolomite strata of the footwall. Arrow shows the posi-
tion of protoconodont-bearing concretionary dolomite beds.
Nepal–Sikkim–Bhutan to Arunachal in the east, it was
proposed that these carbonates are much older than the
Krol carbonates. Thus, the notion that the stromatolitic
Inner Lesser Himalayan carbonates are older, of Riphean
age, whereas the Krol carbonates are younger, of Late
Paleozoic–Mesozoic age, got entrenched in the Lesser
Himalayan geology20,21. However, this notion was substa-
ntially modified during 1980s with revolutionary fossil
discoveries (e.g. conodonts, small shelly fossils, trilobites,
inarticulate brachiopods, sponge spicules, acritarchs,
algae, trace fossils, etc.) from the Blaini–Krol–Tal (Mus-
soorie Group7) succession of the Krol Belt, initiated by
Azmi and his associates22 and subsequently by a large
number of workers3,9–11,23. These biostratigraphic contri-
butions firmly established that the Blaini–Krol–Tal (B–
K–T) succession is of Vendian to Early Cambrian age24
and not of Late Paleozoic–Mesozoic age as it was belie-
ved to be for more than a century. This major chronostra-
tigraphic revision thus once again indicated a close
temporal equivalence of the B–K–T with the Inner Carbo-
nate Belt succession (Deoban–Mandhali and their equiva-
lents), though this time in a much older time bracket
(Riphean–Vendian–Cambrian). A rational consequence to
ban and Krol carbonates could have a time-transgressive
relationship25. But since the Deoban carbonates were
generally considered to lie stratigraphically below the
Jaunsar Group and the Krol above it20,21 (Table 2), and
this practice has been consistently followed in the Lesser
Himalayan stratigraphy by majority of the workers, the
enigma of equating Deoban with Krol has been sustained.
Recently, keeping the time proximity of Deoban and
Krol, Valdiya26 took a comprehensive view of the Lesser
Himalayan geology, dismantled the commonly accepted
tectonostratigraphic set-up (Table 2), and proposed a dra-
stically revised litho-stratigraphic correlation scheme for
the Outer and Inner Lesser Himalayan formations. Our
palaeontological data herein reported corroborate his new
correlation scheme, but with a substantial chronostrati-
graphic revision as proposed in Figure 4. To elaborate, in
correlating Deoban–Mandhali and their equivalent suc-
cessions of the Inner Lesser Himalaya with the Krol–Tal
succession of the Krol Belt of the Outer Lesser Himalaya,
Valdiya26 placed both sequences in ‘Proterozoic’ (Riphean–
Vendian) time frame (compare table 2 and figure 4 in
Valdiya26), instead of Vendian to Early Cambrian – currently
the well-constrained age for the B–K–T succession23,24.
This existing anomaly in the chronostratigraphic correlat-
ion is mainly because, while the age of the Deoban–
Mandhali succession is largely based on the stromatolites
regarded to be of Riphean–Vendian age (refs 5, 7 and ref-
erences therein), the biochronology of the B–K–T succes-
sion is primarily due to consistent Vendian–Cambrian
evolutionary biotic records23,24 supported by chemostrati-
graphy27. However, this discrepancy in age of Deoban–
Mandhali and its consequent correlation with B–K–T is
now being resolved with our discovery of typical earliest
Cambrian protoconodonts from the Gangolihat Dolomite
(=Deoban Formation). Our discovery is the latest in line of
an earlier record of Lower Cambrian palaeobasidiospores
from the magnesite bed of stromatolitic Dhading Dolomite
of Upper Nawakot Group in northeastern Nepal28 (an east-
ward extension of the Calc Zone of Pithoragarh; Figure
4), and also of a very recent record of sponge spicules29,
suggesting Early Vendian age to the oldest unit (Chhera

1656 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2004

 RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Figure 3. SEM photomicrographs of Precambrian–Cambrian boundary marker protoconodonts

from the Gangolihat Dolomite of Jhirauli Magnesite Mine, Inner Kumaun Lesser Himalaya. All
illustrated specimens are deposited in the Repository of Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology,
Dehra Dun, under repository numbers WIMF/A 254 – WIMF/A 260. a–c and k–l, Protohertzina
robusta Qian (a–c, natural cluster, WIMF/A 254; k–l, WIMF/A 255); d, e, P. unguliformis Mis-
sarzhevsky (WIMF/A 256); f, P. anabarica Missarzhevsky (WIMF/A 257); g, Prooneotodus
tenuis (Müller) – a natural cluster (WIMF/A258); h, Protohertzina sp. (WIMF/A 259), note the
recurved nature of apex; i, j, P. siciformis Missarzhevsky (WIMF/A 260). Note the deep inner
cavity extending up to the apical parts in a, c, d, e, f and k.

Member) of the Gangolihat Dolomite (Table 1). These
biostratigraphic evidences thus precisely place the lower
two units of the Gangolihat Dolomite (Chhera and Hiun-
pani Members) in the Vendian, while the upper two units
(Chandak and Dhari Members) in the Pª–ª transition in-
terval. A few other biostratigraphic records in the recent
past too give indications of Vendian–Cambrian age for
the Inner Carbonate Belt30. But the Pª–ª boundary pro-
toconodont assemblage from the Gangolihat Dolomite is
a robust evidence for equating the Inner Carbonate Belt
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2004
with the Krol Belt of the Outer Lesser Himalaya, and both
the carbonate belts are of Vendian–Early Cambrian age.
In view of the above, Riphean age for the Lesser Hima-
layan Inner Carbonate Belt based on stromatolites, com-
parable with those of the Russian Platform, is in need of
in-depth re-evaluation. The changed perspective regard-
ing significance of stromatolites is reflected in Walter’s
opinion31. He states, ‘Even if stromatolite biostratigraphy
eventually proves to be impossible, we will have accumu-
lated abundant data for making much more precise
1657
RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
Figure 4. Proposed chronostratigraphic revision of the lithostratigraphic correlation scheme of Valdiya26 for the Lesser Himalayan forma-
tions. Note the stratigraphic levels in Gangolihat Dolomite (=Deoban Formation) yielding Pª–ª boundary protoconodonts (this work) and the
recently discovered Early Vendian sponge spicules29 as also the record of Early Cambrian palaeobasidiospores in Dhading Dolomite of
Nepal28.
Table 2. Commonly used lithostratigraphic scheme of the Lesser
Himalayan formations in Kumaun–Garhwal region (after Valdiya20)
palaeoenvironmental and palaeobiological interpretations
than are presently possible’. The record of the domal
stromatolites along with SSFs near the Pª–ª boundary
beds in the Gangolihat Dolomite is not unusual because
they do occur at this level elsewhere too (e.g. Middle
Deep Spring Formation, Nevada32).
1658
The view that the Deoban and Krol carbonates are
equivalent rocks had already existed in the past, but could
not be sustained as it was primarily based on lithology
and stromatolite similarities rather than any definite bio-
stratigraphic resolution14–17,33. The palaeontological evi-
dence put forth here strongly corroborates the pioneering
view of West14, according to which the Deoban and
Mandhali rocks were actually deposited over the Jaunsar
Group rocks, but their apparent disposition below the
Jaunsar is due to thrusting. This view thus further leads to
an important stratigraphic conclusion that the Damtha and
the Jaunsar low-grade metamorphics representing respec-
tive basements for the Tejam and Mussoorie Groups in
the Inner and Outer Lesser Himalaya, are also coevals14,26
(see Figure 4).
Keeping in view the correlation scheme for the Lesser
Himalayan formations discussed above (Figure 4), it be-
comes imperative that the Vendian unconformity
(~600 Ma, represented by the Blaini Boulder Bed as an
evidence of Varangerian glaciation) separating the Jaun-
sar low-grade metamorphics from the overlying B–K–T
sediments in the Outer Lesser Himalaya, should also be
present in the Inner Lesser Himalaya separating the Dam-
tha low-grade metamorphics from the overlying Deoban–
Mandhali sediments. And, in fact, a profound angular un-
conformity has already been noted by some previous
workers between the Damtha Group (=Sundarnagar
Group) and the overlying Deoban/Shali Formation21,34.
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2004

The Vendian datum, therefore, is manifested as the regio-
nal unconformity that separates the pre-Vendian low-grade
metamorphics from the overlying Vendian–Cambrian
sedimentaries (largely unmetamorphosed) in the Lesser
Himalayan stratigraphy. The time elapsed at this regional
unconformity appears to be enormous (of the order of
~1000 million years), because the underlying basic meta-
volcanics associated with the Rampur and Sundarnagar
Groups (=Damtha and Jaunsar Groups) have given ages
of about 1800 Ma35 and 1500 Ma36. This interpretation
thereby also indicates that the Tejam and Mussoorie
Group sediments must have been deposited on a highly
peneplained and mature topography of low-grade meta-
morphics. The other interesting point that is corroborated
from our study is that all coarsely crystalline magnesite
deposits in the Lesser Himalayan domain are time-con-
trolled37. For example, the magnesite deposits within the
dolomites of Kumaun as well as Nepal, and the Mag-
nesian ‘Sandstone’ (a genuine dolomite)38 of Salt Range,
are typical of Early Cambrian age. The other magnesite
deposits such as in the Pipalkoti Formation of Garhwal,
the Jammu Limestone, and in the Shali Limestone of Hi-
machal are most likely to fall in the Early Cambrian chain
of magnesite deposits. Significantly, the occurrence of
magnesite, though rare, was also noted in the Upper Krol
Dolomite (Krol ‘D’) of Mussoorie Syncline39.
In conclusion, the biostratigraphic evidences from the
Gangolihat Dolomite (Deoban and equivalent formations),
while strongly supporting the new correlation scheme of
Valdiya26 for the Inner and Outer Lesser Himalayan for-
mations, also suggest, however, a substantial revision in
the currently accepted age for the Tejam Group (Deoban–
Mandhali) and equivalent successions of the Inner Lesser
Himalaya. Instead of the widely held Meso–Neoprotero-
zoic (Riphean–Vendian) age for the Tejam Group (Deo-
ban–Mandhali), its age should now be regarded as
Vendian–Early Cambrian, similar to that of the Mussoorie
Group (B–K–T) of the Krol Belt. This much simpler
stratigraphic scheme (Figure 4) can be of pivotal utility
for the palinspastic reconstruction of the Lesser Himalayan
terrain. Besides, this work impels to explore the Ven-
dian–Cambrian palaeobiology for integrated biostratigra-
phy and chemostratigraphy to establish the Pª–ª
boundary datum (~544 Ma) in the extensive carbonate
domain of the Lesser Himalaya.
1. Bengtson, S., Lethaia, 1976, 9, 185–206; Fossil Strata, 1983, 15,
5–19.
2. Szaniawski, H., J. Paleontol., 1982, 56, 806–810; Acta Palaeon-
tol., 2002, 47, 457–463.
3. Azmi, R. J., Contrib. XV Indian Colloquium on Micropalaeontol-
ogy and Stratigraphy, Dehra Dun, 1996, pp. 457–463.
4. Brasier, M. D., In The Precambrian–Cambrian Boundary (eds
Cowie, J. W. and Brasier, M. D.), 1989, pp. 40–74; 117–165.
5. Valdiya, K. S. (ed.), In Proceedings of the Indo–Soviet symposium
on stromatolite and stromatolitic deposits. Himalayan Geol., 1989,
13, 181–213.
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2004
RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
6. WIHG Annual Report, Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology,
2001–02, p. 32.
7. Valdiya, K. S., Geology of the Kumaun Lesser Himalaya, Hima-
chal Times Press, Dehra Dun, 1980, p. 291.
8. Qian, Yi and Bengtson, S., Fossil Strata, 1989, 24, 1–156.
9. Azmi, R. J., Himalayan Geol., 1983, 11, 373–409.
10. Brasier, M. D. and Singh, P., Geol. Mag., 1987, 124, 323–345.
11. Azmi, R. J. and Pancholi, V. P., Himalayan Geol., 1983, 11, 360–
372.
12. Valdiya, K. S., Sedimentology, 1972, 19, 115–128.
13. Donnelly, T. H., Shergold, J. H., Southgate, P. N. and Barnes, C.
J., In Phosphrite Research and Development (eds Notholt, A. J. G.
and Jarvis, I.), Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ., 1990, vol. 52, pp. 273–287.
14. West, W. D., Rec. Geol. Surv. India, 1932, 66, 127–129; 1939, 74,
133–163.
15. Auden, J. B., Rec. Geol. Surv. India, 1934, 67, 357–454.
16. Heim, A. and Gansser, A., Mem. Soc. Helv. Sci. Nat., 1939, 73, 1–
245.
17. Fuchs, G., Osterr. Akad. Wiss., Math. Nat. Kl. Denkschr., 1967,
113, 1–211.
18. Misra, R. C. and Valdiya, K. S., J. Geol. Soc. India, 1961, 2, 78–
90.
19. Raha, P. K. and Das, D. P., In Proceedings of the Indo–Soviet
symposium on stromatolite and stromatolitic deposits (ed.
Valdiya, K. S.), Himalayan Geol., 1989, 13, 119–142.
20. Valdiya, K. S., In Stratigraphy and Correlation of Lesser Himala-
yan Formations (eds Valdiya, K. S. and Bhatia, S. B.), Hindustan
Publishing Corp. (India), Delhi, 1980, pp. 7–48; 283–296.
21. Srikantia, S. V. and Bhargava, O. N., In Recent Researches in Ge-
ology (ed. Gupta, V. J.), Hindustan Publishing Corp. (India),
Delhi, 1982, pp. 521–581.
22. Azmi, R. J., Joshi, M. N. and Juyal, K. P., In Contemporary Geo-
scientific Researches in Himalaya (ed. Sinha, A. K.), Bishen
Singh Mahendrapal Singh, Dehra Dun, India, 1981, vol. 1, pp.
245–250.
23. Bhatt, D. K., Mamgain, V. D., Misra, R. S. and Srivastava, J. P.,
Geophytology, 1983, 13, 116–123; Bhatt, D. K., Mamgain, V. D.
and Misra, R. S., J. Paleontol. Soc. India, 1985, 30, 92–102;
Singh, I. B. and Rai, V., J. Paleontol. Soc. India, 1983, 28, 67–90;
Rai, V. and Singh, I. B., J. Paleontol. Soc. India, 1983, 28, 114–
117; Kumar, G., Raina, B. K., Bhatt, D. K. and Jangpangi, B. S., J.
Paleontol. Soc. India, 1983, 28, 69–92; Kumar, G., Joshi, A. and
Mathur, V. K., Curr. Sci., 1987, 56, 659–663; Kumar, G., Bhatt,
D. K. and Raina, B. K., Geol. Mag., 1987, 124, 167–171; Tripathi,
C., Jangpangi, B. S., Bhatt, D. K., Kumar, G. and Raina, B. K.,
Geophytology, 1984, 14, 221–227; Venkatachala, B. S., Shukla,
M., Bansal, R. and Acaryya, S., Palaeobotanist, 1990, 38, 29–38;
Tiwari, M. and Azmi, R. J., Palaeobotanist, 1992, 14, 221–227;
Tiwari, M. and Knoll, A. H., J. Himalayan Geol., 1994, 5, 193–
201; Tiwari, M., Precambrian Res., 1999. 99, 99–113; Kumar, S.
and Rai, V., J. Geol. Soc. India, 1992, 39, 229–234; Mazumdar,
A. and Banerjee, D. M., Geology, 1998, 26, 899–902.
24. Tandon, S. K., Thakur, V. C., Nanda, A. C., Azmi, R. J., Bagati,
T. N., Tewari, V. C. and Kumar, R., Excursion Guide: Himalayan
Sequence of Dehra Dun–Mussoorie Sector, Geol. Soc. of India, p.
90.
25. Azmi, R. J. and Joshi, M. N., Himalayan Geol., 1983, 11, 198–
223.
26. Valdiya, K. S., Precambrian Res., 1995, 74, 35–55.
27. Aharon, P., Schidlowsky, M. and Singh, I. B., Nature, 1987, 327,
699–702; Banerjee, D. M., Schindlowsky, M., Siebert, F. and Bra-
sier, M. D., Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol., 1997,
132, 183–194; Jiang, G., Christie-Blick, N., Kaufman, A. J.,
Banerjee, D. M. and Rai, V., J. Sediment. Res., 2002, 72, 524–
542.
28. Brunel, M., d’Albissin, M. Chayé and Locquin, M., J. Geol. Soc.
India, 1985, 26, 255–260.
1659
RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS
29. Tiwari, M., Curr. Sci., 2000, 79, 651–654.
30. Sinha, A. K. and Raaben, M. A., Himalayan Geol., 1981, 9, 317–
323; Venkatachala, B. and Kumar, A., Contrib. XV Indian Collo-
quim on Micropaleontology and Stratigraphy, Dehra Dun, 1996,
pp. 551–557; Kumar, A. and Venkatachala, B. S., Curr. Sci., 1998,
75, 431–432; Srivastava, P. and Kumar, S., Curr. Sci., 1997, 72,
145–148; Rai, V., Singh, A. K., Kumar, M. and Gautam, R., J.
Paleontol. Soc. India, 1997, 42, 71–80.
31. Walter, M. R. (ed.), Stromatolites: Developments in Sedimento-
logy 20, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1976, pp. 1–3.
32. Corsetti, F. A. and Hagadorn, J. W., Sediment. Rec., 2003, 1, 4–8.
33. Singh, I. B. and Rai, V., Curr. Sci., 1977, 46, 736–738.
34. Srikantia, S. V. and Bhargava, O. N., Jaunsar Group Discussion.
Himalayan Geol., 1976, 6, 566–576.
35. Miller, C., Klötzli, U., Frank, W., Thöni, M. and Grasemann, B.,
Precambrian Res., 2000, 103, 191–206.
36. Kakar, R., Bull. Indian Geol. Assoc., 1986, 19, 97–101.
37. Valdiya, K. S., Bull. Geol. Soc. India, 1967, 4, 125–128.
38. Gansser, A., Geology of the Himalayas, Interscience Publishers,
London, 1964, p. 289.
39. Rao, C. G., Bull. Oil Nat. Gas Comm., 1972, 9, 38–39.
40. Sengupta, H. P. and Yadav, R. N., J. Geol. Soc. India, 1998, 41,
1–6; Joshi, M. N., Bhattacharya, A. K. and Anantharaman, M. S.,
Miner. Deposita, 1993, 28, 146–153.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank Dr B. R. Arora, Director,
Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehra Dun for providing the
necessary facilities and Dr R. C. Upadhyay, Jhirauli Magnesite Mine
for cooperation during sampling. We have been benefited by the vast
experience of Dr M. N. Joshi, D.B.S. College, Dehra Dun on Almora
Magnesite, who has critically gone through the manuscript. Discussions
with colleagues Dr B. N. Tiwari and Dr N. R. Phadtare have been use-
ful. We appreciate the meticulous microfossil picking by Sanjeev
Dabral and SEM photomicrography by Naresh Juyal.
Received 1 September 2003; revised accepted 26 February 2004

CURRENT SCIENCE
Display Advertisement Rates
India

Tariff (rupees)
Inside pages Inside cover pages Back cover page
No. of
insertions Size B&W Colour B&W Colour B&W Colour

1 Full page 10,000 20,000 15,000 25,000 20,000 30,000

Half page 6,000 12,000 – – – –
6 Full page 50,000 1,00,000 75,000 1,25,000 1,00,000 1,50,000
Half page 30,000 60,000 – – – –
12 Full page 1,00,000 2,00,000 1,50,000 2,50,000 2,00,000 3,00,000
Half page 60,000 1,20,000 – – – –

Foreign

Tariff (US $)
Inside pages Inside cover pages Back cover page
No. of
insertions Size B&W Colour B&W Colour B&W Colour

1 Full page 300 650 450 750 600 1000

Half page 200 325 – – – –
6 Full page 1500 3000 2250 3500 3000 5000
Half page 1000 2000 – – – –

Note: For payments towards the advertisement charges, Cheques (local) or Demand Drafts may be
drawn in favour of “Current Science Association, Bangalore”.

1660 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 86, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2004