common frontier of China and Tibet. It occurs at the 104th stage of the Káji's paper. The native name of Tibet is Pót vel Bód. The Sanskrit name is Bhót. This is Tibet Proper, or the country between the Himálaya and the Nyénchhen-thánglá, which latter name means (and the meaning is worth quoting for its significance) pass of (to and from) the plains of the Great Nyen or Ovis Ammon, or rather, Great Ammon pass of the plains. That portion of Tibet which lies north of the Nyénchhen-thánglá (as far as the Kwanleun) is denominated by the Tibetans the Western half, Horyeul; and the Eastern half, Sokyeul, after the Hór and Sók tribes respectively. The great lake Namtso demarks Northern Tibet in the same way that the great lake Yamdotso denotes Southern.

A word more about the Bhairav langúr, which is equivalent to Mount Everest, as recently explained to the Society. The Chountra's paper makes it 50 kós from Káthmándú; the Káji's, 52 kós. But to obtain the latter result you must not blindly follow the entry in the itinerary, but remember that his "huge snow mass covers a large space of the road, which must be understood as commencing soon after leaving the 14th stage or Thólung, and not after leaving the 15th stage or Tíngri Langkót.

The documents now submitted themselves suffice to prove the meaning of langúr, since they show it to be equivalent to the lá of Tibetan and the shán of Chinese; consequently also (as we know from other sources) to the Turkic tagh and the Mongolic úlá. It may therefore be rendered "mountain" as well as "mountain-pass," and this is the reason, perhaps, why the Népalese often do not discriminate between the name of the pass and of the peak of Bhairava, but blend them both under the name of Bhairav langúr, which is equivalent to the Gnálhám or Nyánam thánglá of the Tibetans. Colonel Waugh, therefore, may be assured that his Mount Everest is far from lacking native names, and I will add that I would venture in any case of a signal natural object occurring in Népal to

* This great mass is visible alike from the confines of Népál proper (the valley) and from those of Sikim, and all the more unmistakably because it has no competitor for notice in the whole intervening space. It is precisely half-way between Gosain-than which overlooks Népál Proper and Kangchán which overlooks Sikim.

furnish the Colonel with its true native name (nay, several, for the country is very polyglottic), upon his furnishing me with the distance and bearings of that object, although neither I nor any European had gone near it.* For the rest, I cannot withhold my congratulations upon this second splendid result of Colonel W.'s labours, though, alack! it would seem fatal to my pet theory of sub-Himálayan water-sheds—a term carefully to be discriminated from the Himalayan water-shed to which I now purpose briefly to advert.

Since I presented to the Society in 1849 my paper on the Physical Geography of the Himalaya, a good deal of new information has been published, mixed with the inevitable quantum of speculation, touching the true character of that chain, and the true position of its water-shed, with their inseparable concomitants, the general elevation and surface character of the plateau of Tibet.

After an attentive perusal of these interesting speculations, I must, however, confess that I retain my priorly expressed opinion, that the great points in question are inextricably involved with, and consequently can never be settled independently of, the larger question of the true physical features of the whole of the Bám-i-dúnya of Asiatics and the Asie Centrale of Humboldt.

It may be that the Himálaya is not a chain at all, but an exemplification of the truth of Elie de Beaumont's theory, that so-called mountain chains are only parallel dispositions of a series of geological nœuds, which, if laid side by side, constitute the semblance of a chain of longitude, and if laid one over the other constitute the semblance of a chain of latitude.

It may be that the Himálaya is not a latitudinal but a meridional chain, and that the geological back-bone of the

It is obvious to remark that no European has ever approached Dhavalagiri, which yet lacks not a native name known to Europeans; and, in fact, I myself have been twice as near to Dévadhúnga, vel Bháirav thán, vel Bháirav langur, vel Gnálhám thánglá, as any European ever was to Dhavalagiri. The Bhótias often call the Bhairav langúr Thánglá, or "pass of the plain," viz., of Tíngri, omitting the more specific designation,† Gnálhám, which also might alone designate the object, nay, which is the name of the snowy mass as opposed to the pass over it and the plain beyond it.

+ Potius Nyánám.

whole continent of Asia does not run parallel to the greatest development of that continent or east and west, but transversely to that development or north and south, and that the Khin gan úla is an indication of the northern extremity of this back-bone, the Gángrí or water-shed of the Indus and Bráhmapútra an indication of its southern extremity.

It may be that the question of the water-shed is not to be regarded with reference to the adjacent countries only, but, as Guyot and others affirm, with reference to the whole eastern half of the continent of Asia; and that the northern part of Tibet, inclusive of the Himálaya, is to be regarded as shedding the waters of Eastern Asia from the Arctic to the Indian Ocean. Such things, or some one of them, I repeat, may be, and one of the theories just enumerated may involve the true solution of questions for some time past investigated and debated on the frontier of India, though without any sufficiently distinct reference to those theories, prior though they all be in date. But the mere statement of them suffices, I should say, to show that they will not find their solution on that frontier, but only when the whole Bám-i-dúnya (dome of the world, a fine Orientalism) has become accessible to science.

In the meanwhile, without seeking to deny that many facts* seem to indicate that the axial line of the Himálaya lies beyond the ghát line, it is obvious to remark that this assumed line is still parallel to the ghát line, though beyond it, and consequently cannot be reconciled with an essentially meridional axis, such as the Gángri range presents. And, upon the whole, and with reference to organic phenomena especially, the ghát line still presents itself to me as the best deviser of the Indian and Trans-Indian regions and climates, though I am not unaware

These facts are-Ist, That several of the Himálayan rivers (beside the Satlúj, Indus, and Bráhmapútra, which cannot be so reckoned) have more or less of TransHimalayan courses as the Ganges, Karnáli, Salikrámi, old Gunduk of Hamilton, Arún, Tishta, and Mónas. 2d, That some of these, after flowing a good way east or west over the plateau of Tibet, are at length deflected southwards, instead of passing north into the Erú, or other stream or lake of Tibet.

Per contra, the numerous determinations of the height of the gháts at fardistant points seem to warrant our assuming 17,000 feet for the mean elevation of the ghát line; and it may well be questioned if any line of equal height and extent exists north of that line. It is the closing of the gháts that annually stops all access to Tibet, not any obstacle beyond them.

that Brahmanic geography has, from remote times, carried the Indian frontier up to Mansaróvar and Rávanhrád, to the Brahmapútra and Indus line in Tibet. And, again, though I do not, nor ever did, doubt that Tibet is a very mountainous country, yet I conceive that there are good reasons for admitting the propriety of Humboldt's general designation for it. He calls it a plateau or elevated plain, and all those I have conversed with, who have passed from various parts of the Himálayan countries into those of Tibet, have expressed themselves in terms implying a strong distinction, at least, between the physiognomy of the former and the latter regions. I would add, that nothing can be juster or finer than Turner's original contrast of the two.

No one acquainted, as I have long been, with the native descriptions of Tibet,* or with the general and special delineations of the country by Danville, based entirely upon native materials, or with such enumerations of mountain ranges occurring between the Népálese and Chinese frontiers, as the accompanying documents contain, could for a moment question that mountains abound in Tibet. On the other hand, there are several reasons of a general nature, besides the specific allegations of the fact by the people, to prove that widespread plains also abound there. It may be worth while to enumerate these They are as follows:

reasons.

1st. One language only prevails throughout all the provinces of Southern Tibet, that is to say, throughout Balti, Ladák, Nári, Utsáng, and Khám; or,† in other words, from the Bolór nearly to the Yúnling, whilst in the same extent of country in the Himálaya very many languages are found.

2d. The language of Tibet has express and familiar terms for plain and valley, which are respectively called tháng and lhúng in Tibetan, whereas the Himalayan tongues have no word at all for a plain, no distinct one for a valley.

3d. It is well known that there are very many lakes in Tibet, and several of them of great size-a fact which involves the existence of large level tracts also, as the contrary fact in

*Journal No. IV. for April 1832, Article I.

Journal No. IV. for April 1832, Article I.

the Himalaya involves (what is notorious) the absence of widespread levels.

4th. The numerous names of places in Tibet which are compounded with the word tháng, a plain, as Chyan tháng in Nári, Pékhéu tháng in Tsang, Nar tháng in U, and Pá tháng in Khảm, would alone suffice to prove that the general surface of Tibet is very different from that of the Himálaya.

5th. The numerous names of places similarly compounded with the word lhúng, a valley, as Téshu lhúng, Lhása lhúng, Phemba lhúng, &c.

6th.-Tibet is the permanent habitat of wild animals of the true ox, deer, and antelope types-all creatures of the plain and not of the mountain, and none therefore found in the Himalaya.

7th.-Tibet is annually the seasonal resort of vast numbers of the wading and swimming tribes of birds, which pass from the plains of India to those of Tibet every spring, and stay in the latter till the setting-in of winter, whilst the whole of these birds entirely avoid the Himálaya. "The storks know their appointed seasons in the heavens," and their skilfully-disposed phalanxes periodically afford one of the finest sights we have. Kangchán is swept over as if it were a molehill !

There are few of the Tibetan plains more noticeable than that which occurs immediately on passing the Himálaya by the Bhairav langúr or Nyánamlá-few contrasts more palpable than that of the Cis- and Trans-Himálayan regions at this well-known and central point; and when I lately requested Major Ramsay, the Resident in Népál, to get for me a confirmation or refutation of my opinion, he answered-" Dr. Hooker must be in error when he says there are no extensive plains in Tibet, because Tíngri maidan (plain), for example, is fully sixty miles in length and fifteen to twenty in breadth. Til bikram Thápa assures me that, in the recent war, he marched along that plain for several days and passed a lake three days in circumference, and which he estimates to be as large as the valley of Népál."+ When asked if Tíngri maidan was anything like the valley of Népál, he said—"No! horsemen could not gallop about Népál.

* See my paper on the Migration of Birds in Bengal Asiatic Society's Researches. The valley of Népál is about sixteen miles in diameter, or fifty in circuit. VOL. II.

M