Talk:Pangaea/Archive 1

Archive 1

==[[/Archive | Archive ]] {{ndash}} [http://WikiPedia.Org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Pangaea&action=edit&section=new Start a new discussion ]==

Mesozoic or Jurassic?

The article for Laurasia says that it broke off of Pangæa in the late Mesozoic era, not the Jurassic. Which is correct?

-- 70.17.234.158 20:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both. Eras consist of Periods. The Mesozoic Era consists of three Periods:

1. Triassic
2. Jurassic
3. Cretaceous

Pangæa broke into Laurasia and Gondwana in the Jurassic Period of the Mesozoic Era. For more information, see geological timescale.

--

Ŭalabio 06:44, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

when???

"Pangæa broke up about 200 million years ago (mya). When the continents first came together to form Pangæa 180 mya,"

So it broke up, and then' formed? - Omegatron 06:23, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

It came together about 300 million years ago and broke apart about 180 million years ago:

Pangæa
—
~300 mya – ~180 mya
—
Rest In Peace

—

— Ŭalabio 20:42, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Continental Drift by Ken Glasziou, physicist, Australia

i dont get it. pangaea isnt the first colision of the continents? there was ones before that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.121.30 (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pangea and plate tectonics

Intro to article says that Pangea "existed ... before the process of plate tectonics separated the component continents". But later in the article there is reference to previous supercontinents Rodinia and Pannotia, and the supercontinent article says that these may be part of a series of supercontinents which formed, broke up and re-formed in cycles lasting around 250m years. So presumably there were tectonic plates moving around before the formation of Pangea, as well as after it broke up. Was plate tectonics somehow dormant during the lifetime of Pangea ? Gandalf61 14:22, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The plates were not dormant; they simply weren't separating the landmasses but instead bringing them together. "The process" referred to would be the one that broke up Pangaea; clearly that process could not occur before Pangaea broke up!

I'd like to see a map with the plates superimposed on the map of Pangaea.

I would like the know how the tectonic plates came together in order to form Pangaea. Isn't it unlikely that plates would move towards one another? --IntricateBalance 19:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all unusual - Africa is presently moving toward Europe; Arabia is moving toward Asia; Australia is moving toward the Pacific and parts of the SE edge of the Eurasian plate; India is moving toward Eurasia; Western California and the is moving toward Alaska; South America is moving toward the Nazca Plate; The Indian Ocean plate is moving toward SE Asia (Sundaland). Is that enough? Cheers Geologyguy 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't explain how. What you wrote above could just as easily be explained with the Earth Expansion theory. The reason I'm curious is because somehow I don't see why magma convection flow is adequate to explain why enormous tectonic plates move, let alone into one another.

It's a common misconception that the )horizontal) plate motions are somehow 'driven' by mantle convection. That's wrong. The motion of the ocean floor isn't driven by convection, it is convection! The new crust created at the ridge is hot, low density and buoyant, so sits higher. The old crust (well, lithosphere strictly) where it's subducting is cool and higher density, higher than the mantle beneath and so it sinks. How to initiate subduction is an unsolved problem, but once it's started. the sinking slab pulls the surface plate along. Hence why the fastest moving plates tend to be the ones with larger portions of their margins subducting. 131.111.228.219 (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I believe the E.E. theory has a better explanation as to why the oceanic crust is only 200-300 million years old. It could be because as the earth expanded molten magma pressured outward from inside the earth then gradually lined and cooled at either side of the opened mantle (along the oceanic ridges-where the tectonic plates meet). This explains why the sea floor ages as it distances itself away from oceanic ridges where tectonic plates meet and where the newly formed outer layer is formed.

Its impossible for the oceanic crust to be 200-300 million years old if Pangaea spit apart because the oceans crust would not be newly created but merely shifted. --IntricateBalance 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Expanding earth theory where you will see that "Very few geologists or geophysicists today support the expanded Earth" as well as the arguments for and against. Cheers Geologyguy 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that they have yet to supply good reasons why.--IntricateBalance 02:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply reading the article would have answered your question. A quote: The primary objection to Expanding Earth Theory centered around the lack of an accepted process by which the Earth's radius could increase. This issue, along with the discovery of evidence for the process of subduction, caused the scientific community to dismiss the theory of an expanding Earth. The evidence for continental matching even on the Pacific facing sides became irrelevant, as did the claims that a smaller sized and lower gravity Earth facilitated the growth of dinosaurs to their relatively enormous size. Just Another Fat Guy 19:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Name

Why is there this article, and another one called "Pangea" that is the same thing?

'Pangea' is only a redirect page.--Jyril 20:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

animatino duration

Can i suggest that I work on the animation (if possible through flash. Im not sure yet), to make it so that the end reasult of the Pangaea (when all the continents are at the present position) lasts longer, maybe 2 seconds longer? so that it gives the viewers more time to comprehend the facts that its the end result. For me, just seeing that the plates got back to saquare one right like that didnt make a good impression paat 03:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reference?

Does anyone have any references for the assembly and break-up of 300 Ma and 180 Ma? I'd like to use it for History of Earth. – Knowledge Seeker দ 04:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have not seen this one [1] try it - it covers the complete multiple opening-closing cycles for the Atlantic and its predecessor. Hope this helps --Geologyguy 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Greek – which is correct?

On May 15, 2006, Gilgamesh changed the Greek lettering from Πανγαία to Παγγαία. This in effect reverses the change made by Geologyguy on May 13, 2006. It's unclear to me why Gilgamesh says there should be two gammas and no nu. Which is correct? --Mathew5000 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed it because I thought it was a simple typo - the derivation is from πάν, "pan-", meaning "all", and it made no sense to me to use two gammas, as the transliteration would then be "paggaea". Wicktionary [2] perpetuates the double gamma for Pangaea but uses the nu in the etymology. --Geologyguy 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not entirely clear what Wiktionary is trying to say. Did the word "Παγγαία" exist in the Greek language before 1915? Wegener was writing in German, correct? Perhaps today, in Modern Greek, the word for "Pangaea" is "Παγγαία", but that isn't relevant to the etymology of the English word. (Unless the Greek word existed prior to 1915.) Probably the etymology in this article (and in Wiktionary for that matter) should be similar to what is done in the German Wikipedia article, giving the prefix and root separately. --Mathew5000 01:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

By poking around a bit on Wikipedia I found out that in Ancient Greek the word "Παγγαῖον" was used for a mountain range in northern Greece (now called the Pangaion hills in English). --Mathew5000 03:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who understands Greek, please translate the first few sentences of el:Παγγαία; it looks like that might explain why the nu got replaced by an extra gamma. --Mathew5000 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Greek gamma represents two different consonants. If it exists before kappa, khi, ksi or another gamma, it's pronounced as a velar nasal /ŋ/. Secondly, the modifier pan- means "all". When compounded with a word, the last letter becomes mu if the next consonant is pi, beta, phi, psi or another mu, and it becomes gamma if the next consonant is kappa, khi, ksi or another gamma. This is a grammatical sandhi affect, reflected only in pronunciation when the words are separate, and reflected in spelling too if it's compounded. And "gaea", of course, means "earth". So (παν "all") + (γαία "earth") = (παγγαία "all earth"). The in-word spelling combination "νγ" does not exist in traditional Greek. - Gilgamesh 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, just to be clear: γ = g. γγ = ŋg. γκ = ŋk. γξ = ŋks. γχ = ŋkh. There is usually no spelling for "gg", though κγ can be used for that if needed. Traditionally forbidden ν+combinations: νβ (=μβ), νγ (=γγ), νκ (=γκ), νμ (=μμ), νξ (=γξ), νπ (=μπ), νφ (=μφ), νχ (=γχ), νψ (=μψ). Traditionally frowned upon (but crept in, especially during the Koine Greek period): νζ (~ζ), νλ (~λλ), νρ (~νδρ), νσ (~σ). - Gilgamesh 07:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Was the word Παγγαία a real Greek word in use prior to 1915? Or did Wegener "invent" the word? If the latter, then the article should be changed since the derivation of the English word is not really from "Παγγαία" but from "παν" + "γαία". Does that make sense? --Mathew5000 09:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, the word was coined, but as Greek has traditionally been a synthetic language, the process of synthesizing new compound words from word roots is relatively straightforward and easily done. So the question is not "is that a real word in Greek?", but "is that synthesized properly as per Greek grammar?", which in this case it certainly is. - Gilgamesh 06:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. And interesting. Thanks Gilgamesh, for the detailed explanation.--Geologyguy 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stuff

How was terrain heights, climate, vegetation (if any), hydrography etc in Pangea? Or recent studies still don't know? 200.230.213.152 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph needs editing to remove vandalism...

Can someone remove the "Jerry is gay" off the beginning of the paragraph "Geography". It does not come up in the edit. I could not remove it...

--220.235.152.124 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That means it already got fixed. You just needed to refresh the page. Just Another Fat Guy 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Appearances in Media" section

Does this section serve any purpose? As it is now, it's a fairly useless collection of random bits of information. I think the advice to "Avoid trivia sections in articles" applies. So, unless anyone has strong objections, I'd like to remove it. – bcasterline • talk 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Cheers Geologyguy 02:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How do we know?

• I'm probably going to catch some h***/look stupid for asking this, but how do we know Pangaea existed? WizardDuck 15:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good question, we don't. Basically we humans have it all wrong. Pangea did not split apart and literal float thousands of miles, it was land first. What do we get after land? Rain. And then? A large river. Like an oceanic stream, which creates tsunamis. Precipitation occured in the Northern borders of land. The teutonic plates THEN create the mountains due to pressure. Of water and heat. That gif isnt too accurate for a more precise description. Thats why noone really does know. --129.174.54.24 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you raise a great point - we could use a good section on "evidence". To summarize for you right now, however - the evidence is broad and diverse, ranging from glaciation in formerly connected locations (South Africa, SE South America, India, etc, indicating that they were probably once in close proximity (the evidence of glaciation itself is from things like striated pebbles and the kinds of deposits that usually only are related to glaciers). Also, fossils - identical animals on now-separated continents at the same time. One of the original plant fossils that supported the idea was Glossopteris, a plant that only spreads by "runners" (like strawberries). Also, there is the continuity of the rocks - both the strata themselves (for example, a particular kind of sandstone whose composition, thickness, grain size, etc. is almost identical in South America and in Africa - and whose surrounding rock types are the same or similar) and the tectonic structures. An example of the latter is the headlands of deformed Appalachian rocks in Newfoundland, which are virtually continuous with similar folds and faults in Ireland and Scotland, implying a previous connection. That's just a sampling - other evidence includes paleomagnetic data, which show that the position of the poles, with respect to the continents, demand that the continents were once essentially connected. You can also look at the sequence of environments of deposition of rocks to infer the history - for example, a mountain range, then eroded piles of sediment, then broad lakes (as the continents started to pull apart), then marginal marine environments as a narrow sea formed, then no sources of sediment from the other direction as the continents got further and further apart. Hope this helps. Cheers Geologyguy 16:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This evidence applies to other formation theories like the planetary expansion theory. Unambiguous evidence for the Pangaean theory should only be unique to it to set it apart from the other theories . Perhaps we could divide the evidence section into two parts, those that aren't unique to the Pangaean theory, and those that are. --IntricateBalance 03:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

All what you wrote must be present in the article. Otherwise it reads as a fantasy. The article must be thoroughly quoted and made clear that all these statments are reconstructions. I am also very suspicious about the absense of any controversy. I don't believe there exists only a single opinion about things no man could have possibly seen by their eyes. `'mikka 18:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Such "controversy" as exists is mostly disagreements on minor points. The big picture is well established and well documented and there is no disagreement among earth scientists. You are right, this evidence should be in the article. I'll put it on my "to do" list. Cheers Geologyguy 19:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

the controversy concerns major factors such as the criticism of subduction and the disproportionate amassing of continents onto one side of the earth. The pangaea theory doesn't fully account for Mountain formation whereupon continent collision wasn't present. --IntricateBalance 03:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think humans know Pangea existed by Satellite imagery (If you go to Google earth and look at the sea water between Africa and The Americas, you will see a large "Crack" in the ocean, which is a tectonic plate, if you concentrate, you will see that it seems to fit with Africa's Western coast. Aswell as measuring the space between land every year, which is thought to extend 2 Centimeters each year because of hot gases in the Earth CONSTANTLY moving the tectonic plates/the land above the Asthenosphere.

The Pangaea hypotesis was formulated well before the existence of Satellite imagery. However, at that time maps of the continents were already very precise. --Gspinoza 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What about Balance?

Essentially, the earth (or earth-moon system) must spin around a single center of gravity. And, the oceans must essentially cover a point equidistant from the center of gravity. The tides should be thought of as the effects of the moon's shift of the center of gravity of the earth-moon system rather than the effects of the moon's gravity on the water itself.

There would essentially be only a few theories that could account for a "Pangaea" continent.

1 - Very asymmetric density distribution of subsurface matter (need a theory to substantiate).

2 - A second supercontinent that would offset the mass of the first one (where did it go).

3 - A satellite, moon, or twin planet locked in a synchronous orbit to offset the mass (would need a better explanation of where it is now, and how its departure (or collision) was associated with the equilibrium in plate movements).

4 - Some kind of a pimple effect.. of insufficient mass to cause the shift (hardly and explanation of a supercontinent).

5 - Growth of water and oceans (from what source?) at the same time as the breakup of the supercontinent, as well as necessarily having a second supercontinent as described above.

http://michaelnetzer.com/rEvolution/content/view/92/83/

Finally, how are you accounting to the changes in elevations of the continents tapering (with significant exceptions) from being higher in the middle to being lower at the coastlines. I.E. if Florida was in the middle of Pangaea, what was its elevation with respect to the West Coast of America? Where did the Mississippi river drain?--Keelec (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(See answer below at "Gah!": short version = no mass excess from continents)

Non-labeled green "gaps" in main image

In the top image on the page, there are a number of green sections of land that are not labeled. As someone who is not well-versed in the history of geology, I was curious as to what happened to these minor land masses. Did they go underwater, or did they combine with the larger bodies and fuse to the continents. Perhaps a small explanation should be given in the box along with the simple caption? Davemcarlson 20:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved your new message to the bottom, where most people will look for it... Most of the lines on the (admittedly crude) map in the article reflect modern coastlines so that people can have some referrent. In the upper part, one can discern Greenland, the Scandinavian Peninsula, a block that is land and adjacent continental seas of the British Isles, and so on. So they don't generally indicate discrete plates (although Greenland later pulled apart - a bit - from North America), but modern coastlines intended to give points of reference. Hope this helps. Cheers Geologyguy 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Urantia

(long "essay" removed)

I deleted the link; there is nothing in the Wikipedia article that refers to Pangaea, and even if it did, a book by a "mysterious author" can't be a reliable source. Cheers Geologyguy 21:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the link, you had no right to delete the link. The Urantia book is a valid reference to the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift and an approved resource in this publication. Majeston cheers

The Urantia pseudoscience fiction has no place in this article and further attempts to add or promote it will be deleted. Vsmith 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vsmith. This is a discussion page regarding material about Pangaea. Your POV is respected but out of place. The material will remain if you wish to discuss it that is your privilege but you have no right to remove valid discussion material.

The further development of the theory of continental drift is reviewed by I. W. D. Dalziel in Scientific American 272 (1) 28 (1995). The date proposed for the commencement of break-up of the first supercontinent is now estimated as 750 million years ago—the same as is given in The Urantia Book. REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, p. 663; Scientific American 250 (2), 41, 1984; Scientific American 256 (4), 84, 1887; H.E. Le Grand, Drifting Continents and Shifting Theories, 1988. (Cambridge University Press)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 May 2007

Rodinia is not Pangaea and urantia is not science - end of story. Vsmith 01:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

VSmith. Whether you personally believe it is science or not science is not the point. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, it is not whether you personally like or dislike the source of the information. The Urantia book has been in continuous print since 1955 and has quite a lengthy attribution in this publication as well as quite a few readers worldwide.

Timeline

Is it possible to render the 'Formation...' section as a timeline? The current article either assumes the reader is familiar with the various ages, eras, periods, or requires 'flipping back and forth' between Wikipedia pages to add context.Cander0000 19:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pangaea or pangea?

Which is it? When I was in high school we all said "Pangea" (like pan-gee-a), now my professors are saying pangaea (pan-gay-a)... Is this a regional difference or did they change it? I'm also curious which is technically correct because there are a couple of pages (like Plate tectonics) where it is sometimes referred to as one and sometimes as the other. This must be confusing for other people too! : ) L'Aquatique ^talktome 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Both spellings are equally correct. Pangaea is more British/European usage, Pangea is American. Wikipedia does not change British or American usage unless the article treats something that is distinctly British or American (or Canadian, or Australian, or any other variant of English). All other things being equal, it goes by the way it was used when the article was first created; it should be consistent within an article, though. As for pronunciation, there's no accounting for that. Cheers Geologyguy 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In Greek derivatives like this, "ae" and "e" are often alternate reflections of the Greek αι. Compare aeon/eon, aesthetic/esthetic, haematology/hematology (though never gaeology for some reason). As Geologyguy points out, the "ae" form is more common in British usage. It also happens with oe/e. Tarchon 01:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Geology" etc are never spelt with "ae" because they're derived from gê rather than gaia (variant forms for "earth" in Ancient Greek). As for pronunciation, the usual rules for scientific words of Greek derivation would yield "pan-jee-a". The reconstructed Ancient Greek pronunciation would be "pang-guy-a" or thereabouts, and I'm guessing the modern Greek would be close to "pan-yeh-a". Your professors' version sounds kinda like how I'd render it in Swedish, but I imagine that isn't their source! Orcoteuthis (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there are two issues, orthography and pronunciation. First orthography: Indeed the word comes from Greek Παγγαῖα, which is transliterated in Latin as Pangæa, then Pangaea. This is the British spelling. American spelling has changed all ae to e, hence it uses Pangea. Now pronunciation: The Ancient Greeks would pronounce the word [paŋ'gaia], while the Modern Greeks pronounce it [paɲ'ɟea]. However, almost none of the Greek words are pronounced as such in English, so it's safe to use either versions you've heard. Because if you're indeed looking for the correct Greek pronunciation, then first listen to this: I'm a Greek living in the UK and when I'm trying to pronounce Greek words as they are actually pronounced nobody understands them! :-) --   Avg    21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"Geo-" and "Gaea" are certainly related through their roots. "Gaea" is the earth-god of (ancient) Greece, and her name is pronounced GEE-uh, much as "Geo-" (earth) is pronounced GEE-oh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Websterwebfoot (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

proof of existence?

The bible mentions nothing of pangea, and also, the earth is only 4000 years old according to god —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.151.133 (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, according to James Ussher the Earth was made in 4004 BC (at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23), so the Earth is only 6012 years old! Surely medieval clerymen and people living before the classical age know these things better than modern-age scientists! No sorry, I think they don't. 80.127.58.65 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's supposed to be 6000 years, and furthermore the Bible does not really make claims about the age of the Earth, that's someone's interpretation. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to what the Bible says, it makes no statements on the status of any of the land masses. It mentions Eden in Genesis 2 but gives no size. Eden could be Pangea. The garden that Adam and Eve inhabited was not all of Eden but a small part of it. The garden is surrounded by 4 rivers that rise in Eden.

After the fall of man and the expulsion from the garden, there is still no details concerning the status of the land masses. However, in the time of Noah, there is a flood that covers the whole earth. Such a flood may have had enough power to cause the land mass to break apart and drift, thus creating the present order of the continents, which are still drifting apart.

The conclusion is that the Bible neither prove or disproves Pangea, but if one wants to believe, Pangea can be evidence for Eden. 2010-03-21 17:45 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.147.142 (talk)

First I want to distance my comments as much as possible from that man who has a differing opinion from mine. Now on to the purpose of this post, I am of the opinion that Pangaea is a joke. The "evidence" in this article is a joke. Yes, surface features/animals are similar in different places, those are the reasons this theory was conceived in the 1920's, but does not validate it. Honestly, this is a very childish overly simplistic theory. Furthermore, we have been able to monitor the movement of the earth's surface for some time now and what we've seen DOES NOT support the Pangaea theory. Pangaea fanboys explain this away by saying it takes 250 million years to go through one continental cycle, something so slow we "will not be able to see significant changes in our lifetimes", how very convenient and suspicious. Actually the earth is big enough that if it was moving in this cycle we would have seen that already.

I have no idea how or why our Earth's surface appears as it does, but this THEORY on the topic is not a fact. We should be careful about mixing beliefs with facts, this is a belief/theory not a fact. I don't understand why Wiki writes about theories like this as if they are facts. Wikipedia devalues their content by misrepresenting theory as fact, this article exemplifies this flaw. Somebody should really change this article to read more like a theory. It's a good theory worth considering, and it might be right (though I would be shocked), but it's definatly NOT a fact at this point.

Clearly this is the mainstream view on how the surface was formed, probably because this is taught as a fact in school, but I do think this article should reflect that this theory is widely accepted as fact. I just think Wikipedia should be more honest about their information, for mankinds sake.

Theories are not facts, and theories accepted/promoted as facts are deleterious.

--24.21.72.6 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason you would have for arguing it (given that there's no credible alternative) would be the conflict with religion. Non-issue. 78.151.182.44 (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

^ Indeed. Also, saying that it is a theory just because there isn't a account in history talking about Pangaea is like saying that dinosaurs are a theory.

Read the evidence section. There IS enough of it to consider Pangaea as a continent that actually existed. Unless you think dinosaurs should be considered just a theory, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.139.38.67 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

People used to believe the earth was flat... it took the 'religious' crowd to prove that wrong... Also, for Pangaea to work you would have to shrink Africa about 30% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.197.254 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they didn't believe that. It's a big misconception [3]. And there's enough evidence supporting the existence of Pangaea to leave the article the way it is. The only reason to argue it is if you believe in religion over scientific explanation.

What he said. Also, there is no need to shrink Africa for Pangaea to work.

I agree just sink a bunch of islands in the atlantic forget that there are river basins and mountains under water, attach austrailia, forget that it fits perfectly with greenland, to the horn of africa somehow disguise the whole split of antartica and there you have it a map. The deepest places on earth, the pacific mountains forget that too. Oh and the north pole, forget that it has river basins and mountains. Lets forget alaska is part of russia and florida mexico. The only usefulness to a geogologist that pangea proves accurate is a part of india a part of africa. Just acting premature not to be taken seriously.--66.81.36.220 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The point regarding magnetic polarity in the evidence section needs further investigation. The magnetic fields of the earth are widely believed to not only vary dramatically over time but in fact reverse between 10s of thousands of years to millions of years (based on geological records showing magnetization of minerals such as magnetite varies with depth). I've listed it with citation needed in the interim. 11:54 pm UTC dhall27 —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

comments

i don't bleave in the contal drift at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.223.148 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's ok the contal drift doesn't bleave in you either --   Avg    23:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pangaea II

Should be a section or an article about the future Pangaea. JAF1970 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Was Pangaea Real?

Was Pangaea really real? Tell me the truth. Did Pangaea and Panthalassa really exist, or is that a made-up story?--98.199.76.184 (talk) 05:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The evidence points to yes - while there's no way to know for certain due to it being long before our time, there's enough backing for it to make it more than a made-up story. 78.151.220.24 (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pangaea in Alfred Wegener's view

Alfred Wegener was not such a famous scientist through-out the years of which he lived. He was doutbed and died thinking that he was a failour. But though many scientist discovered through-out the years that he was in fact correct, they made him feel like he fail and that all the research that he did was for nothing. He was in fact the one who helped us learn about where our country once was between and where it is now. He should have some recognition for what he did and there should be a day to honor all scientists who were and are helping us learn more about the world itself.

but he did fail! pangea is still in doubt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.59.210 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Wegener's view

Alfred Wegener was not such a famous scientist through-out the years of which he lived. He was doubted and died thinking that he was a failour. But though many scientist discovered through-out the years that he was in fact correct, they made him feel like he fail and that all the research that he did was for nothing. He was in fact the one who helped us learn about where our country once was between and where it is now. He should have some recognition for what he did and there should be a day to honor all scientists who were and are helping us learn more about the world itself.

Alfred Wegener was born in 1880, he died in 1930. Here is a passage which we think he said: "Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribut evedence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only reached by combining all this evedince... It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to deturmine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." Alfred Wegener. The Orgins of Continents and Oceans (4th edition)

What are the theories about Supercontinents?

Are there any widely considered theories in the Scientific community about why supercontinents form, break apart and reform?

If so this would make an interesting section to the article.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 01:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

See - supercontinent cycle. Vsmith (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct a misspelling of Mississippian and emphasize that the concept of Pangaea is THEORY

First, on the chart "Appalachian orogeny" the word "Mississippean" is misspelled. Can we get that corrected very soon?

Second, we need to emphasize from the beginning of this article that this is a THEORY, not fact. All models of the evolution of earth are theories.

I disagree with the theory, but that does not mean we cannot present it as a theory.

FURTHER, to answer people's question about how tectonic plates can move, we might include something about how fragile the crust of earth actually is; more fragile than a hen's egg.

The earth is 7,000 miles across and the crust averages about 18 miles thick.

When compared to the shell of a chicken's egg in relation to its girth, earth's crust is four times thinner. The USGS website contains a chart that shows the earth's crust in section. We may want to include or reference that. Cheers! Websterwebfoot (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's a theory. However, it has every bit of support from seafloor spreading to correlated rock sections across continents to seismic tomography. I think that everyone knows that past continents are an extrapolation, so it's OK to leave that part out. I have no idea what you're trying to get at with the crust being thin, especially with respect to Pangaea - continental crust is about 40 km, oceanic about 10, but the mechanically rigid lithosphere which participates in plate tectonics is on the order of 10's to a few hundred km thick. Awickert (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gah!

I've been trying to understand the Formation of Pangaea section here, and it is very tough sledding. It seems like a bunch of often ungrammatical and sometimes contradictory sentences in no sort of logical order. If nobody else feels like working on this, I am inclined to toss the whole thing and start over from scratch -- I don't think I can make enough sense of the existing prose to repair it. Any reactions? Looie496 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like all the supercontinent names are tossed around in a bullet-point-like fashion without any reference as to where it's starting or heading, or any way for someone unfamiliar with them to get their bearings. I'd be willing to help you fix this, but I don't have the time right now, so I'd be more support-role. I think that maybe some integration / re-routing to a revamped supercontinent article could help, as could lots of maps and figures describing what came together to form it, especially ones of Earth in geologic time. Those are used in the geological time-period ones, such as Silurian. Also helpful would be correlations between current continents and the named proto-continents (i.e., Laurentia = North American cratonic core (much of US and Canada, not much of Mexico), etc. Awickert (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There might be benefits of combining all of the "Supercontinent articles" into a single article. Pangea, Vaalbara, Rodinia, Pannotia, and Supercontinent_cycle, as they seem to cover much the same ideas over different time periods.

However, as I mentioned earlier, this supercontinent thing just doesn't make any sense. While people like the idea of reducing everything down to ONE... it just doesn't seem appropriate in this context. It is impossible to concentrate all of the mass of the crust on one side of the earth. Rock is denser than water (except for pumice). The oceans have to essentially cover the planet equidistant from the center of mass... So, any theory of a single supercontinent would also have to describe how a really bizarre mass distribution (eg. all the iron on the other side of the earth?) would allow it to happen. Or, you would have massive flooding, and more continents appearing and disappearing on the other side of the planet.

How much evidence do we have that these supercontinents were formed all at the same time, rather than having the continents bumping into each other at different times?--Keelec (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful to put them all together, but I think that there's too much info for one article, though an overview article could use beefing up. The first thing I want to do (thanks for getting my attention back to this, but I'm about to be leaving so it won't happen soon) is re-organize this so it's more about Pangaea than the whole history of the continents.

To answer your question very quickly (since it's not related to editing the article), there is a ton of evidence that all of the continents were put on one side of the Earth at certain points in the geologic past, and for "Wilson cycles" of supercontinent formation and breakup. However, this doesn't do much to the overall mass distribution because the oceans and the continents are isostatically compensated: if you look at a map of the geoid, you'll see it doesn't correlate with topography. If you have other questions, I'd be happy to take a little time to answer on my talk page. Awickert (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This article describes the point at which England became separated from North America - obvious satire apart, how did it subsequently become glued onto Scotland and Wales? I think we should be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.169.24.100 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

more vandalism I think

The sentance beginning "it is a member of the vegatable family and has the heritage of a quad equal to pie" doesn't really seem to fit and appears to have replaced part of what was originally there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.64.239 (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Indian ocean?

in the section "formation" the article says: The rifting also spawned two new oceans, the Iapetus Ocean and Indian Ocean. Baltica was situated east of Laurentia, and Siberia northeast of Laurentia.
I think "indian Ocean" can not be correct. Greetings --85.127.116.45 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't thought about this much, but looking at the map, India and Africa and Antarctica and Australia were all stuck together... so rifting must have occurred to create the Indian Ocean that now separates them, Awickert (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The section is talking about the breaking-apart of Rodinia, 700 mya. The Indian Ocean came into existence some 100mya during the breaking-apart of Gondwana. As far as I know, oceans are defined by its coasts and the basin between these coasts. The present Indian Ocean differs in every aspect from any geographical structure half a billion years ago, so it is not possible to use the same name. Greetings --85.127.116.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

The other ocean in existence in Late Proterozoic times besides the Iapetus is the so-called Paleoasian Ocean, situated between Siberia and eastern Gondwana. Iblardi (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh - sheesh - sorry, I should have checked the article instead of assuming it was about Pangaea. In that case, you're 100% correct and the name should be changed. For the moment, I'm removing the Indian Ocean reference and replacing it with "Paleoasian Ocean"; I'll find refs either tonight or (more likely) Sunday. Awickert (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Polar Movement

The Pangea#Evidence of existence section currently states "Because we know that the poles do not move more than a few degrees, magnetic anomalies in rocks can only be explained by the drifting of continents." But the external link given in the Polar drift article shows the north pole drifting 10 degrees north and nearly 15 degrees west in only 200 years. Is there a contradiction here? 124.157.234.136 (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed using existing reference. 124.157.234.136 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this; I've added some more info on how paleomag works. Awickert (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Duration and reference

I noticed that an IP changed the date in the lede from 200 Ma to 250 Ma. This is perhaps more accurate, given that the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province, one of the early phases of the breakup, had just became active at ~200 Ma. However, I do not know what the cited source had to say (noting that it is a twenty year old textbook that was on its third revision, perhaps a more recent source can be found?). I do know that if someone came up to me in the street and wanted to know when Pangaea was in existence, 250 Ma would come to mind before 200 Ma. You could practically get away with Permo-Triassic, which would cover ~300-200 Ma. J. Spencer (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Discovery

Um... who exactly discovered Pangæa?--Parasect ^(Discuss) 20:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

CG Render of Pangaea

Sorry, but this is an unhelpful, unclear artists conception that ultumately just adds clutter. A projected reconstruction with no clouds is preferred

It's not as much an artist's conception, as the map-texture is from the same source as the other terrain maps on this article. I think it would be helpful to show the supercontinent rendered on a globe. 4/11/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvinsong (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A need to remove/replace the picture.

Graphic representation of Pangaea entitled "Map of Pangaea" does not match the reality. You can actually see in Google Earth that the entire circle at N66 (polar circle) represents one unbroken continental plate. It means North America and Eurasia were never apart. Northeastern Eurasia is joined to North America by the Bering-Chukotsk shelf while Greenland is joined to Europe by the continental Faeroe-Iceland-Greenland Ridge (see Meyerhoff, 1974). Can someone show us at least one suture between plates of North America and Eurasia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shee-un (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page archive

This talk page needs to be archived. I propose the we ask a bot to archive the page regularly. The following code will result in threads inactive for more than 125 days will be automatically archived.

Any objections? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Fama Clamosa (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Something went wrong, but I think I managed to clan things up manually. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another Timing of the Break

The other possiblity of the contenintal breakup describe by what God says happened in the days of Peleg. “for in his days the earth was divided” (Genesis 10:25). Peleg’s generation was from 3153 B.C. to 2914 B.C. See The Biblical Calendar of History By Harold Camping at familyradio.com You’ll also note that this was the time the Mayans thought time began as a new earth or are marking a starting-point for their calendar. Date taken from Wikipeadia Mayan Calendar “A different calendar was used to track longer periods of time, and for the inscription of calendar dates (i.e., identifying when one event occurred in relation to others). This is the Long Count. It is a count of days since a mythological starting-point.[3] According to the correlation between the Long Count and Western calendars accepted by the great majority of Maya researchers (known as the GMT correlation), this starting-point is equivalent to August 11, 3114 BCE in the proleptic Gregorian calendar or 6 September in the Julian calendar (−3113 astronomical).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Privatepop (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Movement description

In the final paragraph of the 'formation' section, the article says "Pangaea rotated a little, in a southwest direction". As far as I can tell, that doesn't mean anything. Should it not be clockwise or anti-clockwise? I'm pretty sure you can't rotate something south-west. Maybe it means it rotated while moving towards the south-west? Hopefully somebody who knows can rewrite that more clearly. Chrysics (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree and chopped that bit, I think counterclockwise would be correct, but don't have a reference for it. That section is in need of references. Vsmith (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This page needs Semi-Protection?

This article has been attracting a great deal of vandalism lately. I think it would be better is semi-protection was added to it. Kelvinsong (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Pangea aginsta the world

Tell about Pangea useing the 5 things of Geography ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.234.4 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

yeah, i know right where's asia? and wats with the science diagrams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.60.164 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Carboniferous?

"(Siberia had been a separate continent for millions of years since the deformation of the supercontinent Pannotia in the Middle Carboniferous.)" Uhhh, Pannotia existed from about 600-540 mya, while the middle Carboniferous is about 340-310 mya. I can't reconcile this, and I have no idea what the writer had in mind here; perhaps "into the Carboniferous"? At this point in the narrative, the time is the early Carboniferous, so that might be the way it should be interpreted. 67.177.251.218 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The first page that got protected for persistent vandalism! 166.137.244.110 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Rephrase for clarity request

The article States that Pangea formed about 300 million years ago. It then changes direction to focus on Columbia, which was followed by Rodinia, Pannotia, then Pangea. More clarity may be needed to prevent any unintended confusion.

Maybe placing the statement about Pangea's formation later in the paragraph will accomplish this. I'd edit it but I'm new to this feature, and don't want to ruin the article by accident.

ImAnEinstein (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The article lead is brief and summarizes a lot in a few sentences as the WP:Lead is supposed to do. The details are in the formation section where the development is described as it should be. In the formation section Pangaea isn't mentioned until the end of the third paragraph. Do you feel that the formation section should be shortened or just that Pangaea should be defined better or mentioned earlier? Vsmith (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Latitudes?

The map shows no latitudes, so no indication of where the equator and poles were. This matters to understanding climate. If this information is unknown, the article should say so; otherwise, the latitudes should be indicated on the map. 73.53.61.168 (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Location of Pangea

Where was Pangea located?

in the animation it is displayed as sitting on one side of the earth, the today European / African side. What was on the other side at this time? Why should all the landmass of the Earth gather on one side of the earth? does this even make sense? woulndt this create a huge gravitational imbalance, especially in combination with Earths rotation?

Why arent these questions adressed? How can this be an accepted theory, yet be so flawed?

I sincerely request a link to expanding Earth theory as an alternative theory. Pangea covering the entire Earth makes strictly more sense, instead of claiming it just randomly sits on one side of the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.0.201 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an animation in the article showing where Pangaea was located. As stated in the article, Panthalassa was on the "other side". For more information on plate tectonics, see Continental drift#Evidence that continents 'drift'. Expanding Earth is a rejected hypothesis and should only be discussed on that page. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

couldnt we at least add a link under "See also"? Pangea covering the entire surface of a smaller earth is very related to pangea after all, even if it is a rejected theory at this time. I mean at least let the people know that not only the South America and African plates join, but also Australia and South America, well basically the entire pacific, too.

The statement above is more plausible, that Pangea covered the entire surface, and the size and mass of earth was most likely smaller and more tightly compressed. The best model I've seen was by the Google Earth people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl5KYKz52dQ This is a better (and more current) simulation model than the existing example, gives example of static size, and the alternative. Mapsurfer49 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why a link to that article should be on this page. According to the Expanding Earth theory, Pangaea never happened. There is a link in Continental drift. That should be enough IMO. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll boldly state that this theory is not only a fact as an idea in the history of the Earth sciences, but also (and maybe more importantly) a patent and obvious absurdity. It defies common sense and seems misaligned and irreconcilably at odds with the established theory of plate tectonics. Look at any image for the current state of this alleged mechanism of geological shaping and you'll see a dozen or so plates, separated by plate boundaries, and visibly in a state of deadlock. There might be some grinding at the edges, and some breaking, yes: but there's no moving about like in this pangaean, laureanian and gondwanian bumper car scenario. If this is indeed what plate tectonics continues to claim: how do they explain the possibility of moving about and around back then in Earth's past when it's obvious from today's state that such wild movement is an impossibility? --Lumi71 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Pangea is an example of the junk science that plagues modern science. Literally Pangea and continental drift are centuries-old theories revived nearly a century ago before we had satellites orbitting Earth and before the ocean floor was mapped. Anybody with Google Earth and common sense will see that Pangea does not work because Central and South America fit quite nicely against the underwater land mass near the Solomon Islands. I'm not saying the expanding Earth theory is perfect, but it makes more sense than this archaic floating continent theory which is literally one-sided. Planetary collision, comets, impacts, strong tidal forces creating the Pacific rim, whatever. It is all plausible and makes more sense. If science is going to continue following dead ends like we did in the dark ages, that sends a pretty powerful message that they really don't know anything about our planet's past. It's all guesses with circumstantial and even no evidence, not even applying their own scientific method. Why does North America appear on several pre-Columbian maps connected to Asia? Obviously when the maps were drawn they were not. And this is why they mis-label America with known Asian locations. But it is unmistakenly the Americas. Florida, the Mississippi, Michigan, the rocky mountains. Usually the Sierra Nevada mountains and Arkansas are labeled with phonetically similar names and the area next to a giant non-existent River where the Pacific Ocean should be is labeled California. Oronce Fine has the most detailed of these maps. With detail which were unmapped at the time. Later on he drew the far more accurate fool's map which also contains more detail than many cartographers were aware of at the time. That was likely a message, he knew the truth. Our world had been mapped for centuries and used to look very different. Either science is stubborn or worse this information is kept hidden from us deliberately. I'd much rather want to believe the stubborn version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.97.248 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Well, let's just put aside that last comment for a while, and hope that some kind soul affords our guest the benefits of 5mg trifluoperazine, twice daily. In response to the original question, you're making the same logical fallacy of people who don't understand evolution--- the inability to imagine large aggregate changes comprised of innumberable smaller changes over extremely long periods of time. Let's take, for instance, your assertion that "it's obvious from today's state that such wild movement is an impossibility." So what you're saying is that there weren't supercontinents when you were a kid, and there aren't supercontintents now, so we can only conclude that there won't be supercontinents 300 million years from now. Yuh-huh.

As for "some grinding at the edges," I think you should take a look at the Continental drift article, which will give you a better sense of how the continental plates are moving. Just to give one of many examples, the earthquake that caused the 2011 tsunami in Japan resulted in plate slippage of up to 40 meters. The distance from Tokyo to San Francisco is about 8,900 km, so if that gap were to close in 150 million years, an event like the Tokyo earthquake would only have to happen ONCE every 1,200 years at that rate. And you said what about the stability of the current state?Googlymoogly64 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to testify against the accuracy of the relative size of Antarctica when it is not in a frozen state. I have heard of other sources supporting the idea that it is an archipelago and should not be of that size in comparison with the other "continents." Dtwedt (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Large parts of the rocky continent of Antarctica are below sea level due to the weight of the ice sheets. If these ice sheets were removed, isostatic post-glacial rebound would result in a rising of the rocky continent, most or all of rocky "Antarctica" would then be above sea level. A similar process of post-glacial rebound is underway right now in Fennoscandia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Error in "Life" section

The section on Life includes the statement "Later on, insects (beetles, dragonflies, mosquitos) also thrived during the Permian period". (Note: The plural of mosquito is spelled "mosquitoes")

The earliest mosquito fossils are from the Cretaceous, some 200 million years later. The linked reference makes no mention of mosquitoes. It does mention the true bugs (cicadas, aphids, leafhoppers), which have piercing, sucking mouthparts.

Better sentence would be "Later on, insects (beetles, dragonflies, true bugs) also thrived..."

M.jenkins (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I recall that a lot of the discussion on life was created by 08D EXT2015: [4]. If you think there is a mistake or that things can be improved, please go ahead and work on it. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page misspelled?

It's Pangea, literally everyone knows that, and some angry britbong took it upon themselves to impose their bullshit on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4200:d8a1:f48e:1562:10d5:f128 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Pangaea is not misspelled; it is a legitimate correct spelling in some varieties of English. The Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline states "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." Please see MOS:ENGVAR for more details. GeoWriter (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The one super-continent was originally spelled 'Pangea', but that is only 6 letters. 'Pangaea' is 7 letters and is, therefore, symbolic of the 7 continents. 2601:589:4700:2390:C530:8663:9D18:9179 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Link Gondwana

The mention of Gondwana deserves a link. Possible also an approximate chronological mention of when it was created during the rifting, rather than just when it broke up. AnmAtAnm (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Scientific theory

The word "theory" is used twice on this page to refer to, well, theories, so I've added the words "Scientific theory" to the WP:Lead, as the first step in WP:BRD, if anyone is so minded to use that process. Without this or a similar kind of preface, it seems that everything stated in this article has been proven. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've shifted the scientific theory link down to where theory was first used. The scientific theory was continental drift which was subsumed into plate tectonics. The continent Pangea was a part of all that, but not the theory itself. I suppose maybe some would start the article with The theoretical continent..., but that would be just a quibble by science deniers or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't deny the science, far from it; the data is there. What the data implies, though, is something entirely different. But if nobody else is troubled by the tone of this article, I won't attempt to go further. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

According to whom? Scientific consensus backs the article.104.169.44.141 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't really researched Pangea, but what is presented in the article appears more like hypothesis then scientific theory, we have a conjectural land mass being used to illustrate the concent of continental drift. What I see of the explanation given here doesn't actually prove the connected land masses were joined at the same time, the coastline similarities etc don't make a clear case for all being part of the same super continent at the same time. This article lacks any kind criticism section, something which is usually found on more clearly proven and established science as if everybody immediately went onboard looking for evidence to back up the conclusion.Czarnibog (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Poor writing in later sections?

I have no knowledge in this subject area and was reading through the article for personal interest; I was disappointed to see that the quality of writing seems to diminish in the later sections, starting from 'tectonic plate-shift'. I'll try to give a few examples:

"The formation of each environment and climate on Pangaea is due to plate tectonics [extremely vague statement which conveyed little information to me], and thus [the use of 'thus' here seems unnecessary], it is as a result of these shifts and changes [the word 'that' is missing here] different climatic pressures were placed on the life on Pangaea."

Later on, "Over the 100 million years Pangaea existed, many species had fruitful times whereas others struggled." - again, not much information conveyed - this can surely be said for any period of earth's history.

"These plants were also able to transport water internally, allowing animals that ate it to also improve hydration." - Transport water internally - meaning the plants absorbed water? Second half reads even more awkwardly; presumably what is meant is simply that they were a good source of water for many animals.

"The restructuring of the continents, changed and altered the distribution of warmth and coolness of the oceans." - Surely, 'altered the distribution of heat in the oceans' [changed and altered are almost the same thing right]??

The rest of the article reveals a few other errors/awkward phrases, and should be re-written. I don't want to change it myself as I have no knowledge of the subject.

Additionally the writer(s)have allowed valuations to creep into what purports to be a scientific account of things, possibly owing to an unconscious advocacy regarding present-day climate controversies. For instance we read that the break-up led to a “deterioration” of the environment, implying that any change is a change for the worse. Also that carbon dioxide levels became excessive. Nature knows no excess. [This last paragraph added by Orthotox (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC) ].

Fossil Evidence Picture contradicts text

In the text, it says that Mesosaurus was only found in localized regions of the coasts of Brazil and West Africa.

In the picture, it indicates that Mesosaurus was only present in Argentina and South Africa.

Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.58.193 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Life

This section is badly in need of a rewrite, and also of a more topical focus. At present, it's a not very well sourced mishmash of some evolutionary developments during the time frame between the assembly of Pangaea and its breakup. That's not really needed here. However, this section could be interesting and relevant if it focused specifically on how the assembly of Pangaea affected the evolution of life. For example, what kind of ecological niches were created (or destroyed) by its assembly and breakup? How did its assembly affect biodiversity and speciation? Alas, I haven't the references on hand to do a proper job of this. I can dredge up lots of papers investigating various small corners of this topic, but nothing like a good review paper on the topic as a whole. Anyone know of some good sources I could look at?

Since changes to climate are likely a big part of this, I suspect the correct logical flow is to swap the "Life" and "Climate" sections so that the reader will first learn about distinctive climate patterns of Pangaea (megamonsoons? that jumps out from the sources I've dredged) and then read about how that affected the evolution of life. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Pangea covers over 100 million years of the history of life on Earth, and is incredibly difficult to summarise succinctly. The main thing I would focus on is the cosmopolitanism of Pangean faunas and how climatic conditions shaped connectivity between regions (papers discussing this [5] [6]). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That's just what I'm looking for. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

More papers [7] [8] [9]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The Text was Copyit after this Article. 110.33.58.193 (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Animation of Pangaea breakup

The animation of Pangaea breaking up adds a great deal to the article. Are we sure it actually poses a threat to photosensitive epileptics? Is there not some way to retain this valuable image? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

According to User:Asdiapod, who removed the image Pangea animation 03.gif, it contains more than 3 flashes in any second. What constitutes a flash? I assume it is the change from one frame to the next, in effect the frame rate. The description page of the file on Wikimedia Commons states that it comprises "38 frames, 4.6 s", which equates to an average of about 8 frames per second, which does indeed exceed the allowed limit of 3 flashes in any second. Therefore, it seems, based on WP:ACCESSIBILITY, MOS:ANIMATION and Non-discrimination policy, that this image must not be used. One possible solution, retaining the information represented in the image but in an accessibility-compliant format, could be to reduce the frame rate of a derivative animation. The image is by the USGS and therefore has a public domain copyright licence. In theory, a new image could be made, perhaps using the animation features of e.g. GIMP, by obtaining each frame of the original animated GIF and then creating a slower new animated GIF with a frame rate of less than 3 per second. GeoWriter (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that individual frames in an animation really constitute flashes. Regardless, reducing the frame rate to 2/second to remove any doubt should be doable. I'll try my hand at it when I have time. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's also this:

"To be accessible, an animation (GIF – Graphics Interchange Format) should either:

Not exceed a duration of five seconds (which results in making it a purely decorative element)[8] or

Be equipped with control functions (stop, pause, play)[9]

This requires GIFs with animations longer than five seconds to be converted to video (to learn how, see the tutorial converting animated GIFs to Theora OGG)."

That seems to rule out the simple solution of reducing frame rate, unless it's converted to an OGG. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines are very light on detailed explanation. An animated GIF of less than 3 flashes in any second becomes a "purely decorative element" after 5 seconds and is not allowed, but a video with the same number of flashes in any second can be longer than 5 seconds. Is the 5+ second video version allowed because it is not a "purely decorative element"? The "stop, pause, play" option seems to require controlling HTML, CSS or JS scripts - I do not know enough about how and if these scripts could work in Wikipedia, but it would not surprise me if they did not function and/or they are not allowed in Wikipedia. Therefore, I conclude that creating a reduced frame-rate animated GIF then converting it to a permitted video format seems to be the most acceptable solution. GeoWriter (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Asdiapod and GeoWriter: The accessibility guidelines links to a W3C page which gives a more precise definition and also [defines https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#flash-def flash] and what specifically causes problems. The intent is very clearly not to limit the framerate on a GIF, but instead to prevent a GIF that causes seizures. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that the pangea one is fine. There is some mild dithering due to GIF's limited color palette but I don't think that causes any problems. --Pokechu22 (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)