Talk:Laurasia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Laurasia is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Pictures of these presumed continents (if any such extrapolation has been done) would be welcome here. Vivacissamamente 10:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


How did Laurasia get its name?[edit]


Laurasia is a contraction of Laurentia (the craton beneath North America) and Asia.

Ŭalabio 03:45, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)


24.210.91.53 additions[edit]

appear to be lifted from http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/Mikereichold 01:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What the Name 'Laurasia' is Derived From[edit]

According to Don and Maureen Tarling in 'Continental Drift: A Study of the Earth's Moving Surface' revised edition 1975, pg. 35, "Similarly [to the naming of Gondwanaland after an Indian kingdom], North America and Europe were thought to be connected to form a second land mass which they called Laurasia (uniting the St. Lawrence area of North America with Asia, via Europe). At the Same time as the impoverished Gondwanaland flora was growing, Laurasia had luxuriant forests of a variety of tropical ferns, which subsequently formed the coal beds of North America and Europe."Rujacgeh (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

your mom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.79.189 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is Rockall mentioned?[edit]

Near the bottom of the article, there is this statement: "Laurasia finally divided into the continents after which it is named: Laurentia (now North America) and Eurasia (excluding India and Arabia),leaving behind only a small rock (modern-day Rockall) between the two."

I believe this is incorrect. The line between the Eurasian and North American plates is the Mid-Atlantic ridge. Take a look at the picture on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge Article, and then at the picture on the Rockall article. You can clearly see the division runs through Iceland (actually, a tourist attraction of the island) and is far to the west of Rockall.

The statement is also made on the Rockall article, but I assume that one inspired the other so that does not count as a verification. I will point this out in the Rockall discussion next.

--IBrow1000 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't look right, however there is a continental fragment, the Jan Mayen microcontinent that was briefly part of the Greenland Plate but now entirely surrounded by oceanic crust, which could be described in this way, but it would still need a source that refers to it like that. Mikenorton (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hypothesis presented as a Law[edit]

I wonder how Wikipedia allows an hypothesis being presented as a fact, without at least stating that the topic is still subject to studies and criticism. 190.140.0.178 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The formation of Laurasia[edit]

I don't agree with the formation of Laurasia. Is it really strict that "Siberia moved southwards and joined with Kazakhstania, a small continental region believed today to have been created during the Silurian by extensive volcanism. When these two continents joined together, Laurasia was nearly reformed..."

In here, it states that when Siberia joined with Kazakhstania, Laurasia was NEARLY reformed, does it imply that before the collision, Laurasia did not exist or the collision marked the existence of Laurasia?

Nghia1991ad (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)