Talk:Lemuria (continent)

Popular culture section

I've removed quite a bit of the stuff that could be in a popular culture section, as WP:POPCULTURE says "should contain verifiable facts of genuine interest to a broad audience of readers. Although some information can be verified from primary sources, this does not demonstrate whether such information has been discussed in independent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it will be easy to find a secondary reliable source to attribute that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged." Some was clearly unnotable or self-promotion.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Err, I don't know where to put this, but this seems the most likely. I know of another reference to Lermuria. In Tom Martin's book "Kingdom", there's a refence to Lemuria as well. He says that some magical power was passed down from them to the Tibetans. Though there is no way of verifying it (it's not even true, as far as I'm concerned), but I'm just a reference junkie who'd like to see this placed in the "Modern Fiction" category. Thanks. 213.51.103.167 (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lemuria in popular culture has been specifically created to hold this ever-growing, and invariably unsourced, list. I suggest the remaining embedded popular culture list is integrated into the article (as recommended by WP:IPC) or migrated to the separate article.—Ash (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So Where Is the Time Frame Referenced?

Why go through all of this and not put up a historical time that this place existed? We know fictional Atlantis "existed" roughly 9600BC. MPA 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed a good question since so much of the article is devoted to a scientific community's explanations of how the existence of the continent is impossible due to the time frame of tectonic activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.193.157 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed about fossil lemurs

Exactly which "fossil lemurs" were found from Pakistan to Malaysia (including India), which gave Philip Sclater grounds to hypothesize Lemuria's existence back in 1864? More details and references are needed. Aside from some very recent, discoveries (which *may* indicate a lemur ancestor from India), no lemur fossils have been found outside of Madagascar. There have been fossils of lemur-like primates (prosimians) found in North America, Eurasia and Africa, so I'm guessing that is what this article is referring to. Anyway, someone please provide a reference, explain what fossils were being looked at, and/or re-phrase this text. –Visionholder (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem? The text explains how the name and concept came into existence. Are you challenging that? This isn't an article about fossil lemurs, although if that interests you you might be interested in [1]. But an arguement about whether he was wrong or right doesn't, in my opinion, belong in this article (or indeed on this page). Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The text explains that he based his concept on "lemur fossils." The link you provided points to a recent find (that I mentioned above), which would not have been available in 1864. According to numerous sources, including "Lemurs: Ecology and Adaptation" editted by Gould & Sauther (ISBN: 978-0387-34585-7), no lemur fossils have been found in Madagascar or the surrounding continents. (The recent find is apparently still under debate.) Therefore, Sclater was not looking at what we could consider "lemur fossils" today. So what was he looking at? We simply need a statement, based on a source, that he was probably looking at fossils that have since been reclassified... such as tree shrews, colugos, or possibly lorises. The way it is stated now, asserts that there were known lemur fossils (by today's standards) found in India or Pakistan in the mid-1800's. The information is wrong and needs clarrification. Essentially, the way it is worded demonstrates hindsight bias. –Visionholder (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just wondering about the Indian Ocean during the last glacial maximum, the Holocene Transgression, would not portions of the seabed have been exposed to sky? For the purposes of myth and legend, the concepts of continents are relatively modern ideas, however the "stories" persist in the psyche and to ancient man a land once used and then inundated would have the impact of an island. I apologise if this is not the place for this question but I could not find where else to put it. Aguntala (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

good point, other wikipedians might consider check references points from info related to Sunda_shelf --183.171.173.39 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is strong POV or Missing too many citations. The article makes alot of assertions about the "Scientific community" ( even if we accept that wikipedia and its users assumes these geologists are the only authorities on historic/encyclopedic truth of Lemuria anyway, maybe the article shouldn't be so much about how scientifically unaccepted the legendary concept of Lemuria is, and focus at least as much on the legend itself whatever that may be, after all scientific communities are always in flux about everything because their knowledge comes from the so called empirical research which is really just as subjective to interpretation as parapsychological and religious/occult perspectives...)at large without offering any citations, if were going to wiki up scientific POV then we should at least do it in a non weighted manner by offering up citations when we incorporate bold facted statements such as "Though Lemuria is no longer considered a valid scientific hypothesis" ..considered by who? please use citations, because ultimately a studious visitor to the page may not really be all that interested who considers Lemuria a "valid scientific" hypothesis if for example they have come to find out if their is any anthropological or etymological research AT ALL regarding the subject, but if were going to make those types of blanket statements about the "scientific community" which is never as homogeneous as some would leave you to believe with their bold statements, then the least that can be done is to offer authoritative[in terms of a scientific community at least] citations, and references for the statements, otherwise by all appearances you just have a collection of pseudo-journalistic POV. I also think the conclusions of the scientific community might be more appropriate if they are kept within the Scientific Origins section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.193.157 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Star Ocean 4

It kinda sounds like Planet Lemuris....Dosen't it?