Talk:Supercontinent

Mu

If it actually existed shouldn't Mu be included on this list,or at least mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.137 (talk • contribs)

Inconsistency

The first paragraph says "The assembly of cratons and accreted terranes that form Eurasia[1] qualifies as a supercontinent today", and further down we read "Some historians call the combined land mass of Africa and Eurasia the supercontinent Africa-Eurasia, but it is not a geological supercontinent". Is Eurasia counted as a supercontinent by geologists, or is it not? It can't be both, y'know. :-) Dr Zak 01:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest inconsistency in the whole list is;

What is a supercontinent? Apparently, looking at this list, any major orogenic or rifting event brackets a "supercontinent". This is basically model driven terminology, because the authors appear to suggest that plate ectonics cannot exist without forming or destroying a supercontinent. There is no consistent standard expressed as to what constitutes a supercontinent except "something kludged together".

The second greatest are;

The Komaii formation. Its not a supercontinent, its a single lava event.
The Yilgarn Craton. In fact, most of these are "cratons" not superconinents. Or protocratons. Of course, there's a reason for this; most >500Ma rocks are in cratons. Making the leap to say that these rocks, in most cases metamorphosed, are produced on supercontinents is a different kettle of fish.

Rolinator 11:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ur

in the opening paragraph the article states you have to fit specific conditions to be called a supercontinent, but then under Ur it says that one could argue it was a supercontinent (presuably because it was big for its time?) which is inconsistent. Perhaps it should be shuffled down to the notes section...