Talk:Lemuria (continent)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geography (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

So Where Is the Time Frame Referenced?[edit]

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 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As fas as the book Lemuria by Cerve/Spencer Lewis is concerned the time frame is 100,000 years ago, it started sinking on its western side and by 12,000 years ago only the part of it (its Eastern side) which is now the WEST coast of the USA remained. (see page 93). Very interesting is that strange hieroglyphics have been discovered at Lake Klamath, and although conventional archaeology believes they are Amerindian, this reference states that Indians dispute this, stating that the hieroglyphics are NOT theirs and are of a totally unfamiliar nature to them.. (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Dr R. Schep.

Citation needed about fossil lemurs[edit]

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 -- (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 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

J H Moore, "Savage Survivals"[edit]

I've removed it - I'm not sure why the quote from this zoologist should be in the article and if it goes back in it needs to be in context. The only reason I can see is that thye quote is on p.48[2] of Studying Human Origins: Disciplinary History and Epistemology by Robin W. DennellmBritish Academy Research Professor at the Dept. of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, who wrote "One ot the last sightings of Lemuria was in an appalling book called Savage Surivals byJ.H. Moore, who wrote: "It is believed that man evolved somewhere in southern Asia, or possibly, still further south than the present boundary of Asia, in lands now drowned bv the Indian Ocean. This supposed land is called Lemuria."" I'm not convinced that's sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lemuria in popular culture[edit]

There is no use in a random listing of appearances in fiction. If the article isn't just completely removed, it should take one example from each section to form a succinct paragraph showing how it has been utilized. TTN (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with a merge - I hate these arbitrary splits. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see anything "random" about the entries in the article. It's also a good way to keep this from cluttering up the main article.--Auric talk 12:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose That's too long to be in the main article. Tracking how something notable has appeared throughout history in notable works is encyclopedic. It just doesn't belong in the main article. Dream Focus 07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)