Talk:Mohorovičić discontinuity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Mohorovičić discontinuity 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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


How can something described in the article as the boundary-line between the crust and mantle be exposed on the surface? One of these statements must be false.

I'd agree that seems to be true from the definition of the term. The rocks in the picture were at one time located at the moho, but have been uplifted since that time through the action at the mid-Atlantic ridge. I've altered the caption slightly. 22:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Added IPA pronunciation for 'Mohorovičić': (IPA [mɔhɔ'ɹɔvɪtʃɪtʃ]) Rosier 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

maw haw RAW vitch itch? I've never heard anyone say it in English, but I suspect muh haw roe vitch itch would be more usual... --Kjoonlee 07:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually the pronunciation of [mɔhɔˈrɔvitʃitɕ] could in English be more precisely approximated as mo-ho-RO-vich-itch. The IPA represents the proper pronunciation of the surname Mohorovičić in (Serbo-)Croatian language. It is usually anglicised as either [moʊhoʊˈrɒvitʃitʃ] or [mɒhɒˈrɒvitʃitʃ]. (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason the IPA has been removed (and only halfway at that)? Blueyoshi321 03:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Solid or liquid?[edit]

Question: Is Moho discontinuity in solid or in liquid state of matter? Or is that just some crack?

Answer: The Moho is an imaginary line between the Crust and Mantle, Similer to how the equater is imaginary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the Moho is a physical thing. It's the boundary between the crust, which was originally produced by partially melting the mantle (though in the continents usually has undergone subsequent sedimentary and metamorphic process), and the mantle, which has the solid residue from the partial melting, or may have never melted since the formation of the Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M0ffx (talkcontribs) 13:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How can u ask such a question![edit]

The entire page/article is devoted to the mohorovic discontinuity,and you ask is it solid or liquid,and even have the nerve to say "or is it just a crack?"-read the article,and if there are any details you would like to divulge into deeper..Then can you research yourself,please don't leave retarded messages on the talk page! Danyecurry 14:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC) user:Danyecurry:It's an understandable question.

There's a common misconception, due to unclear teaching, that the mantle is liquid. It's not, it's solid, in that it has a non-zero shear modulus, but yet it convects, like a (very viscous) liquid. M0ffx (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nature of the Moho[edit]

I added a new section Mohorovičić discontinuity#Nature of the Moho that describes what appear to be the two common models for the Moho: a boundary between phases or a boundary between regions of different composition. There does not seem to be definitive work to decide between them.

I hope this section and its sources might satisfy those looking for more detail on what the Moho discontinuity is. With that anticipation, I have removed the template calling for more explanation. Brews ohare (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Relationship of CMB with reflection MOHO[edit]

Should this definition of the Moho be so certain: "The Mohorovičić discontinuity (moxoroʋitʃitɕ) , usually referred to as the Moho, is the boundary between the Earth's crust and the mantle." The distinction between the crust-mantle boundary and the Moho is not trivial because it concerns our very definitions of the crust and mantle of the earth - the crust comprises rock types formed by secondary processes since the earth's accretion . The Moho is a geophysical discontinuity and does not necessarily coincide with the transition from crustal eclogite or granulites to ultramafic rocks. Therefore depth to Moho cannot be used automatically to give crustal thicknesses.

for instance; At well-characterised locations in eastern Australia, the CMB occurs within a package of seismic reflectors (Figure 9) , and commonly several kilometres shallower than the Moho.

source can be found here:

and more info here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Legend of ophiolite image[edit]

The legend This rock which formed the Ordovician Moho is exposed on the surface is not correct. The moho is a surface, (dividing crust from mantle) does not contains and it isn't made by any rocks. Ophiolitic is a oceanic crustal basalt metamorphosed.--Bramfab (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Crustal thinning ?[edit]

Inexpertly, continental crusts are thinner closer to spreading centers, e.g. eastern Brazil and western Africa, as well as being thicker before subduction zones, e.g. Rocky Mountains & Andes. As continents spread away from a growing rift, e.g. Atlantic ocean, the continental crust thins (under extension). And they thicken over subduction zones. The stretch / squish factor can be 1.5-2.0, according to the Open University course S339. That seems significant — the region of the Rockies, in the absence of faulting & uplifting, could be up to twice as wide, hundreds of km wider than at present. Continents are extensible, and compressible, by up to factors of two (vaguely like taking sheets of plywood, and doubling them up, or lying the pieces out flat). Since hundreds of km linearly, and hundreds of thousands of km square, of continental surface can be gained or lost via such mechanisms, so such might be worthy of mention, in the article, to draw geology connections, and improve the entry. (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrStrauss talk 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Mohorovičić discontinuityMoho discontinuity – With all due respect to the Croatian researcher who first described this feature, in English it is simply called the "Moho" discontinuity. WP:COMMONNAME says this should be the main article namespace. Would have done this myself but the page I wanted to move to has an edit history of two edits. KDS4444 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


The common name for this is moho. So, if that is the primary topic as I believe, then the article should be at that base name. If not then we do need to disambiguate, and in that case perhaps the current name is the best natural disambiguation.

Two quick Googles [5] [6] give the current name an advantage over the proposed Moho discontinuity, but it's less than 2:1, so borderline significance. Andrewa (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I find shortening the official scientifically accepted name of the formation to be unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Many do, and are surprised that we give so little weight to official names, but there are reasons for that policy. Andrewa (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.