Talk:Zealandia

Outline

It would be much more clear to the average reader where/what exactly is considered Zealandia if that area were outlined on the map. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever added Zealandia-Continent map en.svg. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Submerged continent

On this article here it says that submerged continents are a physical impossibility. but this article says that Zealandia is a submerged continent. what is the correct view here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.230.33 (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it says that it broke away and then sank. --Savre 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just a matter of linguistics. It can't 'sink' since it hasn't got water as its foundation, but it can be submerged by it if water levels rise... So it's not 'sinking' in the nautical term of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.146 (talk • contribs)

It's possible that it could be stretched out, and a thinner continent would ride lower in the crust, possibly below sea level. The English Channel is submerged continent, as are continental shelves all over the world. But a continent wouldn't sink to the level of oceanic crust; there would be remains like Zealandia. kwami 22:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Lemuria article has since been fixed. -- Avenue (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware it is just quite low lying, and only present as a continet during the middle of ice ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.35.159 (talk • contribs)

The portion that was above sea level in the depths of the last ice age was still only a small proportion of the whole. Sea level then was about 130 m lower (see our article on sea level rise), but much of Zealandia lies 500-1500 m below the sea. -- Avenue (talk) 09:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the above paragraph (or something like it) isn't in the article---that was the first thing I wanted to know, namely, how deep is he submerged portion, and how much was exposed during ice ages? Could a mention of that (as quantitative and precise as possible) be added? I'm not an expert, so I'll leave it to you folks. Thanks. -- Spireguy (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a Continent?

I question the assertion that Zealandia is actually a continent, i.e. formed of continental crust. The technical papers I've seen indicate that it is no more than an oceanic plateau, made up of crustal material that is intermediate between oceanic crust and true continental crust. Owing to its density, it's unlikely that any significant part of it ever extended above sea level. New Zealand itself is indeed comprised of fully continental crust, unlike this Zealandia. Tmangray (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell us which technical papers you're referring to, so we can incorporate or rebut your interpretation of them. There is some high-standing oceanic crust around Zealandia, but Zealandia itself is continental - see e.g. this map. Its rocks have similar density to other continental areas, but are generally much thinner; that's why most of it is now submerged. -- Avenue (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the real crux of my contention is what this article is claiming to be the extent of the continent. The Hikurangi Plateau, for example, is not continental crust, but a large igneous province, an oceanic plateau, no granite in sight. Am I wrong? Tmangray (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right, about the Hikurangi Plateau at least. The source cited following that sentence (Mortimer, 2006) includes a map that clearly excludes the plateau. I'll remove that claim from the article. The Louisiade Plateau and Mellish Rise also look doubtful. -- Avenue (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The LP and MR are both specifically included. As for the HP, that could simply be a defect in coloring the map, so it would be good to have confirmation. kwami (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are they included? The Louisiade Plateau is not granitic, but is another oceanic plateau. Examination of plate reconstruction maps shows that this Zealandia is actually a narrow ridge-like structure, probably indicating that it is a terrane, not a continent, a former island arc. (By that definition, Baja California and everything granitic west of the San Andreas is a "continent".) These maps do not show any of the oceanic plateaus claimed. None of these are granitic. Unless you can show otherwise, they should not be included. Tmangray (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The only undersea plateau that appears granitic is the Campbell Plateau, and it is specifically not referred to as an oceanic plateau or large igneous province, while most of the others are. Tmangray (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Which plate reconstruction maps are you looking at? There is one in Mortimer's paper (Figure 3), and it clearly shows the Louisiade Plateau as part of Gondwana, not a separate island arc.

There seem to be two elements to your argument, which I think are separate issues: whether these areas consist of continental crust, and whether Zealandia is a "continent". On the second issue, I have seen it described as a continent, or as a microcontinent. Our article mentions both terms. Zealandia does not contain a craton, but it is certainly more than a terrane; it contains several (there are eight just in onshore New Zealand). -- Avenue (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what that map is re:Louisiade, but I find no mention of granite; and I find mention of it as a large igneous (and basaltic) oceanic plateau caused by a hot spot, not a granite outcropping. As for the continent-terrane matter: that there is no craton is decisive. I see no distinction between this Zealandia fragment and any other terrane of continental crust. As with other terranes, it has no plate of its own, but is part of plates which include other continental crust as well as oceanic crust. Tmangray (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell us where you're finding these mentions, indications, etc. And where did you hear that a continent must have a plate of its own? I was probably too careless above about the absence of a craton, sorry. There is none exposed in onshore New Zealand, but there could be one elsewhere in Zealandia. See for example these slides by Chris Adams, a geologist at GNS; on the last slide, he refers to early Cambrian rocks found on Campbell Island, asking if they are "a tantalising glimpse of Zealandia’s cratonic core?" -- Avenue (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Zealandia is made of continential crust. If you look at its western portion you will see it fits with the eastern coast of Australia; there used to be a mid-ocean ridge between Australia and Zealandia so it's pretty clear it used to be part of Australia, which is made of continential crust. Therefor I consider Zealandia a continent.

I think that's why Zealandia dosen't have much of a craton because much of its craton forms Australia, which was split apart from the ancient mid-ocean ridge. A similar formation is occuring in Antarctica; one part of the continent is non-cratonic and the other is cratonic with the West Antarctic Rift separating the two of them. Continents do contain volcanic rock and not just continential rock; much of the coast of Canada is made of volcanic rock from when ancient island arcs collided and fused onto North America; see the Wrangellia Terrane for example which is volcanic and seems to form part of the North American continent. A few hotspots are thought to underlie Zealandia which probably responsible for the volcanic rocks. Black Tusk 19:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This paper by Gaina et al is relevant. It focusses on the opening of the Tasman Sea, and thus ignores parts of Zealandia north of the Chesterfield Plateau, south of the Challeger Plateau, and east of the Lord Howe Ridge. But within those bounds, it confirms that all the regions our article claims are part of Zealandia are blocks of continental crust: the Chesterfield Plateau, Dampier Ridge, Gilbert Seamount and of course the Lord Howe Ridge (including the Challeger Plateau). -- Avenue (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Continent is not defined in matters of geology. If that would be so, India would also consider to be a separate continent. Avenue's argument in the beginning of the section requesting a technical paper is outrages. How about to take basic geography course, instead of jumping in with such requests. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Craton?

The microcontinent article says that Zeelandia contains a craton, this article should mention the continental core. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, this hasn't been confirmed yet, although it seems a natural guess given what is known of the parts of Antarctica that neighboured the southern parts of Zealandia - see e.g. this extended abstract. So I think the statement in the microcontinent article was a bit too strong. I agree it would be good to mention this; the whole Geology section needs a lot of expansion. -- Avenue (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tasmantis?!

The German Wikipedia mentions that "Tasmantis" is an alternative name for Zealandia. Does anybody know anything about that? Kelisi (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

It was being mentioned in the intro of the English article for a long time up to a couple of months before you asked, and was reintroduced shortly after. There is a problem, however: the source used is a book published in 2011, and "Tasmantis" was already mentioned in the article at the time (it was inserted in this edit by Tom Radulovich; the article was later imported into German Wikipedia), so this could well be an example of WP:CITOGEN, in principle – although I trust an established editor like Tom to not pass an invention of his own as an established technical term independent of him. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

In Tim Flannery's 2002 The Future Eaters, he writes: "Dubbed Tasmantis by geologists, this sliver of land was that first part of Australasia to split away from Gondwana. Now largely submerged beneath the sea, it includes New Zealand and New Caledonia, and Lord Howe, Norfolk, Kermadec, and the Chatham Islands" (p. 42). However I don't have the book in front of me, so I don't know who Flannery's sources are. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tom Radulovich: Thank you. It would be better to use the 2002 source instead. It shows more clearly that Tasmantis is rather an informal nickname. There is a decent chance that the 2011 source is dependent on Wikipedia in this respect – the writer may have relied on us here. (I felt free to repair your sig.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: A search of google scholar - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=tasmantis&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 - finds quite a few scholarly articles which reference Tasmantis, so I'd hesitate to characterize it as an 'informal nickname'. It seems more as though scholars haven't quite settled on a name yet. Until (or if) it's definitively sorted, Zealandia and Tasmantis ought to both be considered valid names, even if Wikipedians favor Zealandia. Tom Radulovich (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tom Radulovich: Fair point, though note that the snippet for Recent advances in avian palaeobiology in New Zealand with implications for understanding New Zealand's geological, climatic and evolutionary histories (2017), right on the top of the second page of the results, says: "New Zealand is the emergent part of an India-sized continent (or sub-continent) once referred to as Tasmantis but now commonly termed Zealandia (Gibbs 2006; Grandcolas 2016; Mortimer et al. [...]". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2017

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: moved. A good argument has been made that this topic was primary, according to usage, even before the recent news. No one has made the argument that any of the other Zealandias have more (or equal) long-term significance, so it is my determination that the strongest arguments in terms of policy/guideline, and hence the consensus of this discussion, is in favour of moving. Jenks24 (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

• Zealandia (continent) → Zealandia
• Zealandia → Zealandia (disambiguation)

– WP:Primary topic. Similar to Africa, Americas, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, and Æurope. Out of all similar named topics, the proposed continent has the most significance in terms of science, geography and history. BBC, (The Guardian) Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a relatively unknown continent. Zealandia (personification) may be a better candidate. Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. No/not enough evidence presented that this subject represents a strong historic use of the term. Also, the subject of this article was recently in the news, meaning that this move request probably represents a form of WP:RECENTISM. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No clearcut primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment On the face of it, this may makes sense, given the recent uplift in status and importance of this topic. However, evidence of the primary topic situation should be presented. Schwede66 02:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, oppose, and oppose a little bit more. A encyclopaedia can't be ruled by the week news. Next week no one will remember this anyway. Bertdrunk (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't believe I understand the oppose votes, and think they may be confused. The article is currently at Zealandia (continent). This is the proposition of the recently reported paper, that Zealandia is not a continental fragment, but a full-fledged continent. So those who wish to wait until the idea of Zealandia being a continent becomes mainstream should be voting in support of the move, not against it. I certainly think we should not be responding to the research paper of the moment, and should always wait until an idea enters the scientific mainstream before we accept it as a given, but I think that means that the article should be at Zealandia with no disambiguator defining what it is, or Zealandia (continental fragment), Zealandia (microcontinet) or Zealandia (submerged landmass). Once the land mass is accepted as a continent (if it is), then it should be moved to Zealandia (continent). Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support as clear primary topic. Even before the recent media attention the continent was receiving nearly ten times as many page views as the next most-viewed Zealandias put together. Given Zealandia (continent) is linked to from the main Continent article, it seems unlikely that its traffic levels will be dropping any time soon. Steel1943, Clarityfiend, and Schwede, you may wish to review the page view statistics. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Beyond My Ken and IgnorantArmies. Volcanoguy 16:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support It's the lack of page view stats or the like that I was commenting on above. Now that we have those, the case is rather compelling. Schwede66 17:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Beyond a article published and the news picking it there's no consensus whatever if this is really a continent or not. As there is no organization to rule these things, it will probably never have. Not a good thing to set it on stone for an encyclopaedia pretending to be supported by RSs. Bertdrunk (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• On matters like this, Wikipedia relies on what mainstream scientists think, so it's not necessary for an organization to announce an official proclamation of some sort. Once someone can establish that the majority of geologists accept Zealandia as a continent, through the presentation of reliable scientific sources, then Wikipedia will follow suit. Until then, we go with what the mainstream says, and Zealandia remains a continental fragment or a microcontinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is a move discussion. We are trying to determine whether this is the primary topic or not. Whether the subject is a continent or otherwise is not really relevant to this discussion, even though the nomination makes some connection. Schwede66 02:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I disagree. Whether Zealandia is a continent, a continental fragment or a microcontinent makes an obvious difference as to where it should be located. It is not always the case that a primary topic can be easily determined, so these are considerations that need to be taken into account. An RM is not necessarily monolithic in its focus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support as primary topic regardless of its status as a continent or otherwise. The article should reflect that the status of Zealandia is under consideration by the scientific community. Reidgreg (talk) 19:10, 26 February 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.

Classification as a continent

The text in this section says that the Geological Society of America has "stated" that Zealandia was a continent. To me, it's more correct to say that they published in their journal an article putting forward (again) the case for Zealandia to be classified a continent. VirtualDave (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Bollons Seamount

The article claims that it is unknown how strongly Bollons Seamount remains connected to Zealandia but it is treated in {{Oceanic features of Zealandia}} as if it is part of Zealandia for sure. From looking at the figures in the recent GSA publication it appears they do not consider Bollons Seamount as part of Zealandia, most likely because they are separated by oceanic crust. Maybe Bollons Seamount should be removed from the template. Volcanoguy 05:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Zealandia topographic map

Hi there, I created a new topographic map of Zealandia and used actual information about the borders of it. It can be found unter commons here. The map in this article which show border and names has some mistaces and shouldn't be used. -- Ulanwp (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Tectonic Division

Was it previously with Gondowaland or Laurassia Piad'S Amt'R (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No to Category:Historical continents

Per WP:CAT, categorization of articles must be verifiable. There is nothing in the article that claims Zealandia is no longer considered a continent. A look through Google News also suggests otherwise. Volcanoguy 19:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ninety-three percent of it has been underwater for the better part of the last 23 million years. I should think that would be explanation enough. Sumanuil (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Being 93% underwater is not a good reason. That's like saying an oceanic plateau is not a plateau or a seamount is not a mountain. Volcanoguy 01:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. I have better things to do than bicker with pedants. Do what you want. I won't stop you, but someone else might. Sumanuil (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Size comparison

The second paragraph currently includes:

"more than twice the size of the next-largest microcontinent and more than half the size of the Australian continent. As such, and due to other geological considerations, such as crustal thickness and density, it is arguably a continent in its own right"

The size comparison to Australia is only true if you count all the area of the proposed plate/continent of Zealandia, but only the exposed land of the Australian continent. This seems a disingenuous argument to make. The comparison to the Australian plate would not be a good one either, but would be about 10 times the size of Zealandia.

Given this I think it should be edited, but it then undermines a lot of the opening section, and this is not my area of expertise at all. Quarrel (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

We did it!

We did it! We found Old Zealand! (this is a joke. please do not take it seriously.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLeaf321 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The Rodinian Connection

As per GeoScienceWorld and as covered by the New Zealand Herald, it turns out that the continent of Zealandia did not originate as a breakaway from Gondwana, but rather it is a "direct descendant", as it were, of the ancient Precambrian supercontinent of Rodinia. I don't think I'm quite qualified to add that section, but I'd like to bring this to the attention of anyone who's watching this page who has enough expertise in geology to add this new information in. Someone more qualified, that is. Thanks. DownAirStairsConditioner (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Rationale for inclusion of a separate geology section

See Geology of Zealandia. Attribution originally is in Zealandia: Revision history until todays date.

Given the importance and quality of the geology section this should stand for the moment and does not justify yet a separate main article in my view. As it stood the issue of Zealandia's geology is mixed with geopolitical and biology matters, some of which currently are not as high quality as the geology. The issue has caused category indexing issues at a minimum. While these still exist for many islands of the Pacific they should not exist for a continent. Obviously reversion is possible but the separation seems likely to lead to even higher quality of the geology subsection in due course ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)