This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page views for this article over the last 30 days | ||
---|---|---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
According to my lecturer Jørgen Klein (2004) the breakup of Gondwana is as follows: 130 Ma India breakes loose. 80 Ma Africa and South America drift apart, and Australia and antarctica some later. About 30 Ma Africa connects with Eurasia.
According to the animation on the link I've inserted the breakup is like this:
160-150 Ma: the southern part of Gondwanaland starts drifting away from South America and Africa.
120 Ma: India is disconnected, Africa starts disconnecting.
100 Ma: Africa and South America disconnect, Australia and Antartica disconnect.
90 Ma: India and Madagascar disconnect.
All this conflicts with 20-60 Ma, so I'm not sure what to trust, don't have time for more research now, but maybe later. Dittaeva 12:07, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Dating of geologic events is kind of variable, because dates are given + or - so many years and such. Methods are not exact; with millions of years, people usually just aim for the ball park. They should all roughly follow though. I'll look at this; I've been editing geology articles and dating is an aspect I haven't paid a lot of attention to. I start looking for inconsistencies. If you think your dates are better, by all means put 'em in. -- DanielCD 22:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have a question. I have read about Pangea for decades. I aways assumed that it was a landmass surrounded by water. The photo shows a landmass with some sort of body of water in various places (lakes/rivers?). Then there is the grey part. Wasn't that land as well? If ocean, why not show it as an ocean? Mylittlezach ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The present article only seems to refer to Gondwana starting in the Jurassic. However, In other articles Gondwana appears in the Cambrian period as well. Pannotia refers to Protogondwana. Can some wise person sort this out? A timeline would be helpful. The Atlantica article seems most helpful saying:
Thincat 15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The article Proto-Gondwana clarifies the point: before Merging into Pangaea (proto gondwana) and afterwards. (neo gondwana)
The article says, ...Gondwana was centered roughly where Antarctica is today (at the extreme south of the globe), but the illustration shows it stretching from the south pole to just north of the equator. Either the picture is wrong, or the text is. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is confusing. The article on Pangea says that it split into Gondwana and Laurasia 180 MYa, but the article on Gondwana says that it merged with Laurasia into Pangea. Perhaps someone is thinking backwards in time?
I think the information in this article is incorrect, or at least does not offer a complete account of the events in question. As far as i am aware, the breakup of Pangaea led to the creation of the continents of Laurasia and Gondwanaland,with Gondwanaland subsequently breaking up into the continents we know today, not Laurasia merging with Gondwanaland to create Pangaea as described in the article. I am not an expert in this field, so i cannot rewrite this article, but i think the informationn in it is wrong, and would welcome a revision of the article by someone with full knowledge of this topic.
With the latest revision, the first caption states that Pangaea was formed from the "diverging" of Laurasia and Gondwana. Shouldn't that be "converging"? Or am I misunderstanding this. Also the text of the article still is not consistent with the idea that Gondwana predated Pangaea, then became part of Pangaea, then existed separately again after Pangaea broke up. -- Mathew5000 04:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The various continental plates have been moving around ever since the crust of the earth cooled and hardened. In really early days, 700 MYa, the earth was a lot smoother, making the oceans shallower, but covering up most of the earth's surface area. As they slowly began to push into each other, they started lifting in areas, predominantly in the centres of the plates (defined by fault lines). Around 600MYa, they started slowly rising, quite scattered at first, maily in the Polar Regions. These two rather small polar regions slowly started drifting towards each other, and at the same time, the compression caused more and more of what would become Pangea to rise out of the sea. It almost seems at though the polar regions then "bounced" off each other, splitting Pangea in to the northern Laurasia and southern Gondwanaland super-continents, which then again, as was correctly questioned above, split further, forming the world as we know it today.
More importantly, the Gondwanan continents, contain almost all of the worlds biodiversity. The sad thing is that over 70% of the biodiversity hotspots—the world's richest areas of floral diversity–have been destroyed by agriculture and human habitation.
Gondwana Alive, a not-for-profit organisation registered in South Africa has defined 40 corridors, across the world, where we have the richest geological heritage and floral biodiversity. We're lobbying support to have these defined as UNESCO biosphere reserves, and looking at ways in which we can protect these areas.
If you're interested, please visit the Gondwana Alive web site at http://www.GondwanaAlive.org.
The existence of Gondwana is clearly affirmed by the floristic relationships between the modern land masses that formerly comprised the super continent. If the article contains discussions of geological and climatological development, would it not further benefit from an inclusion of a discussion of the uniqueness of this flora, and that flora's role in confirming the supercontinent's existence?
The fact that one can find Fuschias in New Zealand and Chile, Araucarias in South America, as well as throughout the Pacific landmasses, all help tell the story of what went where, when and how.
This topic is not sufficiently within my expertise to reduce it to a written component of the article. But I hope someone out there can do so.
Gondwanaland term is derived from gond tribes in central India?
Any first year angineering student will tell you that a lump on the side the plant which is latge enough to represent a land mass would put the whole planet out of balance, ans therefore in a stste of self destruction, so the theory of Gondwana is just that a theory.
A better supposition would be that the plant 20 million years ago was about one third the diameter it is now, and the expansion of the globe broke up the crust into continents and the water which covered it drained into the gaps, the volcanic areas are still filling in the breaks today.
Also what "forces" broke up the Gondwana continent, there must have been equal and opposite forces keeping it togather
This would sxplain the many changes from a water logged planet to a dry continent
must go, will contiue soon
Doyle street
Doylestreet ( talk) 09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If some of the image clutter can be resolved (Since I think this article is approaching a to many as it is) I would suggest File:Nothofagus demis.JPG to demonstrate the "Gondwanan distribution" of the plant genus Nothofagus. Anyone have an opinion on which image would be appropriate to illustrate this pattern? — raeky ( talk | edits) 01:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This article should probably mention the recent Biogeografía paper by Dennis McCarthy et al: " An alternative Gondwana: Biota links South America, New Zealand and Australia". It presents an argument in favor of an alternative configuration of Gondwana based on biological dispersal frequencies. The article seems to have attracted a fair amount of attention from biogeographers, including discussion in the book Comparative Biogeography. Kaldari ( talk) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
if New Zealand was once connected to Australia then wouldn't it have been a part of Gondwana? Rfkzsaok7 ( talk) 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
What about the Anatolian Plateau? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.6.85 ( talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following citations from the article. As far as I can tell they were used as references many years ago but are less helpful now. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 13:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The current lead needs rewriting. Right now it begins,
Gondwana, or Gondwanaland, was a supercontinent that formed from the unification of several cratons in the Late Neoproterozoic, merged with Euramerica in the Carboniferous to form Pangaea, and began to fragment in the Mesozoic. It was the largest continental landmass on Earth, covering an area of 100,000,000 km2 (39,000,000 sq mi) or 64% of today's continents.
It then cites the Torsvik & Cocks (2013) abstract, which begins:
Gondwana is reviewed from the unification of its several cratons in the Late Neoproterozoic, through its combination with Laurussia in the Carboniferous to form Pangea and up to its progressive fragmentation in the Mesozoic. For much of that time it was the largest continental unit on Earth, covering almost 100 million km2, and its remnants constitute 64% of all land areas today.
While this isn't a direct copy, I think it's too close a paraphrase, and furthermore, by removing "For much of that time", it distorts the meaning of the paraphrased text. The sentence came to my attention because I saw "It was the largest continental landmass on Earth" and immediately thought "wait, what about Pangaea?".
This is the edit responsible.
-- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 08:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
“ | From its unification in the Late Neoproterozoic to its amalgamation with Laurussia in the Carboniferous to form Pangea, Gondwana was the largest unit of continental crust on Earth for more than two
hundred million years. |
” |
Fama Clamosa , I agree with Colin Douglas Howell that the current lead paragraph is too close a paraphrase of the Torsvik and Cocks (2013) article. Here is my suggested revision:
Gondwana, or Gondwanaland, was a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic (about 550 million years ago) until the Carboniferous (about 320 million years ago). It was formed by the accretion of several cratons. Eventually, Gondwana became the largest piece of continental crust of the Paleozoic Era, covering an area of about 100,000,000 km2 (39,000,000 sq mi). During the Carboniferous, it merged with Euramerica to form a larger supercontinent called Pangaea. Gondwana (and Pangaea) gradually broke up during the Mesozoic Era. The remnants of Gondwana make up about two-thirds of today's continental area.
GeoWriter ( talk) 14:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The link to the Tarkine article in the "See also" section seems superfulous. I propose to remove it, or at least consider re-naming it "Tarkine rainforest", since presumably the connection is that this area contains a large tract of rainforest rich in Gondwanan relics such as Nothofagus. MFdeS ( talk) 03:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
"Gondwana was a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic (about 550 million years ago) until the Jurassic (about 180 million years ago)." FACT! Got that. This is fact! Because of our certainty, we forbid the use of the word "theorized". Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 13:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The title "Greater Adria" redirects here and then is never mentioned anywhere in the article. What gives? Was Greater Adria a part of Gondwana? Is it not considered a valid term? 66.177.19.59 ( talk) 19:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The literature has thousands of uses of the terms Upper Gondwana and Lower Gondwana, though commonly without definition, and it's hard to find any definition online, let alone one that lay people can understand. Perhaps this article could present and explain these terms, maybe with a map. ScienceDirect states: "Excluding coastal Gondwana, Unit D, represented by hill-forming feldspar-poor, quartz-arenite and variegated claystones, indicating products of deep chemical weathering, is classified as the Upper Gondwana, whereas the remaining A-C lithounits are considered the Lower Gondwana." Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 15:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The lead seems a bit confusing, from my reading, the general opinion is that Gondwana broke up during the Cretaceous period, rather than the Jurassic, with some elements like the South America-Antarctica split extending into the Cenozoic. What are others thoughts on this? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, this article is not up to the standard of WP:PALEO and Wikipedia as a whole. Perhaps it would be beneficial to split it up by major timeperiod, into a Mesozoic and Paleozoic article. It also seems that most of the text is overly complicated, especially for the laymen. Besides all this the headings have weird names that feel more like the titles of book chapters than the headers of a Wikipedia article. Further thoughts on how to improve this article? TimTheDragonRider ( talk) 19:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page views for this article over the last 30 days | ||
---|---|---|
Detailed traffic statistics |
According to my lecturer Jørgen Klein (2004) the breakup of Gondwana is as follows: 130 Ma India breakes loose. 80 Ma Africa and South America drift apart, and Australia and antarctica some later. About 30 Ma Africa connects with Eurasia.
According to the animation on the link I've inserted the breakup is like this:
160-150 Ma: the southern part of Gondwanaland starts drifting away from South America and Africa.
120 Ma: India is disconnected, Africa starts disconnecting.
100 Ma: Africa and South America disconnect, Australia and Antartica disconnect.
90 Ma: India and Madagascar disconnect.
All this conflicts with 20-60 Ma, so I'm not sure what to trust, don't have time for more research now, but maybe later. Dittaeva 12:07, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Dating of geologic events is kind of variable, because dates are given + or - so many years and such. Methods are not exact; with millions of years, people usually just aim for the ball park. They should all roughly follow though. I'll look at this; I've been editing geology articles and dating is an aspect I haven't paid a lot of attention to. I start looking for inconsistencies. If you think your dates are better, by all means put 'em in. -- DanielCD 22:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have a question. I have read about Pangea for decades. I aways assumed that it was a landmass surrounded by water. The photo shows a landmass with some sort of body of water in various places (lakes/rivers?). Then there is the grey part. Wasn't that land as well? If ocean, why not show it as an ocean? Mylittlezach ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The present article only seems to refer to Gondwana starting in the Jurassic. However, In other articles Gondwana appears in the Cambrian period as well. Pannotia refers to Protogondwana. Can some wise person sort this out? A timeline would be helpful. The Atlantica article seems most helpful saying:
Thincat 15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The article Proto-Gondwana clarifies the point: before Merging into Pangaea (proto gondwana) and afterwards. (neo gondwana)
The article says, ...Gondwana was centered roughly where Antarctica is today (at the extreme south of the globe), but the illustration shows it stretching from the south pole to just north of the equator. Either the picture is wrong, or the text is. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is confusing. The article on Pangea says that it split into Gondwana and Laurasia 180 MYa, but the article on Gondwana says that it merged with Laurasia into Pangea. Perhaps someone is thinking backwards in time?
I think the information in this article is incorrect, or at least does not offer a complete account of the events in question. As far as i am aware, the breakup of Pangaea led to the creation of the continents of Laurasia and Gondwanaland,with Gondwanaland subsequently breaking up into the continents we know today, not Laurasia merging with Gondwanaland to create Pangaea as described in the article. I am not an expert in this field, so i cannot rewrite this article, but i think the informationn in it is wrong, and would welcome a revision of the article by someone with full knowledge of this topic.
With the latest revision, the first caption states that Pangaea was formed from the "diverging" of Laurasia and Gondwana. Shouldn't that be "converging"? Or am I misunderstanding this. Also the text of the article still is not consistent with the idea that Gondwana predated Pangaea, then became part of Pangaea, then existed separately again after Pangaea broke up. -- Mathew5000 04:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The various continental plates have been moving around ever since the crust of the earth cooled and hardened. In really early days, 700 MYa, the earth was a lot smoother, making the oceans shallower, but covering up most of the earth's surface area. As they slowly began to push into each other, they started lifting in areas, predominantly in the centres of the plates (defined by fault lines). Around 600MYa, they started slowly rising, quite scattered at first, maily in the Polar Regions. These two rather small polar regions slowly started drifting towards each other, and at the same time, the compression caused more and more of what would become Pangea to rise out of the sea. It almost seems at though the polar regions then "bounced" off each other, splitting Pangea in to the northern Laurasia and southern Gondwanaland super-continents, which then again, as was correctly questioned above, split further, forming the world as we know it today.
More importantly, the Gondwanan continents, contain almost all of the worlds biodiversity. The sad thing is that over 70% of the biodiversity hotspots—the world's richest areas of floral diversity–have been destroyed by agriculture and human habitation.
Gondwana Alive, a not-for-profit organisation registered in South Africa has defined 40 corridors, across the world, where we have the richest geological heritage and floral biodiversity. We're lobbying support to have these defined as UNESCO biosphere reserves, and looking at ways in which we can protect these areas.
If you're interested, please visit the Gondwana Alive web site at http://www.GondwanaAlive.org.
The existence of Gondwana is clearly affirmed by the floristic relationships between the modern land masses that formerly comprised the super continent. If the article contains discussions of geological and climatological development, would it not further benefit from an inclusion of a discussion of the uniqueness of this flora, and that flora's role in confirming the supercontinent's existence?
The fact that one can find Fuschias in New Zealand and Chile, Araucarias in South America, as well as throughout the Pacific landmasses, all help tell the story of what went where, when and how.
This topic is not sufficiently within my expertise to reduce it to a written component of the article. But I hope someone out there can do so.
Gondwanaland term is derived from gond tribes in central India?
Any first year angineering student will tell you that a lump on the side the plant which is latge enough to represent a land mass would put the whole planet out of balance, ans therefore in a stste of self destruction, so the theory of Gondwana is just that a theory.
A better supposition would be that the plant 20 million years ago was about one third the diameter it is now, and the expansion of the globe broke up the crust into continents and the water which covered it drained into the gaps, the volcanic areas are still filling in the breaks today.
Also what "forces" broke up the Gondwana continent, there must have been equal and opposite forces keeping it togather
This would sxplain the many changes from a water logged planet to a dry continent
must go, will contiue soon
Doyle street
Doylestreet ( talk) 09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
If some of the image clutter can be resolved (Since I think this article is approaching a to many as it is) I would suggest File:Nothofagus demis.JPG to demonstrate the "Gondwanan distribution" of the plant genus Nothofagus. Anyone have an opinion on which image would be appropriate to illustrate this pattern? — raeky ( talk | edits) 01:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This article should probably mention the recent Biogeografía paper by Dennis McCarthy et al: " An alternative Gondwana: Biota links South America, New Zealand and Australia". It presents an argument in favor of an alternative configuration of Gondwana based on biological dispersal frequencies. The article seems to have attracted a fair amount of attention from biogeographers, including discussion in the book Comparative Biogeography. Kaldari ( talk) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
if New Zealand was once connected to Australia then wouldn't it have been a part of Gondwana? Rfkzsaok7 ( talk) 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
What about the Anatolian Plateau? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.6.85 ( talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed the following citations from the article. As far as I can tell they were used as references many years ago but are less helpful now. -- Fama Clamosa ( talk) 13:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The current lead needs rewriting. Right now it begins,
Gondwana, or Gondwanaland, was a supercontinent that formed from the unification of several cratons in the Late Neoproterozoic, merged with Euramerica in the Carboniferous to form Pangaea, and began to fragment in the Mesozoic. It was the largest continental landmass on Earth, covering an area of 100,000,000 km2 (39,000,000 sq mi) or 64% of today's continents.
It then cites the Torsvik & Cocks (2013) abstract, which begins:
Gondwana is reviewed from the unification of its several cratons in the Late Neoproterozoic, through its combination with Laurussia in the Carboniferous to form Pangea and up to its progressive fragmentation in the Mesozoic. For much of that time it was the largest continental unit on Earth, covering almost 100 million km2, and its remnants constitute 64% of all land areas today.
While this isn't a direct copy, I think it's too close a paraphrase, and furthermore, by removing "For much of that time", it distorts the meaning of the paraphrased text. The sentence came to my attention because I saw "It was the largest continental landmass on Earth" and immediately thought "wait, what about Pangaea?".
This is the edit responsible.
-- Colin Douglas Howell ( talk) 08:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
“ | From its unification in the Late Neoproterozoic to its amalgamation with Laurussia in the Carboniferous to form Pangea, Gondwana was the largest unit of continental crust on Earth for more than two
hundred million years. |
” |
Fama Clamosa , I agree with Colin Douglas Howell that the current lead paragraph is too close a paraphrase of the Torsvik and Cocks (2013) article. Here is my suggested revision:
Gondwana, or Gondwanaland, was a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic (about 550 million years ago) until the Carboniferous (about 320 million years ago). It was formed by the accretion of several cratons. Eventually, Gondwana became the largest piece of continental crust of the Paleozoic Era, covering an area of about 100,000,000 km2 (39,000,000 sq mi). During the Carboniferous, it merged with Euramerica to form a larger supercontinent called Pangaea. Gondwana (and Pangaea) gradually broke up during the Mesozoic Era. The remnants of Gondwana make up about two-thirds of today's continental area.
GeoWriter ( talk) 14:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The link to the Tarkine article in the "See also" section seems superfulous. I propose to remove it, or at least consider re-naming it "Tarkine rainforest", since presumably the connection is that this area contains a large tract of rainforest rich in Gondwanan relics such as Nothofagus. MFdeS ( talk) 03:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
"Gondwana was a supercontinent that existed from the Neoproterozoic (about 550 million years ago) until the Jurassic (about 180 million years ago)." FACT! Got that. This is fact! Because of our certainty, we forbid the use of the word "theorized". Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 13:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The title "Greater Adria" redirects here and then is never mentioned anywhere in the article. What gives? Was Greater Adria a part of Gondwana? Is it not considered a valid term? 66.177.19.59 ( talk) 19:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The literature has thousands of uses of the terms Upper Gondwana and Lower Gondwana, though commonly without definition, and it's hard to find any definition online, let alone one that lay people can understand. Perhaps this article could present and explain these terms, maybe with a map. ScienceDirect states: "Excluding coastal Gondwana, Unit D, represented by hill-forming feldspar-poor, quartz-arenite and variegated claystones, indicating products of deep chemical weathering, is classified as the Upper Gondwana, whereas the remaining A-C lithounits are considered the Lower Gondwana." Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 15:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
The lead seems a bit confusing, from my reading, the general opinion is that Gondwana broke up during the Cretaceous period, rather than the Jurassic, with some elements like the South America-Antarctica split extending into the Cenozoic. What are others thoughts on this? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, this article is not up to the standard of WP:PALEO and Wikipedia as a whole. Perhaps it would be beneficial to split it up by major timeperiod, into a Mesozoic and Paleozoic article. It also seems that most of the text is overly complicated, especially for the laymen. Besides all this the headings have weird names that feel more like the titles of book chapters than the headers of a Wikipedia article. Further thoughts on how to improve this article? TimTheDragonRider ( talk) 19:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)