Re: 260-Million-Year-Old Leaf - interesting photo

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 11/10/04


Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:04:48 +1300

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:53:04 GMT, Seppo Renfors
<Renfors@not.on.com.au> wrote:

>
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:24:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
>> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:27:35 +0100, Erik Hammerstad
>> ><egeha.is.all.you.need@start.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >>> On 8 Nov 2004 11:06:16 -0800, david_christainsen@hotmail.com (David
>> >>> Christainsen) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Dear friends,
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Antarctic Forests Reveal Ancient Trees
>> >>>>http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041101/leaves.html
>
>[..]
>
>> >>260 MA ago Antarctica was at the pole, see for example Van Andel,
>> >>"New Views on an Old Planet", Cambridge 1985 (page 108 in my
>> >>copy). A comprehensive set of animations can be found at
>> >>http://www.scotese.com/ - your animation starts too late.
>> >
>> >For the time being I'm happy to take your word for it. My recollection
>> >of antarctica's movements is obviouly faulty.
>>
>> I have now managed to undertake a little research. The best site I
>> have found is http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/paleogeographic.html (which
>> is a link from http://www4.nau.edu/geology/ ). If one starts by
>> clicking on the 'Missisipian' link and then, one at a time, on down
>> the page you can see the continents dance for you.
>>
>> You are quite correct: the Antarctic was more or less where it is now
>> in the Permian period. The only problem is that the series shows that
>> it was covered by ice at that time and had been for a good many
>> million years previously. Only when one moves on past the Permian to
>> the Triassic does one come across an ice-free era. I have to ask how
>> it was that trees could grow in a permanently ice-bound Permian
>> Antarctic. Not this matters much in an archaeological news group.
>>
>> --- snip ---
>
>Note subject line: "260-Million..." and a ref to this being "Permian
>period" - if the situation is as defined below at 200 million years
>ago - then it cannot have been as either of you claim.
>
>http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/antarctica/ideas/gondwana2.html
>http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/~greg/Gond.html
>http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/support/gondwana.htm
>http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/magazines/98nov/gondwanaland.asp?
>http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/gondwana.html
>
>There are any amount more references that indicate Antarctica was NOT
>where it is today at 260 Ma.
>
>Your ref:
>
>http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rcb7/Perm.jpg
>
>is out of date - the "Pangaea," theory from 1912 has been replaced by
>the Gondwanaland and Laurasia theory that is the current theory -
>since the 1960's.

The original article posted by David Christiansen claimed 250M years
ago:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041101/leaves.html
  "Nov. 5, 2004 A quarter-billion years ago, forested islands
   flashed with autumnal hues near the South Pole a polar scene
   unlike any today, researchers say."

Most ot sites you have cited deal with conditions 50M years later.

Eric Stevens



Relevant Pages

  • Re: 260-Million-Year-Old Leaf - interesting photo
    ... > in the Permian period. ... Only when one moves on past the Permian to ... There are any amount more references that indicate Antarctica was NOT ... the Gondwanaland and Laurasia theory that is the current theory - ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: 260-Million-Year-Old Leaf - interesting photo
    ... You cited the position of antarctica 200M ... Again if you look at your URL for the Triassic period: ... >Note also their Permian period map - don't you notice something odd on ... >moved in to join the rest of the continents - only to move back out ...
    (sci.archaeology)