Re: 260-Million-Year-Old Leaf - interesting photo
From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:04:48 +1300
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:53:04 GMT, Seppo Renfors
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:24:44 +1300, Eric Stevens
>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:27:35 +0100, Erik Hammerstad
>> ><firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >>> On 8 Nov 2004 11:06:16 -0800, email@example.com (David
>> >>> Christainsen) wrote:
>> >>>>Dear friends,
>> >>>>Antarctic Forests Reveal Ancient Trees
>> >>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.
>There are any amount more references that indicate Antarctica was NOT
>where it is today at 260 Ma.
>is out of date - the "Pangaea," theory from 1912 has been replaced by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
"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.