Talk:Continental drift

Recent edits and "Taylor-Wegener hypothesis"

Geoffrey.landis: I have some concern about some of your recent edits, especially those boostng Frank Taylor. And in particular your inclusion of: 'The theory of continental drift is sometimes referred to as the "Taylor-Wegener hypothesis."'

There is no question that at one time that term had some currency. But that was in the 1920s. Use of that termed declined after Taylor said (in 1932): "Since the views of the two authors differ in several respects ... it seems best to discontinue the hyphenated relation." [See New Scientist, 24 Jan. 1980, p. 254. In other words, Taylor's theory, though about the same question, was different.

Use of "Taylor-Wegener hypothesis" nowadays is minimal, and seems to arise mainly from a 1946 book ("Some considerations ...") which appears to have been written by Taylor's daughter. While his work may have contributed in some manner to understanding "continental drift", the same is true of many people. I don't believe Taylor was sufficiently notable to be mentioned at the level of detail of this article, and therefore should be removed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of references to it under that name in the early to mid 20th century. I modified this to say that this was "in the early 20th century", although I don't have a good reference for when the terminology fell out of use. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A quick check on Google Scholar shows there is not really "a lot of references" to it (aside from retrospective histories), something like ten. And as Taylor himself stated that his theory "of continental drift" differed from Wegener's, this detail of a disavowed association would merit noting only in a detailed history. Which this article is not. You have given him more eminence than warranted relative to others who have contributed. That would be okay if you found a couple of histories that said he was more notable than the rest, but without that this is special treatment, and unwarranted. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Since Taylor wrote articles on continental drift, it is appropriate he be mentioned in the article. Since he did publish his theory of continental creep prior to Wegener's first publications on the subject, I think a single paragraph is not "more eminence than warranted." This is an article on continental drift, not the article on Alfred Wegener, and Taylor contributed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. (Yes.) Especially that this article is not specifically on Wegener's theory. But! neither is it about the history of the observation that the continents seem to have "drifted" (more accurately, separated), nor the various theories that have been suggested to explain that observation. I think best approach is separate sections that: 1) describe the observation, 2) describe the various theories, 3) discuss Wegener's theory (because it is the most notable of all the theories), and then 4) discuss why Wegener's theory was rejected (because that is, nowadays, its most notable aspect). I think Taylor certainly warrants mention under #2. But on the basis of reliable sources saying he ranks in that pantheon, not because someone said in an obituary that he was co-equal to Wegener. (Which is certainly not true.) My concern is that you included Taylor because you were coming from a view that he was cool (or something), that you were focusing primarily on Taylor without considering the broader view of how he ranks relative to others. Without having looked into it too closely, it appears there are sources that provide a broad perspective on this. So I certainly do not object to mentioning Taylor, and perhaps not even to the extent of a whole paragraph (provided it is warranted relative to the other theorists). The "more eminence than warranted" is the implication that "continental drift" was "first proposed" by Taylor, to the extent that the theory should be co-named. You have made some adjustments on that (good), but I think some more are warranted. I would do such myself, but these really need to be done from the broader perspective, and require looking into some of the sources, and currently I am only half-enthused at doing. Meanwhile, feel free to keep whacking at it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ortelius

I have been trying to track down the actual passage where Abraham Ortelius first proposed a form of continental drift. Does anyone know where it is? The quote by W. J. Kious [Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus ... suggested that the Americas were "torn away from Europe and Africa ... by earthquakes and floods" and went on to say: "The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents]."] seems to be fake. [Edit: I stand corrected. See below.] James Romm, A New Forerunner for Continental Drift, writes: "In a discussion of Plato's Atlantis legend which he published in the third edition of his Thesaurus Geographicus, a dictionary of classical place names, Ortelius suggested that Plato had described an ancient separation of the continents, and used this interpretation to account for the matching coastlines of the Old and New Worlds - a phenomenon which he may well have been first to point out." His citation reads: "Ortelius, A. Thesaurus Geographicus Leaf Nnn verso (Plantin, Antwerp, 1596)." But Ortelius's brief discussion of Atlantis contains nothing remotely comparable to Kious's quotes. Ortelius mainly points out Mercator's claim that Plato's Atlantis was America. - Eroica (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I found it. The passage is in the 1596 edition of the Thesaurus Geographicus under the heading Gadiricus. My translation is not very good, but I think it captures the gist:

Gadir sive Gades pars erit reliqua Atlantidis sive Americae insulae, arque haec non tam submersa, (ut idem refert in Timaeo) quam ab Europa atque Africa terraemotu et illuvione abrupta: et recta occidentem versus elongata videbitur. Quod si quis hoc Fabulam fabula compensare vocet, per me quidem licebit. Ostendunt se tamen rupturae vestigia, si quis harum trium dictarum terrae (adhibita geographica universalitabula) partium littora, quo se mutuo adspiciunt, eminentias [?] Europae nempe atque Africae cum concavitatibus Americae penitius consideraverit, adeo ut quis posset cum Strabone 2. dicere, non esse figmentum quod Plato ex Solonis sententia, de Atlantide insula prodiderit. (Ortelius 310, Gadiricus)

Gadir or Gades may be the remaining part of Atlantis, or the island of America, which perhaps were not so much submerged (as related in the Timaeus) as torn off from Europe and Africa by earthquake and inundation: note how it is clearly elongated towards the west. But if anyone accuses me of explaining one fable with another fable, I won't object. The vestiges of this rupture are clearly visible, however, if one consults a map of the world and considers more closely the shorelines of the three aforementioned lands where they face one another--that is, the promontories of Europe & Africa and the concavities of America. To such an extent that one could say with Strabo, Book 2, that what Plato, following Solon’s account, tells us about the island of Atlantis is not a lie.

Eroica (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hypothesis?

Although, I understand that the word "hypothesis" is used in a scientific sense, it surely makes the general reader believe that this is just a wild guess without much scientific evidence. This choice of word makes the article smack of flat-earth and creationist POV. Surely, this "hypothesis" is well-proven enough not to need such a word in the introduction, like the Evolution article.--Berig (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)