Effects of continental drift on flora and fauna

Australia has not always had its present shape or position on the globe. Even today, it is in the process of colliding with South-East Asia. Originally, Australia was joined to a super-continent, referred to as Pangaea meaning 'all lands' in Greekbefore it separated and drifted across the Earth's surface, experiencing a variety of different climatic changes and geological events.

Effects of continental drift on flora and fauna

Early history[ edit ] Abraham Ortelius Ortelius[4] Theodor Christoph Lilienthal[5] Alexander von Humboldt and[5] Antonio Snider-Pellegrini Snider-Pellegriniand others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic Ocean most notably, Africa and South America seem to fit together.

Kious described Ortelius' thoughts in this way: In his Manual of GeologyDana wrote, "The continents and oceans had their general outline or form defined in earliest time. This has been proved with respect to North America from the position and distribution of the first beds of the Silurian — those of the Potsdam epoch.

This suggested that the oceans were a permanent feature of the Earth's surface, and did not change places[ clarification needed ] with the continents. In Mantovani's conjecture, this continent broke due to volcanic activity caused by thermal expansionand the new continents drifted away from each other because of further expansion of the rip-zones, where the oceans now lie.

This led Mantovani to propose an Expanding Earth theory which has since been shown to be incorrect.

Ancient Destructions – investigations and videos of Earth catastrophes

Although his proposed mechanism was wrong, he was the first to realize the insight that one of the effects of continental motion would be the formation of mountains, and attributed the formation of the Himalayas to the collision between the Indian subcontinent with Asia.

In the midth century, the theory of continental drift was referred to as the "Taylor-Wegener hypothesis", [24] [27] [28] although this terminology eventually fell out of common use. Wegener was the first to use the phrase "continental drift"[12] [13] in German "die Verschiebung der Kontinente" — translated into English in and formally publish the hypothesis that the continents had somehow "drifted" apart.

Although he presented much evidence for continental drift, he was unable to provide a convincing explanation for the physical processes which might have caused this drift.

Theory of Continental Drift: Causes and Evidence | Earth Eclipse

His suggestion that the continents had been pulled apart by the centrifugal pseudoforce Polflucht of the Earth's rotation or by a small component of astronomical precession was rejected, as calculations showed that the force was not sufficient. Rejection of Wegener's theory, s—s[ edit ] The theory of continental drift was not accepted for many years.

One problem was that a plausible driving force was missing. Other geologists also believed that the evidence that Wegener had provided was not sufficient.

It is now accepted that the plates carrying the continents do move across the Earth's surface, although not as fast as Wegener believed; ironically one of the chief outstanding questions is the one Wegener failed to resolve: He proposed in that the Earth's mantle contained convection cells which dissipated radioactive heat and moved the crust at the surface.

Continental crust is inherently lighter and its composition is different from oceanic crust, but both kinds reside above a much deeper " plastic " mantle. Oceanic crust is created at spreading centersand this, along with subductiondrives the system of plates in a chaotic manner, resulting in continuous orogeny and areas of isostatic imbalance.

The theory of plate tectonics explains all this, including the movement of the continents, better than Wegener's theory. The fixists[ edit ] Hans Stille and Leopold Kober opposed the idea of continental drift and worked on a "fixist" [38] geosyncline model with Earth contraction playing a key role in the formation of orogens.

Bernauer correctly equated Reykjanes in Iceland with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge arguing with this that the floor of the Atlantic Ocean was undergoing extension just like Reykjanes. The idea was moonshine, I was informed. This would explain one, but only one, mountain building episode between any pair of continents; it failed to account for earlier orogenic episodes.

Second, masses floating freely in a fluid substratum, like icebergs in the ocean, should be in isostatic equilibrium in which the forces of gravity and buoyancy are in balance.

But gravitational measurements showed that many areas are not in isostatic equilibrium. Third, there was the problem of why some parts of the Earth's surface crust should have solidified while other parts were still fluid.

Various attempts to explain this foundered on other difficulties. Road to acceptance[ edit ] Main article: Plate tectonics From the s to the late s, works by Vening-MeineszHolmes, Umbgroveand numerous others outlined concepts that were close or nearly identical to modern plate tectonics theory.

In particular, the English geologist Arthur Holmes proposed in that plate junctions might lie beneath the seaand in that convection currents within the mantle might be the driving force. However, scientific communication in the '30 and '40s was inhibited by the warand the theory still required work to avoid foundering on the orogeny and isostasy objections.

Worse, the most viable forms of the theory predicted the existence of convection cell boundaries reaching deep into the earth that had yet to be observed. An important conclusion was that along this system, new ocean floor was being created, which led to the concept of the " Great Global Rift ".

In a series of papers inHeezen, Dietz, Hess, Mason, Vine, Matthews, and Morley collectively realized that the magnetization of the ocean floor formed extensive, zebra-like patterns: New magma from deep within the Earth rises easily through these weak zones and eventually erupts along the crest of the ridges to create new oceanic crust.

The new crust is magnetized by the earth's magnetic field, which undergoes occasional reversals. Formation of new crust then displaces the magnetized crust apart, akin to a conveyor belt — hence the name.Energy and the Human Journey: Where We Have Been; Where We Can Go.

By Wade Frazier. Version , published May Version published September Geography Lecture series by caninariojana.comil Solanki (Rank / CSE) [Geography Lecture1] Longitude, Latitude, Timezones, Earth Interior, Rock types, Continental Drift.

The deleterious effects of plastic debris on the marine environment were reviewed by bringing together most of the literature published so far on the topic. · Evidence for the theory of continental drift: Fossils of plants such as GLOSSOPTERIS and Evidence From Gondwana When the crustal plates moved, continents separated and travelled away from eachother, taking the resident flora and fauna with it.

General features

These flora and fauna had common ancestors but developed differently due o caninariojana.com://caninariojana.com  · GONDWANALAND AND CONTINENTAL DRIFT 1) Begin the lesson by showing students a standard map of the world.

what impact would this have had on the flora and fauna? Continental Drift is the movement of the Earth’s continents in relation to one another.

Effects of continental drift on flora and fauna

Francis Bacon Noticed that the coastlines of Africa and South America had similar caninariojana.com  · Continental drift is the theory that the Earth's continents have moved over geologic time relative to each other, thus appearing to have "drifted" across the ocean bed.

The speculation that continents might have 'drifted' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in History · Road to acceptance · See also · Works cited · External linkscaninariojana.com

The Theory of Continental Drift is Sure to Stir Your Curiosity