Talk:Kerguelen Plateau

Dinosaurs
Sure would be odd for dinosaurs to be living on Kerguelen 50 million years ago, considering they died out 15 million years prior... 68.8.108.62 12:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the speculative nonsense, and rephrased to a more realistic sentence. --Seattle Skier (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it appears that the dinosaurs thing is true Black Tusk 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it can't be correct. There could not have been dinosaurs there 50 million years ago, since they were already extinct.  I think that source needs to check its facts more thoroughly.  There may have been dinosaurs on Kerguelen, but they would have had to have been there prior to 65 million years ago.  I think we should look for a more reliable reference before re-inserting the material.  Thanks.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Seattle Skier, I'll try and find more about the dinosaurs thing sometime. However, It doesn't say the dinosaurs existed 50 million years ago, the ferns and plants existed during that time. Black Tusk 09:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But the sentence "Small dinosaurs..." comes between the two sentences "Fifty million years ago..." and "Twenty million years ago...", which implies the dinos were there sometime between 20 and 50 million years ago. --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your right, I didn't notice it was in order before. That's weird, I would think they would know dinosars were extinct during that time. Black Tusk 10:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a theory that dinosaurs did survive there after the supposed 65 MYA extinction date, but later died out when it submerged. --86.135.218.137 (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a theory that dinosaurs survived for a few million years after the yucatan impact in Australia, this article has some references to the typed " polar dinosaurs "  Being that they are supposedly at one point connected,  antartica, australia, even kerguelen,  its possible they survived under this theory in this location as well. --Loganis (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence
I have chosen to remove the preceding sentence because of its vagueness and because it contains a logical fallacy, to wit an appeal to authority:

Scientists hope that studying the submerged Kerguelen continent will help understand the break-up of Australia, India and Antarctica.

Which scientists? --Paul from Michigan (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

area of kerguelen plateau
is approximately 1,100,000 square km —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.7 (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

new paper
By Jason Ali and Jonathan Aitchison, Journal of Biogeography, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2009.02105.x, entitled "Kerguelen Plateau and the Late Cretaceous southern-continent bioconnection hypothesis: Tales from a topographical ocean" -- they conclude, "The currently available physical evidence indicates that the Late Cretaceous southern-continent connection hypothesis, which is based exclusively on biological data, is untenable." Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sediment link between India, Australia and Kerguelen -> ideological BS?
I've tagged the sentence "[The Kerguelen microcontinent] has sedimentary rocks similar to the ones found in Australia and India, suggesting they were once connected" with a citation-needed-tag. As far as I know, the only group claiming that belongs to a certain set of South Indian nationalists who hold the theory that their particular langage areas in India and Sri Lanka once belonged to a kind of super continent ("Kumarikkandam") from whence humanity spread over the Earth. That way, they try to prove that "all language of Earth are only corrupted dialect of Tamil" (their mother tongue) and stuff like that. Although it makes them feel better as a nation, there is no point in presenting notions like this as even remotely scientific theories in Wikipedia. If no one will give us a reliable source for this statement I'll come back after a couple of months and simply delete it.

More reading on this topic in Kumari Kandam; its first major proponent was the self-styled linguist Devaneya Pavanar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolman Telephone (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * BS already deleted by User:Vsmith; as for me, case closed; thanks. Sorry for forgetting to sign ;-)
 * Tolman Telephone (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed
The article states that the Kerguelen Plateau is 1 to 2 km (0.6 to 1.2 mi) below sea level. This may be so for the southern half of the plateau but much of the northern half is shallower than that.  Volcano guy  22:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kerguelen Plateau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918195531/http://www1.cc.utexas.edu/opa/news/99newsreleases/nr_199905/nr_continent990528.html to http://www1.cc.utexas.edu/opa/news/99newsreleases/nr_199905/nr_continent990528.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)