Talk:Lemuria/Archive 1

No specific connection to Lemuria
The following text appears to be irrelevant to the subject Lemuria:
 * "Also in Ayyavazhi mythology, the Akilattirattu Ammanai (written down in 1841 CE by Hari Gopalan Citar, who claims to have received it by divine revelation) tells about a sunken land at about 152 miles either south or south-east to Kanyakumari, with 16008 streets. It also claims that humanity itself originated from this sunken land or the land surrounding it."

The connection is not made in the Ayyavazhi mythology apparently, nor in any published source. --Wetman 20:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I too feel that a single editor or a small set of editors keep inserting Ayyavazhi into every article that is even remotely related to India, Tamil language or religion. I come from Ettayapuram, which is close to the region where the author claims Ayyavazhi has substantial following. But, I've never even heard of this "religion" anywhere else except Wikipedia. I've unsuccessfully tried to question its notability at Talk:Thoothukudi. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "After the subsequent creation of mammals, Mme Blavatsky revealed to her readers, some Lemurians turned to bestiality. The gods, aghast at the behavior of these "mindless" men, sank Lemuria into the ocean and created a "Fourth Root Race"—endowed with intellect—on Atlantis."

I consider myself familiar with the works of Madame Blavatsky, and it is directly against her writings that several "gods", or any single "god", besides the one lifeform, permeating everything in existance, even exist. So it would even more inaccurate to claim that "the gods" became angry or disgusted at the Lemurians, and sank the continent. However it is concurrent with her writings that the Lemurians did meet an end, and in their place the Atlanteans came into existance. I do not know precisely how she believes this happened though. If someone with extensive knowledge about this could fix it, it would be much appreciated. Pyramidian 19:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposal to merge in the article "Limuria" on the same topic into this main article ... but do not have the expertise to tell which is the proper spelling or do it myself. Goldenrowley 22:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't the proper spelling be "Lemuria" since it was first derived from the apparent contradiction in the global distribution of lemurs? Subversified 04:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kumari Kandam and Lemuria
It is an anachronism to project the modern notion of an "island continent" to the sangam period. A far as I know, for sangam writers, islands were "not continent" and what was "continent" was not "island". That lemuria was considered an island should not make us believe that Kumari Kandam was considered an island and not merely an extension of the existing continent. I have removed the assertion that Kumari Kandam was an island. --BostonMA talk 00:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Self-contradiction on the possibility of sunken continents
The introductory text states "Geologists today regard sunken continents as physical impossibilities, given the isostatic equilibrium of continental plates floating on the thermoplastic mantle.", while the "Scientific origins" section states "In 1999, drilling by the JOIDES Resolution research vessel in the Indian Ocean discovered evidence [1] that a continent about a third of the size of Australia sank about 20 million years ago.". So, which is it? Is it possible for a continent to sink, or no? --Dan Harkless 07:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That "self-contradiction" is quite easy to explain: what the JOIDES project discovered, was not a sunken continent, but evidence that a substantially greater part of the Kerguelen-Plateau than today has been above sea-level until about 20 Million years ago. The Kerguelen-Plateau is, however, by definition not a continent (it is not a piece of crust floating on the mantle, with a high degree of Silicium and Aluminium), but a volcanic plateau very much like Iceland. Today's Kerguelen island is something like an Antarctic Iceland sunk, where only the highest parts remained above sea-level.


 * That talk of "continent" comes from the BBC link referred to, which was definitely not written by a scientist. Geologists would - if at all - use the term "microcontinent" in quotation marks, to express that it would have been a *very large* island, *like* a small continent. The idea that that island (or rather group of islands) had "about a third of the size of Australia" is preposterous. Just take a look at this Commons-map of the Indian Ocean's bathymetry: even if fully emerged (which probably was never the case), the Kerguelen-Plateau would be smaller than Madagaskar (which is continental crust) - a kind of bipartite Iceland in the Indian Ocean with a northern and a southern island. "A third the size of Australia" is ridiculous and must really be some journalist's concoction.


 * Pavanarite Tamil writers sometimes use this JOIDES-study (and some obscure earlier Soviet-Russian report to the same effect) to argue for the existence of a sunken continent Kumari Kandam. They conveniently overlook the fact that a non-submerged Kerguelen-Plateau would be an isolated group of islands by size far under the continental dimensions required by their theory, and if you look on the Commons-map once more you'll notice that there is absolutely no structure on the ocean floor that could possibly ever have been something like a land bridge between Sri Lanka / India and the Kerguelen-Plateau. Hey, that was only a far away group of islands near the Antarctic! More important, they forget to take a look at the time scale: that island sunk about 20 Million years ago, while modern humans (even if considered by extreme non-mainstream anthropologists) didn't come into existence earlier than 1 Million years ago (actually, it was about 150,000 years ago in Africa). The Pavanarites, however, state that their hypothetical Kumari Kandam Tamil high culture existed about 20 Thousand years ago on that continent. Insane as it may seem, I sometimes feel that the submerged Kerguelen-plateau is their last straw to "prove" anything in terms of geology.


 * So actually it would be better to re-formulate that link-connection in the article. I suspect it was inserted by some Pavanarite to make a statement like "but yes, there must be some truth to what we say". But I have no idea how to restate the article, as the concept of Lemuria itself is a not a part of serious modern geological science, but rather of the history of geology/biology. Maybe shift it (but not uncommented!) into the Kumari Kandam article? --Kavaiyan   &lt;°)))o&gt;&lt;  15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The key to the confusion is probably that BBC-author confused the Kerguelen Plateau with the Kerguelen Large Igneous Province (LIP). That would indeed be about the third of the size of Australia, but would include the whole region from the edges where the Kerguelen LIP turns into normal ocean floor. It would only be the plateau that would have been over sea-level, not the deeper reaches of the LIP, of course. See it yourself on this bathymetric map. Here you can also clearly see its bipartite structure from the northern plateau (with nowadays Kerguelen island in the south of the northern plateau) to the southern plateau - its southern edge marked by nowadays Heard Island and McDonald Islands.---Kavaiyan   &lt;°)))o&gt;&lt;  18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I made edits to the main article per this discussion, hopefully resolving the contradictions without changing the substance of the paragraph. Subversified 04:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why Couldn't A Sunken Continent Be Possible?
I believe it's perfectly possible, because of the variation of the water levels throughout history. For example, there use to be a piece of land connecting Asia to North America, but that went under water when the tide rose. Isn't it possible that Atlantis existed during a time when the water level was lower and then "sunk" as the water levels rose? Please, disprove me, because I believe this is a perfect example of why a continent could have gone under water. C. Pineda 05:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the articles Plate tectonics and Civilization. The rise and deluge of continents does happen, but it occurs in a different time scale than the development of cultures. Since the proponents of lost land-theories usually say that their sunken continents was inhabited by a civilization, they have to disagree with one or the other. If you want to have those theories disproved in detail, read Lost Continents by L. Sprague de Camp. I would work more on these articles, but unfortunately there are other articles on Wikipedia that are still much more dominated by pseudohistory. -Zara1709 06:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Why Couldn't A Sunken Continent Be Possible?" - Of course it could be possible, why not. But if it *was* there, it *still should be* there, lying under the water, the full geological formation, easily detectable by bathymetry and preserved until it falls prey to subduction under another continent, something that happens on a timescale of hundreds of millions of years.


 * However, you don't have structures like that: neither in the Atlantic, nor in the Pacific, nor in the Indian Ocean. Therefore, during the last few hundred million years, there were no sunken continents. Therefore, there is and was no Lemuria. Never. Case closed.


 * One last thought: maybe Atlantis or Lemuria was that Ice Age stretch of land between Siberia and Alaska, populated by hypertechnologically talented Inuits? Should you ever step forward and publish books on this theory, beware - I'll step forward and claim royalties! ;-) --134.95.5.107 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We should, however, change the claim that such things are impossible to something more accurate, like what you just said. Check out a true sunken continent at Zealandia (continent). kwami 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right. Zealandia still exists, it's just under water. Unlike anything in the Indian Ocean North of the Kergueles. Interesting thing. Well, it was just that this Kumarikkandam thing exasperates me so much. Speaking in terms of culture, Tamils have a lot to be proud of. People who make up foolish stuff like that Kumarikkandam (Tamil-Lemuria) thing want to make themselves feel better as Tamil patriots, but they shoot over the line, and in the end they spoil it all. It's not only wrong, it's also so f****** unnecessary (sorry). It's just like messing with other people's brains. 87.78.196.240 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Zealandia became deluged over 20 million years ago. The Lost Lemuria was allegedly inhabited by human-like being (the Lemurs) and other stuff. (And Thule was allegedly inhabuted by the Aryan race, in the opinion of some Nazi occultist.) If I had the 2nd edition of Lost Continents here, I would add e few things and sort out the timescale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zara1709 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Plate Tectonics beside the point?
Given that the prosimian radiation long postdates the continental separation of India and Africa, I question whether references to plate tectonics are even relevant to the notion of Lemuria at all. RandomCritic 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg
Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg
Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merger of Kumari Kandam with Lemuria (continent)
I have suggested that Kumari Kandam be merged with Lemuria (continent). My reasons were given on the the talk page for Kumari Kandam, I'm pasting them here:


 * I think this article may be safely merged with Lemuria (continent): as most public proponents of Kumari Kandam use this name synonymously with "Lemuria" (tamilized "Ilemuria"), and as the emergence of that lost continent motif mainly goes back to the end of the 19th century, being intrinsically linked to the concept of Lemuria (in terms of history of science; see Sumathi Ramaswamy's "The Lost Land of Lemuria"), it should better be a subchapter of that article. Much information here and there is redundant, while in Lemuria (continent) there is much information complementary to Kumari Kandam. Actually (and rightfully so), there is already a short subchapter on Kumari Kandam in Lemuria.


 * In time that sub-entry may grow beyond a certain point, and then it could be shifted back into an own "main article", as is usual in Wikipedia (like e.g. History of England as a main article complementary to England). But in its present state, Kumari Kandam is to short (and - imho - of a quality too poor) to stand on its own. -- Kavaiyan   &lt;°)))o&gt;&lt;  21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm adding that in the talk page for Lemuria (continent), Kumari Kandam also figures very much as a topic for discussion. Wikipedia may gain as a repository of knowledge by having also these discourses merged, as they are basically on the same topic, just as seen from different cultural angles. -- Kavaiyan   &lt;°)))o&gt;&lt;  21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On revert of Nov. 5, 2007
As far as I know, there is no direct evidence for the timing of the appearance of lemurs. However, primates exist since 80 Mill. years (end of Creatceous: 65 Mill. years bp), and lemurs are one of the oldest [Infra-]Orders of Strepsirrhini/Primates. Poking around in the net, I found statements on the age of primates in recent articles like these:, (the designation "flying lemurs" seems a bit casual her, but the point is, after all, not about colugos but the appearance of primates). In the Wiki-article on the Cretaceous, it is stated that during this period "India and Madagascar remained attached to each other". Thus I reverted your change. If you can give sources for your claim, please feel free to revert back. But *please* give sources - I'm really interested. -- Kavaiyan   &lt;°)))o&gt;&lt;  01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg
Image:Amazing Stories Lemuria.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing Reference
Quoted from the article "Although sunken continents do exist — see Zealandia in the Pacific and the Kerguelen Plateau in the Indian Ocean — there is no known geological formation under the Indian or Pacific Oceans that corresponds to the hypothetical Lemuria.' There is no reference for these statements. I'm not nit-picking, just curious because I'm doing some research on Lemuria and noticed that there was no source for this info. Ark (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that's an epistemological thing: you don't have such a formation, and as Lemuria is not a problem of geology no geologist would feel tempted to write about not having a formation that he or she would anyway never need. If it were there, people would no doubt write about it, but as it is neiter there nor needed in the framework of geological science, one can't expect references for it. I deeply and seriously believe in the Xxorg monster and its crucial role in the evolution of the human species - the existence of humanity cannot be explained without assuming that it has existed at some time. But as I'm the only one to do so (except two or three geographers of the 15th century and a certain sectarian branch of modern occult monsterologist), I sadly cannot expect to find articles on its non-existence in respected journals of biology.
 * Hail to the Xxorg monster! Kavaiyan   &lt;°)))o&gt;&lt;  09:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. There was a time when I too was in your position: doing research on this topic but not having any sources except western occult and Tamil Pavanarite writings. The only serious scientific study ever referred to (in writings by Tamils, always indirect and without explicit reference: "some Western scientific people working on a ship discovered ...") was - obviously - the JOIDES study, and its findings are about something that actually couldn't ever be fitted into a Lemuria or Kumarikkandam framework. When I once asked geologist colleagues, they would - after having me explain the problem to them - answer something to the effect of "vade retro Satanas". One can only go the long and hard way, delving into the matter and getting acquainted with the scientific basics oneself. Kavaiyan   &lt;°)))o&gt;&lt;  09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, you just typed a whole lot without really giving any usable information. I think I get the gist of what you were trying to communicate to me, i.e. no geological formation has been found, therefore there is no reference to the non-existence of said formation. It would just be nice to know who performed the studies that produced these results, and their credibility in such matters. Thanks for your time. Ark (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Complete bathymetric maps for the ocean floors have been available for decades. While they're not quite as precise as our measurements of the Earth's land surface, they can certainly show where there are submerged plateaus and (micro)continents, and where there are not. Have a look at these ETOPO2v2 maps, for instance. They are derived from several data sources; the Sandwell and Smith satellite altimetry data is probably the most extensive. -- Avenue (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

New/unsunken landmasses - Lemuria
This landmass is either a new formed land after Lemuria sinked or a part of Lemuria that didn't sink during the sinking. Anyway. I leave this to here on to talk page.

Rudric (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture section
I've removed quite a bit of the stuff that could be in a popular culture section, as WP:POPCULTURE says "should contain verifiable facts of genuine interest to a broad audience of readers. Although some information can be verified from primary sources, this does not demonstrate whether such information has been discussed in independent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it will be easy to find a secondary reliable source to attribute that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged." Some was clearly unnotable or self-promotion.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Err, I don't know where to put this, but this seems the most likely. I know of another reference to Lermuria. In Tom Martin's book "Kingdom", there's a refence to Lemuria as well. He says that some magical power was passed down from them to the Tibetans. Though there is no way of verifying it (it's not even true, as far as I'm concerned), but I'm just a reference junkie who'd like to see this placed in the "Modern Fiction" category. Thanks. 213.51.103.167 (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lemuria in popular culture has been specifically created to hold this ever-growing, and invariably unsourced, list. I suggest the remaining embedded popular culture list is integrated into the article (as recommended by WP:IPC) or migrated to the separate article.—Ash (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed about fossil lemurs
Exactly which "fossil lemurs" were found from Pakistan to Malaysia (including India), which gave Philip Sclater grounds to hypothesize Lemuria's existence back in 1864? More details and references are needed. Aside from some very recent, discoveries (which *may* indicate a lemur ancestor from India), no lemur fossils have been found outside of Madagascar. There have been fossils of lemur-like primates (prosimians) found in North America, Eurasia and Africa, so I'm guessing that is what this article is referring to. Anyway, someone please provide a reference, explain what fossils were being looked at, and/or re-phrase this text. –Visionholder (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the problem? The text explains how the name and concept came into existence. Are you challenging that? This isn't an article about fossil lemurs, although if that interests you you might be interested in . But an arguement about whether he was wrong or right doesn't, in my opinion, belong in this article (or indeed on this page). Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The text explains that he based his concept on "lemur fossils." The link you provided points to a recent find (that I mentioned above), which would not have been available in 1864. According to numerous sources, including "Lemurs: Ecology and Adaptation" editted by Gould & Sauther (ISBN: 978-0387-34585-7), no lemur fossils have been found in Madagascar or the surrounding continents.  (The recent find is apparently still under debate.)  Therefore, Sclater was not looking at what we could consider "lemur fossils" today.  So what was he looking at?  We simply need a statement, based on a source, that he was probably looking at fossils that have since been reclassified... such as tree shrews, colugos, or possibly lorises.  The way it is stated now, asserts that there were known lemur fossils (by today's standards) found in India or Pakistan in the mid-1800's.  The information is wrong and needs clarrification.  Essentially, the way it is worded demonstrates hindsight bias. –Visionholder (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am just wondering about the Indian Ocean during the last glacial maximum, the Holocene Transgression, would not portions of the seabed have been exposed to sky? For the purposes of myth and legend, the concepts of continents are relatively modern ideas, however the "stories" persist in the psyche and to ancient man a land once used and then inundated would have the impact of an island. I apologise if this is not the place for this question but I could not find where else to put it. Aguntala (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

good point, other wikipedians might consider check references points from info related to Sunda_shelf --183.171.173.39 (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is strong POV or Missing too many citations. The article makes alot of assertions about the "Scientific community" ( even if we accept that wikipedia and its users assumes these geologists are the only authorities on historic/encyclopedic truth of Lemuria anyway, maybe the article shouldn't be so much about how scientifically unaccepted the legendary concept of Lemuria is, and focus at least as much on the legend itself whatever that may be, after all scientific communities are always in flux about everything because their knowledge comes from the so called empirical research which is really just as subjective to interpretation as parapsychological and religious/occult perspectives...)at large without offering any citations, if were going to wiki up scientific POV then we should at least do it in a non weighted manner by offering up citations when we incorporate bold facted statements such as "Though Lemuria is no longer considered a valid scientific hypothesis" ..considered by who? please use citations, because ultimately a studious visitor to the page may not really be all that interested who considers Lemuria a "valid scientific" hypothesis if for example they have come to find out if their is any anthropological or etymological research AT ALL regarding the subject, but if were going to make those types of blanket statements about the "scientific community" which is never as homogeneous as some would leave you to believe with their bold statements, then the least that can be done is to offer authoritative[in terms of a scientific community at least] citations, and references for the statements, otherwise by all appearances you just have a collection of pseudo-journalistic POV. I also think the conclusions of the scientific community might be more appropriate if they are kept within the Scientific Origins section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.193.157 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

J H Moore, "Savage Survivals"
I've removed it - I'm not sure why the quote from this zoologist should be in the article and if it goes back in it needs to be in context. The only reason I can see is that thye quote is on p.48 of Studying Human Origins: Disciplinary History and Epistemology by Robin W. DennellmBritish Academy Research Professor at the Dept. of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, who wrote "One ot the last sightings of Lemuria was in an appalling book called Savage Surivals byJ.H. Moore, who wrote: "It is believed that man evolved somewhere in southern Asia, or possibly, still further south than the present boundary of Asia, in lands now drowned bv the Indian Ocean. This supposed land is called Lemuria."" I'm not convinced that's sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lemuria in popular culture
There is no use in a random listing of appearances in fiction. If the article isn't just completely removed, it should take one example from each section to form a succinct paragraph showing how it has been utilized. TTN (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree with a merge - I hate these arbitrary splits. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see anything "random" about the entries in the article. It's also a good way to keep this from cluttering up the main article.-- Auric    talk  12:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose That's too long to be in the main article. Tracking how something notable has appeared throughout history in notable works is encyclopedic.  It just doesn't belong in the main article.   D r e a m Focus  07:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So Where Is the Time Frame Referenced?
Why go through all of this and not put up a historical time that this place existed? We know fictional Atlantis "existed" roughly 9600BC. MPA 18:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed a good question since so much of the article is devoted to a scientific community's explanations of how the existence of the continent is impossible due to the time frame of tectonic activity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.193.157 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As fas as the book Lemuria by Cerve/Spencer Lewis is concerned the time frame is 100,000 years ago, it started sinking on its western side and by 12,000 years ago only the part of it (its Eastern side)  which is now the WEST coast of the USA remained. (see page 93). Very interesting is that strange hieroglyphics have been discovered at Lake Klamath, and although conventional archaeology believes they are Amerindian, this reference states that Indians dispute this, stating that the hieroglyphics are NOT theirs and are of a totally unfamiliar nature to them.. 76.175.194.36 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Dr R. Schep.

"Limuria"
I came to this article from British Overseas Territories - the motto of the British Indian Ocean Territory is given as in tutela nostra Limuria. It would be useful for this article, I think, to explain if Limuria is a variation, or an obsolete form, or whatever, if it is still used.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a "Limuria" as a redirect to this page. Accordingly, I have added it as an alternative spelling at the start of the article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Limuria in law
Seems odd to me that there is no mention in the article (let alone in the first sentence, where I would expect to find it) of the alternative spelling Limuria, which occurs (inter alia?) in the one place where this continent's name has legal standing, to wit, in the motto of the British Indian Ocean Territory, In tutela nostra Limuria. --Haruo (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comment just now in section "Limuria" above. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to the base name  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Lemuria (continent) → Lemuria (hypothetical continent) – Lemuria is a disproven hypothesis. The name suggests that it's an actual thing (which it's not) Eridian314 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alternate move It is primary topic by pageviews (1200 for continent, 30 for festival), should be moved to Lemuria instead and the current page there be moved to Lemuria (disambiguation).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alternative move per above comment. |Lemuria_(continent)|Lemuria_(American_band)|Lemuria_(album)|Lemuria_(festival)|Lemuria_(Belgian_band)|Lemuria_(comics)|Lemuria_(Transformers) Pageviews indicate the continent is the overwhelming WP:primary topic. - Station1 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support alternative proposal. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Lemuria from and Emic vs. Etic Perspective
A useful concept in anthropolology is the distinction between emic and etic, in which "emic" refers to the "insider's" perspective with respect to beliefs while the "etic" perspective refers to the "outsider's" or external researcher's perspective. These may be useful in parsing the differences between beliefs about Lemuria versus the scientific reality (or lack thereof) of Lemuria. These may also be characterized as subjectivity and objectivity. Lemuria, like God, has a certain reality for believers even if scientists consider it to be a pseudoarchaeological fantasy, the product of various authors' imaginations. I think it would be useful to organize this article in such a way that it makes clear what is the reality of Lemuria as opposed to the mythology of Lemuria, even though the latter tends to be wildly diverse. Hoopes (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I wonder whether it is appropriate to separate ideas about Lemuria in popular culture into a separate article. Most readers who are seeking information about Lemuria will probably not consider it under that title. If that article is going to remain separate, there need to be clearer pointers to it from the main article. Hoopes (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)