User:Chris.urs-o/Sandbox.008

This is an historic overview about continental drift, seafloor spreading, plate reconstruction, and mantle dynamics.

Citation recommendation
(I've put this at the top so any experimenting with templates can be separated from use in other sections)

I would like to recommend some ways of doing do citations that you might find helpful. But first we need to sort out some confusion of terminology. In general a 'citation' is the attribution or link to some source. What most people seem to not clearly recognize is that this is generally best handled by a two-stage process. That is, distinguishing between attributing something to a certain source (such as a book), and describing that source. Note that attribution is tightly linked to the text (inside of &lt;ref> tags where the cited material is used), whilst description focuses on completeness of bibliographic data.

I suspect people are often confused because if they cite a source only once it is convenient to wrap it all up into a single "citation" that combines both functions. (Which seems to be typical Wikipedia practice.) An obvious question is: what if you cite a source more than once? The conventional answer is to use 'named' ref tags. But this can get real sticky, because then you have to maintain consistency of names. And if the material with the master named ref is deleted both the name and all of the bibliographic detail has to be transferred to another ref, which might be in a different section. Even if one is willing to put up with this kind of aggravation, there is an uglier (in terms of proof-checking and maintaining a reference list) aspect: having the bibliographic details of the sources (references) scattered through-out an article.

My recommendation is this: put all of your citations (whether you use the 'cite' or 'citation' templates) at the end of an article or section. Then use 'Harv' templates in the text for attribution. Sure, the Harv templates are not perfect, and certain precautions are necessary. But I can say, from a fair amount of experience, that it is a lot easier to do citations (and therefore more likely to be done) using the Harv templates. If you wish, I can demonstrate in the next section. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I did know Harv template existed. I think you want to built a section using a referencing as on Toba catastrophe theory. I did the timeline, the Cite templates are ready, just need the &lt;ref> tags, the pages of Frankel, H. (1987) are stated. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Toba article collects all the bibliographic details in the References section (good), but still uses named ref tags, and only emulates the Harvard citation style. (The in-line citations in the notes do not link to the reference list.) Not a good example.  Instead, take a look at Puget Sound faults.
 * What I would like to do is convert your "Begin" sub-section to illustrate what I mean. Would that be okay with you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is ur concept? Do u want prose or a list (timeline)? This article got quite long, it is not a section anymore but a new wiki page. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What I would like is your permission to edit part of your Timeline section to illustrate the method of citation I described above. Would that be okay with you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems ok. I do not have time next week, I suppose. If u have time ... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you've added to it, so you've got the basic idea. (The citation blew up because of the square bracket immediately before the curlies — square brackets have that kind of unsettling "magic" — so I replaced it with a parenthesis.)  One of the advantages of using citation is that it will automatically build a 'ref', so you have to do so only in the cases (more than two authors) where it screws up.
 * I think you will agree that using an abbreviated citation form makes the text much clearer, which just by itself is a strong reason in favor. And if you wanted to go through all your references and, say, check them, or organize them with the year and author at the front, that would also be easier in having everything in a single location. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're doing good. But perhaps I could offer some more pointers?  First, when you cite a source in support of a particular point you should be as specific as possible in pointing to the supporting material.  E.g., in the first item in "Begin" you cite Brusatte several times.  You should also give the page number for each point.  And you should start putting the citations into footnotes (ref tags). (Having different page numbers will also keep AWB from merging footnotes.)  Also, note that when you have mulitple citations for a given point standard practice is to string them together, separated by semi-colons.


 * Inverted case: a bibliographically complete listing of a reference applies to the entire work. The specific locations (usually page numbers) of material you cite should be in the citation.  E.g.: ", p. 429."  Or even: "."    - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Chris. I'm going to back-off from this, but would like to wrap up a few points.  First, I'm thinking of deleting that paragraph you added to Continental drift.  Not that it's "wrong" in any way, but it's really a much lower-level detail than that section goes into.  (And to expand that section to that level of detail would then unbalance the rest of the article.)  I think the rejection of Wegener and his theory has enough scope for a good article, but I also think it really would take more time and study than you and I combined can muster.  (I reckon 4 to 6 months of study, and that's if I drop some other priorities, and the deutscher volk join forces.)  Will you be okay with that?
 * I am rather impressed at your audacity (isn't that a form of boldness? :-) in putting up your timeline article, as I suspect you'll be catching grief that "it's a list, not an article". Please note that my suggestion of creating various lists, etc., is for creating guidelines, akin to an outline, for researching and writing the article; all that is scaffolding for the core work of composition.
 * And the main point I have trying to demonstrate: as you encounter potential sources in your research, add them — with all the details you can ferret out — to your master or working bibliography. Then as you take notes each point gets cited with a short form (author, date, page number, or some such), which, when you assemble the article, gets converted into a 'Harv' template. (And usually footnoted.)  I strongly recommend this approach, and once you get used to it I think you will find it indispensable.  Ask if you have any questions about this.
 * Good luck with all that. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it is a list, a source list. Background for other articles. But it helps to understand the Geodynamics. On one side u r right the basalts of the Mid-atlantic Ridge are details for the geophysicists. But on the other side, the confirmation that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is a extension (geology) producing basalts is the most important fact about the South Atlantic for the International Association of Volcanism members. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That may have been the key point that convinced that group. But that's just one group, and the article is not a history of how the fact of "drift" eventually came to be accepted.  To expand the article to that level of detail throughout would make it book-sized.  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
Moved to: It's life, in part:
 * Timeline of the Geodynamics
 * Timeline of the Earth Sciences

Discussion
Hi. I have been watching your edits regarding Wegener in the Continental drift article with great interest because I have always felt that rejection of his theory wasn't "simple", but must have some kind of story to it. But it seems to me you are floundering a bit. (E.g., what is the significance of "calc-alkaline" to the story?) Is there any way I could help you with this? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand. Most continental plates have calcareous rocks from sea floor deposits. So any orogenic uplift volcanism will produce igneous rocks of the Calcium series. Rifting does not contaminate the magma with Calcium, and so its basalts are of the Sodic series. Alfred Rittmann was the best volcanologist at his time, he had a rock collection, he had their chemical analysis, he calculated their compositions, he drew the right conclusion that orogenic uplift volcanism lacks alkaline basalts, he had one sample of alkaline basalt of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, he was the probably the only person who could oppose the idea that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was a orogenic uplift by compression, and his opposition to disregard the continental drift theory raised doubts. He was elected three times IAVCEI President, so I assume his ideas got accepted. My edits are not stable, they do get modified. The prose has to be modified because of the copyright protection. Read the free page on, it is this idea; is on German I'm afraid. I read the German Wikipedia  version of continental drift and de:Alfred Rittmann. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand? Continental drift theory was dying because it had no plausible driving force. Mid-Atlantic Ridge by compression (geology) would exclude Continental drift. Mid-Atlantic Ridge by extension (geology) would confirm Continental drift. An alkaline basalt (Sodic igneous rock series) would practically exclude compression (geology).

Of course, you can help Wikipedia: Do you have access to JSTOR? I do not have access to the Bulletin of Volcanology (1981). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We have only three biographies of IAVCEI officers (User:Chris.urs-o/Sandbox.006). It is a shame, these big shoots have around 150 publications, of which half a dozen are books. These people do not tell how many publications they have written, but how high is their pile of publications ;)
 * The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) and the Istituto Internazionale di Vulcanologia, Catania are the most important institutions on volcanoes. The Istituto Internazionale di Vulcanologia is now a part of the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV) since 1999. It is a similar institution to United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Geological Survey of Japan. The italian institute does not have a page/ section. The Icelandic Meteorological Office (IMO) and the Nordic Volcanological Center of the University of Iceland's Institute of Earth Sciences (IES) are important too.
 * Eyjafjallajökull erupted 920 (VEI 3), 1612 (VEI 2), 1821-1823 (VEI 2) and 2010 (VEI 4). The eruptions were followed by a Katla eruption: 920 (VEI 4), 1612 (VEI 4), 1823 (VEI 3?).
 * As I see it. The cycles of big earthquakes on the Pacific Ring of Fire, were followed by calm periods. After the 2010 Chile earthquake, I expect earthquakes on the Southwest, Northwest and Northeast part too.


 * Yes, I think we might have some interesting discussions. I'm kind of tied up at the moment, don't have enough time to properly comment, but my take on what you are trying add about continental drift is that the nature of the Mid-Atlantic Rise could distinguish between two theories (compression and, extension?).  Right? I'll get back to you on this in a while.  And, sorry, I have no access to JSTOR either. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, if they pull apart there is continental drift, if they press against each other there is none. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do what I can for Wikipedia generally, but I am particularly interested in helping you on this topic. It seems to me you have got ahold of something of interest, but you have some difficulty expressing it.  Like, I think I understand what you are saying about the implications of the chemistry of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. But what you wrote in the article isn't entirely clear.  I would suggest that you write this stuff off-line (or in your Sandbox) so you can wale away on it without continually messing around in article space.  Or how about creating a section in your Sandbox where we both could hack on some text?  Could we work up something collaboratively? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I know, I do not express myself clearly. But I'm not editing the continental drift section. The problem too is that the scientists of the time got confused. As I see, there were three problems: The section was rewritten by User:Vsmith (May 28, 2010), since when I just added a ref. and the note on igneous rocks of the Calcium series and the igneous rocks of the Sodic series. My edits were as Chris.mobile (23 to 27 May, 2010). Actually the refs. said that Alfred Rittmann knew that on Azores and other islands of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge there are alkaline basalts. Only in the 60's, with Plate tectonics/ Samuel Warren Carey (1958); the static Geology got to a dynamic Earth Science. Arthur Holmes (1929), Harry Hammond Hess (1962) and Robert S. Dietz (1961) improved the idea on mantle convection currents, now known as "sea floor spreading". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem was that a plausible driving force was missing.
 * Geophysicists (Felix Andries Vening Meinesz, Gravity anomaly, 1948) were prejudiced that the crust was too rigid to deform at that scale in such a way (Subduction zone).
 * And it did not help that Alfred Wegener was not a geologist (PhD in Astronomy).


 * You are editing continental drift. Which is a little bit of problem because, as I said, you seem to be floundering.  Yet I think you do have some valuable contributions to make, and that's what I would like to help with.  If you were to write out what you think you know in your sandbox I could help you organize it and take off the rough edges. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not. I just modified the refs, with some minor edits. You should have read the free available page of F. Ippolito and G. Marinelli (1981). "Alfred Rittmann". --Chris.urs-o (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

History: Ron G. Mason (geomagnetic survey) made possible Brent Dalrymple, Richard Doell, Allan V. Cox (Geomagnetic reversal). They and Harry Hammond Hess (sonar) made possible Drummond Matthews and Frederick Vine (Seafloor spreading). And Ian Graham Gass (Ophiolite, Troodos Mountains, Cyprus) and George Patrick Leonard Walker's (Zeolite minerals of Iceland) work complemented it. Maurice Ewing and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (Seismic topography). Marie Tharp and Bruce Heezen, French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study (FAMOUS). Robert R. Coats (Subduction).

Quote, Plate Tectonics: "1962, Robert R. Coats of the U.S. Geological Survey described the main features of island arc subduction in the Aleutian Islands. His paper, though little-noted (and even ridiculed) at the time, has since been called "seminal" and "prescient". In 1967, W. Jason Morgan proposed that the Earth's surface consists of 12 rigid plates that move relative to each other. Two months later, in 1968, Xavier Le Pichon published a complete model based on 6 major plates with their relative motions."


 * I'm tempted to dig deeper into the topic, but to do an adequate job might take more time than I have available right now. And you already have some handle on it.  So regardless of how finely we might parse "edit" (as in whether you have, or even should), I still think you should contribute.  If you want to try to formulate something I will be happy to help you organize it and hone it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

Ok, I really digged the history, for you too. It seems only the use of the sonar and the geomagnetic survey could nail it, in the end. I did not flounder, check the quotes. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll study this for a while, see what I can suggest. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Still studying. This may take a while. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC))

Comments
Well, it seems be as I was afraid of: the topic is vaster and deeper than first appeared. (Sort of like the layer of dried mud on top of a mudhole — it looks solid....)

I understand now (or think I do) what you were trying to say about the MAR magmas. As to rewriting it: I think we should take out that whole second paragraph. It's not that what you were trying to say is incorrect, or even inapplicable. It's more like it is single leaf in a storm, and to mention this one leaf without addressing the broader context (storm) distorts the coverage of the topic, even to the point of making it grotesque. I think we really ought to consider revising and greatly expanding the section on why Wegener was rejected. (It conceivably could even be a separate article, though I would consider that carefully before leaping into action.) From my brief review I think the reasons for rejection were deep and manifold, and may even have been different in the German-speaking and English-speaking communities. E.g., read Naomi Oreskes. (I am hesitant to read her book, as I see it beckoning me out onto that dried mud. But I strongly recommend her short essay.)  She gives an excellent summation of the conventional view of the rejection – at least on this side of the Atlantic – which she then rejects. But for all of her deep and extended scholarship, I suspect there is a lot more to it.

Anyway, I am going to make some suggestions at Talk:Continental drift. See you there. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not really agree. Once the basalts of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge were undisputed, the extension (geology) was a fact, at least at the head of the IAVCEI, and the IAVCEI is the trendsetter... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On what particular point do you not agree? That the matter has greater depth and breadth?  That Oreskes gives an excellent summation?


 * You state that once the MAR basalts were sorted out extension was established as a fact. But consider that until then the existence of the MAR was deemed to be a "fact" against extension. Likewise with the first and second grounds on which Scheiddiger rejected Wegener's theory – they are undoubtably "facts".  They happen to be inapplicable (e.g., the continents are not "masses floating freely in a fluid substratum"), but the point to demonstrate is not whether they are actually true, or even applicable, but that they were thought to be true and applicable.  Keep in mind that this subtopic is not about why (or even whether) continental drift is true, but why such eminent personages rejected it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, this formulation is true too. Naomi Oreskes wrote the american version of it. is the english one. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Again: on what particular point do you disagree? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think A. Rittmann is the key, that no calc-alkaline igneous rocks but basalts are found in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge makes extension a fact and the theory possible. Rittmann knew this, this knowledge must have been confirmed at the time of his election (and reelection, twice) as the IAVCEI President. If the Head of the IAVCEI thinks the theory is plausible, the rest follows later on... Some "scientists" just had no mercy and wanted fame... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris, I think you are confusing different levels of discussion. What you just wrote was about Rittman, and goes back to the interpretation of the evidence for or against the theory.  What I wrote (above), to which your disagreement seemed directed, was that "we really ought to consider revising and greatly expanding the section on why Wegener was rejected", that the reasons for rejection may have varied in different countries, that Oreskes gave an "excellent summation".  Rittman may indeed have been a key factor in rejecting or accepting Wegener's theory, but that is not what I was talking about.  (I don't believe I have even made any statement regarding Rittman that is definite enough to agree or disagree about!)  What I was talking about was whether the section should revised, etc.  Do you have any disagreement about that? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A section can be always improved. If u have concept, built it in a sandbox. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For sure. But as I was saying (elsewhere), it looks like you and I have to do any improvements; we should not expect anyone else to fix up anything we leave deficient. But if we could back on point, and focus on your previous comment: do you have any disagreement about whether the section should be improved, or how? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, a section can be always improved. Having a brilliant concept is more difficult. How about these line of thoughts involved:
 * Continental drifters: Alfred Wegener, Arthur Holmes (originally contractionist), Alex du Toit and George C. Simpson.
 * USA: Pratt isostasy, the method of multiple working hypothesis, the uniformitarianism.
 * Germany: Alfred Rittmann (and IAVCEI), Mid-Atlantic Ridge is extension (geology) not orogenic uplift.
 * Contractionists: the Earth cools down and gets smaller.
 * Fixists: land-bridges.
 * Permanentists: no bridge, just changing sea-level.
 * Paleontology: George Gaylord Simpson developing William Diller Matthew's ideas: three migratory routes; corridors, filter bridges and sweepstakes routes.
 * George Gaylord Simpson, 1971: "I now believe that continental drift did occur... But direct fossil evidence is still curiously scanty or equivocal... the whole subject of plate tectonics is very exciting and has revivified geology. I think it is great. (Frankel 1987:231-2)"
 * Quote, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Wegener/wegener_6.php: Ironically, though the lack of a credible driving force was the main objection to Wegener's theory, plate tectonics has been almost universally accepted despite the absence of scientific consensus as to its cause.
 * Nowadays, we know that isotasy is not reached at the subduction zones.
 * I'm not sure if W. D. Matthew is William Diller Matthew. George C. Simpson is George Simpson (meteorologist) though.
 * Is this organisation better? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely better. And reminds me that another approach is to list the players (people) in the issue.  But (if you would permit me to be so bold) I would like to split your "People" section below and make further comment there.  What I would like comment on here is the nature and advisability of a list of arguments.  There are several points which you should keep mind.


 * First, what we are working on here is not the topic of continental drift, but the subtopic of why Wegener's formulation was rejected. (Right?) That the rejectors were wrong is quite beside the point.  What we need to illustrate is why they thought they were right.  This seems to be the main point that you are hung up on, so please note: we should describe their arguments, not belabor them. That the arguments were faulty, outright wrong, or just inapplicable, is a different subtopic.  Okay?


 * Second (and rather an example of the first point): Your bolded comment ("Ironically ....) is really inappropriate, as you are arguing a point.  Moreover, you are stating an opinion ("absence of scientific consensus") without any citation. As a matter of fact I would say you are wrong, but that is also beside the point, because this is not the place for a debate on the topic itself. Don't do that!


 * More to the purpose here, the list above mixes different modes of classifications. E.g., Contractionists, Fixists, and Permanentists are names of different camps, whereas USA and Germany are different countries (representing different scientific communities).  The points (or evidence) of argument would be matters like isostasy, the MAR magmas, biologic similarities, strength of crust, etc. Note that none of these items just mentioned are actual arguments; they are largely just pointers to arguments.  (The arguments themselves are more like "the nature of the magmas implies ...".  Which being rather unwieldy when fully stated we usually tag with some identifier, such as "the isostasy argument".)  While we might start our researches by looking for the arguments used in each country (because that is likely how the literature is organized) I think there will be considerable overlap.  So it would be better to have a list (table?) of the arguments, which can be annotated as to where and by whom they were used. It can be difficult to succinctly yet adequately summarize arguments, but we can work on that.


 * That's part of my brilliant conception of the matter. Though I think that is the easy part. The hard part is all the foot-slogging study needed to thoroughly research the matter.  Which, as I've said, I don't know if I will have time for.  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We need a book on the matter to help us, the google book is not good enough, as it hides the important pages. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Or even four or five books. (Should we work up a bibliography?)  That's the main reason I'm somewhat reluctant to jump in – it might take several months of reading and study to get a proper grasp of the topic. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One would be enough. Up to date, published between 2001 n 2010? Wikipedia is no dissertation. Wikipedia is secondary/ college school level and we have enough refs on the internet. Maybe the selected publications of J. Tuzo Wilson would help a lil bit. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Careful! Keep in mind what I have been saying about the difference between arguing why continental "drift" is true and presenting the arguments on which it was rejected.  Wilson, Hess, Vine, and others presented arguments favoring continental "drift"; they do not (as far as I have found) adequately describe the argument against.  Contrast that with Oreskes' presentation: even though she rejects it, she does a good job of describing the conventional view of why Wegener was rejected.
 * And be wary of relying on any single source (book or otherwise). Single-source research is generally acceptable in grade school because the goal is to demonstrate comprehension and presentation of any other point of view.  But by juniorr high school it is generally expected to compare, contrast, and even integrate multiple points of view.  By high school, and certainly by college, research is expected to cover all major points of view.  For sure, many Wikipedia articles are hardly better than what a talented sixth-grader could do, but I would hope, especially for a scientific topic, that we can do better.  To that end it would be good to identify the principal sources.  (And don't forget, I am not talking about continental drift, but about why Wegener's formulation of continental drift was rejected.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be precise. Continental drift was never fully rejected, but it was always near the "scrap heap". And Plate tectonics is not continental drift. The basaltic seafloor moves, the floating continents just follow. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For sure. But to get back on point: to the extent that it was rejected, I think it would be useful to have list of references (esp. books) that discuss why it was rejected.  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did a timeline --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. Those are some good starting points, and bringing them together helps to assemble a view of what was going on. Though I suspect these are largely only excerpts on what was happeing.
 * I would like to make a suggestion: some of your points are not cited. Since citing multiple points from a source can be difficult (at least in what seems to be the typical manner of doing this), I wonder if I could offer some better ways of handling all that referencing/citing stuff.  Interested? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some Frankel, H. 1987 stuff is not cited yet. I'll do it later. All use Cite template, it's quite complete. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a qualified 'yes'. And I'll start another section ( following this at the top) for that sub-discussion. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember:

 * OMS Modeling technique of O’Neill et al. (2005).
 * PFRM Polygonal finite rotation method of Harada and Hamano (2000).
 * WK97 An APM model proposed by Wessel and Kroenke (1997).
 * Arthur Holmes. 1890-1965 KC Dunham - Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 1966
 * Continental drift Edward Crisp Bullard Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society; 1964; v. 120; issue.1-4; p. 1-33; DOI: 10.1144/gsjgs.120.1.0001
 * Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 3: 1-31 (Volume publication date May 1975) (doi:10.1146/annurev.ea.03.050175.000245) The Emergence of Plate Tectonics: A Personal View E Bullard
 * http://powerpoints.geology-guy.com/pipkin/pipkin_chapter3.pdf
 * http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/phy1931/WEGENER/wegener.htm
 * Benjamin Franklin (1782),
 * we must forget everything which has been learned in the last seventy years and start over again Weiner 1986:16 Planet Earth by Jonathan Weiner (Hardcover - Jan. 1, 1986)?
 * 50 Jahre Kontinentalverschiebungstheorie-von Wegener bis Runcorn HG Wunderlich - Geologische Rundschau, 1962 - Springer
 * Mega-Undationen ab Ursache der Kontinentverschiebungen uibk.ac.at VRWB Utrecht - uibk.ac.at
 * The career of continental drift theory: An application of Imre Lakatos' analysis of scientific growth to the rise of drift theory* 1H Frankel - Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 1979 - Elsevier
 * Jeffreys, H., The Earth (1958), Cambridge University Press.
 * Jeffreys, H., in "Problems of the Earth's Crust: A Discussion in Section E (Geography) of the British Assoc. on 28 September 1931 in the Hall of the Society," Geographical Journal 78 (1931):453.
 * Coleman, A. P., Permo-Carboniferous Glaciation and the Wegener Hypothesis, Nature 115, 602-602 (25 April 1925) | doi=10.1038/115602a0
 * Coleman, A. P., The Wegener Hypothesis: Discussion (Geological Section) British Association for the Advancement of Science," Nature 111 (1923): 30-1.
 * Coleman, A. P., Ice Ages and Drift of the Continents," American Journal of Science Ser. 5, 7 (1924): 398-404.
 * Coleman, A. P., Ice Ages, Recent and Ancient (New York: MacMillan, 1926).
 * Coleman, A. P., "Ice Ages and the Drift of Continents," Journal of Geology 41 (1933): 409.
 * Brooks, C. E. P., Climate through the Ages (1926), London: Ernest Benn.
 * American Journal of Science, Vol. 241, February 1943, P.130-133 Charles Schuchert [1858-1942] Richard Swann Lull
 * Schuchert, Charles, "The Paleogeography of Permian Time in Relation to the Geography of Earlier and Later Periods," Proceedings of the Second Pan-Pacific Science Congress (1926), pp 1079-91.
 * Journal of Navigation (1966), 19:1-1 Cambridge University Press doi=10.1017/S0373463300040455 The Duke of Edinburgh's Lecture The Continental Drift Professor P. M. S. Blackett
 * (1) drifters: P. M. S. Blackett, S. K. Runcorn (became a drifter in 1956), E. Irving, and R. A. Fisher.
 * (2) fixists: Jeffreys, H.; Cox, A.; Doell, D. (Coex and Doell became drifters in the mid-1960s).
 * http://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=bcNBDTiUlrkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA83&dq=+(1)+drifters:+P.+M.+S.+Blackett,+S.+K.&ots=R4r46-g8bW&sig=UNF3MZKfV-UXPBlS6LFR1htGMH0#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/crerar/crerar-prize/2003%2004%20Brusatte.pdf
 * Wilson, J. Tuzo, (1962) Nature, 195, 135; (1963) Nature, 197, 536; (1963) Science, 139, 592;(1963), Nature.
 * (Hess, H.H., (1960) Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., 71, 235. ???)
 * The oceanic crust. Journal of Marine Research, 14:423-39. Serpentines, orogeny and epeirogeny. In: Crust of the Earth, ed. by A. W. Poldervaart, pp. 391-407. Geological Society of America, Special Paper No. 62. New York, The Society. (Symposium)
 * (Hess, H. H: The AMSOC (American Miscellaneous Society) Deep Hole to the Mantle, Address to the Geophysical Union, Washington, D. C, May 6, 1959 ???)
 * Hess, H.H., (1960) Evolution of ocean basins. Report to Office of Naval Research. Contract No. 1858(10), NR 081-067. 38 pp.
 * Hess, H.H., 1959. The AMSOC hole to the Earth's mantle: Am. Geophys. Union Trans.. v. 40, p. 340-345; (1960, Am. Scientist, v. 47, p. 254-263)
 * Hess, H.H., 1959, Nature of the great occanic ridges: Internat. Ocean. Cong. Preprints, p. 33-34, AAAS, Washington, D. C.
 * Hess, H.H., 1954, Serpentines, orogeny and epeirogeny. p. 391-408 in Poldervaart. Aric, Editor, Crust of the earth: Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper 62, 762 p.
 * Hess, H.H., Nature of great oceanic ridges. Preprints of the 1st International Oceanographic Congress (New York, August 31-September 12, 1959), pp. 33-34. Washington, American Association for the Advancement of Science. (A)
 * Hess, H.H., 1955, The oceanic crust: Jour. Marine Research, v. 14, p. 423-439
 * A proposal by the IUGS Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks for a chemical classification of volcanic rocks based on the total alkali silica (TAS) diagram
 * International Union of Geological Sciences, Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks.
 * , Edited by R. W. Le Maitre and A. Streckeisen and B. Zanettin and M. J. Le Bas and B. Bonin and P. Bateman
 * International Union of Geological Sciences, Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks.
 * , Edited by R. W. Le Maitre and A. Streckeisen and B. Zanettin and M. J. Le Bas and B. Bonin and P. Bateman
 * , Edited by R. W. Le Maitre and A. Streckeisen and B. Zanettin and M. J. Le Bas and B. Bonin and P. Bateman


 * Pluto: planet to dwarf planet, by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a member of the International Council for Science (ICSU)
 * International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth's Interior (IAVCEI), a member of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), a member of the International Council for Science as well.
 * Peacock named the Calc-alkaline igneous rocks series in 1931. The opposite is the tholeiitic series. Alfred Rittmann's opposition was January 1939, in Frankfurt. IAV President (IAV at that time) for three periods (1954-1963).
 * Ultra-mafic < 45% SiO2, Mafic < 52% SiO2, Intermediate 52-63% SiO2, Intermediate-Felsic 63-69% SiO2, Felsic >69 % SiO2.
 * Sima (geology) (2800 to 3300 kg/m3) and Sial (2700 - 2800 kg/m3)


 * Graphit/ Graphite 2,25
 * Gips/ Gypsum 2,3
 * Sandstein/ Sandstone 2,35 bis 2,7
 * Granit/ Granite 2,55 bis 2,81
 * Kalkstein/ Calcareous 2,45 bis 2,80
 * Marmor/ Marble 2,62 bis 2,84
 * Basalt 2,9 bis 3,15

Quotes

 * Read the free available page of  to get the right idea, please. Quote:

Many contributions to the annual meeting of the German Geological Society in 1939 appeared to have the precise goal of discrediting once and for ever the Wegener theory on continental drift.

''It is well know how difficult is to construct and how easy it is to destroy, and the Wegener theory had, since the time it was proposed in 1912, more detractors than supporters. In 1930 when Alfred Wegener died the group of his supporters were even smaller.''

''At the German Geological Society Meeting it was emphasized that many profiles of the Atlantic Ocean sea-bottom had shown the presence of a mountain ridge in the middle of the ocean. Faced with such evidence, how could one persist in sustaining that Africa was moving away from southern America if a compressive mountain ridge was forming just in the middle of the Atlantic? The scientists discussing these facts and their consequence their many, and the general agreement was to disregard a theory that was so much against proven facts.''

''All of the present but one: Alfred Rittmann, a Swiss geologist interested in problems concerning magmas and volcanoes. He asked to speak. Vehemently and decidedly, as he was used to, he explained that the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean could not be a compressive area and that - on the contrary - it was a cratonic area, that is a rigid system, which was undergoing extensional tectonic processes. Even if this view was not determinant in establishing the soundness of the Wegener's theory, it might however suggest that the obstinacy of the Wegener's detractors was largely unjustified. Upon what evidence was this view founded? Upon a single observation but - in his belief - of fundamental and unquestionable importance: -Volcanic activity in orogenic areas is fed by calc-alkaline magmas only. Whereas all the Atlantic Ocean volcanoes erupt mainly alkali-basaltic magmas, which are typical of rigid tensional areas and are completely lacking in compressive areas where orogenic deformations occur...''


 * , Quote:

''...Vorwiegend aus morphologischen Gründe wurde die Ansicht geäussert, die Mittelatlantische Schwelle sie ein embryonales Faltengebirge. Aus ähnlichen Gründen wurde die Existenz eines quer zur Schwelle verlaufenden, ertrunkenen Gebirges vermutet, das Nordafrika mit Mittelamerika verbinden soll. Diese beide Annahmen verstossen offenbar gegen die allen Petrographen bekannte Tatsache (nicht Theorie!), dass in tätigen Orogenen Magmen der Kalkalkalireihe ('pazifische Gesteinssippen') auftreten. In den Azoren und auf den Inseln, die der Mittelatlantische Schwelle aufsitzen, kommen jedoch typische Laven der Natronreihe ('atlantische Gesteinssippen' sic!) zutage, was für einen mehr kratogenen Chrarakter jener Krustenteile spricht. Es wäre doch höchst unwahrscheinlich, dass gerade ein unsichtbares Stück Faltengebirge eine Ausnahme bilden soll, während sonst alle Gebirgshöhen, die Vulkane tragen, und insbesondere auch die submarinen (Kurilen, Ryu-Kyu, Aleuten, Antillen usw.) Magmen von sehr ausgeprägtem 'pazifischen' Chrarakter aufweisen. Die Berücksichtigung solcher petrologischer und magmalogischer Erkenntnisse ist eine zwingende Notwendigkeit. Dasselbe gilt auch für die gesicherte Erkenntnisse der Geophysik und speziell der Seismik, die oft ebenfalls vernachlässigt werden...''

Translation:

...Mainly for morphological reasons, the view was expressed that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge was an embryonic folding of mountains. For similar reasons, it was suspected the existence of drowned mountains transverse to the Ridge that connect North Africa to Central America. These two assumptions seem to be contrary to all petrologists known fact (not theory!) that in the active orogenic uplift, magmas of the calc-alkali series ('Pacific igneous rocks') occur. In the Azores and the islands, of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, however, come to light typical lavas of sodic-alkali series ('Atlantic igneous rocks' sic!), which speaks for a more cratonic character of that crusts. It would be highly unlikely that just an invisible piece of folded mountains is an exception, as all the mountain heights, with volcanoes, and especially the submarine mountains (Kuril Islands, Ryukyu Islands, Aleutian Islands, the Antilles, etc.) have normally magmas of very pronounced 'Pacific' character. Consideration of such petrological and magmalogical knowledge is a necessity. The same applies to the established findings of Geophysics and especially of the seismic, which are often neglected also...

People
I hope you won't mind if I push your initial list of people into a new "People I" section, and use this section to comment about making a list of people.

The main comment is that what you have below is not a list of people, but of citations. And some of the people (authors) are cited more than once (Wilson, McKenzie, Torsvik). While I think it would be good to have a good bibliography (in some sense of "good"), it is not clear whether you have cited these items because they cover Wegener's rejection, have biographic material on certain individuals, or solely because you think they are of interest re continental drift. Which I agree, they are, but of People?

A list of the players (people involved in the controversy) might be helpful. But in such a list the citations would be either of their contributions to the debate, or of sources containing biographical material about them or their contributions. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Begin
http://courses.science.fau.edu/~rjordan/phy1931/WEGENER/wegener.htm the Briton, Philip Lake and the American, Harry Fielding Reid. For example, Lake complained

"he is not seeking truth; he is advocating a cause, and is blind to every fact and argument that tells against it."

Lake added

"It is easy to fit the pieces of the puzzle together if you distort their shape, but when you have done so, your success is no proof that you have placed them in their original positions. It is not even proof that the pieces belong to the same puzzle, or that all of the pieces are present."

Other American scientists went after Wegener as well. Paleontologist E.W. Berry called the theory:

"a selective search through the literature for corroborative evidence, ignoring most of the facts that are opposed to the idea, and ending in a state of auto-intoxication in which the subjective idea comes to be considered as an objective fact."

The American geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain, whose father had been one of Lord Kelvin's strong adversaries, wondered whether geology could still be called a science if it is

"possible for such a theory as this to run wild."

Later, in 1928, at a symposium arranged by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Chamberlin was to complain

"If we are to believe in Wegener's hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again."

Another respected American geologist Bailey Willis maintained that

"further discussion of it merely incumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students. [It is] as antiquated as pre-Curie physics."

and adding that it was a

"fairy tale."

The strongest objections came from geophysicists who were challenging the mechanism he proposed. We have already mentioned Harold Jeffreys who showed that the strength and rigidity of the Earth's mantle over which the drift was taking place was far greater than the forces suggested by Wegener as the driving forces. Jeffreys called the drift idea

"a very dangerous one, and liable to lead to serious error."


 * Begin
 * Abraham Ortelius (1597), Francis Bacon (1625), Antonio Snider-Pellegrini (1858), and 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.
 * Although Wegener's theory was formed independently and was more complete than those of his predecessors, Wegener later credited a number of past authors with similar ideas: Franklin Coxworthy (between 1848 and 1890), Roberto Mantovani (between 1889 and 1909), William Henry Pickering (1907) and Frank Bursley Taylor (1908).
 * The vertical movement of Skandinavia after the ice age is accepted (uplift c. 1 cm/year). This implies a certain plasticity under the crust ).
 * 1912-1929: Alfred Wegener develops his continental drift hypothesis.
 * University of Chicago geologist R.T. Chamberlin ridiculed the theory as being “of the foot-loose type,” while Edward Berry bluntly labeled Wegener’s method as “unscientific.” While a good number of geologists accepted Wegener’s data, many geophysicists scoffed at Wegener’s failure to provide a plausible mechanism for continental motion.
 * Quotes: "Utter, damned rot!" said the president of the prestigious American Philosophical Society. "If we are to believe [this] hypothesis, we must forget everything we have learned in the last 70 years and start all over again," said another American scientist . Anyone who "valued his reputation for scientific sanity" would never dare support such a theory, said a British geologist.
 * Moreover, most of the blistering attacks were aimed at Wegener himself, an outsider (PhD in Astronomy) who seemed to be attacking the very foundations of geology.
 * H. Jeffreys was the most important contractionist, He was wrong, if the seafloor is stronger, this does not exclude the Continents being passive and the seafloor subduction active.

People I
1. Introduction

During the 20th century our description of the movement and deformation of the Earth's outer rigid layer evolved from the hypothesis of Continental Drift (Wegener 1915) into Sea-Floor Spreading (Hess 1962) and to the theory of Plate Tectonics (Wilson, 1966, McKenzie and Parker 1967, Morgan 1968, Le Pichon 1968).

Now a fourth shift is underway in which Plate Tectonics is being subsumed into a new Mantle Dynamics framework that requires plate motion reconstructions through time to include not only improved relative platemotions but also refined plate motions with respect to the mantle. By combining relative and absolute plate motion frames from the Indo-Atlantic (O'Neill et al. 2005; Torsvik et al. 2008a; Steinberger and Torsvik 2008) and the Pacific (Steinberger and Gaina, 2007) realms we have re-constructed first order palaeo-plate boundaries for the last 150 Ma.

Based on the absolute plate motion frames (Table 1) and guided by numerous regional relative plate tectonic models (oceanic domains mostly summarized by Müller et al. 2008), we developed a global model of “tectonic plates polygons” for each 10 Myr interval since Late Jurassic (150 Ma). The plate polygons are closed polygons that outline a rigid block (tectonic plate) that has moved relative to neighboring rigid blocks for a finite amount of time as indicated by the type of the plate boundary between them (see Section 2). This global model can be used for many purposes in geodynamic modeling. Herewe describe a single important example, namely the calculation of net lithosphere rotation (NR). If mantle convection is the principal driving mechanism for plate motions, NR should be zero unless individual lithospheric plates have different couplings to the underlying mantle flow. A proper reference frame with appropriate NR is important for discussions of poloidal/toroidal partitioning of plate motions (Lithgow-Bertelloni et al. 1993).
 * Supplement
 * Supplement
 * Supplement
 * Supplement

Most plate models predict westward drift of the lithosphere with respect to the deep mantle, which has been ascribed to lateral viscosity variations (Ricard et al. 1991; O'Connell et al., 1991).

Westward drift estimates vary considerably (1.5–9 cm/year) and are usually larger than those calculated from geodynamic models (Becker 2006).

However, comparison of westward drift estimates with geodynamic models is problematic, since all geodynamic models are based on simplifying assumptions. Recently, seismic anisotropy has emerged as a further tool to estimate NR for recent times (Becker 2008; Kreemer 2009; Conrad and Behn, submitted Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst.). In Section 3 we explore NR, not only for present times but for the past 150 Ma.



People II

 * , translation:

Our description of movements and deformation of the Earth's outer shell has developed over the course of a century, from the hypothesis of continental drift (ca. 1915), to seafloor spreading (ca. 1962), and more recently to the theory of plate tectonics (ca. 1967). Plate tectonics has had success, both theoretically and practically, and it has formed a scientific framework for many geological disciplines, including within hydrocarbon and mineral exploration. A new revolution is on the way, however, and we postulate here that plate tectonics will become part of a new visionary theory of mantle dynamics. ...

... The American Jason Morgan and the Canadian J. Tuzo Wilson were central figures in the development of plate tectonics (Wilson 1965, 1966; Morgan 1968), but it was the Englishman Dan McKenzie and the American Robert Parker who published the quantitative principles for plate tectonics in an article in Nature in 1967. ...

Article
Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California at San Diego Individual aseismic areas move as rigid plates on the surface of a sphere. Application of the Mercator projection to slip vectors shows that the paving stone theory of world tectonics is correct and applies to about a quarter of the Earth's surface.


 * Allen, C. R., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., A, 258, 82 (1965).
 * Berg, J. W., and Baker, C. D. , Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 53, 95 (1963).
 * Bolt, B. A., and Nuttli, O. W. , J. Geophys. Res., 71, 5977 (1966).
 * Bullard, E. C., Everett, J. E. , and Smith, A. G. , Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., A, 258, 41 (1965).
 * Gates, O., and Gibson, W. , Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 67, 127 (1956).
 * Goldstein, H., Classical Mechanics (Addison–Wesley, 1950).
 * Gutenberg, B., and Richter, C. F. , Seismicity of the Earth and Associated Phenomena (Princeton University Press, 1954).
 * Hess, H. H., in Petrologic Studies (edit. by Engel, A. E. J., James, H. L., and Leonard, B. F.) (Geol. Soc. Amer., New York, 1962).
 * Hill, M. L., and Dibblee, jun., T. W. , Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 64, 443 (1953).
 * Ludwig, W. J., Ewing, J. I. , Ewing, M. , Murauchi, S. , Den, N. , Asano, S. , Hotta, H. , Hayakawa, M. , Ichikawa, K. , and Noguchi, I. , J. Geophys. Res., 71, 2121 (1966).
 * McEvilly, T. V., Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 56, 967 (1966).
 * Matthews, D. H., and Bath, J. , Geophys. J., 13, 349 (1967).
 * Oliver, J., and Isacks, B. , J. Geophys. Res., 72, 4259 (1967).
 * Stauder, W., Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 50, 293 (1960).
 * Stauder, W., and Udias, A. , Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 53, 59 (1963).
 * Stauder, W., and Bollinger, G. A. , Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 54, 2198 (1964).
 * Stauder, W., and Bollinger, G. A. , J. Geophys. Res., 71, 5283 (1966).
 * Stauder, W., and Bollinger, G. A. , Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 56, 1363 (1966).
 * Sykes, L. R., J. Geophys. Res., 68, 5999 (1963).
 * Sykes, L. R., J. Geophys. Res., 72, 2131 (1967).
 * Tocher, D., Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 50, 267 (1960).
 * Udias, A., and Stauder, W. , Bull. Seism. Soc. Amer., 54, 2049 (1964).
 * Vine, F. J., and Matthews, D. H. , Nature, 199, 947 (1963).
 * Vine, F. J., Science, 154, 1405 (1966).
 * Wilson, J. T., Nature, 207, 343 (1965).
 * Wilson, J. T., Science, 150, 482 (1965).

Article II
Physics Department, King's College, Newcastle upon Tyne


 * Birch, F., J. Geophys. Res., 57, 227 (1952).
 * Bullard, E. C., Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 197, 433 (1949).
 * Chandrasekhar, S., Phil. Mag., 44, 233, 1129 (1953).
 * Clegg, J. A., Deutsch, E. R. , and Griffiths, D. H. , Phil. Mag., 1, 419 (1956).
 * Collinson, D. W., and Runcorn, S. K. , Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 71, 915 (1960).
 * Creer, K. M., Irving, E. , and Runcorn, S. K. , Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., A, 250, 144 (1957).
 * Griggs, D., Amer. J. Sci., 237, 611 (1939b).
 * Hill, M. K., and Dibblee, T. W. , Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 64, 443 (1953).
 * Hills, G. F. S., The Formation of the Continents by Convection (Arnold, London, 1947).
 * Irving, E., and Green, R. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astro. Soc., Geophys. Suppl., 7, 347 (1957).
 * Jacobs, J., Handbuch Phys., Geophysik, I, 47, 364 (1956).
 * Jeffreys, H., The Earth—its Origin, History and Physical Constitution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1952).
 * Munk, W. H., and MacDonald, G. , The Rotation of the Earth (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1961).
 * Opdyke, N. D., and Runcorn, S. K. , Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 71, 959 (1960).
 * Prey, A., Abh. Ges. der Wissenschaften Math. Phys. Klasse (Gottingen), 11, 1 (1922).
 * Runcorn, S. K., Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 87, 282 (1961).
 * Urey, H., The Planets (Oxford Univ. Press, 1952).
 * Vening Meinesz, F. A., Gravity Expeditions at Sea, 4, 1948 (1923–38).
 * Vening Meinesz, F. A., Kon. Ned. Akad. Weten, 55, 527 (1952).
 * Wegener, A., Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane (Friedr. Vieweg and Sohn, 1941).
 * White, D., Theory of Continental Drift: A Symposium, 187 (Amer. Assoc. Petroleum Geol., 1928).

Article III
, Institute of Earth Science, University of Toronto


 * Allen, C. R., J. Geophys. Res., 67, 4795 (1962).
 * Anderson, D. L., Sci. Amer., 207, 52 (1962).
 * Aubert de la Rue, E., Chronique Mines d'Outre-Mer, Paris, 24, 162 (1956).
 * Aubert de la Rue, E., Recherche géologique et Minérale en Polynésie Francaise (Insp. Gén. Mines Géol., Paris, 1959).
 * Bandy, H. C., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 48, 1589 (1937).
 * Banfield, A. F., Behre, jun., C. M. , and St. Clair, D. , Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 67, 215 (1956).
 * Benioff, H., in Runcorn, S. K. , Continental Drift, 103 (Academic Press, New York and London, 1962).
 * Benioff, H., in Runcorn, S. K. (editor), Continental Drift, 103 (Academic Press, New York and London, 1962).
 * Bernal, J. D., Nature, 192, 123 (1961).
 * Betz, jun., F., and Hess, H. H. , Geog. Rev., 32, 99 (1942).
 * Brouwer, H. A., Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 106, 231 (1951).
 * Bullard, E. C., Maxwell, A. E. , and Revelle, R. , Adv. Geophys., 3, 153 (1956).
 * Carey, S. W., Continental Drift, a Symposium (Dept. Geol., Univ. Tasmania, Hobart, 1958).
 * Christie, R. L., Geol. Surv. Canada, Paper 62—10 (1962).
 * Chubb, L. J., Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond., 83, 291 (1927).
 * Chubb, L. J., B.P. Bishop Mus. Bull., 68, (1930).
 * Dana, J. D., U. S. Exploring Exped. 1838–1842, 10(1849).
 * Davis, W. H., Amer. Geog. Soc. Spec. Publ., 9, 154 (1928).
 * Davis, W. M., Amer. Geog. Soc. Spec. Publn., 9, 375 (1928).
 * Deminitskaya, R. M., Trans. Sci. Res. Inst. Arctic Geol., 115, (1961) (in Russian).
 * Dietz, R. S., in Runcorn, S. K. (editor), Continental Drift, 289 (Academic Press, New York and London, 1962).
 * Donovan, D. T., Meddel. om Grønland, 155, No. 4 (1957).
 * Dorman, J., Ewing, M. , and Oliver, J. , Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer., 50, 87 (1960).
 * Du Toit, A. L., Our Wandering Continents (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1937).
 * Eaton, J. P., and Murata, K. J. , Science, 132, 925 (1960)
 * Fairbridge, R. W., Geog. J., 115, 84 (1950).
 * Farquharson, W. I., John Murray Exped., (1933–34), Sci. Rep., 1, No. 2, Chart 1 (1935–36).
 * Fisher, R. L., Preliminary Report on Expedition Downwind, IGY World Data Center A, IGY Gen. Rep. Ser., No. 2 (1958).
 * Gill, J. E., Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, Sect. 4, Ser. 3, 43, 61 (1949).
 * Gutenberg, B., Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 19, 11 (1926).
 * Griggs, D. T., Amer. J. Sci., 237, 611 (1939).
 * Gutenberg, B., and Richter, C. F. , Seismicity of the Earth, second ed. (Princeton University Press, 1954).
 * Gutenberg, B., Science, 131, 959 (1960).
 * Hamilton, E. L., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 68, 1011 (1957).
 * Hamilton, E. L. J., Sediment. Petrol, 30, 370 (1960).
 * Heezen, B. C., and Ewing, M. , Amer. Geophys. Union, Monog. 1, 75 (1956).
 * Heezen, B. C., in Runcorn, S. K. , Continental Drift, (Academic Press, New York and London, 1962).
 * Heiskenen, W. A., and Vening Meinesz, F. A. , The Earth and its Gravity Field (McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York, 1958).
 * Hersey, J. B., J. Geophys. Res., 67, 1109 (1962).
 * Hess, H. H., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 71, 235 (1960).
 * Hess, H. H., Petrologic Studies: A Volume to Honor A. F. Buddington, 599 (Geol. Soc. Amer., 1962).
 * Hodgson, J. H., in Runcorn, S. K. , Continental Drift, 67 (Academic Press, New York and London, 1962).
 * Holmes, A., Trans. Geol. Soc. Glasgow, 18, 559 (1928–29).
 * Hurley, P. M., Hughes, H. , Faure, G. , Fairbairn, H. W. , and Pinson, W. H. , J. Geophys. Res., 67, 5315 (1962).
 * Jacobs, J. A., Russell, R. D. , and Wilson, J. T. , Physics and Geology (McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, 1959).
 * Jeffreys, H., The Earth, second ed. (Camb. Univ. Press, 1929).
 * Jeffreys, H., The Earth, fourth ed. (Camb. Univ. Press, 1958).
 * Kear, D., and Wood, B. L. , New Zealand Geol. Surv. Bull., 63 (1959).
 * King, L. C., The Morphology of the Earth (Hapner Publ. Co., New York, 1962).
 * Krishnan, M. S., Geology of India and Burma, fourth ed. (Higginbothams, Madras, 1960).
 * Kuenen, Ph.H., Marine Geology (Wiley, New York, 1950).
 * Lambeth, A. J., Roy. Soc. New South Wales, J. and Proc., 86, 14 (1952).
 * Lemoine, P., Handbuch. Reg. Geol., 6, Pt. 4 (1912)
 * Lensen, G. J., Canada Dom. Obs. Publ., 24, No. 10, 391 (1960).
 * Loncarevic, B., and Matthews, D. H. , New Sci., 14, 513 (1962).
 * Markovsky, A. P., translated by P. de Saint-Aubin, and Roget, J., Structure Géologique de l'U.R.S.S. (Centre Nat. Res. Sci., Paris, 1961).
 * Mawson, D., Austral. Antarct. Exped., 1911–1914, Sci. Reps., A, 5 (Sydney1943).
 * McConnell, R. K., The Viscoelastic Response of a Layered Earth to the Removal of the Fennoscandian Ice Sheet (thesis, University of Toronto, 1963).
 * Menard, H. W., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 70, 1491 (1959).
 * Menard, H. W., Allison, E. C. , and Durham, J. W. , Science, 138, 896 (1962).
 * Menard, H. W., and Dietz, R. S. , Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 62, 1263 (1951).
 * Menard, H. W., Science, 132, 1737 (1961).
 * Miller, J. A., and Mudie, J. D. , Nature, 192, 1174 (1961).
 * Niskanen, E., Publn. Isostatic Inst., Helsinki, 23, (1949).
 * O'Keefe, J. A., Eckels, A. , and Squires, R. K. , Science, 129, 565 (1959).
 * Press, F., Science, 133, 1455 (1961).
 * Prest, V. K., Geol. Surv. Canada, Paper 52—32 (1952).
 * Repelin, J., C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 168, 237 (1919).
 * Richter, C. F., Elementary Seismology (W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1958).
 * Ringwood, A. E., J. Geophys. Res., 67, 857 (1962).
 * Runcorn, S. K., Continental Drift, 38 (Academic Press, New York and London, 1962).
 * Runcorn, S. K. (editor), Continental Drift (Academic Press. New York and London, 1962).
 * Runcorn, S. K., Continental Drift, 1 (Academic Press, New York and London, 1962).
 * Scheidegger, A. E., and Wilson, J. T. , Proc. Geol. Soc. Canada, 3, 167 (1950).
 * St. Amand, P., Los Terremotos de Mayo, Chile, 1960 (Michelson Lab., U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station NOTS TP2701, China Lake, California, 1961).
 * Stearns, H. T., United States, Terr. Hawaii, Div. Hydrog. Bull., 8 (1946).
 * Steinhart, J. S., and Meyer, R. P. , Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ., No. 622 (1961).
 * Vacquier, V., in Runcorn, S. K. (editor), Continental Drift, 135 (Academic Press, New York and London, 1962).
 * Van Waterschoot, Van der Gracht, W. A. , Theory of Continental Drift (Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol., 1928).
 * Vening Meinesz, F. A., Gravity Expeditions at Sea 1923–1932, 2 (Netherlands Geod. Comm., Delft, 1934).
 * Wegener, A., The Origin of Continents and Oceans (E. P. Dutton and Co., New York, 1924).
 * Wellman, H. W., Geol. Rdsch., 43, 248 (1955).
 * Westerveld, J., Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 63, 561 (1952).
 * Williams, H., B.P. Bishop Mus. Bull., 105, (1933).
 * Wilson, J. T., in Kuiper, G. P. (editor), The Earth as a Planet, 138 (Univ. Chicago Press, 1954).
 * Wilson, J. T., Nature, 195, 135 (1962).
 * Wilson, J. T., Nature, 197, 536 (1963).
 * Wilson, J. T., Canadian J. Phys. (in the press).
 * Wiseman, J. D. H., Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 19, Ser. 2, 437 (1926–36).
 * Worzel, J. L., and Shurbet, G. L. , Geol. Soc. Amer., Spec. Paper, 62, 87 (1955).
 * Takeuchi, J., Press, F. , and Kobayshi, N. , Bull. Seis. Soc. Amer., 49, 355 (1959).
 * Termier, H., and Termier, G. , Atlas de Paléogéographie (Masson et Cie, Paris, 1960).
 * Thorarinssen, S., Mus. Nat. Hist. Reykjavik, Dep. Geol. Geog. Misc. Papers, 25 (1960).

Article IIII

 * Wilson, J. T., Convection currents and continental drift: evidence from ocean islands suggesting movement in the Earth Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., A, 258, 145 (1965).
 * Dietz, R. S., and Holden, J. C., Reconstruction of Pangaea: breakup and dispersion of continents, Permian to present J. Geophys. Res., 75, 4939 (1970).
 * Morgan, W. J. (1973), Hess Memorial Volume (edit. by Shagam, R.), Plate motions and deep mantle convection Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 132, 7−22
 * http://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=gRZihrnakJoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA443&dq=Morgan,+W.+Jason+Geol.+Soc.+Am.+Mem&ots=W4v1h9dM-L&sig=gOxasxR2I2yLW1vRiVyGNu8dWLo#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * Francheteau, J., Harrison, C. G. A., Sclater, J. G., and Richards, M. L., Magnetization of Pacific seamounts, a preliminary polar curve for the north eastern Pacific J. Geophys. Res., 75, 2035 (1970).
 * Engel, A. E. J., Engel, C. G., and Havens, R. G., Chemical characteristics of oceanic basalts and the upper mantle Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., 76, 719 (1965).
 * Gast, P. W., Trace element fractionation and the origin of tholeiitic and alkaline magma types Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 32, 1057 (1968).
 * Oversby, V. M., and Gast, P. W., Isotopic Composition of Lead from Oceanic Islands J. Geophys. Res., 75, 2097 (1970).
 * McKenzie, D. P., Speculations on the Consequences and Causes of Plate Motions Geophys. J., 18, 1 (1969).
 * Morgan, W. J., Gravity anomalies and convection currents. 2. The Puerto Rico Trench and the MidAtlantic Rise. J. Geophys. Res., 70, 6189 (1965).
 * Kaula, W. M., Earth's gravity field: relation to global tectonics Science, 169, 982 (1970).
 * Kaula, W. M., Earth's gravity field: relation to global tectonics Science, 169, 982 (1970).