3 ms·

Why would this be a continent? A "nearly Texas-size continent" would be about the same size as Madagascar, and much smaller than Greenland, and we don't call M

Why would this be a continent? A "nearly Texas-size continent" would be about the same size as Madagascar, and much smaller than Greenland, and we don't call Madagascar or Greenland continents. The smallest landmass usually called a continent, Australia, is about 10x larger than Texas.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DamnInteresting 5y ago
The layman definition of 'continent' refers to landmasses, but the geological definition refers to more or less discrete sections of continental crust.
ch4s3 5y ago
I has to do with the underlying plate right? There are chunks of continental crust floating on the Earth's mantle and we sort of arbitrarily assign continent-ness to them loosely based on history and which plate they're sitting on.
tablespoon 5y ago
> A "nearly Texas-size continent" would be about the same size as Madagascar, and much smaller than Greenland, and we don't call Madagascar or Greenland continents. IIRC, the definition of "continent" in some contexts is not solely based on size. Continental crust is geologically different than oceanic crust, so if you find a bunch of it sunken underwater, it arguably a continent (geologically). But it's not like there's a really solid definition for "continent" (e.g. IIRC, Europe is one almost entirely for cultural reasons).
teh_klev 5y ago
There isn't a formal definition of what a continent should be, the naming of these things is a bit loose. Some of it comes from geology, others the politics of geography. There are such things as micro-continents (which Madagascar would fall into). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_fragment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_fragment According to this article, sure it's Wikipedia, but I learned this in geography class at school, "Continents are the largest landmass of a particular continental plate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island#Differentiation_from_continents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island#Differentiation_from_co... By this "simplified" map of continental plates then the lower half of Central America is technically a continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Pl...
- leereeves 5y ago
  Quite an interesting rabbit hole of geography, thanks for that. According to Wikipedia, Zealandia (where New Zealand is) is also an "almost entirely submerged mass of continental crust" that's half the size of Australia. And "geologists from New Zealand, New Caledonia, and Australia have concluded that Zealandia fulfills all the requirements to be considered a continent". But that "simplified" map of continental plates shows how much geologists definition of "continent" differs from the usual definition. As you said, central America and the Caribbean are on their own plate. And Asia actually contains land from four "principal" plates (Eurasian, Indian, Arabian, and part of the North American plate), while Europe and most of Asia are together on the Eurasian plate.
vlovich123 5y ago
Aren't continents determined by tectonic plates & not size?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DamnInteresting 5y ago

The layman definition of 'continent' refers to landmasses, but the geological definition refers to more or less discrete sections of continental crust.

ch4s3 5y ago

I has to do with the underlying plate right? There are chunks of continental crust floating on the Earth's mantle and we sort of arbitrarily assign continent-ness to them loosely based on history and which plate they're sitting on.

tablespoon 5y ago

> A "nearly Texas-size continent" would be about the same size as Madagascar, and much smaller than Greenland, and we don't call Madagascar or Greenland continents. IIRC, the definition of "continent" in some contexts is not solely based on size. Continental crust is geologically different than oceanic crust, so if you find a bunch of it sunken underwater, it arguably a continent (geologically). But it's not like there's a really solid definition for "continent" (e.g. IIRC, Europe is one almost entirely for cultural reasons).

teh_klev 5y ago

There isn't a formal definition of what a continent should be, the naming of these things is a bit loose. Some of it comes from geology, others the politics of geography. There are such things as micro-continents (which Madagascar would fall into). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_fragment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_fragment According to this article, sure it's Wikipedia, but I learned this in geography class at school, "Continents are the largest landmass of a particular continental plate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island#Differentiation_from_continents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island#Differentiation_from_co... By this "simplified" map of continental plates then the lower half of Central America is technically a continent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Pl...

leereeves 5y ago
Quite an interesting rabbit hole of geography, thanks for that. According to Wikipedia, Zealandia (where New Zealand is) is also an "almost entirely submerged mass of continental crust" that's half the size of Australia. And "geologists from New Zealand, New Caledonia, and Australia have concluded that Zealandia fulfills all the requirements to be considered a continent". But that "simplified" map of continental plates shows how much geologists definition of "continent" differs from the usual definition. As you said, central America and the Caribbean are on their own plate. And Asia actually contains land from four "principal" plates (Eurasian, Indian, Arabian, and part of the North American plate), while Europe and most of Asia are together on the Eurasian plate.

vlovich123 5y ago

Aren't continents determined by tectonic plates & not size?