Talk:Tethys Ocean

Sources

www.scotese.com

Palaeos Earth

www.uaeinteract.com

www.une.edu.au

www.epcc.edu

timelines.ws - (Sea vs. Ocean)

– Isogolem 09:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sea vs. Ocean

Wetman – I reverted your removal of the sentence about the "atlantic". I wouldn't have written that if I didn't see it. I'm not saying they're wonderful sources, I'm just saying that's what they appear to do. – Isogolem 09:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oil

In the edit of 'Tethys Sea' here, Wetman added an edit:

"Now oil geologists depend on what was once a mere postulation."

No explanation... I've removed it on merge, but only because if it looked dangly out there all alone with no support and no links. If someone wants to give it proper treatment, that'd be nice. – Isogolem 09:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that some discussion is needed regarding why some 70% of world oil is due to the anoxic conditions of the Tethys Seaway in what has now become the Arabian and Persian Gulf area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.86.129 (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediterrenean?

Isn't the Mediterennean Sea also a remnant of the Tethys? Nik42 05:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is quite possible you're correct. I think when I was researching, I just didn't see mention of it, so I played it safe. Isogolem 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The Mediterrannean is indeed a remnant of the Tethys - see Hsü et al '77 etc.

The Mediterrenean can be divided into a number of tectonic plates and domains. Not all are remnants of Tethys crust, we should be careful. The Black Sea for example is sometimes seen as a remnant, but this is not undisputed. The (oceanic) crust under the western parts of the Mediterrenean (for example) is more recent than the Tethys itself, it developed when Corsica and Sardinia began moving away from Iberia. On the other hand, these pieces of oceanic crust could only grow in the setting of a closing Tethys, so it depends on your definition of a remnant. Woodwalker 20:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. So, geographically, we're talking about the same area, But the question of whether the underlying plate is all specifically from the Tethys plate isn't settled? Isogolem 05:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not totally sure. There is probably some controversy. Woodwalker 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Us Versus "These"

In the last sentence of Terminology and Subdivisions, when they say "Neither of these should be confused with the Rheic Ocean, which existed to the west of them in the Silurian era", are they referring to the Proto-Tethys oceans, or the continents of Baltica, Laurentia and Gondwana?--Mr Fink 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The current text is indeed rather unclear. These and them refer to the Proto- and Palaeo-Tethys Oceans. The Rheic Ocean was between Baltica and Gondwana and east from Laurentia. Woodwalker 10:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is "Neither Tethys oceans should be confused with the Rheic Ocean, which existed to the west of them in the Silurian era." an acceptable rewrite?--Mr Fink 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical background

About Prof. Suess and plate tectonics:

The theory of plate tectonics later disproved or overrode many parts of Suess's theory, even determining the existence of an earlier body of water called the Tethys Ocean.

What's the second clause supposed to mean? 85.8.12.78 (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Sea?

The article states the Caspian was part of the ocean, whereas the Caspian Sea states the opposite. I think this needs some clarification, one way or t'other. -- J.P.Lon (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

At the moment I have no idea which is true. The name Tethys Ocean is often used in a broad sense though, for several ancient interconnected oceanic domains as well as the "Tethys Ocean proper". It would not surprise me if the Caspian Sea is considered by some authors to have been part of the Tethys. What I do know for sure is that it was part of the Paratethys Sea, so I replaced the reference to the Tethys with a reference to the Paratethys in the article about the Caspian Sea. The question remains open, but at least the text of one article is now correct. Woodwalker (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess as the Caspian sits on continental crust, it is incorrect to state it was part of the Tethys ocean...--Kaapitone (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Only the northern Caspian Sea sits 'firmly' on continental crust; the deeper southern part has remnants of the oceanic crust (see e.g. Crustal-scale structure of the South Caspian Basin revealed by deep seismic reflection profiling for discussion). It is reasonable to think of it as a remnant of Tethys Ocean. Szczureq (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Update

The article needs a clean up. Paleo-Tethys Ocean, Proto-Tethys Ocean, Neotethys Ocean and Paratethys Sea articles should be in harmony with (Stampfli, Gérard. "Reconstructions paléotectoniques globales". Université de Lausanne.) and (Stampfli, G.M.; Borel, G.D. (2004). "The TRANSMED Transects in Space and Time: Constraints on the Paleotectonic Evolution of the Mediterranean Domain". The TRANSMED Atlas: the Mediterranean Region from Crust to Mantle. Springer Verlag. ISBN 3540221816. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)). --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Misleading map

P a r a t e t h y s T e t h y s Anatolia E u r a s i a A f r i c a

Paleogeography of the Tethys ocean in the Rupelian age (33.9-28.4 million years ago). Black lines indicate present day coastlines.

I found this map misleading and removed it from the article. To my knowledge no one every believed that the Mediterranean alone was the Tethys. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tethys Ocean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516030745/http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Triassic/MidTrias.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Mesozoic/Triassic/MidTrias.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethys_Ocean#Historical_theory THE BOOK> https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_He1P7aF0nCYC/page/296/mode/2up

This section referenced portions of a book, but the text quoted is out of order. The quote that is on wiki says:

"...there can be no doubt that all the masses of water now separated from each other, from the Aral to the Black Sea inclusive, were formerly united in this vast pre-historical Mediterranean; which (even if we restrict its limits to the boundaries we already know, and do not extend them eastward, amid low regions untrodden by geologists) must have exceeded in size the present Mediterranean!... Judging from the recital of travellers and from specimens of the rock, we have no doubt that it extended to Khivah and the Aral Sea; beyond which the low level of the adjacent eastern deserts would lead us to infer, that it spread over wide tracts in Asia now inhabited by the Turkomans and Kyrgyz people, and was bounded only by the mountains of the Hindu Kush and Chinese Tartary... and leads at once to the conviction, that during long periods, a vast region of Europe and Asia was covered by a Mediterranean Sea of brackish water, of which the present Caspian is the diminished type... we have adopted the term Aralo-Caspian, first applied to this region of the globe by Humboldt, for this formation."

BUT, when one goes to the source, the quoted text is not in that order. My question, is it appropriate to rearrange portions of a quoted text, and rearrange them without noting so?

Here are the actual excerpts from the book:

"…and leads at once to the conviction, that during long periods antecedent, as will be hereafter explained, to the historic æra, a vast region of Europe and Asia was covered by a Mediterranean Sea of brackish water, of which the present Caspian is the diminished type. To render the distinction between these accumulations and all others clear and unambiguous, we have adopted the term Aralo-Caspian, first applied in a geographical sense, by our great precursor Humboldt, to this region of the globe.
 With the remoter limits of this former Mediterranean we are necessarily unacquainted. Judging from the recital of travellers and from specimens of the rock, we have no doubt that it extended to Khivah and the Aral Sea ; beyond which the low level of the adjacent eastern deserts would lead us to infer, that it spread over wide tracts in Asia now inhabited by the Turkomans and Kirghis people, and was bounded only by the mountains of the Hindoo Kusk and Chinese Tartary. 

"…there can be no sort of doubt, that all the masses of water now separated from each other, from the Aral to the Black Sea inclusive, were formerly united in this vast pre-historical Mediterranean ; which (even if we restrict its limits to the boundaries we already know, and do not extend them eastward, amid low regions untrodden by geologists) must have exceeded in size the present Mediterranean!

These come from 2 different pages, disconnected by other paragraphs, but the main things are that:

·the quote published on wiki, jumbles the order around,
·it doesn't quite quote the original in various places; ex, changing "there can be no sort of doubt" to "there can be no doubt", &
·it takes wide liberties to correct the original author's spelling/grammar; ex, changing "Kirghis...Hindoo" to "Kyrgyz...Hindu".

Seeing the text published on wiki in its current form annoys me because i know it's wrong, but how much does it matter? Should it be fixed?

...and that is why i have written this. thank you for your time. YieleyWilliams (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

YieleyWilliams, thanks for reporting this. I have changed the block quotation in the article to now use the text from the source, arranged in the order it appears in the source. GeoWriter (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

lol OMG thank you!!! you dont know how much this was bothering me. So i said to myself—maybe im over-thinking it, i should leave it alone because perhaps no one cares that it's like this.....but then it wouldn't stop nagging me. So thanks for caring too!  :) YieleyWilliams (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)