 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in British Columbia may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in British Columbia may be able to help! |
If the Gulf Islands are in the system, then it follows that the San Juans are too; they only thing distinguishing them is where the int'l boundary was drawn, they're otherwise virtually the same archipelago. And the Olympic Mountains - are they they same system as Vancouver Island?Skookum1 (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- [Better late than never?] In short: no. Both the Olymnpics and the San Juans are geologically distinct, the former being a separate terrane, and the latter a pastiche that includes some severely deformed rock with affinities with the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon. The Darrington—Devils Mountain Fault Zone (see map at Straight Creek Fault, which runs into the Leech River Fault at the southern end of Vancouver Island, and may connect with the West Coast Fault and Queen Charlotte Fault system, is a significant geological separation. I believe the Gulf Islands may be connected with the Insular terrane. A notable contributor in this area is Mark Brandon; see http://www.geology.yale.edu/~markb for his CV. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Map is CanPOV edit
I realize this is a question of the sources used, namely Canadian ones; are the US names for these belts the same - are they defined the same, in fact? As with geography/mountain range articles, there's no reason that the border should be a factor, other than maybe a name change from one side to the next; presumably geologists are coordinated in terms of their hard science, if not their nomenclature....Skookum1 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I could not find US portions of thos belts. If there are maps of those portions then someone can remake it. Black Tusk (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is a bit of a problem – geologists sometimes joke about the "Border Fault" at the 49th parallel. See John Figge's comments in the introduction to his book. Unfortunately, sometimes the science is trimmed by the nomenclature. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
"physiogeological" link in lede edit
This goes to Physical geography and another geology-related term goes to List of physiogeographic regions, but that is a list of topopgraphic regions rather than geologic provinces. Much in the same way that "Insular Mountains" is a distinct concept from Insular Belt, the same is true of Intermontane Belt (geologic) and Interior System (which is geographic, and includes the Omineca Belt geologic province, or most of it). I don't know where to redirect the "physiogeological" link to just now, just wanted to note this for further discussion/elaboration; much in the same way as muddying/confusing topographic regions with ecoregions, muddyin geographic regions with geologic ones is "not on" and care has to be taken to distinguish them, and when necessary separate them....Skookum1 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)