Talk:Philippine Sea Plate

Which plate?

The article on the Manila Trench says the South China Sea part of the Eurasian Plate is being subducted beneath the Luzon Volcanic Arc part of the Philippine Sea Plate (at the Manila Trench subduction zone in the South China Sea). So from this it follows that the Philippines must be on the Philippine Sea Plate.

The article on the Philippine Trench says the Philippine Sea Plate is being subducted under the Eurasian Plate (at the Philippine Trench subduction zone in the Pacific Ocean). So from this it follows that the Philippines must be on the Eurasian Plate.

Can an expert kindly unravel these conflicting statements please?

Gubernatoria (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at File:Sunda Plate map-fr.png you will note that Luzon is bisected by a transform fault with the northern part on the Philippine sea plate and the southern on the Sunda plate portion of the Eurasian plate. So both of the above seemingly contradictory statements are valid. Probably could use some rewordeng for clarity though. Also posted at talkPlate tectonics. Vsmith (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So is the Eurasian Plate being subducted under the Philippine Sea Plate (as per the Manila Trench article), or is it the opposite way round with the Philippine Sea Plate being subducted under the Eurasian Plate (as per the Philippine Trench article)? Gubernatoria (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Digging further it seems the map referred to above conflicts with other sources. See: [1] in which it states that the Eurasian plate is subducting under the Philippine plate to the east along the Manila trench whereas the Philippine plate is subducting under the Sunda block of the Eurasian plate to the west along the Philippine trench and the East Luzon trough with the island of Luzon between to facing subduction zones. If I read it right, both trench articles are stating the subduction directions correctly in a complex environment. Vsmith (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The transform fault said to bisect Luzon is not considered by Phivolcs to fully bisect Luzon but rather to terminate about Baguio. Unfortunately the Phivolcs website is off line at the moment so I can't call up their fully detailed seismological map to give the link.

If the South China Sea section of the Eurasian Plate is subducting beneath the Philippines at the Manila Trench, and the Philippines Sea Plate is subducting beneath the Philippines at both the East Luzon trough and the Philippines Trench, it could appear that the Philippines is located on its own block, or plate, riding over both the Eurasian Plate and the Philippines Sea Plate.

This seems a more logical explanation than the apparently contradictory suggestions in the other two articles, which either ignore the Manila Trench, or ignore the Philippines Trench.

Gubernatoria (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See Aspects of the Tectonic Evolution of China p. 290-91 in which the authors call the area the Philippine mobile belt bounded on the east by the Philippine trench and the East Luzon trough and on the west by the Manila, Negros, Sulu and Cotabato trench system. This mobile belt is a complex terrane between the Philippine Sea plate and the Sunda plate including virtually all of the Philippines and is essentially bisected longitudinally by the NNW trending Philippine Fault system. So although we cannot call it a separate plate (without supporting references) we can refer to it as a mobile belt. Vsmith (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Philippine mobile belt is shown in grey on the map at the top of the article (needs a legend though). Vsmith (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I found some other articles in Palawan State University library last week referring to the Philippine(s) Mobile Belt and considering it to be separate both from the Sunda Plate (Eurasian Plate) and the Philippine Sea Plate. Unfortunately, none of the articles were scholarly, only popular. I'll research further elsewhere over the next two months. So now, it appears firstly that a separate article on the Philippines Mobile Belt is needed. Secondly, there is now considerable doubt whether northern Luzon should be regarded as tectonically separate from southern Luzon, after all the reviews generated by the disastrous 1990 Cabanatuan epicentred earthquake. Thirdly it seems this article should be moved to Philippine Sea Plate, since the Philippines are generally not on this plate, and a second plate or at least a mobile belt named Philippines seems imminent. Gubernatoria (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Mobile Belt

Philippine Mobile Belt is now online with supporting scholarly references. Gubernatoria (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Sea Plate

 14th May 2009 ϢereSpielChequers 11:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious from all the scholarly articles I've read on the subject in the last 2 months, some of which are cited in Philippine Mobile Belt, that the correct name is Philippine Sea Plate. This also reduces confusion with the Philippine Mobile Belt and the Philippine Microplate. I propose this article be redirected back to Philippine Sea Plate. Comment invited for next 2 weeks. Gubernatoria (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Philippine Plate

"It's obvious from all the scholarly articles I've read on the subject" that the name of this plate is the Philippine Plate. It is the case that a *few* sources on the Internet use the term 'Philippine Sea Plate,' but 'Philippine Plate' is the more common term, and is used by the NOAA, the USGS (disclosure: which also had one reference I saw to Philippine Sea Plate), the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and websites from Caltech and MIT. Please consider moving the title of the article back to Philippine Plate.FYAYP (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)