Talk:Terrane

"Irreducible complexity"

Is "irreducible complexity" really the right term? This term has gotten a lot of use by Michael Behe (of Intelligent Design fame), and it means something quite specific in this context. Is a terrane really a system that cannot function without all of its parts working simultaneously? Accordingly, I have edited "irreducible complexity" to read "problem".

A note to the editors: Please be careful about this stealthy sort of attempt to introduce Intelligent Design terminology into novel scientific contexts! This language is both inappropriate and unnecessary in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.11.58.84 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The text ran: "...a geological lasagna that had remained an inexplicable irreducible complexity, until the new science of plate tectonics illuminated the ability of crustal fragments to "drift"... A more careful reading would have shown that the apparent "irreducible complexity" was resolved with better scientific understanding. Since this is the fate of one "irreducible complexity" after another, it is a worthwhile phrase here. I shall add "apparent" to be even clearer. --Wetman 19:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarity Needed on "Not a Microplate"

This is probably a matter of some study, but I surmise from various sources that a terrane is "plated", although not independently so. Simply stating that a terrane is not a microplate is very confusing. What I gather thus far is that a crustal fragment atop a plate is driven into other crustal material atop another plate. This happens when there is oceanic crust ahead of the terrane on the same plate which is subducting below the other plate. After the oceanic crust is fully subducted, the plate beneath the terrane (which is simply another portion of same the plate which was subducted, albeit now "continental" inasmuch as it is carrying a terrane which is continental-type crust i.e. granitic, not oceanic) fuses to the plate that was previously subducting it. Else we are left with a terrane with no plate beneath it, or some unknown process creating new plate beneath it, and a new "plate" boundary that is crust-only (the terrane) while the "real" plate boundary remains where it was before collision, but now inland and deeply buried. Tmangray 00:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I may only confuse things more, but here goes. To me, it is overly simplistic to say "a terrane is not a microplate." One definition of a terrane, from Howell, Jones, & Schermer (1985, "Tectonostratigraphic Terranes of the Circum-Pacific Region") is a fault-bounded package of rocks of regional extent characterized by a geologic history which differs from that of neighboring terranes. By that definition (which I would submit is a commonly accepted one), there are plenty of microplates that have in the past or could in the future become terranes amalgamated to other terranes or to more standard continental masses. Consider Southeast Asia - if, as a hypothetical scenario, Australia were to collide with China, sweeping all the intervening material up in the collision, you would be incorporating some existing continental microplates, together with oceanic crust, volcanic arc fragments, oceanic plateaus, back-arc basins, continental marginal basins, and all manner of other things, every one of which can become a terrane. All of them would be considered terranes in the final amalgamation. To me, the terrane need not "rest upon" some other plate; it can be moving essentially independently, as several of the blocks west of New Guinea are today. A terrane can also be such complex things as slices of oceanic crust obducted onto another terrane or a continental margin. If the sense of this article is to say that once amalgamated, terranes are no longer microplates (nor island arcs, nor oceanic crust, nor whatever), that would be true - they have become by any normal way of looking at them part and parcel of the thing they have amalgamated with, be it one other terrane, or six other terranes, or a continent. But I would disagree quite strongly with the idea that no terrane was ever a microplate at some time in its past. Cheers Geologyguy 01:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Amorica terrane

Linked article listed as Amorica under Europe at bottom of page has nothing to do with terranes. Tiddy (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and that has inspired me to start an article on the Armorican terrane and fix the link accordingly, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture

In the Canadian Geology Documentary "Where Terranes Collide: Geology in Western Canada" the difference between Terrain and Terraine is defined by the author in the Salmon Arm segment. This really needs to be added because the author of the book, and presenter of the documentary define it way better than this page as of Winter 2016.

This documentary can be found on YouTube. It was done with videotape and is need of a restoration, and perhaps a long overdue update.

Eyreland (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Taiwan

Please add some of Geology_of_Taiwan#Terranes to the list. Jidanni (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I have added some terranes. GeoWriter (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)