Plate tectonics
tive motion determines the type of boundary; convergent,
The tectonic plates of the world were mapped in the second half
of the 20th century.
Remnants of the Farallon Plate, deep in Earth’s mantle. It is
thought that much of the plate initially went under North America
(particularly the western United States and southwest Canada) at
a very shallow angle, creating much of the mountainous terrain
in the area (particularly the southern Rocky Mountains).
Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from
the Greek: τεκτονικός “pertaining to building”)[1] is a
scientific theory that describes the large-scale motion of
Earth's lithosphere. This theoretical model builds on
the concept of continental drift which was developed
during the first few decades of the 20th century. The
geoscientific community accepted the theory after the
concepts of seafloor spreading were later developed in the
late 1950s and early 1960s.
The lithosphere, which is the rigid outermost shell of a
planet (on Earth, the crust and upper mantle), is bro-
ken up into tectonic plates. On Earth, there are seven or
eight major plates (depending on how they are defined)
and many minor plates. Where plates meet, their rela-
1
divergent, or transform. Earthquakes, volcanic activity,
mountain-building, and oceanic trench formation occur
along these plate boundaries. The lateral relative move-
ment of the plates typically varies from zero to 100 mm
annually.[2]
Tectonic plates are composed of oceanic lithosphere and
thicker continental lithosphere, each topped by its own
kind of crust. Along convergent boundaries, subduction
carries plates into the mantle; the material lost is roughly
balanced by the formation of new (oceanic) crust along
divergent margins by seafloor spreading. In this way, the
total surface of the globe remains the same. This predic-
tion of plate tectonics is also referred to as the conveyor
belt principle. Earlier theories (that still have some sup-
porters) propose gradual shrinking (contraction) or grad-
ual expansion of the globe.[3]
Tectonic plates are able to move because the Earth’s
lithosphere has greater strength than the underlying
asthenosphere. Lateral density variations in the mantle
result in convection. Plate movement is thought to be
driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor
away from the spreading ridge (due to variations in topog-
raphy and density of the crust, which result in differences
in gravitational forces) and drag, with downward suction,
at the subduction zones. Another explanation lies in the
different forces generated by the rotation of the globe and
the tidal forces of the Sun and Moon. The relative im-
portance of each of these factors and their relationship to
each other is unclear, and still the subject of much debate.
1 Key principles
The outer layers of the Earth are divided into the
lithosphere and asthenosphere. This is based on differ-
ences in mechanical properties and in the method for the
transfer of heat. Mechanically, the lithosphere is cooler
and more rigid, while the asthenosphere is hotter and
flows more easily. In terms of heat transfer, the litho-
sphere loses heat by conduction, whereas the astheno-
sphere also transfers heat by convection and has a nearly
adiabatic temperature gradient. This division should not
be confused with the chemical subdivision of these same
layers into the mantle (comprising both the asthenosphere
and the mantle portion of the lithosphere) and the crust:
a given piece of mantle may be part of the lithosphere
or the asthenosphere at different times depending on its
temperature and pressure.
2 2
The key principle of plate tectonics is that the litho-
sphere exists as separate and distinct tectonic plates, which
ride on the fluid-like (visco-elastic solid) asthenosphere.
Plate motions range up to a typical 10–40 mm/year (Mid-
Atlantic Ridge; about as fast as fingernails grow), to about
160 mm/year (Nazca Plate; about as fast as hair grows).[4]
The driving mechanism behind this movement is de-
scribed below.
Tectonic lithosphere plates consist of lithospheric mantle
overlain by either or both of two types of crustal mate-
rial: oceanic crust (in older texts called sima from silicon
and magnesium) and continental crust (sial from silicon
and aluminium). Average oceanic lithosphere is typically
100 km (62 mi) thick;[5] its thickness is a function of its
age: as time passes, it conductively cools and subjacent
cooling mantle is added to its base. Because it is formed
at mid-ocean ridges and spreads outwards, its thickness
is therefore a function of its distance from the mid-ocean
ridge where it was formed. For a typical distance that
oceanic lithosphere must travel before being subducted,
the thickness varies from about 6 km (4 mi) thick at mid-
ocean ridges to greater than 100 km (62 mi) at subduction
zones; for shorter or longer distances, the subduction zone
(and therefore also the mean) thickness becomes smaller
or larger, respectively.[6] Continental lithosphere is typi-
cally ~200 km thick, though this varies considerably be-
tween basins, mountain ranges, and stable cratonic inte-
riors of continents. The two types of crust also differ
in thickness, with continental crust being considerably
thicker than oceanic (35 km vs. 6 km).[7]
The location where two plates meet is called a plate
boundary. Plate boundaries are commonly associ-
ated with geological events such as earthquakes and
the creation of topographic features such as mountains,
volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges, and oceanic trenches. The
majority of the world’s active volcanoes occur along plate
boundaries, with the Pacific Plate’s Ring of Fire being the
most active and widely known today. These boundaries
are discussed in further detail below. Some volcanoes
occur in the interiors of plates, and these have been var-
iously attributed to internal plate deformation[8] and to
mantle plumes.
As explained above, tectonic plates may include conti-
nental crust or oceanic crust, and most plates contain
both. For example, the African Plate includes the con-
tinent and parts of the floor of the Atlantic and Indian
Oceans. The distinction between oceanic crust and con-
tinental crust is based on their modes of formation.
Oceanic crust is formed at sea-floor spreading centers,
and continental crust is formed through arc volcanism and
accretion of terranes through tectonic processes, though
some of these terranes may contain ophiolite sequences,
which are pieces of oceanic crust considered to be part of
the continent when they exit the standard cycle of forma-
tion and spreading centers and subduction beneath conti-
nents. Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust
owing to their different compositions. Oceanic crust is
TYPES OF PLATE BOUNDARIES
denser because it has less silicon and more heavier ele-
ments ("mafic") than continental crust ("felsic").[9] As a
result of this density stratification, oceanic crust gener-
ally lies below sea level (for example most of the Pacific
Plate), while continental crust buoyantly projects above
sea level (see the page isostasy for explanation of this
principle).
2 Types of plate boundaries
Main article: List of tectonic plate interactions
Three types of plate boundaries exist,[10] with a fourth,
mixed type, characterized by the way the plates move rel-
ative to each other. They are associated with different
types of surface phenomena. The different types of plate
boundaries are:[11][12]
1. Transform boundaries (Conservative) occur where
two lithospheric plates slide, or perhaps more accu-
rately, grind past each other along transform faults,
where plates are neither created nor destroyed. The
relative motion of the two plates is either sinistral
(left side toward the observer) or dextral (right side
toward the observer). Transform faults occur across
a spreading center. Strong earthquakes can occur
along a fault. The San Andreas Fault in California
is an example of a transform boundary exhibiting
dextral motion.
2. Divergent boundaries (Constructive) occur where
two plates slide apart from each other. At zones of
ocean-to-ocean rifting, divergent boundaries form
by seafloor spreading, allowing for the formation of
new ocean basin. As the continent splits, the ridge
forms at the spreading center, the ocean basin ex-
pands, and finally, the plate area increases causing
many small volcanoes and/or shallow earthquakes.
At zones of continent-to-continent rifting, divergent
boundaries may cause new ocean basin to form as
the continent splits, spreads, the central rift col-
lapses, and ocean fills the basin. Active zones
of Mid-ocean ridges (e.g., Mid-Atlantic Ridge and
East Pacific Rise), and continent-to-continent rifting
(such as Africa’s East African Rift and Valley, Red
Sea) are examples of divergent boundaries.
3. Convergent boundaries (Destructive) (or active mar-
gins) occur where two plates slide toward each other
to form either a subduction zone (one plate mov-
ing underneath the other) or a continental colli-
sion. At zones of ocean-to-continent subduction
(e.g., Western South America, and Cascade Moun-
tains in Western United States), the dense oceanic
lithosphere plunges beneath the less dense continent.
Earthquakes then trace the path of the downward-
moving plate as it descends into asthenosphere, a
3.1 Driving forces related to mantle dynamics
trench forms, and as the subducted plate partially
melts, magma rises to form continental volcanoes.
At zones of ocean-to-ocean subduction (e.g., the
Andes mountain range in South America, Aleutian
islands, Mariana islands, and the Japanese island
arc), older, cooler, denser crust slips beneath less
dense crust. This causes earthquakes and a deep
trench to form in an arc shape. The upper mantle
of the subducted plate then heats and magma rises
to form curving chains of volcanic islands. Deep
marine trenches are typically associated with sub-
duction zones, and the basins that develop along the
active boundary are often called “foreland basins”.
The subducting slab contains many hydrous min-
erals which release their water on heating. This
water then causes the mantle to melt, producing
volcanism. Closure of ocean basins can occur at
continent-to-continent boundaries (e.g., Himalayas
and Alps): collision between masses of granitic con-
tinental lithosphere; neither mass is subducted; plate
edges are compressed, folded, uplifted.
4. Plate boundary zones occur where the effects of the
interactions are unclear, and the boundaries, usually
occurring along a broad belt, are not well defined and
may show various types of movements in different
episodes.
Three types of plate boundary.
3 Driving forces of plate motion
Plate tectonics is basically a kinematic phenomenon. Sci-
entists agree on the observation and deduction that the
plates have moved with respect to one another but con-
tinue to debate as to how and when. A major question 3.1 Driving forces related to mantle dy-
remains as to what geodynamic mechanism motors plate
movement. Here, science diverges in different theories.
It is generally accepted that tectonic plates are able to Main article: Mantle convection
move because of the relative density of oceanic litho-
sphere and the relative weakness of the asthenosphere.
Dissipation of heat from the mantle is acknowledged to
be the original source of the energy required to drive plate
tectonics through convection or large scale upwelling and
doming. The current view, though still a matter of some
3
Plate motion based on Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite
data from NASA JPL. The vectors show direction and magnitude
of motion.
debate, asserts that as a consequence, a powerful source
of plate motion is generated due to the excess density
of the oceanic lithosphere sinking in subduction zones.
When the new crust forms at mid-ocean ridges, this
oceanic lithosphere is initially less dense than the under-
lying asthenosphere, but it becomes denser with age as it
conductively cools and thickens. The greater density of
old lithosphere relative to the underlying asthenosphere
allows it to sink into the deep mantle at subduction zones,
providing most of the driving force for plate movement.
The weakness of the asthenosphere allows the tectonic
plates to move easily towards a subduction zone.[13] Al-
though subduction is believed to be the strongest force
driving plate motions, it cannot be the only force since
there are plates such as the North American Plate which
are moving, yet are nowhere being subducted. The same
is true for the enormous Eurasian Plate. The sources of
plate motion are a matter of intensive research and dis-
cussion among scientists. One of the main points is that
the kinematic pattern of the movement itself should be
separated clearly from the possible geodynamic mecha-
nism that is invoked as the driving force of the observed
movement, as some patterns may be explained by more
than one mechanism.[14] In short, the driving forces advo-
cated at the moment can be divided into three categories
based on the relationship to the movement: mantle dy-
namics related, gravity related (mostly secondary forces),
and Earth rotation related.
namics
For much of the last quarter century, the leading theory of
the driving force behind tectonic plate motions envisaged
large scale convection currents in the upper mantle which
are transmitted through the asthenosphere. This theory
was launched by Arthur Holmes and some forerunners
4 3 DRIVING FORCES OF PLATE MOTION

in the 1930s[15] and was immediately recognized as the nor large plumes but rather as a series of channels just
solution for the acceptance of the theory as originally below the Earth’s crust which then provide basal friction
discussed in the papers of Alfred Wegener in the early to the lithosphere. This theory is called “surge tectonics”
years of the century. However, despite its acceptance, it and became quite popular in geophysics and geodynamics
was long debated in the scientific community because the during the 1980s and 1990s.[17]
leading (“fixist”) theory still envisaged a static Earth with-
out moving continents up until the major break–throughs
of the early sixties. 3.2 Driving forces related to gravity
Two– and three–dimensional imaging of Earth’s inte-
Forces related to gravity are usually invoked as secondary
rior (seismic tomography) shows a varying lateral den-
phenomena within the framework of a more general driv-
sity distribution throughout the mantle. Such density
ing mechanism such as the various forms of mantle dy-
variations can be material (from rock chemistry), min-
namics described above.
eral (from variations in mineral structures), or thermal
(through thermal expansion and contraction from heat en- Gravitational sliding away from a spreading ridge: Ac-
ergy). The manifestation of this varying lateral density is cording to many authors, plate motion is driven by the
mantle convection from buoyancy forces.[16] higher elevation of plates at ocean ridges.[18] As oceanic
lithosphere is formed at spreading ridges from hot man-
How mantle convection directly and indirectly relates to
tle material, it gradually cools and thickens with age (and
plate motion is a matter of ongoing study and discus-
thus adds distance from the ridge). Cool oceanic litho-
sion in geodynamics. Somehow, this energy must be
sphere is significantly denser than the hot mantle material
transferred to the lithosphere for tectonic plates to move.
from which it is derived and so with increasing thickness
There are essentially two types of forces that are thought
it gradually subsides into the mantle to compensate the
to influence plate motion: friction and gravity.
greater load. The result is a slight lateral incline with in-
creased distance from the ridge axis.
• Basal drag (friction): Plate motion driven by fric-
tion between the convection currents in the astheno- This force is regarded as a secondary force and is often
sphere and the more rigid overlying lithosphere. referred to as "ridge push". This is a misnomer as noth-
ing is “pushing” horizontally and tensional features are
• Slab suction (gravity): Plate motion driven by local dominant along ridges. It is more accurate to refer to
convection currents that exert a downward pull on this mechanism as gravitational sliding as variable topog-
plates in subduction zones at ocean trenches. Slab raphy across the totality of the plate can vary consider-
suction may occur in a geodynamic setting where ably and the topography of spreading ridges is only the
basal tractions continue to act on the plate as it dives most prominent feature. Other mechanisms generating
into the mantle (although perhaps to a greater extent this gravitational secondary force include flexural bulging
acting on both the under and upper side of the slab). of the lithosphere before it dives underneath an adjacent
plate which produces a clear topographical feature that
Lately, the convection theory has been much debated as can offset, or at least affect, the influence of topographi-
modern techniques based on 3D seismic tomography still cal ocean ridges, and mantle plumes and hot spots, which
fail to recognize these predicted large scale convection are postulated to impinge on the underside of tectonic
cells. Therefore, alternative views have been proposed: plates.
In the theory of plume tectonics developed during the Slab-pull: Current scientific opinion is that the astheno-
1990s, a modified concept of mantle convection currents sphere is insufficiently competent or rigid to directly
is used. It asserts that super plumes rise from the deeper cause motion by friction along the base of the lithosphere.
mantle and are the drivers or substitutes of the major con- Slab pull is therefore most widely thought to be the great-
vection cells. These ideas, which find their roots in the est force acting on the plates. In this current understand-
early 1930s with the so-called “fixistic” ideas of the Euro- ing, plate motion is mostly driven by the weight of cold,
pean and Russian Earth Science Schools, find resonance dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches.[19] Re-
in the modern theories which envisage hot spots/mantle cent models indicate that trench suction plays an impor-
plumes which remain fixed and are overridden by oceanic tant role as well. However, as the North American Plate
and continental lithosphere plates over time and leave is nowhere being subducted, yet it is in motion presents a
their traces in the geological record (though these phe- problem. The same holds for the African, Eurasian, and
nomena are not invoked as real driving mechanisms, but Antarctic plates.
rather as modulators). Modern theories that continue Gravitational sliding away from mantle doming: Accord-
building on the older mantle doming concepts and see ing to older theories, one of the driving mechanisms
plate movements as a secondary phenomena are beyond of the plates is the existence of large scale astheno-
the scope of this page and are discussed elsewhere (for sphere/mantle domes which cause the gravitational slid-
example on the plume tectonics page). ing of lithosphere plates away from them. This gravita-
Another theory is that the mantle flows neither in cells tional sliding represents a secondary phenomenon of this
3.4 Relative significance of each driving force mechanism 5

basically vertically oriented mechanism. This can act on invoked many of the relationships recognized during this
various scales, from the small scale of one island arc up pre-plate tectonics period to support their theories (see
to the larger scale of an entire ocean basin.[20] the anticipations and reviews in the work of van Dijk and
collaborators).[23]

3.3 Driving forces related to Earth rota- Of the many forces discussed in this paragraph, tidal
force is still highly debated and defended as a possi-
tion ble principle driving force of plate tectonics. The other
Alfred Wegener, being a meteorologist, had proposed
tidal forces and pole flight force as the main driving mech-
anisms behind continental drift; however, these forces
were considered far too small to cause continental motion
as the concept then was of continents plowing through
oceanic crust.[21] Therefore, Wegener later changed his
position and asserted that convection currents are the
main driving force of plate tectonics in the last edition
of his book in 1929.
However, in the plate tectonics context (accepted since
the seafloor spreading proposals of Heezen, Hess, Dietz,
Morley, Vine, and Matthews (see below) during the early
1960s), oceanic crust is suggested to be in motion with the
continents which caused the proposals related to Earth ro-
tation to be reconsidered. In more recent literature, these
driving forces are:
1. Tidal drag due to the gravitational force the Moon
(and the Sun) exerts on the crust of the Earth[22]
2. Shear strain of the Earth globe due to N-S compres-
sion related to its rotation and modulations;
3. Pole flight force: equatorial drift due to rotation and
centrifugal effects: tendency of the plates to move
from the poles to the equator ("Polflucht");
4. The Coriolis effect acting on plates when they move
around the globe;
5. Global deformation of the geoid due to small dis-
placements of rotational pole with respect to the
Earth’s crust;
forces are only used in global geodynamic models not us-
ing plate tectonics concepts (therefore beyond the discus-
sions treated in this section) or proposed as minor modu-
lations within the overall plate tectonics model.
In 1973, George W. Moore[24] of the USGS and R. C.
Bostrom[25] presented evidence for a general westward
drift of the Earth’s lithosphere with respect to the man-
tle. He concluded that tidal forces (the tidal lag or “fric-
tion”) caused by the Earth’s rotation and the forces acting
upon it by the Moon are a driving force for plate tecton-
ics. As the Earth spins eastward beneath the moon, the
moon’s gravity ever so slightly pulls the Earth’s surface
layer back westward, just as proposed by Alfred Wegener
(see above). In a more recent 2006 study,[26] scientists
reviewed and advocated these earlier proposed ideas. It
has also been suggested recently in Lovett (2006) that
this observation may also explain why Venus and Mars
have no plate tectonics, as Venus has no moon and Mars’
moons are too small to have significant tidal effects on
the planet. In a recent paper,[27] it was suggested that, on
the other hand, it can easily be observed that many plates
are moving north and eastward, and that the dominantly
westward motion of the Pacific ocean basins derives sim-
ply from the eastward bias of the Pacific spreading cen-
ter (which is not a predicted manifestation of such lunar
forces). In the same paper the authors admit, however,
that relative to the lower mantle, there is a slight westward
component in the motions of all the plates. They demon-
strated though that the westward drift, seen only for the
past 30 Ma, is attributed to the increased dominance of
the steadily growing and accelerating Pacific plate. The
debate is still open.

6. Other smaller deformation effects of the crust due to 3.4
wobbles and spin movements of the Earth rotation
on a smaller time scale.
For these mechanisms to be overall valid, systematic re-
lationships should exist all over the globe between the
orientation and kinematics of deformation and the geo-
graphical latitudinal and longitudinal grid of the Earth it-
self. Ironically, these systematic relations studies in the
second half of the nineteenth century and the first half
of the twentieth century underline exactly the opposite:
that the plates had not moved in time, that the deforma-
tion grid was fixed with respect to the Earth equator and
axis, and that gravitational driving forces were generally
acting vertically and caused only local horizontal move-
ments (the so-called pre-plate tectonic, “fixist theories”).
Later studies (discussed below on this page), therefore,
Relative significance of each driving
force mechanism
The actual vector of a plate’s motion is a function of all
the forces acting on the plate; however, therein lies the
problem regarding what degree each process contributes
to the overall motion of each tectonic plate.
The diversity of geodynamic settings and the properties
of each plate must clearly result from differences in the
degree to which multiple processes are actively driving
each individual plate. One method of dealing with this
problem is to consider the relative rate at which each plate
is moving and to consider the available evidence of each
driving force on the plate as far as possible.
One of the most significant correlations found is that
lithospheric plates attached to downgoing (subducting)
6 4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY

plates move much faster than plates not attached to sub- in the southern hemisphere. The South African Alex du
ducting plates. The Pacific plate, for instance, is essen- Toit put together a mass of such information in his 1937
tially surrounded by zones of subduction (the so-called publication Our Wandering Continents, and went further
Ring of Fire) and moves much faster than the plates of than Wegener in recognising the strong links between the
the Atlantic basin, which are attached (perhaps one could Gondwana fragments.
say 'welded') to adjacent continents instead of subduct- But without detailed evidence and a force sufficient to
ing plates. It is thus thought that forces associated with drive the movement, the theory was not generally ac-
the downgoing plate (slab pull and slab suction) are the cepted: the Earth might have a solid crust and mantle and
driving forces which determine the motion of plates, ex-
a liquid core, but there seemed to be no way that portions
cept for those plates which are not being subducted.[19] of the crust could move around. Distinguished scientists,
The driving forces of plate motion continue to be ac-
such as Harold Jeffreys and Charles Schuchert, were out-
tive subjects of on-going research within geophysics and spoken critics of continental drift.
tectonophysics.
Despite much opposition, the view of continental drift
gained support and a lively debate started between
“drifters” or “mobilists” (proponents of the theory) and
4 Development of the theory “fixists” (opponents). During the 1920s, 1930s and
1940s, the former reached important milestones propos-
Further information: Timeline of the development of ing that convection currents might have driven the plate
tectonophysics movements, and that spreading may have occurred below
the sea within the oceanic crust. Concepts close to the
elements now incorporated in plate tectonics were pro-
posed by geophysicists and geologists (both fixists and
4.1 Summary mobilists) like Vening-Meinesz, Holmes, and Umbgrove.
continental / oceanic convergent boundary
continental rift boundary / oceanic spreading ridge Eurasia (EU)
Laptev Sea 14

Alaska - Yukon
One of the first pieces of geophysical evidence that was
used to support the movement of lithospheric plates came
14 16

continental / oceanic transform fault

subduction zone
30 velocity with respect to Africa (mm/y) 14 13
Eurasia (EU)
15
18 19
Alps orogeny Okhotsk (OK)
western Aleutians
8

10 18

from paleomagnetism. This is based on the fact that rocks

11 13 Amur (AM) 59
Eurasia (EU)
7 Pacific (PA) North America (NA)

10
26 JF
Alps
Anatolia Juan de Fuca
Gorda- 19 5
21AT California-
92
Pacific (PA) Nevada

of different ages show a variable magnetic field direction,

Persia - Tibet - Burma 22
14
AS
37
Aegean Sea
10 69 ATLANTIC
15
PACIFIC
48

Yangtze (YA)
15
29 ON
54 25 24
36 Okinawa
India (IN) 51
76 Africa (AF)
20 14 west central Atlantic
71

evidenced by studies since the mid–nineteenth century.

RI
Arabia (AR) 17 MA
Rivera
69 Rivera-
Africa (AF) Caribbean (CA)
Mariana 90 Cocos 10 11
26 Burma Philippine Sea (PS) 39 Panama
102 27
46 Philippines 84 PA
23
19 ND
6 Sunda (SU) 67
14
Cocos (CO)
BU Pacific (PA) North Andes
87 Galápagos (GP)
Somalia (SO) Caroline (CL) Manus (MN) Equator

The magnetic north and south poles reverse through time,

BH NB
92 95
MS MO
70 96
96 32
58 WL 26SB 40 32
Ninety East - Sumatra 11 15 BS 57
86 Peru
TI SS South America (SA)
44 83 100
103

70 FT
BR Pacific (PA) Nazca (NZ) Altiplano
New Hebrides - Fiji 62
119
INDIAN NH
CR
NI
26 AP

and, especially important in paleotectonic studies, the rel-

TO OCEAN
59 Tonga OCEAN Easter
51
51

OCEAN 68
Australia (AU)
69
55
44
EA 34
34
Puna-
Sierras
KE 102
51 Pampeanas
83
13 Kermadec Juan Fernandez JZ

62

ative position of the magnetic north pole varies through

53

78
Antarctica (AN)

14
Pacific (PA)
70

31
13 31

time. Initially, during the first half of the twentieth cen-

10
12 56
82 Sandwich

14 Antarctica (AN)
Scotia (SC) SW
25 47
14
14
66
Shetland
Antarctica (AN) SL

AUSTRAL OCEAN AUSTRAL OCEAN

tury, the latter phenomenon was explained by introduc-

12 Antarctica (AN)

13

ing what was called “polar wander” (see apparent polar

Detailed map showing the tectonic plates with their movement
wander), i.e., it was assumed that the north pole location
vectors.
had been shifting through time. An alternative explana-
In line with other previous and contemporaneous propos- tion, though, was that the continents had moved (shifted
als, in 1912 the meteorologist Alfred Wegener amply de- and rotated) relative to the north pole, and each conti-
scribed what he called continental drift, expanded in his nent, in fact, shows its own “polar wander path”. During
1915 book The Origin of Continents and Oceans[28] and the late 1950s it was successfully shown on two occasions
the scientific debate started that would end up fifty years that these data could show the validity of continental drift:
later in the theory of plate tectonics.[29] Starting from the by Keith Runcorn in a paper in 1956,[31] and by Warren
idea (also expressed by his forerunners) that the present Carey in a symposium held in March 1956.[32]
continents once formed a single land mass (which was The second piece of evidence in support of continental
called Pangea later on) that drifted apart, thus releas- drift came during the late 1950s and early 60s from data
ing the continents from the Earth’s mantle and likening on the bathymetry of the deep ocean floors and the na-
them to “icebergs” of low density granite floating on a ture of the oceanic crust such as magnetic properties and,
sea of denser basalt.[30] Supporting evidence for the idea more generally, with the development of marine geol-
came from the dove-tailing outlines of South America’s ogy[33] which gave evidence for the association of seafloor
east coast and Africa’s west coast, and from the match- spreading along the mid-oceanic ridges and magnetic field
ing of the rock formations along these edges. Confirma- reversals, published between 1959 and 1963 by Heezen,
tion of their previous contiguous nature also came from Dietz, Hess, Mason, Vine & Matthews, and Morley.[34]
the fossil plants Glossopteris and Gangamopteris, and the
Simultaneous advances in early seismic imaging tech-
therapsid or mammal-like reptile Lystrosaurus, all widely
niques in and around Wadati-Benioff zones along the
distributed over South America, Africa, Antarctica, India
trenches bounding many continental margins, together
and Australia. The evidence for such an erstwhile joining
with many other geophysical (e.g. gravimetric) and geo-
of these continents was patent to field geologists working
4.3 Floating continents, paleomagnetism, and seismicity zones 7

logical observations, showed how the oceanic crust could implied that, even if it started at red heat, the Earth would
disappear into the mantle, providing the mechanism to have dropped to its present temperature in a few tens of
balance the extension of the ocean basins with shortening millions of years. Armed with the knowledge of a new
along its margins. heat source, scientists realized that the Earth would be
All this evidence, both from the ocean floor and from the much older, and that its core was still sufficiently hot to
continental margins, made it clear around 1965 that conti- be liquid.
nental drift was feasible and the theory of plate tectonics, By 1915, after having published a first article in 1912,[39]
which was defined in a series of papers between 1965 Alfred Wegener was making serious arguments for the
and 1967, was born, with all its extraordinary explana- idea of continental drift in the first edition of The Ori-
tory and predictive power. The theory revolutionized the gin of Continents and Oceans.[28] In that book (re-issued
Earth sciences, explaining a diverse range of geological in four successive editions up to the final one in 1936),
phenomena and their implications in other studies such as he noted how the east coast of South America and the
paleogeography and paleobiology. west coast of Africa looked as if they were once attached.
Wegener was not the first to note this (Abraham Ortelius,
Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Eduard Suess, Roberto Man-
4.2 Continental drift tovani and Frank Bursley Taylor preceded him just to
mention a few), but he was the first to marshal signifi-
For more details on this topic, see Continental drift. cant fossil and paleo-topographical and climatological ev-
idence to support this simple observation (and was sup-
ported in this by researchers such as Alex du Toit). Fur-
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, geologists as-
thermore, when the rock strata of the margins of sep-
sumed that the Earth’s major features were fixed, and that
arate continents are very similar it suggests that these
most geologic features such as basin development and
rocks were formed in the same way, implying that they
mountain ranges could be explained by vertical crustal
were joined initially. For instance, parts of Scotland
movement, described in what is called the geosynclinal
and Ireland contain rocks very similar to those found
theory. Generally, this was placed in the context of a
in Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Furthermore,
contracting planet Earth due to heat loss in the course of
the Caledonian Mountains of Europe and parts of the
a relatively short geological time.
Appalachian Mountains of North America are very sim-
ilar in structure and lithology.
However, his ideas were not taken seriously by many geol-
ogists, who pointed out that there was no apparent mech-
anism for continental drift. Specifically, they did not see
how continental rock could plow through the much denser
rock that makes up oceanic crust. Wegener could not ex-
plain the force that drove continental drift, and his vindi-
cation did not come until after his death in 1930.

4.3 Floating continents, paleomagnetism,

and seismicity zones

Alfred Wegener in Greenland in the winter of 1912-13.

It was observed as early as 1596 that the opposite coasts

of the Atlantic Ocean—or, more precisely, the edges of
the continental shelves—have similar shapes and seem to
have once fitted together.[35]
Since that time many theories were proposed to explain
this apparent complementarity, but the assumption of
a solid Earth made these various proposals difficult to
accept.[36]
The discovery of radioactivity and its associated heating
properties in 1895 prompted a re-examination of the ap- Global earthquake epicenters, 1963–1998
parent age of the Earth.[37] This had previously been esti-
mated by its cooling rate and assumption the Earth’s sur- As it was observed early that although granite existed on
face radiated like a black body.[38] Those calculations had continents, seafloor seemed to be composed of denser
8 4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY

basalt, the prevailing concept during the first half of the crust. In this hypothesis the shifting of the continents can
twentieth century was that there were two types of crust, be simply explained by a large increase in size of the Earth
named “sial” (continental type crust) and “sima” (oceanic since its formation. However, this was unsatisfactory be-
type crust). Furthermore, it was supposed that a static cause its supporters could offer no convincing mechanism
shell of strata was present under the continents. It there-to produce a significant expansion of the Earth. Certainly
fore looked apparent that a layer of basalt (sial) underlies
there is no evidence that the moon has expanded in the
the continental rocks. past 3 billion years; other work would soon show that the
However, based on abnormalities in plumb line deflec- evidence was equally in support of continental drift on a
globe with a stable radius.
tion by the Andes in Peru, Pierre Bouguer had deduced
that less-dense mountains must have a downward projec- During the thirties up to the late fifties, works by Vening-
tion into the denser layer underneath. The concept that Meinesz, Holmes, Umbgrove, and numerous others out-
mountains had “roots” was confirmed by George B. Airy lined concepts that were close or nearly identical to mod-
a hundred years later, during study of Himalayan grav- ern plate tectonics theory. In particular, the English ge-
itation, and seismic studies detected corresponding den- ologist Arthur Holmes proposed in 1920 that plate junc-
sity variations. Therefore, by the mid-1950s, the question tions might lie beneath the sea, and in 1928 that con-
remained unresolved as to whether mountain roots were vection currents within the mantle might be the driv-
clenched in surrounding basalt or were floating on it like ing force.[42] Often, these contributions are forgotten be-
an iceberg. cause:
During the 20th century, improvements in and greater use
of seismic instruments such as seismographs enabled sci- • At the time, continental drift was not accepted.
entists to learn that earthquakes tend to be concentrated
• Some of these ideas were discussed in the context of
in specific areas, most notably along the oceanic trenches
abandoned fixistic ideas of a deforming globe with-
and spreading ridges. By the late 1920s, seismologists
out continental drift or an expanding Earth.
were beginning to identify several prominent earthquake
zones parallel to the trenches that typically were inclined • They were published during an episode of extreme
40–60° from the horizontal and extended several hun- political and economic instability that hampered sci-
dred kilometers into the Earth. These zones later became entific communication.
known as Wadati-Benioff zones, or simply Benioff zones,
in honor of the seismologists who first recognized them, • Many were published by European scientists and at
Kiyoo Wadati of Japan and Hugo Benioff of the United first not mentioned or given little credit in the papers
States. The study of global seismicity greatly advanced in on sea floor spreading published by the American
the 1960s with the establishment of the Worldwide Stan- researchers in the 1960s.
dardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN)[40] to mon-
itor the compliance of the 1963 treaty banning above-
ground testing of nuclear weapons. The much improved 4.4 Mid-oceanic ridge spreading and con-
data from the WWSSN instruments allowed seismolo- vection
gists to map precisely the zones of earthquake concen-
tration world wide. For more details on Mid-ocean ridge, see Seafloor
spreading.
Meanwhile, debates developed around the phenomena of
polar wander. Since the early debates of continental drift,
scientists had discussed and used evidence that polar drift In 1947, a team of scientists led by Maurice Ewing utiliz-
had occurred because continents seemed to have moved ing the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's research
through different climatic zones during the past. Fur- vessel Atlantis and an array of instruments, confirmed
thermore, paleomagnetic data had shown that the mag- the existence of a rise in the central Atlantic Ocean, and
netic pole had also shifted during time. Reasoning in an found that the floor of the seabed beneath the layer of
opposite way, the continents might have shifted and ro- sediments consisted of basalt, not the granite which is the
tated, while the pole remained relatively fixed. The first main constituent of continents. They also found that the
time the evidence of magnetic polar wander was used to oceanic crust was much thinner than continental crust.
support the movements of continents was in a paper by All these new findings raised important and intriguing
[43]
Keith Runcorn in 1956,[31] and successive papers by him questions.
and his students Ted Irving (who was actually the first to The new data that had been collected on the ocean
be convinced of the fact that paleomagnetism supported basins also showed particular characteristics regarding
continental drift) and Ken Creer. the bathymetry. One of the major outcomes of these
This was immediately followed by a symposium in datasets was that all along the globe, a system of mid-
Tasmania in March 1956.[41] In this symposium, the evi- oceanic ridges was detected. An important conclusion
dence was used in the theory of an expansion of the global was that along this system, new ocean floor was being cre-
ated, which led to the concept of the "Great Global Rift".
4.5 Magnetic striping 9

This was described in the crucial paper of Bruce Heezen concluded that the Atlantic Ocean was expanding while
(1960),[44] which would trigger a real revolution in think- the Pacific Ocean was shrinking. As old oceanic crust
ing. A profound consequence of seafloor spreading is is “consumed” in the trenches (like Holmes and others,
that new crust was, and still is, being continually created he thought this was done by thickening of the continental
along the oceanic ridges. Therefore, Heezen advocated lithosphere, not, as now understood, by underthrusting at
the so-called "expanding Earth" hypothesis of S. Warren a larger scale of the oceanic crust itself into the mantle),
Carey (see above). So, still the question remained: how new magma rises and erupts along the spreading ridges
can new crust be continuously added along the oceanic to form new crust. In effect, the ocean basins are per-
ridges without increasing the size of the Earth? In real- petually being “recycled,” with the creation of new crust
ity, this question had been solved already by numerous and the destruction of old oceanic lithosphere occurring
scientists during the forties and the fifties, like Arthur simultaneously. Thus, the new mobilistic concepts neatly
Holmes, Vening-Meinesz, Coates and many others: The explained why the Earth does not get bigger with sea floor
crust in excess disappeared along what were called the spreading, why there is so little sediment accumulation on
oceanic trenches, where so-called “subduction” occurred. the ocean floor, and why oceanic rocks are much younger
Therefore, when various scientists during the early sixties than continental rocks.
started to reason on the data at their disposal regarding
the ocean floor, the pieces of the theory quickly fell into
place. 4.5 Magnetic striping
The question particularly intrigued Harry Hammond
.
Hess, a Princeton University geologist and a Naval Re-
serve Rear Admiral, and Robert S. Dietz, a scientist with Normal magnetic
polarity a
the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey who first coined the
term seafloor spreading. Dietz and Hess (the former pub-
Reversed
lished the same idea one year earlier in Nature,[45] but
magnetic polarity b
priority belongs to Hess who had already distributed an
unpublished manuscript of his 1962 article by 1960)[46]
were among the small handful who really understood
the broad implications of sea floor spreading and how
it would eventually agree with the, at that time, uncon- c
ventional and unaccepted ideas of continental drift and
Litosphere Magma
the elegant and mobilistic models proposed by previous
workers like Holmes.
In the same year, Robert R. Coats of the U.S. Geological Seafloor magnetic striping.
Survey described the main features of island arc subduc-
tion in the Aleutian Islands. His paper, though little noted
(and even ridiculed) at the time, has since been called
“seminal” and “prescient”. In reality, it actually shows
that the work by the European scientists on island arcs
and mountain belts performed and published during the
1930s up until the 1950s was applied and appreciated also
in the United States.
If the Earth’s crust was expanding along the oceanic
ridges, Hess and Dietz reasoned like Holmes and others
before them, it must be shrinking elsewhere. Hess fol-
lowed Heezen, suggesting that new oceanic crust contin-
uously spreads away from the ridges in a conveyor belt–
like motion. And, using the mobilistic concepts devel-
oped before, he correctly concluded that many millions
of years later, the oceanic crust eventually descends along A demonstration of magnetic striping. (The darker the color is,
the continental margins where oceanic trenches – very the closer it is to normal polarity)
deep, narrow canyons – are formed, e.g. along the rim of
the Pacific Ocean basin. The important step Hess made For more details on this topic, see Vine–Matthews–
was that convection currents would be the driving force in Morley hypothesis.
this process, arriving at the same conclusions as Holmes
had decades before with the only difference that the thin- Beginning in the 1950s, scientists like Victor Vacquier,
ning of the ocean crust was performed using Heezen’s using magnetic instruments (magnetometers) adapted
mechanism of spreading along the ridges. Hess therefore from airborne devices developed during World War II
10
to detect submarines, began recognizing odd magnetic
variations across the ocean floor. This finding, though
unexpected, was not entirely surprising because it was
known that basalt—the iron-rich, volcanic rock making
up the ocean floor—contains a strongly magnetic min-
eral (magnetite) and can locally distort compass readings.
This distortion was recognized by Icelandic mariners as
early as the late 18th century. More important, be-
cause the presence of magnetite gives the basalt measur-
able magnetic properties, these newly discovered mag-
netic variations provided another means to study the deep
ocean floor. When newly formed rock cools, such mag-
netic materials recorded the Earth’s magnetic field at the
time.
As more and more of the seafloor was mapped during
the 1950s, the magnetic variations turned out not to be
random or isolated occurrences, but instead revealed rec-
ognizable patterns. When these magnetic patterns were
mapped over a wide region, the ocean floor showed a
zebra-like pattern: one stripe with normal polarity and
the adjoining stripe with reversed polarity. The overall
pattern, defined by these alternating bands of normally
and reversely polarized rock, became known as magnetic
striping, and was published by Ron G. Mason and co-
workers in 1961, who did not find, though, an explanation
for these data in terms of sea floor spreading, like Vine,
Matthews and Morley a few years later.[47]
The discovery of magnetic striping called for an expla-
nation. In the early 1960s scientists such as Heezen,
Hess and Dietz had begun to theorise that mid-ocean
ridges mark structurally weak zones where the ocean floor
was being ripped in two lengthwise along the ridge crest
(see the previous paragraph). New magma from deep
within the Earth rises easily through these weak zones
and eventually erupts along the crest of the ridges to cre-
ate new oceanic crust. This process, at first denominated
the “conveyer belt hypothesis” and later called seafloor
spreading, operating over many millions of years contin-
ues to form new ocean floor all across the 50,000 km-long
system of mid–ocean ridges.
Only four years after the maps with the “zebra pat-
tern” of magnetic stripes were published, the link be-
tween sea floor spreading and these patterns was correctly
placed, independently by Lawrence Morley, and by Fred
Vine and Drummond Matthews, in 1963[48] now called
the Vine-Matthews-Morley hypothesis. This hypothesis
linked these patterns to geomagnetic reversals and was
supported by several lines of evidence:[49]
1. the stripes are symmetrical around the crests of the
mid-ocean ridges; at or near the crest of the ridge,
the rocks are very young, and they become progres-
sively older away from the ridge crest;
2. the youngest rocks at the ridge crest always have
present-day (normal) polarity;
3. stripes of rock parallel to the ridge crest alternate
4 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY
in magnetic polarity (normal-reversed-normal, etc.),
suggesting that they were formed during different
epochs documenting the (already known from inde-
pendent studies) normal and reversal episodes of the
Earth’s magnetic field.
By explaining both the zebra-like magnetic striping and
the construction of the mid-ocean ridge system, the
seafloor spreading hypothesis (SFS) quickly gained con-
verts and represented another major advance in the devel-
opment of the plate-tectonics theory. Furthermore, the
oceanic crust now came to be appreciated as a natural
“tape recording” of the history of the geomagnetic field
reversals (GMFR) of the Earth’s magnetic field. Today,
extensive studies are dedicated to the calibration of the
normal-reversal patterns in the oceanic crust on one hand
and known timescales derived from the dating of basalt
layers in sedimentary sequences (magnetostratigraphy)
on the other, to arrive at estimates of past spreading rates
and plate reconstructions.
4.6 Definition and refining of the theory
After all these considerations, Plate Tectonics (or, as
it was initially called “New Global Tectonics”) became
quickly accepted in the scientific world, and numerous
papers followed that defined the concepts:
• In 1965, Tuzo Wilson who had been a promotor
of the sea floor spreading hypothesis and continen-
tal drift from the very beginning[50] added the con-
cept of transform faults to the model, completing the
classes of fault types necessary to make the mobility
of the plates on the globe work out.[51]
• A symposium on continental drift was held at the
Royal Society of London in 1965 which must be re-
garded as the official start of the acceptance of plate
tectonics by the scientific community, and which
abstracts are issued as Blacket, Bullard & Runcorn
(1965). In this symposium, Edward Bullard and co-
workers showed with a computer calculation how
the continents along both sides of the Atlantic would
best fit to close the ocean, which became known as
the famous “Bullard’s Fit”.
• In 1966 Wilson published the paper that referred to
previous plate tectonic reconstructions, introducing
the concept of what is now known as the "Wilson
Cycle".[52]
• In 1967, at the American Geophysical Union's meet-
ing, W. Jason Morgan proposed that the Earth’s sur-
face consists of 12 rigid plates that move relative to
each other.[53]
• Two months later, Xavier Le Pichon published a
complete model based on 6 major plates with their
6.3 Formation and break-up of continents 11

relative motions, which marked the final acceptance by particular fossil groups, and the position of orogenic
by the scientific community of plate tectonics.[54] belts.[61]

• In the same year, McKenzie and Parker indepen-

dently presented a model similar to Morgan’s using
translations and rotations on a sphere to define the 6.3 Formation and break-up of continents
plate motions.[55]
The movement of plates has caused the formation and
break-up of continents over time, including occasional
formation of a supercontinent that contains most or all
5 Implications for biogeography of the continents. The supercontinent Columbia or Nuna
formed during a period of 2,000 to 1,800 million years
Continental drift theory helps biogeographers to explain ago and broke up about 1,500 to 1,300 million years
the disjunct biogeographic distribution of present day life ago.[64] The supercontinent Rodinia is thought to have
found on different continents but having similar ances- formed about 1 billion years ago and to have embod-
tors.[56] In particular, it explains the Gondwanan distri- ied most or all of Earth’s continents, and broken up into
bution of ratites and the Antarctic flora. eight continents around 600 million years ago. The eight
continents later re-assembled into another supercontinent
called Pangaea; Pangaea broke up into Laurasia (which
6 Plate reconstruction became North America and Eurasia) and Gondwana
(which became the remaining continents).
Main article: Plate reconstruction The Himalayas, the world’s tallest mountain range, are
assumed to have been formed by the collision of two ma-
jor plates. Before uplift, they were covered by the Tethys
Reconstruction is used to establish past (and future) plate
Ocean.
configurations, helping determine the shape and make-
up of ancient supercontinents and providing a basis for
paleogeography.
7 Current plates
6.1 Defining plate boundaries
Main article: List of tectonic plates
Current plate boundaries are defined by their Depending on how they are defined, there are usu-
seismicity.[57] Past plate boundaries within existing
plates are identified from a variety of evidence, such as
the presence of ophiolites that are indicative of vanished
oceans.[58]

6.2 Past plate motions

Tectonic motion first began around three billion years
ago.[59]
Various types of quantitative and semi-quantitative infor-
mation are available to constrain past plate motions. The
geometric fit between continents, such as between west
Africa and South America is still an important part of
plate reconstruction. Magnetic stripe patterns provide a
reliable guide to relative plate motions going back into
the Jurassic period.[60] The tracks of hotspots give abso-
lute reconstructions, but these are only available back to
the Cretaceous.[61] Older reconstructions rely mainly on
paleomagnetic pole data, although these only constrain
the latitude and rotation, but not the longitude. Combin-
ing poles of different ages in a particular plate to produce
apparent polar wander paths provides a method for com-
paring the motions of different plates through time.[62]
Additional evidence comes from the distribution of cer-
tain sedimentary rock types,[63] faunal provinces shown
Plate tectonics map
ally seven or eight “major” plates: African, Antarctic,
Eurasian, North American, South American, Pacific, and
Indo-Australian. The latter is sometimes subdivided into
the Indian and Australian plates.
There are dozens of smaller plates, the seven largest of
which are the Arabian, Caribbean, Juan de Fuca, Cocos,
Nazca, Philippine Sea and Scotia.
The current motion of the tectonic plates is today de-
termined by remote sensing satellite data sets, calibrated
with ground station measurements.
12
8 Other celestial bodies (planets,
moons)
The appearance of plate tectonics on terrestrial planets is Northern Lowlands.[70]
related to planetary mass, with more massive planets than
Earth expected to exhibit plate tectonics. Earth may be Valles Marineris may be a tectonic boundary.
a borderline case, owing its tectonic activity to abundant Observations made of the magnetic field of Mars by the
water [65] (silica and water form a deep eutectic.)
8.1 Venus
See also: Geology of Venus
Venus shows no evidence of active plate tectonics. There
is debatable evidence of active tectonics in the planet’s
distant past; however, events taking place since then (such
as the plausible and generally accepted hypothesis that
the Venusian lithosphere has thickened greatly over the
course of several hundred million years) has made con-
straining the course of its geologic record difficult. How-
ever, the numerous well-preserved impact craters have
been utilized as a dating method to approximately date
the Venusian surface (since there are thus far no known
samples of Venusian rock to be dated by more reliable
methods). Dates derived are dominantly in the range 500
to 750 million years ago, although ages of up to 1,200
million years ago have been calculated. This research has
led to the fairly well accepted hypothesis that Venus has
undergone an essentially complete volcanic resurfacing at
least once in its distant past, with the last event taking
place approximately within the range of estimated sur-
face ages. While the mechanism of such an impressive
thermal event remains a debated issue in Venusian geo-
sciences, some scientists are advocates of processes in-
volving plate motion to some extent.
One explanation for Venus’ lack of plate tectonics is that
on Venus temperatures are too high for significant wa-
ter to be present.[66][67] The Earth’s crust is soaked with
water, and water plays an important role in the develop-
ment of shear zones. Plate tectonics requires weak sur-
faces in the crust along which crustal slices can move, and
it may well be that such weakening never took place on
Venus because of the absence of water. However, some
researchers remain convinced that plate tectonics is or
was once active on this planet.
8.2 Mars
See also: Geology of Mars
Mars is considerably smaller than Earth and Venus, and
there is evidence for ice on its surface and in its crust.
In the 1990s, it was proposed that Martian Crustal Di-
chotomy was created by plate tectonic processes.[68] Sci-
9 SEE ALSO
entists today disagree, and believe that it was created ei-
ther by upwelling within the Martian mantle that thick-
ened the crust of the Southern Highlands and formed
Tharsis[69] or by a giant impact that excavated the
[71]
Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft in 1999 showed patterns
of magnetic striping discovered on this planet. Some sci-
entists interpreted these as requiring plate tectonic pro-
cesses, such as seafloor spreading.[72] However, their data
fail a “magnetic reversal test”, which is used to see if they
were formed by flipping polarities of a global magnetic
field.[73]
8.3 Galilean satellites of Jupiter
Some of the satellites of Jupiter have features that may
be related to plate-tectonic style deformation, although
the materials and specific mechanisms may be different
from plate-tectonic activity on Earth. On 8 September
2014, NASA reported finding evidence of plate tectonics
on Europa, a satellite of Jupiter - the first sign of such
geological activity on another world other than Earth.[74]
8.4 Titan, moon of Saturn
Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, was reported to show
tectonic activity in images taken by the Huygens Probe,
which landed on Titan on January 14, 2005.[75]
8.5 Exoplanets
On Earth-sized planets, plate tectonics is more likely if
there are oceans of water; however, in 2007, two in-
dependent teams of researchers came to opposing con-
clusions about the likelihood of plate tectonics on larger
super-earths[76][77] with one team saying that plate tecton-
ics would be episodic or stagnant[78] and the other team
saying that plate tectonics is very likely on super-earths
even if the planet is dry.[65]
9 See also
• Geological history of Earth
• Geosyncline theory
• List of plate tectonics topics
• Supercontinent cycle
• Conservation of angular momentum
• List of submarine topographical features
• Tectonics
10.1 Notes 13

10 References [31] Runcorn 1956.

[32] Carey 1956.

10.1 Notes
[33] see for example the milestone paper of Lyman & Fleming
[1] Little, Fowler & Coulson 1990. 1940.

[2] Read & Watson 1975. [34] Korgen 1995, Spiess & Kuperman 2003.

[3] Scalera & Lavecchia 2006. [35] Kious & Tilling 1996.

[4] Zhen Shao 1997, Hancock, Skinner & Dineley 2000. [36] Frankel 1987.

[5] Turcotte & Schubert 2002, p. 5. [37] Joly 1909.

[6] Turcotte & Schubert 2002. [38] Thomson 1863.

[39] Wegener 1912.

[7] Turcotte & Schubert 2002, p. 3.
[40] Stein & Wysession 2009, p. 26
[8] Foulger 2010.
[41] Carey 1956; see also Quilty 2003.
[9] Schmidt & Harbert 1998.
[42] Holmes 1928; see also Holmes 1978, Frankel 1978.
[10] Meissner 2002, p. 100.
[43] Lippsett 2001, Lippsett 2006.
[11] “Plate Tectonics: Plate Boundaries”. platetectonics.com.
Retrieved 12 June 2010. [44] Heezen 1960.
[12] “Understanding plate motions”. USGS. Retrieved 12 June [45] Dietz 1961.
2010.
[46] Hess 1962.
[13] Mendia-Landa, Pedro. “Myths and Legends on Natural
Disasters: Making Sense of Our World”. Retrieved 2008- [47] Mason & Raff 1961, Raff & Mason 1961.
02-05.
[48] Vine & Matthews 1963.
[14] van Dijk 1992, van Dijk & Okkes 1991.
[49] See summary in Heirzler, Le Pichon & Baron 1966
[15] Holmes, Arthur (1931). “Radioactivity and Earth Move-
[50] Wilson 1963.
ments”. Trans. Geological Society of Glasgow: 559–606.
[51] Wilson 1965.
[16] Tanimoto & Lay 2000.
[52] Wilson 1966.
[17] Smoot et al. 1996.
[53] Morgan 1968.
[18] Spence 1987, White & McKenzie 1989.
[54] Le Pichon 1967.
[19] Conrad & Lithgow-Bertelloni 2002.
[55] McKenzie & Parker 1967.
[20] Spence 1987, White & Mckenzie 1989, Segev 2002.
[56] Moss & Wilson 1998.
[21] “Alfred Wegener (1880-1930)". University of California
Museum of Paleontology. [57] Condie 1997.

[22] Neith, Katie (April 15, 2011). “Caltech Researchers Use [58] Lliboutry 2000.
GPS Data to Model Effects of Tidal Loads on Earth’s Sur-
face”. Caltech. Retrieved August 15, 2012. [59] Kranendonk, V.; Martin, J. (2011). “Onset of
Plate Tectonics”. Science 333 (6041): 413–414.
[23] van Dijk 1992, van Dijk & Okkes 1990). doi:10.1126/science.1208766. PMID 21778389.

[24] Moore 1973. [60] Torsvik, Trond Helge. “Reconstruction Methods”. Re-
trieved 18 June 2010.
[25] Bostrom 1971.
[61] Torsvik 2008.
[26] Scoppola et al. 2006.
[62] Butler 1992.
[27] Torsvik et al. 2010.
[63] Scotese, C.R. (2002-04-20). “Climate History”. Pale-
[28] Wegener 1929. omap Project. Retrieved 18 June 2010.

[29] Hughes 2001a. [64] Zhao 2002, 2004

[30] Wegener 1966, Hughes 2001b. [65] Valencia, O'Connell & Sasselov 2007.
14
[66] Kasting 1988.
[67] Bortman, Henry (2004-08-26). “Was Venus alive? “The
Signs are Probably There"". Astrobiology Magazine. Re-
trieved 2008-01-08.
[68] Sleep 1994.
[69] Zhong & Zuber 2001.
[70] Andrews-Hanna, Zuber & Banerdt 2008.
[71] Wolpert, Stuart (August 9, 2012). “UCLA scientist dis-
covers plate tectonics on Mars”. Yin, An. UCLA. Re-
trieved August 13, 2012.
[72] Connerney et al. 1999, Connerney et al. 2005
[73] Harrison 2000.
[74] Dyches, Preston; Brown, Dwayne; Buckley, Michael (8
September 2014). “Scientists Find Evidence of 'Diving'
Tectonic Plates on Europa”. NASA. Retrieved 8 Septem-
ber 2014.
[75] Soderblom et al. 2007.
[76] Convection scaling and subduction on Earth and super-
Earths, Diana Valencia, Richard J. O'Connell, Earth and
Planetary Science Letters, Volume 286, Issues 3–4, 15
September 2009, Pages 492–502, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.epsl.2009.07.015,
[77] Plate tectonics on super-Earths: Equally or more likely
than on Earth, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.07.
029, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 310,
Issues 3–4, 15 October 2011, Pages 252–261, H.J. van
Heck, P.J. Tackley
[78] GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34,
L19204, 4 PP., 2007, doi:10.1029/2007GL030598,
Geological consequences of super-sized Earths, C.
O'Neill, A. Lenardic
10.2 Cited books
• Butler, Robert F. (1992). “Applications to paleo-
geography”. Paleomagnetism: Magnetic domains to
geologic terranes. Blackwell. ISBN 0-86542-070-
X. Retrieved 18 June 2010.
• Carey, S. W. (1958). “The tectonic approach to con-
tinental drift”. In Carey, S.W. Continental Drift—A
symposium, held in March 1956. Hobart: Univ. of
Tasmania. pp. 177–363. Expanding Earth from p.
311 to p. 349.
• Condie, K.C. (1997). Plate tectonics and crustal evo-
lution (4th ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 282.
ISBN 978-0-7506-3386-4. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
• Foulger, Gillian R. (2010). “Plates vs Plumes: A
Geological Controversy.”. Wiley-Blackwell, 364 pp.
ISBN 978-1-4051-6148-0.
10 REFERENCES
• Frankel, H. (1987). “The Continental Drift De-
bate”. In H.T. Engelhardt Jr and A.L. Caplan.
Scientific Controversies: Case Solutions in the reso-
lution and closure of disputes in science and tech-
nology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-
521-27560-6.
• Hancock, Paul L.; Skinner, Brian J.; Dineley, David
L. (2000). The Oxford Companion to The Earth.
Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-854039-6.
• Hess, H. H. (November 1962). “History of Ocean
Basins”. In A. E. J. Engel, Harold L. James, and B.
F. Leonard. Petrologic studies: a volume to honor of
A. F. Buddington. Boulder, CO: Geological Society
of America. pp. 599–620.
• Holmes, Arthur (1978). Principles of Physical Ge-
ology (3 ed.). Wiley. pp. 640–641. ISBN 0-471-
07251-6.
• Joly, John (1909). Radioactivity and Geology: An
Account of the Influence of Radioactive Energy on
Terrestrial History. London: Archibald Constable.
p. 36. ISBN 1-4021-3577-7.
• Kious, W. Jacquelyne; Tilling, Robert I. (February
2001) [1996]. “Historical perspective”. This Dy-
namic Earth: the Story of Plate Tectonics (Online
ed.). U.S. Geological Survey. ISBN 0-16-048220-
8. Retrieved 2008-01-29. Abraham Ortelius in his
work Thesaurus Geographicus... suggested that the
Americas were 'torn away from Europe and Africa...
by earthquakes and floods... The vestiges of the rup-
ture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a
map of the world and considers carefully the coasts
of the three [continents].'
• Lippsett, Laurence (2006). “Maurice Ewing and the
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory”. In William
Theodore De Bary, Jerry Kisslinger and Tom Math-
ewson. Living Legacies at Columbia. Columbia Uni-
versity Press. pp. 277–297. ISBN 0-231-13884-9.
Retrieved 2010-06-22.
• Little, W.; Fowler, H.W.; Coulson, J. (1990).
Onions C.T., ed. The Shorter Oxford English Dictio-
nary: on historical principles II (3 ed.). Clarendon
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-861126-4.
• Lliboutry, L. (2000). Quantitative geophysics and
geology. Springer. p. 480. ISBN 978-1-85233-
115-3. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
• McKnight, Tom (2004). Geographica: The com-
plete illustrated Atlas of the world. New York:
Barnes and Noble Books. ISBN 0-7607-5974-X.*
Meissner, Rolf (2002). The Little Book of Planet
Earth. New York: Copernicus Books. p. 202.
ISBN 978-0-387-95258-1.
10.3 Cited articles
• Moss, S.J.; Wilson, M.E.J. (1998). “Biogeographic
implications from the Tertiary palaeogeographic
evolution of Sulawesi and Borneo”. In Hall R, Hol-
loway JD (eds). Biogeography and Geological Evo-
lution of SE Asia (PDF). Leiden, The Netherlands:
Backhuys. pp. 133–163. ISBN 90-73348-97-8.
• Oreskes, Naomi, ed. (2003). Plate Tectonics: An
Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the Earth.
Westview. ISBN 0-8133-4132-9.
• Read, Herbert Harold; Watson, Janet (1975). Intro-
duction to Geology. New York: Halsted. pp. 13–15.
ISBN 978-0-470-71165-1. OCLC 317775677.
• Schmidt, Victor A.; Harbert, William (1998). “The
Living Machine: Plate Tectonics”. Planet Earth and
the New Geosciences (3 ed.). p. 442. ISBN 0-7872-
4296-9. Retrieved 2008-01-28. 10.3
• Schubert, Gerald; Turcotte, Donald L.; Olson, Peter
(2001). Mantle Convection in the Earth and Planets.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-
521-35367-X.
• Smoot, N. Christian; Choi, Dong R.; Meyerhoff,
Arthur Augustus; Bhat, Mohammad I.; Morris, A.
E. L.; Agocs, W. B.; Kamen-Kaye, M.; Taner, I.
(1996). Surge tectonics: a new hypothesis of global
geodynamics. Solid-State Science and Technology
Library. Springer Netherlands. p. 348. ISBN 978-
0-7923-4156-7. |first9= missing |last9= in Authors
list (help)
• Stanley, Steven M. (1999). Earth System History.
W.H. Freeman. pp. 211–228. ISBN 0-7167-2882-
6.
• Sverdrup, H. U., Johnson, M. W. and Fleming, R.
H. (1942). The Oceans: Their physics, chemistry and
general biology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p.
1087.
• Thompson, Graham R. and Turk, Jonathan (1991).
Modern Physical Geology. Saunders College Pub-
lishing. ISBN 0-03-025398-5.
• Torsvik, Trond Helge; Steinberger, Bernhard (De-
cember 2006). “Fra kontinentaldrift til manteldy-
namikk” [From Continental Drift to Mantle Dy-
namics]. Geo (in Norwegian) 8: 20–30. Retrieved
22 June 2010., translation: Torsvik, Trond Helge;
Steinberger, Bernhard (2008). “From Continental
Drift to Mantle Dynamics”. In Trond Slagstad and
Rolv Dahl Gråsteinen. Geology for Society for 150
years - The Legacy after Kjerulf 12. Trondheim:
Norges Geologiske Undersokelse. pp. 24–38 [Nor-
wegian Geological Survey, Popular Science].
• Turcotte, D.L.; Schubert, G. (2002). “Plate Tecton-
ics”. Geodynamics (2 ed.). Cambridge University
Press. pp. 1–21. ISBN 0-521-66186-2.
15
• Wegener, Alfred (1929). Die Entstehung der Konti-
nente und Ozeane (4 ed.). Braunschweig: Friedrich
Vieweg & Sohn Akt. Ges. ISBN 3-443-01056-3.
• Wegener, Alfred (1966). The origin of continents
and oceans. Biram John (translator). Courier
Dover. p. 246. ISBN 0-486-61708-4.
• Winchester, Simon (2003). Krakatoa: The Day the
World Exploded: August 27, 1883. HarperCollins.
ISBN 0-06-621285-5.
• Stein, Seth; Wysession, Michael (2009). An Intro-
duction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Struc-
ture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-
4443-1131-0.
Cited articles
• Andrews-Hanna, Jeffrey C.; Zuber, Maria
T.; Banerdt, W. Bruce (2008). “The Bo-
realis basin and the origin of the martian
crustal dichotomy”. Nature 453 (7199):
1212–5. Bibcode:2008Natur.453.1212A.
doi:10.1038/nature07011. PMID 18580944.
• Blacket, P.M.S.; Bullard, E.; Runcorn, S.K., eds.
(1965). A Symposium on Continental Drift, held in
28 October 1965. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society A 258 (1088). The Royal Society of
London. p. 323.
• Bostrom, R.C. (31 December 1971). “Westward
displacement of the lithosphere”. Nature 234
(5331): 536–538. Bibcode:1971Natur.234..536B.
doi:10.1038/234536a0.
• Connerney, J.E.P.; Acuña, M.H.; Wasilewski,
P.J.; Ness, N.F.; Rème H., Mazelle C., Vi-
gnes D., Lin R.P., Mitchell D.L., Cloutier
P.A. (1999). “Magnetic Lineations in the An-
cient Crust of Mars”. Science 284 (5415):
794–798. Bibcode:1999Sci...284..794C.
doi:10.1126/science.284.5415.794. PMID
10221909.
• Connerney, J.E.P.; Acuña, M.H.; Ness, N.F.;
Kletetschka, G.; Mitchell D.L., Lin R.P.,
Rème H. (2005). “Tectonic implications of
Mars crustal magnetism”. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 102 (42):
14970–14975. Bibcode:2005PNAS..10214970C.
doi:10.1073/pnas.0507469102. PMC 1250232.
PMID 16217034.
• Conrad, Clinton P.; Lithgow-Bertelloni, Car-
olina (2002). “How Mantle Slabs Drive
Plate Tectonics”. Science 298 (5591):
207–9. Bibcode:2002Sci...298..207C.
doi:10.1126/science.1074161. PMID 12364804.
16
• Dietz, Robert S. (June 1961). “Continent
and Ocean Basin Evolution by Spreading
of the Sea Floor”. Nature 190 (4779):
854–857. Bibcode:1961Natur.190..854D.
doi:10.1038/190854a0.
• van Dijk, Janpieter; Okkes, F.W. Mark (1990).
“The analysis of shear zones in Calabria; implica-
tions for the geodynamics of the Central Mediter-
ranean”. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Strati-
grafia 96 (2–3): 241–270.
• van Dijk, J.P.; Okkes, F.W.M. (1991). “Neogene
tectonostratigraphy and kinematics of Calabrian
Basins: implications for the geodynamics of
the Central Mediterranean”. Tectonophysics
196: 23–60. Bibcode:1991Tectp.196...23V.
doi:10.1016/0040-1951(91)90288-4.
• van Dijk, Janpieter (1992). “Late Neogene fore-
arc basin evolution in the Calabrian Arc (Central
Mediterranean). Tectonic sequence stratigraphy
and dynamic geohistory. With special reference to
the geology of Central Calabria”. Geologica Ultra-
jectina 92: 288.
• Frankel, Henry (July 1978). “Arthur Holmes
and continental drift”. The British Journal
for the History of Science 11 (2): 130–150.
doi:10.1017/S0007087400016551. JSTOR
4025726.
• Harrison, C.G.A. (2000). “Questions About
Magnetic Lineations in the Ancient Crust
of Mars”. Science 287 (5453): 547a.
doi:10.1126/science.287.5453.547a.
• Heezen, B. (1960). “The rift in the ocean
floor”. Scientific American 203 (4): 98–110.
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1060-98.
• Heirtzler, James R.; Le Pichon, Xavier; Baron,
J. Gregory (1966). “Magnetic anomalies over
the Reykjanes Ridge”. Deep Sea Research 13
(3): 427–432. Bibcode:1966DSROA..13..427H.
doi:10.1016/0011-7471(66)91078-3.
• Holmes, Arthur (1928). “Radioactivity and Earth
movements”. Transactions of the Geological Society
of Glasgow 18: 559–606.
• Hughes, Patrick (8 February 2001). “Alfred We-
gener (1880-1930): A Geographic Jigsaw Puzzle”.
On the shoulders of giants. Earth Observatory,
NASA. Retrieved 2007-12-26. ... on January 6,
1912, Wegener... proposed instead a grand vision
of drifting continents and widening seas to explain
the evolution of Earth’s geography.
• Hughes, Patrick (8 February 2001). “Alfred We-
gener (1880-1930): The origin of continents and
10 REFERENCES
oceans”. On the Shoulders of Giants. Earth Obser-
vatory, NASA. Retrieved 2007-12-26. By his third
edition (1922), Wegener was citing geological evi-
dence that some 300 million years ago all the conti-
nents had been joined in a supercontinent stretching
from pole to pole. He called it Pangaea (all lands),...
• Kasting, James F. (1988). “Runaway and moist
greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of
Earth and Venus”. Icarus 74 (3): 472–494.
Bibcode:1988Icar...74..472K. doi:10.1016/0019-
1035(88)90116-9. PMID 11538226.
• Korgen, Ben J. (1995). “A voice from the past:
John Lyman and the plate tectonics story” (PDF).
Oceanography (The Oceanography Society) 8 (1):
19–20. doi:10.5670/oceanog.1995.29.
• Lippsett, Laurence (2001). “Maurice Ewing and the
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory”. Living Lega-
cies. Retrieved 2008-03-04.
• Lovett, Richard A (24 January 2006). “Moon Is
Dragging Continents West, Scientist Says”. Na-
tional Geographic News.
• Lyman, J.; Fleming, R.H. (1940). “Composition of
Seawater”. Journal of Marine Research 3: 134–146.
• Mason, Ronald G.; Raff, Arthur D. (1961).
“Magnetic survey off the west coast of the United
States between 32°N latitude and 42°N latitude”.
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 72 (8):
1259–1266. Bibcode:1961GSAB...72.1259M.
doi:10.1130/0016-
7606(1961)72[1259:MSOTWC]2.0.CO;2. ISSN
0016-7606.
• Mc Kenzie, D.; Parker, R.L. (1967). “The
North Pacific: an example of tectonics
on a sphere”. Nature 216 (5122): 1276–
1280. Bibcode:1967Natur.216.1276M.
doi:10.1038/2161276a0.
• Moore, George W. (1973). “Westward
Tidal Lag as the Driving Force of Plate
Tectonics”. Geology 1 (3): 99–100.
Bibcode:1973Geo.....1...99M. doi:10.1130/0091-
7613(1973)1<99:WTLATD>2.0.CO;2. ISSN
0091-7613.
• Morgan, W. Jason (1968). “Rises, Trenches,
Great Faults, and Crustal Blocks”. Jour-
nal of Geophysical Research 73 (6): 1959–
1982. Bibcode:1968JGR....73.1959M.
doi:10.1029/JB073i006p01959.
• Le Pichon, Xavier (15 June 1968). “Sea-
floor spreading and continental drift”.
Journal of Geophysical Research 73 (12):
3661–3697. Bibcode:1968JGR....73.3661L.
doi:10.1029/JB073i012p03661.
10.3 Cited articles
• Quilty, Patrick G.; Banks, Maxwell R. (2003).
“Samuel Warren Carey, 1911-2002”. Biographi-
cal memoirs. Australian Academy of Science. Re-
trieved 2010-06-19. This memoir was originally
published in Historical Records of Australian Science
(2003) 14 (3).
• Raff, Arthur D.; Mason, Roland G. (1961).
“Magnetic survey off the west coast of the United
States between 40°N latitude and 52°N latitude”.
Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 72 (8):
1267–1270. Bibcode:1961GSAB...72.1267R.
doi:10.1130/0016-
7606(1961)72[1267:MSOTWC]2.0.CO;2. ISSN
0016-7606.
• Runcorn, S.K. (1956). “Paleomagnetic com-
parisons between Europe and North America”.
Proceedings, Geological Association of Canada 8
(1088): 7785. Bibcode:1965RSPTA.258....1R.
doi:10.1098/rsta.1965.0016.
• Scalera, G., and Lavecchia, G. (2006). “Frontiers
in earth sciences: new ideas and interpretation”. An-
nals of Geophysics 49 (1). doi:10.4401/ag-4406 (in-
active 2015-01-09).
• Scoppola, B.; Boccaletti, D.; Bevis, M.; Carmi-
nati, E.; Doglioni, C. (2006). “The westward
drift of the lithosphere: A rotational drag?".
Geological Society of America Bulletin 118:
199–209. Bibcode:2006GSAB..118..199S.
doi:10.1130/B25734.1.
• Segev, A (2002). “Flood basalts, continental
breakup and the dispersal of Gondwana: evidence
for periodic migration of upwelling mantle flows
(plumes)". EGU Stephan Mueller Special Publica-
tion Series 2: 171–191. doi:10.5194/smsps-2-171-
2002. Retrieved 5 August 2010.
• Sleep, Norman H. (1994). “Martian plate
tectonics”. Journal of Geophysical Research
99: 5639. Bibcode:1994JGR....99.5639S.
doi:10.1029/94JE00216.
• Soderblom, Laurence A.; Tomasko, Martin G.;
Archinal, Brent A.; Becker, Tammy; L. Bushroe,
Michael W.; Cook, Debbie A.; Doose, Lyn R.;
Galuszka, Donna M.; Hare, Trent M.; Howington-
Kraus, Elpitha; Karkoschka, Erich; Kirk, Randolph
L.; Lunine, Jonathan I.; McFarlane, Elisabeth A.;
Redding, Bonnie L.; Rizk, Bashar; Rosiek, Mark
R.; See, Charles; Smith, Peter H. (2007). “To-
pography and geomorphology of the Huygens land-
ing site on Titan”. Planetary and Space Science 55
(13): 2015–2024. Bibcode:2007P&SS...55.2015S.
doi:10.1016/j.pss.2007.04.015.
• Spence, William (1987).
ref=CITEREFSpence1987 “Slab pull and
17
the seismotectonics of subducting litho-
sphere”. Reviews of Geophysics 25 (1):
55–69. Bibcode:1987RvGeo..25...55S.
doi:10.1029/RG025i001p00055.
• Spiess, Fred; Kuperman, William (2003). “The
Marine Physical Laboratory at Scripps” (PDF).
Oceanography (The Oceanography Society) 16 (3):
45–54. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2003.30.
• Tanimoto, Toshiro; Lay, Thorne (7 Novem-
ber 2000). “Mantle dynamics and seis-
mic tomography”. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences 97 (23): 12409–
12410. Bibcode:2000PNAS...9712409T.
doi:10.1073/pnas.210382197. PMC 34063.
PMID 11035784.
• Thomson, W (1863). “On the secular cooling of
the earth”. Philosophical Magazine 4 (25): 1–14.
doi:10.1080/14786446308643410 (inactive 2015-
01-09).
• Torsvik, Trond H.; Steinberger, Bernhard; Gur-
nis, Michael; Gaina, Carmen (2010). “Plate tec-
tonics and net lithosphere rotation over the past
150 My”. Earth and Planetary Science Letters
291: 106–112. Bibcode:2010E&PSL.291..106T.
doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.055. Retrieved 18 June
2010.
• Valencia, Diana; O'Connell, Richard J.; Sas-
selov, Dimitar D (November 2007). “Inevitabil-
ity of Plate Tectonics on Super-Earths”. As-
trophysical Journal Letters 670 (1): L45–L48.
arXiv:0710.0699. Bibcode:2007ApJ...670L..45V.
doi:10.1086/524012.
• Vine, F.J.; Matthews, D.H. (1963). “Mag-
netic anomalies over oceanic ridges”. Nature 199
(4897): 947–949. Bibcode:1963Natur.199..947V.
doi:10.1038/199947a0.
• Wegener, Alfred (6 January 1912). “Die Her-
ausbildung der Grossformen der Erdrinde (Konti-
nente und Ozeane), auf geophysikalischer Grund-
lage”. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 63:
185–195, 253–256, 305–309.
• White, R.; McKenzie, D. (1989). “Magma-
tism at rift zones: The generation of vol-
canic continental margins and flood basalts”.
Journal of Geophysical Research 94: 7685–
7729. Bibcode:1989JGR....94.7685W.
doi:10.1029/JB094iB06p07685.
• Wilson, J.T. (8 June 1963). “Hypothesis on
the Earth’s behaviour”. Nature 198 (4884):
849–865. Bibcode:1963Natur.198..925T.
doi:10.1038/198925a0.
18 11 EXTERNAL LINKS

• Wilson, J. Tuzo (July 1965). “A new class of faults 11.1 Videos

and their bearing on continental drift”. Nature 207
(4995): 343–347. Bibcode:1965Natur.207..343W. • Khan Academy Explanation of evidence
doi:10.1038/207343a0.
• 750 million years of global tectonic activity. Movie.
• Wilson, J. Tuzo (13 August 1966). “Did the
Atlantic close and then re-open?". Nature 211
(5050): 676–681. Bibcode:1966Natur.211..676W.
doi:10.1038/211676a0.
• Zhen Shao, Huang (1997). “Speed of the Continen-
tal Plates”. The Physics Factbook.
• Zhao, Guochun, Cawood, Peter A., Wilde, Simon
A., and Sun, M. (2002). “Review of global 2.1–
1.8 Ga orogens: implications for a pre-Rodinia su-
percontinent”. Earth-Science Reviews 59, pp. 125–
162. 59: 125. Bibcode:2002ESRv...59..125Z.
doi:10.1016/S0012-8252(02)00073-9.
• Zhao, Guochun, Sun, M., Wilde, Simon A., and
Li, S.Z. (2004). “A Paleo-Mesoproterozoic su-
percontinent: assembly, growth and breakup”.
Earth-Science Reviews, 67, pp. 91–123.
67: 91. Bibcode:2004ESRv...67...91Z.
doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2004.02.003.
• Zhong, Shijie; Zuber, Maria T. (2001). “Degree-
1 mantle convection and the crustal dichotomy
on Mars”. Earth and Planetary Science Let-
ters 189: 75. Bibcode:2001E&PSL.189...75Z.
doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(01)00345-4.

11 External links
• This Dynamic Earth: The Story of Plate Tectonics.
USGS.
• Understanding Plate Tectonics. USGS.
• The PLATES Project. Jackson School of Geo-
sciences.
• An explanation of tectonic forces. Example of cal-
culations to show that Earth Rotation could be a
driving force.
• Bird, P. (2003); An updated digital model of plate
boundaries.
• Map of tectonic plates.
• GPlates, desktop software for the interactive visual-
ization of plate-tectonics.
• MORVEL plate velocity estimates and information.
C. DeMets, D. Argus, & R. Gordon.
• Google Map of the Topography of Plate Tectonics
that enables you to zoom in on submarine mid ocean
ridges, fracture zones, ocean trenches, thermal vents
and submarine volcanoes.
 19

12 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

12.1 Text
• Plate tectonics Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate%20tectonics?oldid=642236177 Contributors: Mav, Bryan Derksen, Tarquin,
Malcolm Farmer, -- April, Youssefsan, William Avery, Roadrunner, Mintguy, Dwheeler, Hephaestos, Stevertigo, Edward, Lir, JohnOwens,
Zocky, TMC, Booyabazooka, Dominus, GUllman, Tannin, Wapcaplet, Ixfd64, Cyde, Minesweeper, Ams80, Ahoerstemeier, Stan Shebs,
Cferrero, Kingturtle, Julesd, Glenn, Susurrus, Evercat, Lancevortex, Mxn, Raven in Orbit, Pizza Puzzle, Mulad, HolIgor, Emperorbma,
Charles Matthews, Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj, Timwi, Reddi, Dysprosia, Furrykef, Morwen, SEWilco, Samsara, Traroth, Geraki,
Raul654, Wetman, Pakaran, David.Monniaux, Pollinator, Slawojarek, Cncs wikipedia, Robbot, Sander123, Moriori, Fredrik, Sappe, Chris
73, R3m0t, Kristof vt, WormRunner, Nurg, Naddy, Lowellian, Academic Challenger, Hadal, JesseW, Lupo, Zaui, Dina, David Gerard,
Wjbeaty, Stirling Newberry, Jpo, Giftlite, JamesMLane, DocWatson42, Inkling, Lupin, Ferkelparade, Obli, Everyking, Maha ts, Curps,
Alison, Home Row Keysplurge, Leonard G., Duncharris, Gilgamesh, Yekrats, Nishka, Mackerm, Avala, Bobblewik, Jrdioko, Andycjp,
Quadell, Antandrus, Beland, Phe, Lesgles, Jossi, Vina, OwenBlacker, RetiredUser2, Kevin B12, Mysidia, GeoGreg, Gscshoyru, Dan-
Matan, Joyous!, Clemwang, Adashiel, Trevor MacInnis, Mike Rosoft, AliveFreeHappy, DanielCD, EugeneZelenko, Discospinster, Zaheen,
Rich Farmbrough, Supercoop, Vsmith, Smyth, Ericamick, Mani1, Martpol, MarkS, Stbalbach, Bender235, Sc147, Zaslav, Neurophyre,
Thnr, Kbh3rd, Rascalb, Eric Forste, RJHall, Sockatume, El C, Vanished user kjij32ro9j4tkse, RoyBoy, Bobo192, Circeus, Ersby, Asierra,
Wegge, Atomique, Enric Naval, Shenme, Viriditas, Cohesion, Jag123, Vystrix Nexoth, Aquillion, TheProject, Toomuchdespair, Rje, Sam
Korn, Merope, Conny, Ranveig, Storm Rider, Danski14, Siim, Alansohn, Gary, Enirac Sum, Anthony Appleyard, Richard Harvey, Arthena,
Uogl, Diego Moya, Plumbago, Riana, AzaToth, Lightdarkness, Iris lorain, Mac Davis, Hu, Malo, Avenue, Snowolf, Burwellian, Olegalexan-
drov, Rebroad, Knowledge Seeker, M3tainfo, Gpvos, RainbowOfLight, Sciurinæ, Mikeo, Bsadowski1, Computerjoe, SteinbDJ, LukeSurl,
Blaxthos, HenryLi, Oleg Alexandrov, Bobrayner, Firsfron, Woohookitty, Miaow Miaow, Kurzon, Pol098, Before My Ken, Jeff3000, Dun-
can.france, MONGO, Macaddct1984, Eras-mus, SDC, GalaazV, PeregrineAY, Ashmoo, Graham87, Magister Mathematicae, Porcher,
Protargol, Mana Excalibur, Drbogdan, Rjwilmsi, Mayumashu, Jake Wartenberg, Vary, MarSch, Tangotango, Vegaswikian, HappyCam-
per, Ligulem, Jasonking, Slac, SeanMack, Ems57fcva, Bubba73, Boccobrock, Brighterorange, Bhadani, Ian Dunster, Williamborg, THE
KING, Sango123, Yamamoto Ichiro, Dracontes, Stepanovas, Titoxd, SchuminWeb, RobertG, Musical Linguist, Latka, Nihiltres, AJR,
RexNL, Gurch, Simishag, Bks85, Chobot, Skraz, NSR, Gwernol, E Pluribus Anthony, Roboto de Ajvol, The Rambling Man, Wavelength,
Borgx, RattusMaximus, NorCalHistory, Ansell, Manop, Gaius Cornelius, CambridgeBayWeather, Chaos, Wimt, NawlinWiki, Madcover-
boy, Grafen, Cquan, Długosz, AeonicOmega, Irishguy, Ragesoss, Retired username, Aaron Brenneman, Bobbo, J chaloner, Matticus78,
Raven4x4x, Breathstealer, Phaleux, BOT-Superzerocool, DeadEyeArrow, David Underdown, Zzuuzz, Sotakeit, Spondoolicks, Maristod-
dard, Pb30, Abune, Xaxafrad, Reyk, Netrapt, Sairjohn, BorgQueen, Petri Krohn, MaNeMeBasat, Scoutersig, Kevin, Anclation, Willtron,
Curpsbot-unicodify, Ilmari Karonen, Kungfuadam, Junglecat, Austinbirdman, DVD R W, Bibliomaniac15, Luk, Hughitt1, SmackBot,
Kcumming, Lcarsdata, Zazaban, Malkinann, KnowledgeOfSelf, Royalguard11, Kimon, Gnangarra, Pgk, InvictaHOG, Wufpack jack,
Bomac, Davewild, Anastrophe, Arny, Hardyplants, Cessator, Kintetsubuffalo, HalfShadow, Srnec, IstvanWolf, Gaff, Gilliam, Hmains,
Ppntori, Carl.bunderson, Andy M. Wang, Valley2city, Saros136, Chris the speller, Master Jay, Rajeevmass, Quinsareth, Master of Pup-
pets, Tabdulla, George Rodney Maruri Game, Neo-Jay, CSWarren, HubHikari, Whispering, Sbharris, Rlevse, Lightspeedchick, Royboy-
crashfan, Suicidalhamster, Zsinj, Xchbla423, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Ajaxkroon, Tamfang, Kaimiddleton, TheKMan, Rsm99833,
Kittybrewster, Edivorce, Pepsidrinka, Aldaron, Krich, Smooth O, Ghiraddje, BesselDekker, Nibuod, Nakon, Rolinator, Zyzzy2, Snapping-
Turtle, Professor Chaos, Richard001, ShaunES, Howard the Duck, Andrew c, Mwtoews, DavidJ710, Jitterro, Daniel.Cardenas, DDima,
Ck lostsword, Pilotguy, FelisLeo, Kukini, The undertow, ArglebargleIV, Rory096, Harryboyles, Zahid Abdassabur, Sjock, J 1982, Kipala,
Popgoes, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Tktktk, This user has left wikipedia, Bjankuloski06en, RNCoats, PowerCS, IronGargoyle,
Shattered, Ben Moore, Ex nihil, Smith609, Andypandy.UK, Korovioff, Muad, Jon186, Shinryuu, Geologyguy, Ryulong, Scottwiki, Hogyn
Lleol, Jggouvea, Zapvet, LaMenta3, Eastfrisian, Hgrobe, KJS77, Hu12, Dan Gluck, Iridescent, Michaelbusch, Blondie rox, Joseph Solis in
Australia, Tmangray, Skapur, Newone, Joao.caprivi, Wikiauthor, JSoules, Marysunshine, Civil Engineer III, Eassin, Courcelles, Anger22,
Tawkerbot2, Ouishoebean, Chris55, Userdce, Eastlaw, CmdrObot, Ale jrb, Sir Vicious, Van helsing, Agathman, Makeemlighter, Woud-
loper, SupaStarGirl, Vampirehelot, MiShogun, CWY2190, DanielRigal, Chmee2, Cindy Jones, Andkore, Basar, Mapletip, Sebastian789,
Icek, Cydebot, Abeg92, A876, MC10, Michaelas10, Gogo Dodo, Luckyherb, Ashycool, Ignoramibus, Odie5533, Xndr, B, DumbBOT,
Jay32183, Ward3001, SpK, Omicronpersei8, Casliber, FrancoGG, JamesAM, NewInn, Pajz, N5iln, Eco84, Mojo Hand, Young Pioneer,
Headbomb, Marek69, West Brom 4ever, John254, E. Ripley, Dfrg.msc, J. W. Love, Grayshi, D.H, Pkeestra, Jman8088, Dawnseeker2000,
Elert, Escarbot, Igorwindsor, Dantheman531, Mentifisto, Rickibal, AntiVandalBot, Luna Santin, Turlo Lomon, Masamage, Doc Trop-
ics, Jayron32, Jbaranao, Pkm iet, A.M.962, Myanw, Mikenorton, Xigan, JAnDbot, SuperLuigi31, Dan D. Ric, Leuko, Husond, Thebee,
MER-C, Hello32020, Awien, Hut 8.5, Howsthatfordamage25, Viriathus, Savant13, Beaumont, Suede, Stardotboy, Magioladitis, Wolf-
manSF, EvilPizza, Zakahori, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, Dentren, Hasek is the best, Jespinos, Dedonite, Chris Grose, Phillip Raven, Spar-
rowsWing, Avicennasis, KConWiki, §yzergy, David Eppstein, User A1, Cpl Syx, Vssun, TehBrandon, Chris G, DerHexer, Edward321,
Esanchez7587, Khalid Mahmood, InvertRect, Migco, RevDan, Patstuart, Bramfab, NatureA16, Gfoulger, Stephenchou0722, Timmy12,
MartinBot, Mmoneypenny, Writer777, Poeloq, Aleksander.adamowski, Rettetast, Pagross, R'n'B, CommonsDelinker, AlexiusHoratius,
GEOL310, PrestonH, C.R.Selvakumar, J.delanoy, Fred.e, Bogey97, Interplanet Janet, Eliz81, Helon, GeoWriter, Андрей Романенко,
SuperMarioGamer, Acalamari, Bot-Schafter, Shawn in Montreal, Smeira, Jameschristopher, SpigotMap, MikeEagling, Raptor24, Tarot-
cards, DoubleD17, AntiSpamBot, (jarbarf), Nedhenry, Linuxmatt, BoredTerry, Vanished User 4517, Warut, Srpnor, JHeinonen, Jorfer,
Mufka, Iyo8, Njdevilsplayermb, Jcchang05, Cmichael, 2help, Dhaluza, Vanished user 39948282, Treisijs, Redrocket, Num1dgen, Ronbo76,
CardinalDan, Spellcast, Xenonice, Wikieditor06, Lights, Sage Connerson, Orphic, Rivazza, Seattle Skier, Chienlit, Irish Pearl, Philip
Trueman, RPlunk2853, Xihuzhaiyue, Charleca, GimmeBot, Cosmic Latte, AlexRampaul, Zamphuor, Katoa, Eve Hall, Tamás Kádár,
Miranda, Ann Stouter, Aymatth2, IPSOS, Qxz, Someguy1221, Shindo9Hikaru, DennyColt, Karl07, CanOfWorms, Dlae, Wackowar-
rior, Andrewrost3241981, Autodidactyl, Andrew the science guy, RandomXYZb, Caleabbott, Falcon8765, Enviroboy, Proof Pudding,
Crazy dude17, GaVaLiTiOuS, Agüeybaná, Brianga, Ceranthor, SLFLdr.Matt, Bobo The Ninja, Gewywewy, AlleborgoBot, Ash2727,
NHRHS2010, The Random Editor, Glst2, Kel Ra Met, Ivan Štambuk, PlanetStar, Caulde, Veryfaststuff, Miaowsayscow, Jauerback,
Dawn Bard, Caltas, Stephen Marki123, Cwkmail, Triwbe, Lucasbfrbot, LeadSongDog, GrooveDog, Iamthecheekymonkey, Aillema, Tip-
toety, Radon210, CombatCraig, Wilson44691, Allmightyduck, Oxymoron83, Geology man, BjörnEF, Robertcurrey, Flyindowndafreeway,
Airhogs777, Lightmouse, Poindexter Propellerhead, Techman224, The-G-Unit-Boss, NameThatWorks, Spartan-James, Ward20, Chem-
istry geek, Hamiltondaniel, Finetooth, Into The Fray, DaBomb619, Definator, Gubernatoria, Twinsday, ClueBot, Avenged Eightfold, Ar-
tichoker, Fyyer, The Thing That Should Not Be, Frederick Miao, EoGuy, Sanja Simat, Shark96z, Mesquishyou101, Drmies, Der Golem,
Marzmich, CounterVandalismBot, LizardJr8, TheSmuel, MoNi101, Dreadcenturion, Kansoku, DragonBot, Worthydaydream, Awickert,
Excirial, Jusdafax, Designanddraft, Rudolf Pohl, Eeekster, GoRight, Gtstricky, Leonard^Bloom, W3lucario, Sun Creator, Jcdock, Brews
20 12 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

ohare, Mikaey, Muro Bot, Tseno Maximov, Slayerking94, Erodium, Fastily, Spitfire, Cuptow555, Jovianeye, Applefox, Dthomsen8, Ergo-
Sum88, Avoided, NellieBly, JinJian, ZooFari, Dr.mclovin, The “Ninja” Creeper, Eklipse, Reet 3, Addbot, Grayfell, DOI bot, Ronhjones,
Pelex, Fluffernutter, Cypkerth, Download, Debresser, Favonian, LinkFA-Bot, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, Knowitall4, ‫سعی‬, Legobot, Luckas-
bot, Yobot, Marcus.aerlous, Maxí, KamikazeBot, Harsha850, Synchronism, AnomieBOT, Andrewrp, Rubinbot, AdjustShift, Goodtimber,
Ckruschke, Citation bot, LovesMacs, Xqbot, The sock that should not be, Sellyme, Anna Frodesiak, Scbergman, GrouchoBot, Resident
Mario, Mario777Zelda, Omnipaedista, Backpackadam, RibotBOT, Chris.urs-o, Back2reality07, Iceman444k, Doulos Christos, Small-
man12q, Shadowjams, Nicholas Sund, Samwb123, Jack B108, BoomerAB, CES1596, GT5162, BSATwinTowers, Dogposter, Tobby72,
Ninjaabiosis22, Oldlaptop321, Stvltvs, Togoy, Tranletuhan, Weetoddid, Craig Pemberton, Rost11, Oddfellowslocal151, Scaregenral3,
Xhaoz, Stephrox56, DivineAlpha, Applexider, HamburgerRadio, Bigboi256, Decz1, Javert, Amplitude101, XL3000, Pinethicket, Boulaur,
Vicenarian, Jonesey95, Jlbsem, Bigcheesy, SpaceFlight89, ShadeofTime09, Heloo guys, Ryswick, FoxBot, TobeBot, Krobin, Trappist the
monk, RamblinWreck3, Fama Clamosa, Javierito92, January, Andrewharold, Reaper Eternal, Lauryn-joy, Crustyxspoon, Tbhotch, Min-
imac, Kctimes, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, RjwilmsiBot, Powerkeys, Elium2, Androstachys, DASHBot, Aircough, EmausBot, Qurq, Going-
Batty, Tommy2010, Wikipelli, ZéroBot, Kenvandellen, Jpvandijk, AManWithNoPlan, Wayne Slam, EricWesBrown, Δ, IGeMiNix, Ego
White Tray, ChuispastonBot, RockMagnetist, Peter Karlsen, VictorianMutant, Мурад 97, DASHBotAV, Whoop whoop pull up, Kleopa-
tra, LM2000, ClueBot NG, Gilderien, Baldy Bill, Foulger, Lanthanum-138, Pragmaticstatistic, Helpful Pixie Bot, Bibcode Bot, JoJaEpp,
Wzrd1, Mar2194, Cadiomals, Glevum, Harizotoh9, AlbertBowes, TegetthoffstrasseNr43, Ammorgan2, Asfd666, SreejanAlapati, Dexbot,
LightandDark2000, Sidelight12, Josophie, Jwratner1, Marikanessa, Anrnusna, Bkilli1, Monkbot, Trackteur, Jbitz743, I'm your Grandma.,
Capacitor12 and Anonymous: 1389

12.2 Images
• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
• File:Earth_Western_Hemisphere.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Earth_Western_Hemisphere.jpg
License: Public domain Contributors: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723 Original artist:
• Reto Stöckli (land surface, shallow water, clouds)
• Robert Simmon (enhancements: ocean color, compositing, 3D globes, animation)
• Data and technical support: MODIS Land Group; MODIS Science Data Support Team; MODIS Atmosphere Group; MODIS Ocean
Group
• Additional data: USGS EROS Data Center (topography); USGS Terrestrial Remote Sensing Flagstaff Field Center (Antarctica);
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (city lights).
• File:Farallon_Plate.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Farallon_Plate.jpg License: Public domain Con-
tributors: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002410/ Original artist: NASA
• File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-by-
sa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Global_plate_motion_2008-04-17.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Global_plate_motion_
2008-04-17.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov/mbh/all/images/global.jpg Original artist: NASA
• File:Grand_Canyon_NP-Arizona-USA.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Grand_Canyon_
NP-Arizona-USA.jpg License: GFDL Contributors: Own work Original artist: Tobias Alt
• File:Oceanic.Stripe.Magnetic.Anomalies.Scheme.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Oceanic.Stripe.
Magnetic.Anomalies.Scheme.svg License: Public domain Contributors: derived from File:Oceanic.Stripe.Magnetic.Anomalies.Scheme.gif
Original artist: Chmee2
• File:Padlock-silver.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Padlock-silver.svg License: CC0 Contributors:
http://openclipart.org/people/Anonymous/padlock_aj_ashton_01.svg Original artist: This image file was created by AJ Ashton. Uploaded
from English WP by User:Eleassar. Converted by User:AzaToth to a silver color.
• File:Plate_tectonics_map.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Plate_tectonics_map.gif License: Public
domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Plates_tect2_en.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Plates_tect2_en.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/slabs.html Original artist: USGS
• File:Polarityshift.gif Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Polarityshift.gif License: Public domain Contribu-
tors: Own work Original artist: Powerkeys
• File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ?
Original artist: ?
• File:Quake_epicenters_1963-98.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Quake_epicenters_1963-98.png
License: Public domain Contributors: http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam/seismic/ Original artist: NASA, DTAM project team
• File:Tectonic_plate_boundaries.png Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Tectonic_plate_boundaries.png
License: Public domain Contributors: [1] Original artist: Jose F. Vigil. USGS
• File:Tectonic_plates_boundaries_detailed-en.svg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Tectonic_plates_
boundaries_detailed-en.svg License: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors:
• Background map: Image:Tectonic plates (empty).svg (modified) created by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason under PD and based on an USGS
map Original artist: Eric Gaba (Sting - fr:Sting)
• File:Wallula-Gap-the-sisters.JPG Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Wallula-Gap-the-sisters.JPG Li-
cense: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
• File:Wegener_Expedition-1930_008.jpg Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Wegener_Expedition-1930_
008.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Archive of Alfred Wegener Institute Original artist: Loewe, Fritz; Georgi, Johannes; Sorge,
Ernst; Wegener, Alfred Lothar
12.3 Content license 21

12.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0