Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:53 AM
Jim B. Jim B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,813
Why is Greenland considered an island but not Eurasia?

Re: Why is Greenland considered an island but not Eurasia?, isn't this continent/island thing rather arbitrary anyways?

I mean, Europe and Asia are separate continents, yet they are the same landmass. And some people think Australia is actually the largest island.

BTW, Cecil Adams did cover this subject once. But I can't get the darn search function to work. I know in one article, he mentions this fact, along with a joking reference to Yul Brenner's wazoo, if that is any help. (I am only including that last part, if anyone else wants to try a search of their own.)

__________________
"Love takes no less than everything." (from "Love Is", a duet by Vanessa Williams and Brian McKnight)
  #2  
Old 08-09-2018, 12:25 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan TroutMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,128
Nm, misread this.

Last edited by TroutMan; 08-09-2018 at 12:26 PM.
  #3  
Old 08-09-2018, 12:35 PM
Jim B. Jim B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,813
Well, I can't find the Cecil Adams column.

But I did find this staff report, that basically says the same thing.

Finally, I got the search function to work. And not a moment too soon.

But please feel free to continue with the discussion.
__________________
"Love takes no less than everything." (from "Love Is", a duet by Vanessa Williams and Brian McKnight)
  #4  
Old 08-09-2018, 03:05 PM
fedman fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 21
technically, Europe is not separate from Asia; second, why is Australia a continent and not island?
  #5  
Old 08-09-2018, 03:42 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,053
Simple answer: Because Australia is larger than an island. We had to draw the line somewhere, and Australia and Greenland happened to fall on opposite sides of it. If we had drawn the line elsewhere, we'd instead be asking "Why is Antarctica a continent but Australia only an island?", or "why is Greenland a continent but Madagascar only an island?", or whatever.
  #6  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:01 PM
Yllaria Yllaria is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,311
Although the question mentioned the word 'seven' a few times, the answer didn't. Which is a pity. It's entirely possible that "we" chose a size for continents that would give us seven of them. "We" seem to like sevens.
  #7  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:26 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,215
Also, Australia is 4 times larger than Greenland - http://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/count...alia/greenland
  #8  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:30 PM
Yllaria Yllaria is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,311
My favorite comparison map shows that Greenland is about 3 Texases. It's the third down here: https://www.businessinsider.com/map-...g-size-2013-12
  #9  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:33 PM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yllaria View Post
Although the question mentioned the word 'seven' a few times, the answer didn't. Which is a pity. It's entirely possible that "we" chose a size for continents that would give us seven of them. "We" seem to like sevens.
Indeed we do, as witness the equally arbitrary Seven Seas.
  #10  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:43 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,053
But weren't Europe, Asia, and Africa considered separate continents even before the discovery of the others? Splitting up Eurasia is the only really contentious decision in the lot.
  #11  
Old 08-09-2018, 04:48 PM
Yllaria Yllaria is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,311
I don't know if they were considered continents so much as they were considered lands. If that makes sense.
  #12  
Old 08-09-2018, 05:04 PM
Musicat Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 20,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yllaria View Post
My favorite comparison map shows that Greenland is about 3 Texases.
If Texas were surrounded by water, it'd be an island.
  #13  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:13 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
But weren't Europe, Asia, and Africa considered separate continents even before the discovery of the others? Splitting up Eurasia is the only really contentious decision in the lot.
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contin...of_the_concept

Basically, Asia and Europe were separate to the Greeks because when the concept originated, they WERE separate, with the Aegean, Bosporus/Dardanelles and Black Sea in between them. It's only after the term ἤπειρος became extended inward from the shores, and exploration established that the Black Sea was bounded, that the concept of Europe and Asia as different landmasses ran into some difficulties.
  #14  
Old 08-10-2018, 07:30 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,467
Greenland is connected to North America, and floats along with it ... Australia isn't connected to nobody and selfishly floats around on it's own ... indeed, this logic makes New Zealand a continent, just most of it is underwater ...
  #15  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:51 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Greenland is connected to North America, and floats along with it ... Australia isn't connected to nobody and selfishly floats around on it's own ... indeed, this logic makes New Zealand a continent, just most of it is underwater ...
Actually, New Zealand is at the boundary of the Australian plate with the Pacific plate. More than half of it is on the Australian plate. Thus, your statement isn't really grounded in fact.

Australia has its own tectonic plate (the island of New Guinea shares that plate, which is why that island is often considered part of the Australian "continent"). As you note, Greenland doesn't, which is one good reason to consider Greenland part of North America, rather than a separate landmass.
  #16  
Old 08-10-2018, 11:07 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Actually, New Zealand is at the boundary of the Australian plate with the Pacific plate. More than half of it is on the Australian plate. Thus, your statement isn't really grounded in fact.

Australia has its own tectonic plate (the island of New Guinea shares that plate, which is why that island is often considered part of the Australian "continent"). As you note, Greenland doesn't, which is one good reason to consider Greenland part of North America, rather than a separate landmass.
It's seems that the floor of the Tasmanian Sea which separates Australia and Zealandia is composed of oceanic crust material rather than continental crust material, although this fact alone doesn't define these as two separate continents ... however both Australia and Zealandia are moving in different directions, Australia northeast towards the East Indian triple conjunction and Zealandia northwest towards Australia and consistent with the motion of the Pacific Plate ...

Without an exact scientific definition of "continent", we're left with opinion ... and all my citations are from New Zealand and we can guess what their opinion is ... if New Zealanders want to call themselves a separate continent, who are we to say otherwise? ...

Is Central America part of North American continent or part of South America ... Panamanians will tell you the canal is what separates the two continents ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 08-10-2018 at 11:07 AM.
  #17  
Old 08-11-2018, 07:22 AM
Horatio Hellpop Horatio Hellpop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Seoul, S. Korea
Posts: 9,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Is Central America part of North American continent or part of South America ... Panamanians will tell you the canal is what separates the two continents ...

Panama was considered part of South America through most of the 19th Century, as it was part of Colombia. Continents are more social/political constructs than physical ones.

The westernmost part of Kazakhstan is technically part of Europe, even though it's east of Turkey, Armenia, and Georgia, which are generally considered part of Asia.
  #18  
Old 08-11-2018, 11:03 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,615
Quote:
I don’t have my atlas in front of me, but I’d venture to guess that Greenland is even smaller than The Middle East, so even if you’re a follower of the new upstart cartographers who consider the Middle East to be a continent (as well as communism an ideal economic situation) Greenland still wouldn’t qualify.
Don't strain yourself, SDSAB dude. That has to be the worst Straight Dope column ever written.
  #19  
Old 08-12-2018, 11:53 AM
susan's Avatar
susan susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Coastal USA
Posts: 8,894
Why is Neptune a planet but Pluto isn't? Again, the categorical line gets drawn somewhere. I presume Europe/Asia was grandfathered in because it's an old us-and-them cultural distinction.
  #20  
Old 08-12-2018, 08:33 PM
glowacks glowacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,874
Take a look at the areas of all the largest land masses on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_by_area

(in millions of square km, to 2 significant digits)
Africa-Eurasia: 85 (30 Africa, 55 Eurasia (10 Europe, 45 Asia))
America: 43 (25 North, 18 South)
Antarctica: 14
Australia: 7.6
Greenland: 2.1
New Guinea: .79
Borneo: .75
Madagascar: .59

If one takes the actual land masses and ignores the human division into separate landmasses due to isthmuses, then it looks like Australia-Greenland is the best dividing line, at somewhat greater than 3.5 times. America is only just over 3 times as large as Antarctica, and is readily divisible into two separate land masses not much larger than the southern polar continent themselves. But there's still a big difference between Greenland the next largest islands, not really all that much smaller than the multiplicative difference between Greenland and Australia. After that the islands get smaller much more slowly and there's no good dividing lines at all other than maybe Sumatra(443k) at around twice the size of Honshu(226k). But Sumatra, Madagascar, Borneo, and New Guinea don't exactly feel all that more major than Honshu, Great Britain, Sulawesi (Celebes), Java, Luzon (Philippines), Newfoundland, Cuba, Iceland and the two main New Zealand islands, although maybe one could make an argument they are, and should be classified as a "Major Island" or something. Other than some sparsely populated ones in northern Canada that no one cares about, that's it for 100k km^2 land masses. After that is the second largest of the Philippines (Mindanao), Ireland, Hokkaido, Hispaniola, Sakhalin, Sri Lanka, Tasmania, Terra Del Fuego, and the largest island in the Amazon Delta (Marajo), which are all for 40k or more neglecting more ones in very cold areas no one cares about much. No real lines to draw anywhere there.

I propose the following nomenclature:

Major continents: Africa-Eurasia, America
Middling continents: Antarctica, Australia
Minor continent: Greenland
Major Island: New Guinea, Borneo, Madagascar, Sumatra

But really, artificially separating New Guinea, Borneo, and Sumatra out from Java and Sulawesi seems strange.

Last edited by glowacks; 08-12-2018 at 08:37 PM.
  #21  
Old 08-14-2018, 05:43 PM
dtilque dtilque is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,055
As far as New Zealand goes, current thinking is that it is indeed part of a continent: Zealandia
  #22  
Old 08-14-2018, 11:10 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Is Central America part of North American continent or part of South America ... Panamanians will tell you the canal is what separates the two continents ...
That's quite wrong. No Panamanian would say that. Latin Americans and many Europeans consider the Americas to comprise a single continent, rather than to be divided into two. Panamanians who live on either side of the canal certainly don't consider themselves to live on different continents.

Geologically speaking, Costa Rica and Panama originally comprised a separate island arc that formed between North and South America, and so technically belong to neither. However, they became attached to North America as a peninsula long before they collided with South America. And northwestern Colombia is actually part of of that same geological structure, and so if one demarcated the boundary between North and South America geologically then that area would best be considered part of North America. (Also, a large chunk of Siberia also belongs to North America, geologically speaking.)

As with planets, continents were defined in antiquity according to non-scientific criteria. Trying to retroactively define continents scientifically is pointless. Continents are defined culturally.

As has been said, the boundary between the smallest continent and largest island is arbitrary. The largest gap in size is between Australia and Greenland, so it's convenient to place the dividing line there.

Last edited by Colibri; 08-14-2018 at 11:12 PM.
  #23  
Old 08-14-2018, 11:25 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,135
Did it ever say anywhere that a continent had to be an entire contiguous landmass?
  #24  
Old 08-15-2018, 03:08 AM
Sloe Moe Sloe Moe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 76
In just one of the many opinion sites, there were four reasons:

1. Australia and Antarctica are geologically distinct continental land mass while Greenland is just a minor accretion from North America, the same way the British Isles and Borneo appear to be subordinated to the European landmass and the Asian landmass, respectively.

2. AA have unique flora and fauna while G doesn't (iffiest reason.)

3. AA have unique cultures while G doesn't (what???)

4. Local opinion: mixed sentiments for AA but consistent "island" pronouncement for G
***

# 1 already looks good to me, though I'm not an Earth scientist.
  #25  
Old 08-15-2018, 10:27 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloe Moe View Post
1. Australia and Antarctica are geologically distinct continental land mass while Greenland is just a minor accretion from North America, the same way the British Isles and Borneo appear to be subordinated to the European landmass and the Asian landmass, respectively.
However, North America is linked to Eurasia by continental shelf in exactly the same way that North America is linked to Greenland. By that argument, Eurasia and the Americas are a single continent. (And as I mentioned above, eastern Siberia is geologically part of North America.)

As I said, any attempt to come up with a scientific definition of continent that conforms to the traditional number of continents (even if one considers Eurasia to be a single continent) is doomed to failure. Any such definition will either have exceptions or inconsistencies, or will be completely artificial. Continents are basically whatever we say they are; there is no scientifically valid definition.
  #26  
Old 08-15-2018, 10:46 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 13,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtilque View Post
As far as New Zealand goes, current thinking is that it is indeed part of a continent: Zealandia
Current thinking by some scientists. It's not even universally accepted by scientists in the field.
  #27  
Old 08-15-2018, 10:52 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,053
I still think it's absurd to consider "The Americas" to be a single continent, especially if you're also considering Europe and Asia as separate. If you try to cut the outline of the Americas out of a piece of paper, it's going to fall apart somewhere in the vicinity of Panama. Likewise, if you try to cut out Eurasiafrica, Africa is going to fall off. But no way is Eurasia going to come apart.
  #28  
Old 08-15-2018, 01:55 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Current thinking by some scientists. It's not even universally accepted by scientists in the field.
Actually, it's the geologists' version of clickbait. The authors get more attention by making such an extraordinary claim. Given that there is no standard definition of a "geological continent," identifying Zealandia as one is ridiculous. I'm surprised a journal like the GSA would have published something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I still think it's absurd to consider "The Americas" to be a single continent, especially if you're also considering Europe and Asia as separate. If you try to cut the outline of the Americas out of a piece of paper, it's going to fall apart somewhere in the vicinity of Panama. Likewise, if you try to cut out Eurasiafrica, Africa is going to fall off. But no way is Eurasia going to come apart.
Your problem is that you are expecting the definition of continents to make sense.

Last edited by Colibri; 08-15-2018 at 03:40 PM.
  #29  
Old 08-15-2018, 02:24 PM
dtilque dtilque is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Current thinking by some scientists. It's not even universally accepted by scientists in the field.
Maybe it's just a dwarf continent....
  #30  
Old 08-15-2018, 06:50 PM
John W. Kennedy John W. Kennedy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chatham, NJ, USA
Posts: 5,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Did it ever say anywhere that a continent had to be an entire contiguous landmass?
You could write a whole book about the subject, and the answer would be different in different languages and at different times. 300 years ago, in English, there were only two “continents”, the Old World and the New World. But the seven-continent system is the one that is current in English today.

By the way, the word continent is related to the word contain.
__________________
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. Taliessin through Logres: Prelude
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017