I was talking to a fellow the other day who insisted that Australia the continent is now Australia-New Guinea. I thought I would have heard the announcement, and I hadn’t, so I checked Wikipedia and the it seems to say that Australia is still a continent, but hedges a bit as one gets down to the body of the text.
There is no real rigorous definition of a continent. Any definition is necessarily arbitrary. But historically Australia has generally been considered to be a continent, and this remains the case.
Australia and New Guinea lie on the same tectonic plate, so they are part of the same block of continental crust. There is a shallow underwater connection between them, and they did form a single continental mass when sea levels were lower during the Ice Ages.
There may be some geographer somewhere who for this reason advocates considering Australia and New Guinea as the same “continent,” but this is not the conventional definition. By the same standard, Eurasia and North America would also have to be considered to be the same continent, since there is a broad shallow-water connection between them across the Bering Sea. England, Ireland, Japan, Sumatra, Ceylon, Sumatra, Borneo, and Java would all be part of Eurasia as well.
The Wikipedia article on the word “continent” (in English, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent), states that only Antarctica and Australia meet the strictest common definition of the word “continent”. See the section “Separation of continents”, first paragraph, second sentence, second clause.
Perhaps your friend heard that one definition of continent is a landmass plus its surrounding continental “shelf”, and therefore reasoned that since New Guinea is only separated from Australia by relatively shallow shelf seafloor, the two are one “continent”.
Or, he/she reasoned that both New Guinea and Australia are on the same tectonic plate.
Or, he/she had someone explain plate tectonics to him/her and misunderstood it.
Or he/she is a fount of slightly askew knowledge. It has been known to happen!:smack: I once heard a woman claim with “authority” that Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker for you young-uns) had been the companion of Martha Raye for many years. Hunh? Despite the fact that he was married to someone at the time?
Of course, she was thinking of Mark Harris. Knowledge is a gigantic game of Telephone.
In Mexico it has always (since I started paying attention anyways) been taught that Australia was part of Oceana, the continent that includes Oz, New Zealand, New Guinea, and all the Polynesian islands, including Hawaii.
Geographically (and traditionally) Australia – the body of land with five states (but not Tasmania), Northern Territory, and the ACT, consitutes one of the seven continents – or six if you count Eurasia as a single megacontinent.
Geomorphologically Australia constitutes the core of a single coherent land unit, albeit presently divided by shallow seas, that also includes Tasmania and New Guinea. By the same token, however, North America also includes Newfoundland, the Arctic Archipelago, the Aleutians, and Greenland – but not California west of the San Andreas (including Baja).
One frame of reference is not better or more modern than the other – each has its appropriate place. One cannot hike from Melbourne to Hobart, despite their being part of the same geomorphological unit. In about 100,000,000 years, the La Brea Tar Pit (or its location at least) will be due west of the Alberta Tar Sands.
The Latin American definition of the continents differs significantly from that typically used in the US and other English-speaking countries. For one thing, “America” is considered to be a single continent rather than two. “Oceania” does not correspond to a continent according to the usual anglophone concept, but rather to a geographic region.