The great Seas and Rivers of the Supercontinents.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Some or all of the seas and rivers we have on earth today , were once in another form, on, or around, previously existing Supercontinents.

 

If I understand it correctly what is left of the Tethis sea is a band running down the Mediterranean sea across through the Persian gulf and across with India missing , ?

 

But we need to go back further in time to the early Supercontinents.

 

 

Mike

Edited May 29, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

The French for bread is pan and a specific type of bread available in the UK is called a pan loaf. However, the pan in question is the pan, or tray the bread is baked in.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The French for bread is pan and a specific type of bread available in the UK is called a pan loaf. However, the pan in question is the pan, or tray the bread is baked in.

 

Pan ? does he mean Pan-gea,? .. -- .. No. That was much later .

 

The Super continent of Gondwanaland was ,I understand the first supercontinent at what is now the south pole.

 

The Land of Gonds . Edward Suess in Vienna . coined the idea. I believe .?

 

Mike

[Ophiolite]

Some or all of the seas and rivers we have on earth today , were once in another form, on, or around, previously existing Supercontinents.

Some, yes; all, no.

 

 

If I understand it correctly what is left of the Tethis sea is a band running down the Mediterranean sea across through the Persian gulf and across with India missing , ?

Incorrect. Tethys remains are Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Aral Sea.

 

The first supercontinent was Ur. Gondwanaland is not considered a supercontinent by all. See this.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Some, yes; all, no.

 

 

Incorrect. Tethys remains are Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Aral Sea.

 

The first supercontinent was Ur. Gondwanaland is not considered a supercontinent by all. See this.

So I am trying to understand what happened to all the contents of the amazon and the Congo , went before Pangea split . Were they combined to be a super massive river flowing in to the Tethys sea .?

Edited May 31, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Essay]

When the continents were down in the land of the Gonds, those rivers were not there, as you suggest ...I'm fairly sure, but no expert. The rivers result from climate, and the resultant deposition of precipitation; very often depending upon mountains and topography to concentrate and direct the runoff.

 

I don't know about Africa, but for S. America, the Andes Mountains are much less than 50 million years old (more like 20-40, iirc), and are associated with the westward push of S.America as the Atlantic opened ...I'm fairly sure. And those mountains are critical to ...making the whole system work (sorry to get non-specific there, but the Amazon is a unique case; not just related to mountain effects).

The Amazon Jungle generates enough moisture, through evapotranspiration, to affect its own climate; bringing in more moisture to help generate that fantastic river system.

 

But the point is that the Amazon Jungle did not exist before the Andes mountains rose high enough to help create the right conditions... I think! I hope somebody will correct my impressions and assumptions (which are based on casual studies of paleoclimatology and paleosols, and a standard education in biochemical ecology and evolution).

===

 

Though of course now that I think more about it, since at some point the juncture of S. America and S. Africa, and W. Antarctica were buried under many gigatonnes of ice (probably enough to cause them to break apart), then the ice may have helped generate some topographic relief and proto-river channels ...especially as Africa and South America moved towards the equator and the planet warmed again.

 

But ultimately, it is the position of the continents relative to the bands of precipitation and dry zones, and the interaction of monsoon flows and mountains and (the development of) tropical glaciers, that determines where a river is going to arise; not some quality of the continental structure, which remains situated to unchangingly spring forth water, regardless of where or what latitude any continent happens to drift around into.

 

~ I'm fairly sure....

 

p.s. I think back in the Gond [and/or Pangea, or later] times, South American was much flatter and flooded by a 'giant' inland shallow sea, which drained to the North (just as with N. America), through Venezuela;

and was such until after the Andes formed, along with Caribbean and Isthmus changes ...again, well within the past 50 million years.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Essay

[Ophiolite]

I agree with Essay's general remarks, apart from the peculiar suggestion that the mass of ice could have caused the continents to break apart. In a word: no.

 

In particular the Amazon is assuredly a child of the Andes.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

O.K. But with the huge landmasses locked together ,as they were. Even though as you say there were not the current mountains, I suppose there would thus be more desserts . But any evaporating moisture would have precipitated somewhere. or was it like the planet Venus with general cloud everywhere?

 

Even though not following existing river courses, would the rain not have flowed some where and cut great valleys, and may not some of these be in part in some of the river courses of say :- the Missisipee, rhine, thames,,congo,nile, yucon ,collerado the russian river that flows north Etc Etc [ spellchecker gone in to overload] . Those or it , supercontinent were vast land masses collecting a lot of water to run somewhere ? Say looking at these pebble beds at Budleigh Salterton , was there possibly a big river flowing down what is now the English Chanel ? Then much further south. ? As part of Pangaea.

 

Supercontinent name Age (Ga: billions of years ago, Ma: millions of years ago)

 

Ur (Vaalbara) ~3.6-2.8 Ga

Kenorland ~2.7-2.1 Ga

Protopangea-Paleopangea ~2.7-0.6 Ga

Columbia (Nuna) ~1.8-1.5 Ga

Rodinia ~1.25-0.75 Ga

Pannotia ~600 Ma

Pangaea ~300 Ma

Above taken from wikipedia article on Supercontinents re Opheolite reference

 

mike

Edited June 2, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

Mike, no one is saying that there were no rivers. Of course there were rivers, but these followed the contours and configuration of the lands of that time. You seem not to have thought through the vastness of the changes that have occurred to the geography of our planet.

 

You mention the Thames. It is flowing over Cretaceous and post Cretaceous sediments. Those were deposited in shallow seas that cover the area that now forms the Thames's catchment. There was no proto Thames until a few million years ago, when it was a tributary of the Rhine.

 

And we know about ancient rivers at many scales. The Carboniferous of the UK was laid down in a great delta from a vast river coming off of the major mountain chain to the North, the Caledonides. In the North Sea, using modern seismic, we can delineate individual stream beds from a meandering river. But your hopes of a three hundred million year predecessor for say the Congo are slim at best.

 

You are correct that during the Permian and the Triassic, with a supercontinent, there was a lot of interior and therefore a lot of desert.

 

I suggest you Google Scholar Proto-Congo and Proto-Nile. Let us know what you find.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike........ your hopes of a three hundred million year predecessor for say the Congo are slim at best.

 

You are correct that during the Permian and the Triassic, with a supercontinent, there was a lot of interior and therefore a lot of desert..........

 

I suggest you Google Scholar Proto-Congo and Proto-Nile. Let us know what you find.

 

Yes , I will do some research, and see what I can gather.!

--------------

.STORY .. I think my past research exploration into the Pre -cambrian was tough.. As a ficticious adventure :-

 

My time in the pre-cambrian was another world, but as I entered the Pre Cambrian border I noticed these small Trilobites. As the times went by through the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian ., They got bigger and bigger and more adept , then , not long now as I reached for the Devonian,Carboniferous and the Permian , so at home near Exeter, and the Jurassic coast....

 

----------------

...But I need to return ,by more research, to find the foundations of these ancient Rivers.

 

Mike

 

..

Edited June 2, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A morsel of information about ancient rivers and seas in Pennsylvania of today

 

Courtesy of ROCK DOCTOR

 

Pennsylvania Rivers Shown on the Map (in alphabetical order): The Allegheny River, Beaver River, Clarion River, Conemaugh River, Conewago Creek, Conodoguinet Creek, Delaware River, French Creek, Juniata River, Lackawanna River, Lackawaxen River, Lehigh River, Loyalsock Creek, Mahoning Creek, Monongahela River, Ohio River, Penns Creek, Pine Creek, Raystown Branch Juniata River, Redbank Creek, Schuylkill River, Susquehanna River, Swatara Creek, West Branch Susquehanna River and Youghiogheny River.

---------------------------------////---------------INLAND SEAS. AND RIVERS --------------------///---------

Before the ancient supercontinent Pangea collided with then separated from Africa, most of Pennsylvania was covered by an inland sea coming in from the West. This sea slowly retracted, leaving continuous land broken by rivers and their tributaries and ponded areas.

--------------------------------///----------------------------- --------------------

 

Particularly Pennsylvania

 

http://freepages.school-alumni.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~florian/rockdoctor/geography/rivers/pa-rivers.html

 

 

Also More generally

 

http://magdale.co.uk/page32/styled-5/styled-7%20mountain%20building/index.html

 

And. Explaining the word " Orogeny "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny

 

 

 

Mike

Edited June 14, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

First research ,shows talk of inland shallow seas at the heart of the supercontinent before it split. Rivers are said to feed these shallow seas, where warm shallow waters allow algae to flourish. ( red and green algae) .

Note the feed river in my artists impression has hints of red ,green and yellow .

Also note the major outflow in the distance . ( possibly toward the ocean surrounding the supercontinent )

The second picture shows a partially ,dried up river inflow to the shallow sea.[

 

 

 

Mike

Edited June 14, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I Can not get over the fact that it takes me just half an hour to slip down to the coast at Exmouth. The far East end of the beach is ORCOMBE POINT.

On setting foot there is a Huge Public Presentation " You are at the Oldest rocks Of the Jurassic coast, of the world heritage Site.

 

Reading from the information placks

" Although the red rocks are the remains of a baking hot desert. we also know that GREAT RIVERS sometimes flowed across the sand. These POWERFUL RIVERS torrents of gravel and pebbles out into the desert. You can see thick layers caught in the cliffs to the East, near Budleigh Salterton.

......cliffs reveal that SHALLOW LAKES sometimes formed ,when rivers flooded the desert. "

 

Seeing as we are at the end of the Permian period at Orcombe Point ( then some 250,000,000 years ago ) We were much nearer if not on the Equator.

So these rivers with their warm lakes in the desert would contribute to the scene of great rivers and inland shallow warm seas.

 

Just some 250,000,000 year old rocks I picked up from the sea bottom while swimming snorkeling on Sunday .

 

The red ones ( iron coloured ) are how Orcombe Point looks like

The pebble beds east at Budleigh Salterton. ( part of Jurassic Coast )

Edited June 23, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Essay]

Hi Mike, I don't know about the specifics, but I've been forming general impressions of continental evolution and want to explore these notions we form of what it must have been like back then.

 

One impression, I try to focus on, is how much more different "weather" can be, compared to what we consider as the bounds of extreme weather. Especially with the continents in different positions and one global ocean (more or less) back then, patterns of weather, "seasons," and climate were very alien ...at least for some long stretches of continental evolution.

 

The picture you describe seems more like a mega-flash flood scenario, rather than a giant, ceaselessly flowing river. Various monsoon-like weather patterns could produce those sorts of mixtures of sediments. Another possibility could be variations of glacial mega-floods or glacial lake drainages. Especially at the end of the Permian, many glaciers or ice sheets were retreating as things warmed, volcanism/rifting rose, and Pangea broke apart ...more or less.

 

With various orientations of continents and ocean and/or seaways, I'd expect this planet could sustain a relatively "stationary" storm, like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, for at least one season if not for multiple years. Flash floods may have persisted for months or years, eroding away the continents in ways we wouldn't expect. Giant hail storms, if either regular or sporadically persistent, could present a barrier to migrations or mixtures of plant and animal species, as well as greatly speeding up erosion.

 

I just try to remember that what we now consider to be a climate with "extreme weather," looks like a flat line, when compared to graphs of the climate variations and changes covering many long periods of the continents' tortured histories.

 

~ signing off due to lightning storm "currently" outside!

Edited June 24, 2014 by Essay

[Ophiolite]

Flash floods may have persisted for months or years, eroding away the continents in ways we wouldn't expect. Giant hail storms, if either regular or sporadically persistent, could present a barrier to migrations or mixtures of plant and animal species, as well as greatly speeding up erosion.

Do you find any evidence in sedimentary record to support these speculations? I am unaware of any, but then I haven't looked too closely. Those who have looked closely have not, to my knowledge, raised queries about appropriate peculiarities in the rock record. For that reason I strongly suspect your speculation, while interesting, is groundless.

 

(Of course you could argue that groundless, or less ground, is exactly what you would expect with extensive erosion. )

[Acme]

 

Flash floods may have persisted for months or years, eroding away the continents in ways we wouldn't expect. Giant hail storms, if either regular or sporadically persistent, could present a barrier to migrations or mixtures of plant and animal species, as well as greatly speeding up erosion.

Do you find any evidence in sedimentary record to support these speculations? I am unaware of any, but then I haven't looked too closely. Those who have looked closely have not, to my knowledge, raised queries about appropriate peculiarities in the rock record. For that reason I strongly suspect your speculation, while interesting, is groundless.

 

(Of course you could argue that groundless, or less ground, is exactly what you would expect with extensive erosion. )

 

I agree that Essay mixes different scenarios and the above quoted suggestion of continuous heavy precipitation seems unfounded. He does however earlier say " Another possibility could be variations of glacial mega-floods or glacial lake drainages." which don't require continuous precipitation and for this we do have evidence at least in the US. I happen to live on top of 100's of feet of such flood deposits and turn up river rock of considerable variety in my garden everyday. I'm referring of course to the Missoula floods, and while they are of geologically recent origin such events could have taken place in the more distant past. Still, that they would survive from the time frames of super continents does seem a stretch and like you I have never seen such a mention.

 

Edit: In the spirit of Mike's photographs and rock-hounding, here's a shot of a little bowl of Missoula flood rocks that I have collected from the garden.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Acme

[Ophiolite]

The history of this issue is interesting. In the early 19th century, as geology emerged as a distinct science, major battles were fought over the underlying principles. The Neptunists and Plutonists argued over whether crystalline rocks such as granite were deposited from ocean waters, or formed by cooling of magma. The Catastrophists and Uniformitarians debated whether distinct and different events in the past, such as Noah's Flood, had generated the landscape, or if this was down to the slow, persistent application of the forces we see at work today.

 

Ultimately the Plutonists and Uniformitarians won the day. In the latter case this produced, in some cases victory for dogmatism over pragmatism. Researchers were blind to some evidence because it would have required invoking an apparently Catastrophist view. Your example of the Missoula floods and the general resistance of the geological community to their reality is one. The failure to recognise that extinction events a) existed, or b) might be due to a singular event rather than slow trends, until the Alvarez father and son team came along, is another.

 

So it may be, as I think you imply, that we have failed to see evidence for excessive erosion in the past, because we have failed to look for it. On the other hand, fickle fashion, has decreed that looking for elements of catastrophe is a good way to make a name for yourself, so I continue to suspect that the absence of evidence is, in this case, evidence of absence.

[Essay]

As mentioned, "...I've been forming general impressions of continental evolution and want to explore these notions we form of what it must have been like back then." And those "various" scenarios I suggested as "another possibility" or "various ...patterns" or "various orientations" were just speculation on "these notions we form" about what "could be."

 

Some of the things that "I'd expect this planet could sustain," are based somewhat from an online Climate Science class that I took (and passed) this past semester. Very different ocean and continental conditions and positions would strongly affect how solar heat would be distributed around the planet, which is what "the weather" is driven by.

 

While the Plutonist explanation covers the big picture, the Neptunists were probably seeing the evidence remaining from the extensive formation of evaporites. Extensive, broad and shallow, inland seas were common, and might be evidence of relatively "persistent" rainstorms; similar to the Amazon during flood season, except for all year long. Even today, the Amazon Forest, by countering enough of the normally prevailing atmospheric forces, generates it's own [more regular and persistent] weather! But that all depends on well-evolved biosystems and soils, which didn't begin contributing as much (to climate or erosion) until the most recent few hundred million years.

 

The continents, for so much of their histories, were smaller and flatter (and often somewhat bowl-shaped?), and often enough at a poor latitude for facilitating planetary (atmospheric/oceanic) heat flow, that continental weather/climate was probably boring to the extreme for eons enough. I think there is evidence for long and regular accumulations of sediments, which even reflect (long and regular) Milankovitch patterns, from over a hundred million years ago; so some places obviously avoided major disruptions or extremes for long periods. But for particular coastlines or latitudes, or when the continents would travel through certain orientations, whatever weather pattern that could develop would likely have been more extreme and persistent than what we are familiar with in today's "temperate/zonal," and more highly seasonal, climate.

 

...istm ...speculatively.

~

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

As mentioned, "...I've been forming general impressions[

...istm ...speculatively.

~

Essay and Ophiolite

 

I am a little over awed ,at the moment , by all these , images, time periods , oceans forming, mountains forming, over huge periods of tme.

 

One thing that seems to be coming through , if I am not mistaken , is that what I have been looking for, by Way of evidence , by old evidence of RIVERS and INLAND OCEANS are out there in the Atlantic Ocean . Somehow!

 

Mike

 

With all this ' iapetus ocean ' Scotland, avalonia , etc

 

 

 

I am trying to form an image in my head ,...As to what I would see... If I was on a river bank and a shallow inland warm sea , by way of life,.

Namely what plants , creatures I would see. And what skies I would see ?

 

Then I can paint it !

E.g.

One I painted , a while ago , when I was on ' mass extinction events '

 

Edited June 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Am I correct in saying then , that the start of inland shallow seas are likely to arise, or start to form in the " BASINS " which appear to accompany " Orogeny " .

 

( Mikes ) Musings :-

In other words, the Tectonic process causes the Orogeny .The mountain ranges thus formed being uplifted . The water evaporates from the large oceans, and having drifted inland by spinning earth, convection and Coriolis effect , precipitates on the uplifted mountains. With ice action and erosion the material and water flow to the basins nearby , depositing their grit and stone, The water making the large inland rivers and shallow inland warm seas, around and in the the basins. The surplus water making the large rivers of the land masses. ? Or is this an over simplification?

 

 

 

Light Blue= Uplifted Mountains Associated Darker blue= the Basins ( thus possible location of Shallow inland warm seas ?? )

 

Then Large rivers would exit these inland seas to the oceans ? Am i getting the picture, or am I at sea ( eeuuh )

 

Mike

Edited June 27, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Essay]

Am I correct in saying then , that the start of inland shallow seas are likely to arise, or start to form in the " BASINS " which appear to accompany " Orogeny " .

 

( Mikes ) Musings :-

In other words, the Tectonic process causes the Orogeny .The mountain ranges thus formed being uplifted . The water evaporates from the large oceans, and having drifted inland by spinning earth, convection and Coriolis effect , precipitates on the uplifted mountains. With ice action and erosion the material and water flow to the basins nearby , depositing their grit and stone, The water making the large inland rivers and shallow inland warm seas, around and in the the basins. The surplus water making the large rivers of the land masses. ? Or is this an over simplification?

 

 

 

Light Blue= Uplifted Mountains Associated Darker blue= the Basins ( thus possible location of Shallow inland warm seas ?? )

 

Then Large rivers would exit these inland seas to the oceans ? Am i getting the picture, or am I at sea ( eeuuh )

 

Mike

 

Mike, the most stunning fact (I recently learned ...and which helped stimulate my interest in continental development) about the "planet's crust" is that:

 

....The oldest ocean floor (most of the planet's crust) is only 200 Million years old! Yet the oldest parts of continents are over 4 Billion years old; so most of the planet's crust has cycled 20 times (one might extrapolate) since the continents first started floating around as pieces of the lighest planetary crust, riding around on these huge and random conveyor belts of slightly [2 to 4%] heavier, rapidly recycling, crust... I'm thinking.

 

And these original "floating" masses would accrete island (arc) chains onto their perimeter as they would run into the island arcs during their travels... more or less... in addition to breaking apart and/or adding some land volcanically of their own. As you noted, compression may cause uplift of mountains or plateaus (such as China and Colorado), but buoyancy due to heating from below (as in hotspots) also contributes to a lot of the uplift and growth of mountains and plateaus.

 

My interest is the basins which fill in with eroded sediments, and how these turn into kilometers-deep rock formations. I'm thinking they are not deep when formed; but that the basin sinks as more sediments are deposited, while always staying roughly level with the (perhaps flooded) surface. ...thus over time, pushing down into the continent and perhaps deforming the lighter continental crust downward into (or more "firmly" onto) the mantle. Ice, built up to several kilometers in height over certain parts on a continent, might also have similar effects.

 

To a large degree (afaik) those "basin" deposits/sediments were the first soils. That is probably too over-generalized, but until life (plant life) came up onto the continents roughly 500 Mya, soils wouldn't exist except as sandy or silty sediments; but with no clay or organic matter to bind the grit together.

 

I saw the Nature Episode "Fabulous Frogs" last night. Those were the first "animals" to come up onto the land they said (well, amphibians in general, such as salamanders, etc., ...whatever was evolving then) ...except for the insects, which were already here on the land, as Nature "explained" it. But what I found interesting was that they said the land, at that time, was a barren rocky landscape covered in black algae!

 

Black algae! Well that won't translate well into your paintings, but as a highlight or offset it could be worked in, I'll bet. But I think the (slick/shiny?) black algae is interesting for several reasons. It would be the first large source of organic matter to help bind the sediments into soils, as well as being a food source for insects perhaps, and also a source of acids to help dissolve nutrients from the rocks ...perhaps too. ALSO the sun was a little fainter back then, and maybe the skies were hazey enough that plant pigments needed to be "darker" to be able to absorb a wider range of wavelengths. It was still mostly hot and humid, even when there was ice building up in certain areas, often enough for tens-of-millions of years back in those early days; though at times the ice took over, and things got cold and dry (along with cold and wet; or later, hot and dry) often enough for long stretches too.

 

But don't think the "barren rocky landscape" was completely devoid of plant life, even before the animals (frogs) came up onto land. Rockworts and various primitive plants took over whatever areas they could exploit, I'm sure; and then the ferns came along (once enough soil had built up, I suppose) to reach up above the surface more than just a few inches. But I don't know the timing of those different (evolutionary) plant successions, in relation to when the amphibians came to dominate.

 

The evolution of lignin (wood) is a very interesting story too, but that is a hundred million years or so later.

 

[Edit] The show said frogs came from amphibians that arrived about 300 Mya, and by 250 Mya were starting to look more like frogs (but still not yet real frogs). Wikipedia says that by 200 Mya the early roots of modern frogs developed, and that by 150 Mya "true" frogs had appeared. Lignin had already appeared by that time (I thought the amphibians were earlier). "Now a new genomic analysis suggests why Earth significantly slowed its coal-making processes roughly 300 million years ago—mushrooms evolved the ability to break down lignin."

"The 60-million-year-long Carboniferous period—when the bulk of the world's coal deposits were laid down and atmospheric CO2 levels declined—ended roughly 300 million years ago. The coincidental timing suggests the appearance of this ability to break down lignin helped slow the massive burial of organic carbon via nondegraded tree trunks and other wood, such as the lignin-rich fernlike plants known as arborescent lycophytes, now extinct."

 

...so The Carboniferous ...was a period of Global Tree Pollution!

 

~ Happy Hunting!

Edited June 27, 2014 by Essay

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike, the most stunning fact (I recently learned ...and which helped stimulate my interest in continental development) about the "planet's crust" is that:........

 

....

I saw the Nature Episode "Fabulous Frogs" last night. Those were the first "animals" to come up onto the land they said (well, amphibians in general, such as salamanders, etc., ...whatever was evolving then) ...except for the insects, which were already here on the land, as Nature "explained" it. But what I found interesting was that they said the land, at that time, was a barren rocky landscape covered in black algae!

 

 

Black algae! Well that won't translate well into your paintings, but as a highlight or offset it could be worked in, I'll bet. But I think the (slick/shiny?) black algae Ois interesting for several reasons. It would be the first large source of organic matter to help bind the sediments into soils, as well as being a food source for insects perhaps, and also a source of acids to help dissolve nutrients from the rocks ...perhaps too. ALSO the sun was a little fainter back then, and maybe the skies were hazey enough that plant pigments needed to be. " darker" to be able to absorb a wider range of wavelengths. It was still mostly hot and humid, even when there was ice building up in certain areas, often enough for tens-of-millions of years back in those early days; though at times the ice took over, and things got cold and dry (along with cold and wet; or later, hot and dry) often enough for long stretches too.

But don't think the "

barren rocky landscape" was completely devoid of plant life, even before the animals (frogs) came up onto land. Rockworts and various primitive plants took over whatever areas

 

~ Happy Hunting!

 

I am ordering up a ' shed load ' of black paint for my next picture of inland basins and near rocks ! Everything seems very dark !

 

 

What do you reckon ! So far !

 

Mike

Hang about ! I just need to take a second charge on my property , so the bank will lend me the money to buy all the black paint ! Has anyone got a match it's mighty dark around here !

Edited July 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Here is a start :-

 

Rockworts

 

Black slimy algae

care of turbosquid.com

Black slimy algae coating the rocks beside the river

 

Mike

Edited July 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Essay]

Sorry Mike, I should have said liverworts, rather than rockworts.

 

[<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - about 1 inch - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->]

 

...but I'm glad you found some black algae. I was starting to wonder if "black algae" might only be mixed colonies of red and green algae ...or maybe just dead "golden algae" (The Chrysophyceae, usually called chrysophytes, chrysomonads, golden-brown algae or golden algae are a large group of algae, found mostly in freshwater... per wikipedia).

 

Sorry about leading you astray; rockwort sounds so primitive, but apparently all worts are not the same!

 

 

~

Edited July 2, 2014 by Essay

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm glad you found some black algae.

 

~

Rattled off two early attempts this morning. Give me some feedback.

 

Like bigger inland seas , ? salamander bigger? more glaciers , no volcanoes, darker sky's, whatever

Perhaps I ought to do a picture looking down at the waters edge, eyeballing the Salamander in among some liverwort herbage , sloshing about knee deep in black algae slime ?

 

 

Mike

Edited July 2, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos