Talk:Isthmus of Panama

message: I find this sentence slightly misleading : "ancestors of bears, cats, dogs, horses, llamas, and raccoons all made the trek south across the isthmus". It suggests that bears, dogs, cats, horses, llamas and raccoons evolved in South America. I don't think this is scientifically accurate. I am sure that for example the domestic cat evolved in Africa. --Minotaur500 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means that they moved south from North America to South America. Cats means the cat species native to the new world. The way, the truth, and the light 22:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading ? 

message: I thought it might be worthy of note that the isthmus's formation 3 million years ago would have been during the Pliocene period, when sea levels were higher than current levels. --Minotaur500 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pliocene sea level 

message: Yes, a nice article, but what is the width of the isthmus?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.103.56 (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width 

message: The geology section has been lifted wholesale from http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4073 74.164.41.7 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: Evidence proved that the isthmus was not originally a bunch of islands with the gaps filled in - it was originally a peninsula of Central America (therefore a North American peninsula) that was joined with South America after millions of years of continual impact from the tectonic plates moving underneath. The Geology section needs editing but I am not one qualified to rewrite. Just sharing the information!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.187.139 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The date for the final connect seems to be given different estimates, too. In the lead section it says 3 million years ago, further down we meet the date 4.5 million years ago. The same discrepancy is found over the space of several other WP articles that mention this link-up. Dates from different books, no doubt. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Five years later, and the problem seems to have only gotten worse. The opening section of this article states, pretty definitively, that "the isthmus formed around 2.8 million years ago". However, the article later says that "by no later than 4.5 million years ago, an isthmus had formed between North and South America" and even "that by 10 million years ago, it is likely that instead of islands, a full isthmus between the North and South American continents had already likely formed". These are wildly contradictory dates and require some clarification. 74.71.64.153 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Isthmus of Panama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703163503/http://web.princeton.edu/sites/english/eng321/WAFER.HTM to http://web.princeton.edu/sites/english/eng321/WAFER.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Geology section is currently a mess, with no flow or narrative, I was thinking about reorganizing it into 2 sections the fully supported view and possible contradicting evidence, any thoughts? Sansos (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some minor edits to the section -- updated the source link for the bit about glacier formation, and tried to clarify some of the language regarding the lack of concensus on when the Isthmus actually formed in terms of geological time. I think breaking it into two sections could be a good way to clarify things.  Lt Cmdr Laika (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I reorganize the geology section? 

message: I think we could provide a more holistic historical review of the Isthmus that provides some deep environmental as well as Indigenous historical context. I think the purpose of this section should be to explain the historical significance of the Isthmus itself, as well as the social and ecological developments that have taken place, rather than a list of historical events that only focuses on the post-Columbian history. 
Without making the section too long, as the history of the Isthmus is covered on other pages, I think this section could cover a bit more ground in terms of the role of the Isthmus in the globalization of empire and commerce.  Lt Cmdr Laika (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section