Talk:Wallace Line

message: I suggest that the second paragraph be deleted as it absolute rubbish.  
According to the Plate Tectonics theory, the subduction zone of the Australian plate beneath the Asian Plate, is reflected by the Sunda Trench and the line of volcanoes of Java, Bali, Lombok, etc., i.e.it trends E-W. In other words, the movement is parallel to the Wallace line - NOT across it.Sahul
There is NO evidence of a subduction zone along the Wallace line...
Duncan France (sorry, no tild on the keyboard I am presently using...)
(This was Duncan France, posting at 12:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to this commentary, there is an article on the Sunda Plate. Regards, DPdH (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Subduction zone along the Wallace Line

message: The article explains what the Wallace line is well enough but doesn't explain why it exists very much. It briefly mentions that some birds refuse to cross even a small stretch of open water but that thats about all. But obviously there are many islands many probably seperated by more then 35km. I assume it has something to do with what plate tetonics and where the islands 'came' from but it's not explained particularly well. Nil Einne 10:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is something like this: the seas between mainland South East Asia, Sumatra, Borneo, Java and Bali are all relatively shallow and have in the relatively recent past be one land mass when sea levels were lower. Thus animals are much more likely to spread down from Asia. On the other hand, between Bali and Lombok, and between Borneo and Sulawesi, the seas are relatively deep and the afore-mentioned land bridge never extend to across, hence the boundary ie, Australian animals never went up into SE Asia mainland and vice versa (of course, at some point in time animals were crossing over but that is so far back that since then Australasia and Asia evolved differently. As for why the water is so much deeper, I don't know. It doesn't seem like plate tectonics --Merbabu 12:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not clear 

message: To make the article easier to understand for children (and other nonscientists) I suggest replacing the words ‘volant’ and ‘non-volant’ with ‘flying’ and ‘non-flying’ respectively. Is there any reason not to do this? --Mathew5000 21:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over-use of technical terms in documents intended for a wide and not necessarily technical audience are indeed annoying. But, I still think the term has a place here. Thus, how about upon the first use of the term it is linked and we add "(non-flying)"? --Merbabu 05:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an improvement, but what is the rationale for including the word "volant" at all? Is there any difference in meaning between the phrases "non-volant species" and "non-flying species"? Unless there's a difference in meaning, I'd say just use the term that people will understand, without using the technical term at all. For example, the word "volant" does not appear in the articles Flying and gliding animals, Insect flight, Bird flight, or Flightless bird. --Mathew5000 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: children have (and wish) to learn.... rather everywhere than somewhere:) As well as adults. Wiki is just a good place. That applies to some funny (and even useless) scientific words too... so we have to keep balance between 'hard'n'boring' and 'try to say nothing new and curious'. Many childish books, as i remember suffer of the latter and were boring too. So let's do not construct a wall between 'scientific' language and 'lay'-language. Still i try to use simple words in real-life, where there's no need to use strange and huge -isms (adds no correctness). I don't know what to do in this case:) Just be carefull, it's important, the other side i talk about. Children do not feel bad when they know many words. Let them know. Still they feel bad when find too many too ugly words at the one page they trying to understad. Sorry, if there're flaws in my English:)--85.141.88.247 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, i have no opinion as about 'volant'/flying:) 85.141.88.247 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word ‘volant’ 

message: I'm planning some edits here...
Here i'll list any flaws i cann't correct now... for somebody who can.
:0. May be i'll bring here some grammatic errors. Sorry:)
:1. 35 km. The article on Lombok strait mentions 18 at the shortest point and 40 at the other end. Some other source mention 15 miles... dont know which numbers are correct. It doesn necessarily mean something - at the glasiation heighth the strait was more narrow... But better to check and explain, what does men 35 (any other number). I thought it's 'shortest distance' when it's not.
:... I'll add more. 
--85.141.88.247 01:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flaws 

message: I know this article is about the Wallace Line, but the first and third maps (at the RHS) also show Lydekker's Line (as well as the Weber Line). However, Lydekker's Line west of Irian Jaya doesn't follow the same route! In the first map Lydekker's Line is east of Misool Island, while in the third it's west of Misool Island. Which is correct? (The first map is used in the page on Lydekker's Line, so that's no help!) Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No thoughts from anyone? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lydekker's Line 

message: Why does Huxley Line redirect to this article, and the term "Huxley Line" appears in red in the map at the top right, but the term "Huxley Line" appears nowhere in the article's text? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "Huxley Line"

message: I believe that it would be less controversial to change Alfred Russell Wallace to be referred to as British instead of Welsh in this article. He was born in Wales, but never considered himself Welsh and referred to himself as English. A fair summation of the issue is found here http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/FAQ.htm#Welsh. As we are not going to settle if he should be referred to as English or Welsh, British would therefore be the less controversial descriptor.
The typical Wiki policy for nationality is to use legal or administrative nationality, except in the UK in cases where the individual is clearly identified with one of the four countries. It's not necessarily based on birthplace. For example David Lloyd George was born in England but described as Welsh. Similarly so is Saunders Lewis, one of the founders of Plaid Cymru. Alfred Russell Wallace cannot be clearly identified with one of the four countries, he was born in Wales, considered himself English (not Welsh) and grew up in England, and often discussed his Scottish ancestry, so British should be used --Jonith1 (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's also been previously established on the Alfred Russel Wallace page to refer to him as British for these exact reasonsJonith1 (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality of Alfred Russel Wallace 

message: — Assignment last updated by beanstash (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BioEE1610 Writing in the Majors

message: The text reads “Based on that, he re-drew Wallace’s boundary placing the Philippines to the west of the division and coined it as “Wallace’s Line”, although Wallace himself refused to include the Philippines to the west.”
 The two first illustrations seem to suggest the opposite. The red Huxley line goes to the west of the Philippines but Wallace’s line is to the east of them. Is this an error in the labelling of the first image? Djewesbury (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  East or west