This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain
This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Tectonic evolution of Patagonia, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
First of all congratulations to the originator and main contributor of this article. I have a comment to make in regarding the docking "theories". Isn't what is called here "autochthonous theory" really not a para-autochthonous theory? So far as I am concerned a 2014 paper writen by Robert John Pankhurst and coworkers sort of dismiss Víctor Alberto Ramos' allochthonous theory (not sure if this theory is still alive) arguing for a para-autochthonous theory. Mamayuco (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi Mamayuco,
Thanks! To be honest, I had some difficulty in deciding how to distinguish between the two theories, as different papers referred to them in different ways. While Pankhurst's theory has been called a para-autochthonous one, so has Ramos' "allochthonous" theory, and the two have been referred to as autochthonous and allochthonous as was used in this article. I chose to name them as I did (autochthonous & allochthonous) to try to avoid confusion between the two, although they both seem to be variations of a "para-autochthonous" scenario. Also, while Pankhurst et al. (2014) did somewhat dismiss the theory, theirs was the only paper to do so outright and Ramos' theory was very prominent in many of the papers referenced for the page so I thought it good to discuss. Feel free to make any changes if things don't make sense, and thanks for your addition to the article! Coalnoise (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Coalnoise, I fully agree with you that there seem to be no clear "allochtonous" theory. Given the few works on this topic I is difficult to balance the views. If one source says A, and the other B, but one judges that B has a better argument how should we weight this?
I am in favour of reorganizing the docking section presenting 1) points all seem agree on 2) presenting the autochtonous theory as the main one 3) mentioning other alternatives as well but clearly stating the autochtonous theory advantages. Mamayuco (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
