If the fossil evidence showed that the plants in Svalbard had lived long ago in a subpolar climate, Alfred Wegener would have used this information to support his theory of continental drift.
Wegener's theory proposed that the continents were not fixed in their positions but had moved over time. He suggested that all the continents were once part of a supercontinent called Pangaea and had gradually shifted to their current positions over millions of years. According to Wegener, the apparent fit between the coastlines of South America and Africa was evidence of this movement.
If the fossil evidence from Svalbard indicated that it had once existed in a subpolar climate, Wegener would have argued that this supported his theory. He would have reasoned that for the plants to have lived in Svalbard, the landmass it was once attached to must have been located closer to the equator where a subpolar climate does not exist today. This would imply that the landmass underwent significant movement to its current high latitude position.
Wegener also used fossil evidence from plants and animals to argue for continental drift. He pointed out that the same fossil species were found on continents that are now separated by vast oceans, such as the Glossopteris plant in South America, Africa, India, Australia, and Antarctica. This distribution pattern indicated that these continents were once connected and had since drifted apart. Therefore, if the fossil evidence from Svalbard revealed similarities with other distant regions that were once connected, Wegener would have seen this as additional evidence supporting his continental drift theory.
Overall, if the fossil evidence from Svalbard showed plants that lived long ago in subpolar climates, Wegener would have interpreted it as evidence of continental drift and further proof that the Earth's continents had moved over time.
How would Wegener have interpreted the fossil evidence if it showed the plants at Svalbard in Norway livedlong ago in a subpolar climate
1 answer