WIP: unnamed Earh-like planet

[groovey]

Hello again.

I've fixed Pixie's first two suggestions, at least I hope so (let me know if boundary btw nº2 and 3 has to be even more close to the west).

About the third point, so instead of nº6 getting subducted into nº7 and 5, it's the opposite, both nº 7 and nº5 are subducted into nº6, is that right?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the curvature of the boundaries though, is it that nº6 has to have concave boundaries instead of convex, since it's the one "eating" the other two plates?


Anyway, while I get that clarified, I worked on the boundaries and decided to use a very simplified version of the style Akubra used, without those little straight lines vertical to the boundaries, which of course make a tectonic map more realistic, but also more time consuming to make. I will add little triangles to indicate subduction on the next session, which leads me to the question I haven't been able to answer myself:

- From what I've read and what I see in Earth's tectonic maps, in convergent boundaries not 100% of the times subduction happens. At least in maps I've seen blue lines (convergent), but without subduction triangles (which are placed in other blue areas in the same map). Is that appreciation correct? If so, what determines when subduction does occur and when not?

So here's what I got now (some boundaries around nº6, 7 and 5 are still black until I fix point nº3 Pixie pointed out in a previous post). It looks pretty 'meh' really, visually, not pretty at all to put in a book, but well, if it manages to convey the information it'll do.

02. Tectonics (02-06-14)V3.jpg02. Tectonics (02-06-14)V3 (with Poles).jpg

(Sigh) I feel like I'm missing something very important, because right now the tectonic map is predominantly divergent, which I guess is plausible (Earth itself looks that way to me, would you say so?) but still... and I haven't been able to identify any transformation boundary (there are cases when one side of the boundary moves laterally, but the other is convergent or divergent, so together they don't create a transformation boundary), which seems very, very suspicious to me. So what is it that I'm missing?

Edit: um, just realized most transformation boundaries are in fact those little vertical lines that break up the boundaries, but not all transformation boundaries are vertical lines, are they? I'm thinking of my fab transformation boundary: the San Andreas Fault. So is it that I just don't have any of those, or I have but I don't see them?


Thanks a lot Akubra! It's weird how much I love the word "groovy", especially since it's such an American thing (and from the 60's/70's), so I love that you brought it up.