Comment on “Comparing Paleomagnetic Study Means With Apparent Wander Paths: A Case Study and Paleomagnetic Test of the Greater India Versus Greater Indian Basin Hypotheses” by David B. Rowley

Abstract

Key Points The paper by Rowley incorrectly argues that paleomagnetic data do not support a Greater India Basin Hypothesis The APWP predicted by a fully continental Greater India hypothesis is systematically offset from and thus inconsistent with the data Paleomagnetic data render the chance that continental Greater India was ever thousands of kilometers wide negligible

Drift velocity partitioning indicates anomalous high velocities for the Indian plate during ~65 Ma

“…Paleogeographic reconstruction positions India in close proximity to spreading centres at the western and southern margins before the plume interaction at ~70-65 Ma (Van Hinsbergen et al 2019, Rodriguez et al 2021, Parsons et al 2021. The Indian subcontinent formed less than ~50% (roughly about 35-40%) of the total area of the Indian plate, which was dominantly comprised of oceanic lithosphere.…”

Drift velocity partitioning indicates anomalous high westward drift component for the Indian plate during ~65 ± 2 Ma

“…Paleogeographic reconstruction positions India in close proximity to spreading centres at the western and southern margins before the plume interaction at ~70-65 Ma (Van Hinsbergen et al 2019, Rodriguez et al 2021, Cande and Stegman 2011, Parsons et al 2021. The Indian subcontinent formed less than ~50% (roughly about 35-40%) of the total area of the Indian plate, which was dominantly comprised of oceanic lithosphere.…”