who sang get me to the world on time

The Electric Prunes are an American psychedelic rock band, formed in Los Angeles, California, in 1965.[1] Much of the band's music was, as music historian Richie Unterberger described it, possessed of "an eerie and sometimes anguished ambiance", and, early on, mainly consisted of material by songwriters Annette Tucker and Nancie Mantz, though the group also penned their own songs.[2] Incorporating psychedelia and elements of embryonic electronic rock, the band's sound was marked by innovative recording techniques with fuzz-toned guitars and oscillating sound effects. In addition, guitarist Ken Williams' and singer James Lowe's concept of "free-form garage music" provided the band with a richer sonic palette and exploratory lyrical structure than many of their contemporaries.[3][4][5]

The Electric Prunes

The band was signed to Reprise Records in 1966 and released their first single, "Ain't It Hard", in the latter part of the year. Their first album, The Electric Prunes, included the band's two nationally charting songs, "I Had Too Much to Dream (Last Night)" and "Get Me to the World on Time". With the appearance of their second album, Underground, the band was more free to create their own material.[6] However, the original group disbanded by 1968 when they proved unable to record the innovative and complex arrangements by David Axelrod on the albums Mass in F Minor and Release of an Oath. Both albums were released under the band's name, the rights to which were owned by their record producer David Hassinger, but were largely performed by other musicians.[7] Several of the original band members reconvened in 1999 and began recording again.[6] The band still performs occasionally, although the only remaining original member is lead singer James Lowe.

The band originated from a surf rock-influenced garage rock group, the Sanctions, in 1965. The Sanctions, which included James Lowe (vocals, guitar), Mark Tulin (bass guitar), Ken Williams (lead guitar), and Michael "Quint" Weakley (drums), recorded 12 cover songs on an acetate disc on March 27, 1965, in a home studio owned by Russ Bottomley. For their next set of recordings on September 29, 1965, the group, then known as Jim and the Lords, was joined by keyboardist Dick Hargrave, who left shortly afterwards to pursue a career in graphic arts. The songs went unreleased until Heartbeat Productions distributed the 2000 album, Then Came The Electric Prunes, which was commended for its good sound quality, considering the circumstances in which it was recorded.[8][9] Back to a quartet, the band, while rehearsing in a garage, met a real estate agent named Barbara Harris. Harris had connections in the music industry, and introduced the group to Dave Hassinger to record demos at Sky Hill Studios. Hassinger, who had been working as the resident sound engineer at RCA Studios, recently completed development for The Rolling Stones' album, Aftermath, and expressed a desire to produce a record. He suggested to the group that they change their name, and they considered a list of alternatives. According to Lowe, the name Electric Prunes started off as a joke, but he eventually convinced other band members, saying, "It's the one thing everyone will remember. It's not attractive, and there's nothing sexy about it, but people won't forget it."[8][10] As a result of the recordings, a single, featuring a cover of the Gypsy Trips' folk rock tune, "Ain't It Hard", and the Lowe-penned song, "Little Olive", was released in early 1966, but failed to chart.[11]

Despite the commercial failure of "Ain't It Hard", Reprise Records was encouraged by the group's effort, and signed the band to a recording contract that left them under Hassinger's authority. Weakley departed the band after the single, and was replaced by Preston Ritter, and rhythm guitarist James "Weasel" Spagnola was recruited to make The Electric Prunes a quintet. Although the band was composing their own material, Hassinger called upon songwriters Annette Tucker and Nancie Mantz to write the majority of the group's songs.[2] The new line-up recorded six demos at American Recording Studio and Leon Russell's studio. These mainly comprised cover songs and Tucker-Mantz compositions. According to Lowe, while at Russell's recording studio, "Dave cued up a tape and didn't hit'record,' and the playback in the studio was way up: ear-shattering vibrating jet guitar. Ken had been shaking his Bigsby wiggle stick with some fuzztone and tremolo at the end of the tape. Forward it was cool. Backward it was amazing. I ran into the control room and said, 'What was that?' They didn't have the monitors on so they hadn't heard it. I made Dave cut if off and save it for later." The fluttering buzz sound was utilized for the opening to the Tucker-Mantz song, "I Had Too Much To Dream (Last Night)", which also included a heavily-textured psychedelic guitar motif. The song was chosen to be released as The Electric Prunes' second single in November 1966. It peaked at number 11 on the Billboard Hot 100 and reached number 49 on the UK Singles Chart. The success of the single prompted immediate touring, and earned the group a promotional contract with musical equipment makers Vox. Williams recorded an advert, demonstrating the use of Vox's wah-wah pedal in early 1967, and the band was featured in magazines such as Vox Teen Beat.[12][13]

The band's follow-up single, "Get Me to the World on Time", which put distorted sound effects to a psychedelic-tinged Bo Diddley beat, was released in May 1967. The song managed to chart at number 27 in the US and number 42 in the UK, and was the most electronically experimental composition by the group thus far.[14] When it came time for The Electric Prunes to record songs for their first album, they were limited musically due to the predominate presence of Tucker and Mantz's (also Jill Jones) songwriting partnership, which composed the majority of the album's material. The group's debut album, The Electric Prunes possessed exotically-combined effects, and violin-like guitar riffs, mixed with a diverse, and somewhat uneven, selection of pop songs, with only "Train For Tomorrow" and "Luvin'" being penned by the band. Tracks such as the soft rock tune, "Onie" and "Toonerville Trolley" suggest inconsistency in an attempt to produce a commercially viable sound. Reflecting on the album, Tulin said, "Consequently there are definitely songs that I believe do not belong on the album and were, in fact, a waste of our time and energy. There were several other ideas we were working on, but [we] realized there was no use pursuing them because they too would have been 'too weird.'"[2][15]

In July 1967, the band released their fourth single, one of the more unusual compositions to come from the pen of the Tucker-Mantz songwriting duo, "Dr. Do-Good". The song, which featured Williams playing a prototype steel guitar, and childlike to maddening vocals, was described by music historian Richie Unterberger as "sounding more like a horror movie theme run amok than a radio-ready hit", and consequently the single bubbled under the Hot 100 at number 128.[14][16] The Electric Prunes reconvened at American Recording Studios to record their second album, Underground, though Hassinger was not as involved in the band's activities, which allowed much more creative freedom to the group to write their own material. For the album, the band wrote seven of the twelve tracks, and expanded upon the experimentation of the first album, with inventive guitar reverb and oscillation, in a unified effort.[16] However, in the middle of the recording sessions the line-up went through changes when Ritter departed for musical differences, and was replaced by original drummer Weakley, who appeared on five tracks. Spagnola left near the conclusion of recording to address medical concerns, and Mike Gannon was recruited to finish the album. Gannon was included on just two songs as well as the non-album track, "Everybody Knows You're Not In Love".[13] In August 1967, Underground was released, but, without a hit-ready single, did not fare as well on the Billboard 200, where it peaked at number 172.[17] After a U.S. tour in the latter half of 1967, the new line-up embarked on a European tour and this led to appearances at high-profile venues such as The Roundhouse, The Speakeasy Club and Middle Earth. On the final leg of the tour, The Electric Prunes' performance was recorded in Stockholm by the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation. The recordings were issued in 1997 on the live album, Stockholm '67.[18][19]

At the suggestion of manager Lenny Poncher and Hassinger, The Electric Prunes agreed to record a concept album that integrated Gregorian music into psychedelic pop, with the belief it would launch them into commercial success.[20] Poncher recruited David Axelrod, a formally neo-classically trained musician, to compose all of the material for the project. The result, Mass in F Minor, was a complex arrangement of religious-based rock, which was sung entirely in Latin. Although the band did record the songs "Kyrie Eleison", "Gloria", and "Credo", the intricate orchestration proved to be too difficult and time-consuming for the group. As a consequence, Hassinger enlisted the Canadian group, The Collectors, among other session musicians, in completing the album, although Lowe, Tulin, and Weakley did contribute to every track.[21] Mass in F Minor was released in January 1968 and reached number 135 on the Billboard 200.[20] An eerie version of the opening track, "Kyrie Eleison", became somewhat of an underground favorite when it appeared in the soundtrack for the counterculture film, Easy Rider.[22] The Electric Prunes performed with the new songs in concert just once, at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, which Tulin described: "From the outset the performance was a disaster. We missed the intro on the first song and it never got any better. Amp speakers blew, charts fell off music stands and everyone was, in general, in a complete state of confusion. Ended up each song turned into one long jam. I think we were, at times, all in the same key. I made my way over to the four celli and four French horns and told them to 'jam in E.' Somehow we would hit a break and James would manage a vocal".[21] As a result of financial and musical issues, Weakley and Lowe left the group in early 1968. Tulin and Williams finished a tour with a line-up that also included Kenny Loggins and Jeremy Stuart, but by mid-1968 they too departed the group.[23]

Nonetheless, Hassinger still owned the rights to The Electric Prunes's name, and was encouraged by the success of Mass in F Minor, which prompted him to assemble a new line-up. He was steered toward the Colorado group, Climax, by Rich Fifield. Fifield had worked in fellow Colorado band, Hardwater (previously the surf rock band The Astronauts), which was managed by Poncher, and produced an album with Axelrod. The new Electric Prunes line-up included Climax members Richard Whetstone (vocals, guitar), John Herron (organ), and Mark Kincaid (guitar) with Brett Wade (bass guitar), who was recommended by The Collectors.[24] With the group restructured, Axelrod, again, composed all the material for their next album, in the same vein as the previous effort, and centered it around the Jewish prayer, Kol Nidre. The album, titled Release of an Oath, utilized several session musicians including Howard Roberts, Carol Kaye, and Earl Palmer, and saw Whetstone as the only band member to contribute to the recordings. Although the album was considered more cohesive and progressive than its predecessor, it failed to chart upon its release in November 1968.[25][26] Afterwards, Axelrod returned to his past position at Capitol Records, and The Electric Prunes toured as a supporting act for bands such as Steppenwolf, Canned Heat, and New Buffalo Springfield.[27]

The band's final album, Just Good Old Rock and Roll, was released in June 1969 with the cover describing the group as The "New Improved" Electric Prunes. Herron left the group before they completed recording of the album, though he was still credited as the keyboardist. He was replaced by Ron Morgan, who had been the guitarist of Three Dog Night, and an essential session musician for the first three albums released by The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band. With the exception of "Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers", which was co-written by Jimmy Holiday, all the songs on Just Good Old Rock and Roll were composed solely by the band. In addition, Wade composed "Flowing Smoothly", the B-side to the non-album single, "Hey, Mr. President".[28][29]

Just Good Old Rock and Roll is much more straightforward than past works, consisting of funk-influenced hard rock, although "So Many People to Tell" and "Silver Passion Mine" also exhibit a late-psychedelic sound. As Whetstone explains, "We were fairly naive in terms of guidance; we had none, so we were experimenting with a lot of musical styles. If you listen to the album, you'll hear a lot of diversity, feel and tempo changes...That was our learning curve."[24] In early 1970, Whetstone and Wade departed the band and moved to Canada where they formed Stallion Thumbrock. Morgan and Kincaid constructed another line-up of The Electric Prunes that included Michael Kearns, Clay Groomer, Huey Plumeigh, and Galen Pugh; however, by mid-1970 the band dissolved.[27]

Although the band broke up in 1970, their material continued to be circulated through reissues and compilation albums. Following the inclusion of "I Had Too Much to Dream (Last Night)" as the first track on the seminal Nuggets: Original Artyfacts from the First Psychedelic Era, 1965–1968 in 1972, a slow return of interest in the band's music began. On the 1998 release of the album, "Get Me to the World on Time" was included as well.[30] In Europe, the band's albums were re-released, with 1986 seeing the reissue of Underground, Release of an Oath, and, essentially The Electric Prunes's first greatest hits album, Long Days Flight. This was the first album to include their first single, "Ain't It Hard", the non-LP track "You Never Had It Better", and the first to be released on the compact disc format in 1989.[10]

By 1997, all of the group's albums were available via compact disc. Following the release of the 1997 live album, Stockholm '67, on Heartbeat Records, the original line-up of Tulin, Lowe, Williams, and Weakley (now known as Fortune) reconvened, in 1999, to record new material for the first time in 31 years. After the success of the 2001 compilation album, Lost Dreams, the band began to perform live again along with new members.[30]

On October 31, 2001, the band released the album, Artifact, which included several guest musicians, most notably former Moby Grape guitarist, Peter Lewis. Deemed the "one we never got to make", the album was a cohesive take on the band's psychedelic sound.[31] In August 2002, the group toured Europe for the first time since 1968, with concerts in the UK and Greece and, in 2003, a DVD looking into the UK portion of their European tour, called Rewired, was released. Additional albums were released over the years, including the concept album, California, in 2004, and their most experimental album since The Electric Prunes's reformation, Feedback, in 2006.[32]

On February 26, 2011, Tulin died aged 62 from a heart attack while volunteering at the University of Southern California Catalina Hyperbaric Chamber. After Tulin's death, the band went on hiatus, but returned to touring in 2013.[33] On May 22, 2014, the band released WaS, which featured new material inspired by the group's tour in Tokyo, Japan. The album includes the last recordings with Tulin, and the two live tracks, "Smokestack Lightning" and "Bullet Thru the Backseat".[34]

Preston Ritter died in 2015, aged 65.[35]


how many of the biosphere reserves from india are recognised by the unesco

Eleven of the eighteen biosphere reserves are a part of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, based on the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme list.[1][2][3][4]

Biosphere reserves of India

The Indian government has established 18 Biosphere Reserves in India,[1] (categories roughly corresponding to IUCN Category V Protected areas), which protect larger areas of natural habitat (than a National Park or Animal Sanctuary), and often include one or more National Parks or preserves, along with buffer zones that are open to some economic uses. Protection is granted not only to the flora and fauna of the protected region, but also to the human communities who inhabit these regions, and their ways of life. Animals are protected and saved here.

In 2009, India designated Cold Desert of Himachal Pradesh as a biosphere reserve. On September 20, 2010, the Ministry of Environment and Forests designated Seshachalam Hills as the 17th biosphere reserve. Panna (Madhya Pradesh) was scheduled to become the 18th on August 25, 2011.[1]

Following is the list of potential sites for Biosphere Reserves as selected by Ministry of Forests and Environment:[7]
The


a portrait of the artist as filipino full story

Set in the Filipino world of pre-World War II Intramuros of Old Manila in October 1941,[3] the play explores the many aspects of Philippine high society by telling the story of the Marasigan sisters, Candida and Paula, and their father, the painter Don Lorenzo Marasigan. Due to an artistic drought on Don Lorenzo's part, the family has to make ends meet by relying on the financial support provided by their brother Manolo and sister Pepang, who were urging them to sell the house.[5] Later on, they also had to take a male boarder, in the person of Tony Javier.[7] Don Lorenzo, who refused to sell, donate, or even exhibit his self-portrait in public, was only content in staying inside his room, a stubbornness that already took a period of one year.[3] The painting has attracted the attention and curiosity of journalists such as a family friend named Bitoy Camacho, and other obnoxious visitors pretending as art critics.[3] When one of the daughters, Paula, elopes with Tony, a journey of personal liberation is set in motion, which ends with a restoration of family relations which had been strained due to the neediness of the artist's family.[7] The theme focuses on family conflict and the amalgamation of old Filipino identity and cultural character with the arrival of contemporary and Western ideals.[5]

A Portrait of the Artist as Filipino

The A Portrait of the Artist as Filipino, known also as'A Portrait of the Artist as Filipino: An Elegy in Three Scenes[1] is a literary play written in English by Filipino National Artist for Literature Nick Joaquin[2] in 1950.[1][3] It was described as Joaquin’s “most popular play”,[1][4] as the "most important Filipino play in English",[5] and as “probably the best-known Filipino play”[6] Apart from being regarded also as the “national play of the Philippines”[7] because of its popularity, it also became one of the important reads in English classes in the Philippines.[8] Joaquin’s play was described by Anita Gates, a reviewer from New York Times, as an "engaging, well plotted metaphor for the passing of Old Manila."[3]

Before the Second World War, many Filipino intellectuals and artists  – including painters, as personified by Don Lorenzo Marasigan  – searched for cultural enlightenment from Spain, the first imposer of colonialism and authority in the Philippines. This group of Filipinos was acquainted with the Spanish language and customs. After the split of Philippines from Spain, the United States became the replacement model for cultural enhancement, where English language and materialism became a part  – as personified by the boarder Tony Javier  – thus marginalizing native tongues and culture within the process. During this period, the Philippines was also plagued by the looming war, frequent blackouts, and untrustworthy characters of the existing nightlife in Old Manila.[5][7]

After Joaquin wrote A Portrait of the Artist as Filipino in 1950, it was first published in Weekly Women's Magazine and Prose and Poems in 1952 and then aired on radio before being formally presented on stage in 1955. It premiered at the Aurora Gardens of Intramuros, Manila, through the performance of the group known as the Barangay Theater Guild (BGT).

BGT shortened the script and featured Daisy Hontiveros-Avellana as Candida and Dolly Benavides as Paula, who was later on replaced by Naty Crame-Rogers. The production was directed by Lamberto Avellana.[9]

There have been Tagalog translations. In 1969, Krip Yuson and Franklin Osorio wrote a translation that was staged by Philippine Educational Theater Association and later on by UP Repertory.[9]

In 1989, Bienvenido Lumbera wrote a translation titled "Larawan" that was staged by Tanghalang Pilipino (TP). It was restaged in 1992 (featuring Celeste Legaspi and Noemi Manikan-Gomez[9]) and 2000. TP also staged a Spanish translation by Lourdes Brillantes in 2000.[10]

In 1993, Dulaang UP staged the English and Bievenido Lumbera Tagalog translation.[11]

In 1997, Musical Theater Philippines (Musicat) staged a Tagalog musical adaptation titled “Larawan” at Tanghalang Nicanor Abelardo, Cultural Center of the Philippines. Translation and lyrics by Rolando Tinio, music by Ryan Cayabyab, featuring Celeste Legaspi as Candida and Zsa Zsa Padilla as Paula (Rachel Alejandro took over in the second run). Cast included Roeder Camañag as Bitoy and Ricky Davao as Tony Javier. The chorus consisted of opera singers Fides Cuyugan-Asencio, Armida Siguion-Reyna, Nomer Son, Robert Natividad and Gamaliel Viray.[12][13]

In 1997, Ma-Yi Theater Company staged the English version at Vineyard Dimson Theatre in New York City from July 26 to August 16, 1997, directed by Jorge W. Ledesma.[3]

From 1998 until 2005, the University of Santo Tomas Graduate School Academic Theater, led by then Dean of the UST Graduate School, Rev. Fr. Antonio Aureada OP, staged the play as a tribute to both Nick Joaquin and the Barangay Theater Guild in various provinces and twice abroadâ€”in South Korea in 2002 and in the USA in 2004.

In 2002, World Theater Project at Sambalikhaan staged a production that transformed the two sisters into two gay brothers, Candido played by Anton Juan and Pablito played by Behn Cervantes, directed by Anton Juan. Floy Quintos and Chelu Marques alternated as Bitoy Camacho, Raymond Bagatsing and Marco Sison alternated as Tony Javier.[14] The Cultural Center of the Philippines "allotted P1.3 million" to the production.[15]

In 2009, Repertory Philippines staged the English play (using the script of BGT) at OnStage Theater, Greenbelt 1 Mall, Makati, directed by Lamberto Avellana and Daisy Hontiveros-Avellana's son Jose Mari Avellana. He dedicated the production to his mother.[6] The cast featured Ana Abad-Santos and Irma Adlawan-Marasigan alternating as Candida, Leisl Batucan as Paula, Joel Trinidad as Bitoy Camacho and Randy Villarama as Tony Javier.[16]

On October 5, 2004, readings of Joaquin's plays, essays, and poems, entitled "Portrait of the Artist as Nick Joaquin: Celebrating the Life and Works of a Beloved National Artist", which has a similarity to the title of Joaquin's play, was presented in New York City by the Philippine Economic and Cultural Endowment (PEACE), the Ma-Yi Theater Company, and the Philippine Consulate General in New York, under the direction of Andrew Eisenman.[4] This literary event and cultural presentation is considered as the first official tribute offered to Nick Joaquin ever held in New York City.[4]

In 1965, it was adapted into a black-and-white English-language film[1] with the same title by Filipino director, Lamberto V. Avellana[17] The film[18] was produced by Manny de Leon under his production company Diadem. Cinematography was by Mike Accion, music was by Miguel Velarde. Cast included Daisy Hontiveros-Avellana as Candida, Naty Crame-Rogers as Paula, Vic Silayan as Bitoy Camacho, Conrad Parham as Tony Javier [19]

Rogers said in an interview that "There were a lot of disputes in 1965 because Nick was not keen on turning his play into a movie, but we found the right setting [an old house in BiÃ±an]."[20]

The film version received six Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences Award nominations, including a FAMAS Best Picture nomination.[21]

In 2014, the Film Development Council of the Philippines (FDCP) cofinanced the restoration of the 1965 film with Mike De Leon, son of Manny de Leon. L'Immagine Ritrovata was commissioned to do the restoration. The restored version of the film was shown at the CCP in 2015 with Naty Crame-Rogers, the only living cast member at the time, in attendance.[20]

In 2015, Butch Nolasco produced and directed "PORTRAIT: Rediscovering a Filipino Film Classic," a documentary based on the recollections of Lamberto Avellana's daughter Ivi Avellana-Cosio on the making of the movie. The documentary won first runner-up honors at the 19th GAWAD CCP Documentary Film Festival.[22]


where do blue and gold macaws come from

This species occurs in Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay. The range extends slightly into Central America, where it is restricted to Panama. The species' range formerly included Trinidad, but it became extinct there by 1970 as a result of human activities. Between 1999 and 2003, wild-caught blue-and-gold macaws were translocated from Guyana to Trinidad, in an attempt to re-establish the species in a protected area around Nariva swamp. A small breeding population descended from introduced birds is found in Puerto Rico,[1] and another has inhabited Miami-Dade County, Florida, since the mid-1980s.[5]

Blue-and-yellow macaw

The blue-and-yellow macaw (Ara ararauna), also known as the blue-and-gold macaw, is a large South American parrot with blue top parts and yellow under parts. It is a member of the large group of neotropical parrots known as macaws. It inhabits forest (especially varzea, but also in open sections of terra firme or unflooded forest), woodland and savannah of tropical South America. They are popular in aviculture because of their striking color, ability to talk, ready availability in the marketplace, and close bonding to humans.

The blue-and-yellow macaw (Ara ararauna, Linnaeus 1758)[2] is a member of the genus Ara (Lacepede 1799), one of six genera of Central and South American macaws.[3]

These birds can reach a length of 76–86 cm (30–34 in) and weigh 0.900–1.5 kg (2–3 lb), making them some of the larger members of their family. They are vivid in appearance with blue-green wings and tail, dark-blue chin, golden under parts, and a green forehead. Their beaks are black. The naked face is white, turning pink in excited birds, and lined with small, black feathers. Blue-and-yellow macaws live from 30 to 35 years in the wild and reach sexual maturity between the ages of 3 and 6 years.[4]

Little variation in plumage is seen across the range. Some birds have a more orange or "butterscotch" underside color, particularly on the breast. This was often seen in Trinidad birds and others of the Caribbean area. The blue-and-yellow macaw uses its powerful beak for breaking nutshells, and for climbing up and hanging from trees[4]

The blue-and-yellow macaw generally mates for life. They nest almost exclusively in dead palms and most nests are in Mauritia flexuosa palms.The female typically lays two or three eggs. The female incubates the eggs for about 28 days. One chick is dominant and gets most of the food; the others perish in the nest. Chicks fledge from the nest about 97 days after hatching. The male bird's color signals readiness for breeding. The brighter and bolder the colors, the better the chance of getting a mate.[6]

The blue-and-yellow macaw is on the verge of being extirpated in Paraguay, but it still remains widespread and fairly common in a large part of mainland South America. The species is therefore listed as Least Concern by BirdLife International. It is listed on CITES Appendix II, trade restricted.[1]

Even well-tended blue-and-yellow macaws are known to "scream" for attention, and make other loud noises. Loud vocalizations, especially "flock calls", and destructive chewing are natural parts of their behavior and should be expected in captivity. Due to their large size, they also require plentiful space in which to fly around. According to World Parrot Trust, an enclosure for a blue-and-yellow macaw should, if possible, be at least 15 m (50 ft) in length.[7] Captive macaws, kept with good diet, exercise, and veterinary care have been recorded to live 60 or more years.[8] People considering a macaw as a companion parrot must be aware of this and consider that the bird may outlive the owner.

Head in high detail, Vogelburg (bird park), Weilrod, Germany

Flying at Zoo de Pont-Scorff, Morbihan, France

At World of Birds, Cape Town, South Africa

Sleepy couple at Weltvogelpark Walsrode (Walsrode Bird Park, Germany)

Head of blue-and-yellow macaw

Ara ararauna in Antioquia

Extended wings Cougar Mountain Zoo


who sang dancing on my own on britain's got talent

On 11 April 2015, Scott's audition for the ninth series of Britain's Got Talent was broadcast on ITV. Just before his audition, his sister Jade also auditioned, but was stopped early on both of her songs by Simon Cowell. Jade received three "No" votes from Amanda, David, and Simon (Aleisha's vote was unannounced as it was not needed). Despite obvious nerves at seeing his sister get rejected, Calum performed a cover of Robyn's "Dancing on My Own", which he had heard Kings of Leon performing on BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge in 2013. Following a standing ovation from the judging panel, Simon Cowell pressed the Golden Buzzer giving Scott an automatic place in the live shows. Explaining his decision to send Scott straight to the semi-finals, Cowell said: "I've never ever in all the years I've done this show heard a guy with the talent you've got. Seriously. And the version was sensational, and that shows to me that you're more than a singer, you're an artist and that's why you got that (the buzzer)." After this audition, Scott received support from stars such as Little Mix and Ashton Kutcher.[8]

Calum Scott

Calum Scott (born 12 October 1988 in Kingston Upon Hull)[1] is a British singer and songwriter. He won a local talent competition in his home city in Yorkshire then he came to worldwide attention when he appeared as a contestant on the television programme Britain's Got Talent in 2015. He subsequently released his version of Robyn's hit "Dancing on My Own" as a single, which reached number two on the UK Singles Chart and became the best selling song of that summer in the UK. In 2018 he collaborated with Leona Lewis on the single "You Are the Reason".

On 15 August 2013, Scott won the talent competition Mail's Star Search, organized by Hull Daily Mail.[2] He then joined a Maroon 5 tribute band, the Maroon 4, and toured around the United Kingdom.[3] In 2014 he formed the electronic duo, The Experiment with John McIntyre.[4] The debut single, "Girl (You're Beautiful)", was released on 14 June.[5] The duo performed the song on Good Morning Britain and BBC Look North, but after, broke up.[6][7]

Following his appearance on the show's first episode, his Twitter followers jumped from 400 to over 25,000.[9] As of 23 April 2018, the audition has been viewed exactly 157,597,549 times on YouTube. In the semi-final on 29 May, Scott performed "We Don't Have to Take Our Clothes Off" by Jermaine Stewart. Cowell commented "You really sound like a recording artist", whilst David Walliams suggested that he could have "success around the world". He won the semi final with 25.6% of the vote, sending him straight through to the final. In the final on 31 May, Scott performed "Diamonds" by Rihanna and finished sixth out of 12 contestants with 8.2% of the vote. After Britain's Got Talent, Scott embarked on a series of shows around the United Kingdom, including Viking FM Future Star Awards, Flamingo Land Resort Fair, Westwood Cross Shopping Centre's tenth anniversary, Gibraltar Summer Nights, Hull Daily Mail's Star and Dartford Festival.[10][11][12][13][14][15]

Scott released his cover of "Dancing on My Own" independently on 15 April 2016. It became a sleeper hit, first hitting number 40 in the charts in May, despite little radio airplay apart from on West Hull FM, it climbed into the top 40. It was then added to Radio 2's "C List" and reached number two on the UK Singles Chart on 5 August. In August 2016, it was certified platinum in the UK, having sold over 600,000 copies.[16] Scott announced on Twitter on 24 May that he had signed a record deal with Capitol Records for his debut album.[17] Scott performed the song at television shows BBC Look North, Lorraine, Weekend, Late Night with Seth Meyers and Brazilian show Encontro com Fátima Bernardes.[18] He also promoted the song on several radio stations, including BBC Radio Humberside, Viking FM, Radio Gibraltar, BFBS Radio and Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation.[19][20][21] On 16 September, he released the promotional single "Transformar" with Brazilian recording artist Ivete Sangalo as official theme of 2016 Summer Paralympics Games.[22] They performed the song at the closing ceremony of the Paralympics on 18 September.[23] It was revealed in September 2016 that "Dancing on My Own" was the most downloaded song of the summer in the UK.[24]

In 2017, he toured the US and released the single "You Are the Reason". Also in 2017, he began working on his debut album, Only Human, which was released on 9 March 2018. A new version of "You Are the Reason" was released ahead of the album in early 2018 as a collaboration with Leona Lewis, and was performed by the two on The One Show in February 2018. In May, Scott released "What I Miss Most" as the fourth single from Only Human.


where was three days of the condor filmed

Three Days of the Condor was filmed in various locations in New York City, New Jersey, and Washington DC, including the World Trade Center, 55 East 77th Street, NYC, The Ansonia, Central Park, and the National Mall.[3][4]

Three Days of the Condor

Three Days of the Condor is a 1975 American political thriller film directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway, Cliff Robertson, and Max von Sydow.[2] The screenplay by Lorenzo Semple Jr. and David Rayfiel was based on the 1974 novel Six Days of the Condor by James Grady.[2]

Set mainly in New York City and Washington, D.C., the film is about a bookish CIA researcher who comes back from lunch, discovers all his co-workers murdered, and tries to outwit those responsible until he figures out whom he can really trust. The film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Film Editing. Semple and Rayfiel received an Edgar Award from the Mystery Writers of America for Best Motion Picture Screenplay.[2]

Joseph Turner (Robert Redford) is a CIA analyst, code named "Condor." He works in a clandestine office in New York City, which operates as a front called the "American Literary Historical Society." Turner's task is to read books, newspapers, and magazines from around the world, looking for hidden meanings and new ideas. As part of his duties, Turner files a report to CIA headquarters on a low-quality thriller novel his office has been reading, pointing out strange plot elements therein, and the unusual assortment of languages into which the book has been translated (Spanish and Dutch but not German or French, and both Arabic and Persian).

On the day that Turner is expecting a response to his report, a team of assassins arrives during the lunch hour and murders six of Turner's co-workers: the receptionist, a security officer, the elderly office director, two male researchers, and a female researcher Janice Chong (who was also Turner's girlfriend). Turner wasn't gunned down because it was his turn to pick up lunch for the office, and due to rainy weather he took a back-lobby route out of the building that the killers weren't aware existed. Returning to find his co-workers' bodies, a frightened Turner calls the CIA's New York headquarters in the World Trade Center, and is given instructions to meet his Head of Department (Wicks), who will bring him into safety. Turner independently finds that a seventh co-worker, an older alcoholic man who stayed home that day, was also murdered. The rendezvous is however a trap. Wicks murders Turner's best friend, a CIA staffer who was genuinely trying to bring him in safely, and attempts to kill Turner, who wounds his assailant before escaping himself.

Needing a place to hide, Turner forces a woman, Kathy Hale (Faye Dunaway), whom he encounters by chance in a ski shop, to take himself to her apartment in Brooklyn Heights. He holds Kathy prisoner while attempting to figure out what is going on. Hale begins to trust Turner and they become lovers. However, his hiding place is discovered by Joubert (Max von Sydow): a European contract killer who led the massacre of Turner's co-workers. Joubert spots Turner driving Hale's car and notes the license plate number. A hitman disguised as a mailman (Hank Garrett), with a parcel that requires a signature, arrives at the apartment and a fight ensues. Turner, although he has no history as a fighter or assassin, is able to ward off the "mailman" before he gets the drop on the hood and fatally shoots the gunman in front of a terrified Hale.

Deciding that he cannot trust anyone within the CIA, Turner begins to play a cat-and-mouse game with Higgins (Cliff Robertson), the Deputy Director of the CIA's New York division, and who had picked up the original report from Condor and forwarded it to Wicks back at HQ. With the help of Hale, Turner abducts Higgins, who identifies Joubert as a skilled freelance assassin with a history of contract work for the CIA. Back at his office, Higgins discovers that the "mailman" who attacked Turner in Hale's apartment worked with Joubert on a previous operation. Their CIA case officer on that occasion was Wicks.

Meanwhile, using a numbered hotel room key he found on the fake postman's body, Turner learns where Joubert is staying, then uses his skills as a former Army Signals Corps technician to trace a call made from his hotel room. This gives him the name and address of Leonard Atwood (Addison Powell); he is the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations for the Middle East and apparently senior to Higgins. Turner confronts Atwood in his Maryland mansion late at night and questions him at gunpoint. Turner learns that the report he had filed had uncovered a general operations plan to seize oil fields in the Middle East. The planning "game" is later described as a rogue project initiated without formal approval from above. Fear of its disclosure was sufficient to have Atwood privately order the elimination of Turner's section.

Joubert surprises them, takes away Turner's pistol, and then unexpectedly murders Atwood. Atwood's own superiors have hired the professional to stage the suicide of someone who was about to become an embarrassment, overriding Atwood's original contract for Joubert to kill Turner. Joubert suggests that Turner leave the country, even becoming an assassin himself since Turner had shown such resourcefulness in staying alive. Turner has no interest in becoming an assassin or leaving the U.S. However, Joubert outlines how he will ultimately be betrayed and killed (being offered a ride by a trusted friend on the first sunny and warm day of spring) and Turner clearly believes him. A sympathetic Joubert says he'll give Turner a ride to the local train station and also hands him back his pistol "for that day."

Turner goes back to New York City and meets Higgins on a busy street. Higgins defends the oil fields plan, claiming that there will be a day in which oil shortages will cause a major economic crisis for the country, and that Americans will want the government to use any means necessary to save them from discomfort. Turner says he has given the press "a story" (they are standing outside The New York Times office), presumably blowing the whistle on what he views as an increasingly volatile and a dangerously unchecked CIA. Higgins, however, questions whether the story will ever make it to print. "They'll print it," Turner replies. A moment later, an apprehensive Turner walks off -- silently contemplating the possibility that he may indeed have to continue running -- as Higgins' final question hangs in the air: "How do you know?"

The main point of variance from novel to film lies in the presentation of the CIA. In Grady's book, a rogue element within the Agency is motivated by drug-running greed. In the film, the same individuals act with equal ruthlessness to hide a project intended to protect long-term national interests.

The film earned $8,925,000 in theatrical showings in North America.[5]

Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 86% of 43 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review, and the average rating was 7.1/10; the site's consensus is: "This post-Watergate thriller captures the paranoid tenor of the times, thanks to Sydney Pollack's taut direction and excellent performances from Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway."[6]

When first released, the film was reviewed positively by critic Vincent Canby, who wrote that the film "is no match for stories in your local newspaper", but it benefits from good acting and directing.[7] Variety called it a B movie that was given a big budget despite its lack of substance.[8] Roger Ebert wrote, "Three Days of the Condor is a well-made thriller, tense and involving, and the scary thing, in these months after Watergate, is that it's all too believable."[9]

French philosopher Jean Baudrillard makes mention of the film as an example of a new genre of "retro cinema" in his essay on history in the now influential book, Simulacra and Simulation (1981):

In the'real' as in cinema, there was history but there isn't any anymore. Today, the history that is 'given back' to us (precisely because it was taken from us) has no more of a relation to a 'historical real' than neofiguration [sic] in painting does to the classical figuration of the real...All, but not only, those historical films whose very perfection is disquieting: Chinatown, Three Days of the Condor, Barry Lyndon, 1900, All the President's Men, etc. One has the impression of it being a question of perfect remakes, of extraordinary montages that emerge more from a combinatory [sic] culture (or McLuhanesque mosaic), of large photo-, kino-, historicosynthesis [sic] machines, etc., rather than one of veritable films."[10]

Some critics also described the film as a piece of political propaganda, as it was released soon after the "Family Jewels" scandal came to light in December 1974 which exposed a variety of CIA misconduct. However, in an interview with Jump Cut, Pollack explained that the film was written solely to be a spy thriller and that production on the film was nearly over by the time the Family Jewels revelations were made, so even if they had wanted to take advantage of them, it was far too late in the filmmaking process to do so. He said that despite both Pollack and Redford being well-known political liberals, they were only interested in making the film because an espionage thriller was a genre neither of them had previously explored.[11]

I didn't want this picture to be judged; it’s a movie. I intended it always as a movie. I never had any pretensions about the picture and it’s making me very angry that I'm getting pretensions stuck on me like tails on a donkey. If I wanted to be pretentious, I'd take the CIA seal and advertise this movie and really take advantage of the headlines. Central Intelligence Agency, United States of America, Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway. And don't think it wasn't suggested—obviously, that’s what advertising people do. We really put our foot down—Redford and I—to absolutely stop that.[11]

In 1997, The Association of Danish Film Directors, on behalf of Pollack, sued Danmarks Radio, claiming that their broadcasting the film in a panned and scanned version violated his copyright. The case was unsuccessful, as the rights were not owned by Pollack personally in the first place. The case is believed to have been the first legal challenge to the practice of panning and scanning for broadcast on the grounds that it compromises the artistic integrity of an original film.[13]

All music by Dave Grusin, except where noted.

In March 2015, Skydance Media in partnership with MGM Television and Paramount Television will produce a TV series remake of the film.[14] In February 2017, Max Irons was cast as Joe Turner in the series entitled Condor for Audience.[15]


the motion of earth’s plates is driven by

Tectonic plates are able to move because the Earth's lithosphere has greater mechanical strength than the underlying asthenosphere. Lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection; that is, the slow creeping motion of Earth's solid mantle. Plate movement is thought to be driven by a combination of the motion of the seafloor away from spreading ridges due to variations in topography (the ridge is a topographic high) and density changes in the crust (density increases as newly formed crust cools and moves away from the ridge). At subduction zones the relatively cold, dense crust is "pulled" or sinks down into the mantle over the downward convecting limb of a mantle cell. Another explanation lies in the different forces generated by tidal forces of the Sun and Moon. The relative importance of each of these factors and their relationship to each other is unclear, and still the subject of much debate.

Plate tectonics

Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin tectonicus, from the Greek: τεκτονικός "pertaining to building")[1] is a scientific theory describing the large-scale motion of seven large plates and the movements of a larger number of smaller plates of the Earth's lithosphere, since tectonic processes began on Earth between 3 and 3.5 billion years ago. The model builds on the concept of continental drift, an idea developed during the first decades of the 20th century. The geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory after seafloor spreading was validated in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

The lithosphere, which is the rigid outermost shell of a planet (the crust and upper mantle), is broken into tectonic plates. The Earth's lithosphere is composed of seven or eight major plates (depending on how they are defined) and many minor plates. Where the plates meet, their relative motion determines the type of boundary: convergent, divergent, or transform. Earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain-building, and oceanic trench formation occur along these plate boundaries (or faults). The relative movement of the plates typically ranges from zero to 100Â mm annually.[2]

Tectonic plates are composed of oceanic lithosphere and thicker continental lithosphere, each topped by its own kind of crust. Along convergent boundaries, subduction, or one plate moving under another, carries the lower one down into the mantle; the material lost is roughly balanced by the formation of new (oceanic) crust along divergent margins by seafloor spreading. In this way, the total surface of the lithosphere remains the same. This prediction of plate tectonics is also referred to as the conveyor belt principle. Earlier theories, since disproven, proposed gradual shrinking (contraction) or gradual expansion of the globe.[3]

The outer layers of the Earth are divided into the lithosphere and asthenosphere. The division is based on differences in mechanical properties and in the method for the transfer of heat. The lithosphere is cooler and more rigid, while the asthenosphere is hotter and flows more easily. In terms of heat transfer, the lithosphere loses heat by conduction, whereas the asthenosphere also transfers heat by convection and has a nearly adiabatic temperature gradient. This division should not be confused with the chemical subdivision of these same layers into the mantle (comprising both the asthenosphere and the mantle portion of the lithosphere) and the crust: a given piece of mantle may be part of the lithosphere or the asthenosphere at different times depending on its temperature and pressure.

The key principle of plate tectonics is that the lithosphere exists as separate and distinct tectonic plates, which ride on the fluid-like (visco-elastic solid) asthenosphere. Plate motions range up to a typical 10–40 mm/year (Mid-Atlantic Ridge; about as fast as fingernails grow), to about 160 mm/year (Nazca Plate; about as fast as hair grows).[4] The driving mechanism behind this movement is described below.

Tectonic lithosphere plates consist of lithospheric mantle overlain by one or two types of crustal material: oceanic crust (in older texts called sima from silicon and magnesium) and continental crust (sial from silicon and aluminium). Average oceanic lithosphere is typically 100 km (62 mi) thick;[5] its thickness is a function of its age: as time passes, it conductively cools and subjacent cooling mantle is added to its base. Because it is formed at mid-ocean ridges and spreads outwards, its thickness is therefore a function of its distance from the mid-ocean ridge where it was formed. For a typical distance that oceanic lithosphere must travel before being subducted, the thickness varies from about 6 km (4 mi) thick at mid-ocean ridges to greater than 100 km (62 mi) at subduction zones; for shorter or longer distances, the subduction zone (and therefore also the mean) thickness becomes smaller or larger, respectively.[6] Continental lithosphere is typically about 200 km thick, though this varies considerably between basins, mountain ranges, and stable cratonic interiors of continents.

The location where two plates meet is called a plate boundary. Plate boundaries are commonly associated with geological events such as earthquakes and the creation of topographic features such as mountains, volcanoes, mid-ocean ridges, and oceanic trenches. The majority of the world's active volcanoes occur along plate boundaries, with the Pacific Plate's Ring of Fire being the most active and widely known today. These boundaries are discussed in further detail below. Some volcanoes occur in the interiors of plates, and these have been variously attributed to internal plate deformation[7] and to mantle plumes.

As explained above, tectonic plates may include continental crust or oceanic crust, and most plates contain both. For example, the African Plate includes the continent and parts of the floor of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The distinction between oceanic crust and continental crust is based on their modes of formation. Oceanic crust is formed at sea-floor spreading centers, and continental crust is formed through arc volcanism and accretion of terranes through tectonic processes, though some of these terranes may contain ophiolite sequences, which are pieces of oceanic crust considered to be part of the continent when they exit the standard cycle of formation and spreading centers and subduction beneath continents. Oceanic crust is also denser than continental crust owing to their different compositions. Oceanic crust is denser because it has less silicon and more heavier elements ("mafic") than continental crust ("felsic").[8] As a result of this density stratification, oceanic crust generally lies below sea level (for example most of the Pacific Plate), while continental crust buoyantly projects above sea level (see the page isostasy for explanation of this principle).

Three types of plate boundaries exist,[9] with a fourth, mixed type, characterized by the way the plates move relative to each other. They are associated with different types of surface phenomena. The different types of plate boundaries are:[10][11]

It has generally been accepted that tectonic plates are able to move because of the relative density of oceanic lithosphere and the relative weakness of the asthenosphere. Dissipation of heat from the mantle is acknowledged to be the original source of the energy required to drive plate tectonics through convection or large scale upwelling and doming. The current view, though still a matter of some debate, asserts that as a consequence, a powerful source of plate motion is generated due to the excess density of the oceanic lithosphere sinking in subduction zones. When the new crust forms at mid-ocean ridges, this oceanic lithosphere is initially less dense than the underlying asthenosphere, but it becomes denser with age as it conductively cools and thickens. The greater density of old lithosphere relative to the underlying asthenosphere allows it to sink into the deep mantle at subduction zones, providing most of the driving force for plate movement. The weakness of the asthenosphere allows the tectonic plates to move easily towards a subduction zone.[13] Although subduction is thought to be the strongest force driving plate motions, it cannot be the only force since there are plates such as the North American Plate which are moving, yet are nowhere being subducted. The same is true for the enormous Eurasian Plate. The sources of plate motion are a matter of intensive research and discussion among scientists. One of the main points is that the kinematic pattern of the movement itself should be separated clearly from the possible geodynamic mechanism that is invoked as the driving force of the observed movement, as some patterns may be explained by more than one mechanism.[14] In short, the driving forces advocated at the moment can be divided into three categories based on the relationship to the movement: mantle dynamics related, gravity related (mostly secondary forces), and earth rotation related.

For much of the last quarter century, the leading theory of the driving force behind tectonic plate motions envisaged large scale convection currents in the upper mantle, which can be transmitted through the asthenosphere. This theory was launched by Arthur Holmes and some forerunners in the 1930s[15] and was immediately recognized as the solution for the acceptance of the theory as originally discussed in the papers of Alfred Wegener in the early years of the century. However, despite its acceptance, it was long debated in the scientific community because the leading theory still envisaged a static Earth without moving continents up until the major breakthroughs of the early sixties.

Two- and three-dimensional imaging of Earth's interior (seismic tomography) shows a varying lateral density distribution throughout the mantle. Such density variations can be material (from rock chemistry), mineral (from variations in mineral structures), or thermal (through thermal expansion and contraction from heat energy). The manifestation of this varying lateral density is mantle convection from buoyancy forces.[16]

How mantle convection directly and indirectly relates to plate motion is a matter of ongoing study and discussion in geodynamics. Somehow, this energy must be transferred to the lithosphere for tectonic plates to move. There are essentially two main types of forces that are thought to influence plate motion: friction and gravity.

Lately, the convection theory has been much debated, as modern techniques based on 3D seismic tomography still fail to recognize these predicted large scale convection cells; therefore, alternative views have been proposed:

In the theory of plume tectonics developed during the 1990s, a modified concept of mantle convection currents is used. It asserts that super plumes rise from the deeper mantle and are the drivers or substitutes of the major convection cells. These ideas, which find their roots in the early 1930s with the so-called "fixistic" ideas of the European and Russian Earth Science Schools, find resonance in the modern theories which envisage hot spots or mantle plumes which remain fixed and are overridden by oceanic and continental lithosphere plates over time and leave their traces in the geological record (though these phenomena are not invoked as real driving mechanisms, but rather as modulators). Modern theories that continue building on the older mantle doming concepts and see plate movements as a secondary phenomena are beyond the scope of this article and are discussed elsewhere (for example on the Plume tectonics article).

Another theory is that the mantle flows neither in cells nor large plumes but rather as a series of channels just below the Earth's crust, which then provide basal friction to the lithosphere. This theory, called "surge tectonics", became quite popular in geophysics and geodynamics during the 1980s and 1990s.[17] Recent research, based on three-dimensional computer modeling, suggests that plate geometry is governed by a feedback between mantle convection patterns and the strength of the lithosphere.[18]

Forces related to gravity are usually invoked as secondary phenomena within the framework of a more general driving mechanism such as the various forms of mantle dynamics described above.

Gravitational sliding away from a spreading ridge: According to many authors, plate motion is driven by the higher elevation of plates at ocean ridges.[19] As oceanic lithosphere is formed at spreading ridges from hot mantle material, it gradually cools and thickens with age (and thus adds distance from the ridge). Cool oceanic lithosphere is significantly denser than the hot mantle material from which it is derived and so with increasing thickness it gradually subsides into the mantle to compensate the greater load. The result is a slight lateral incline with increased distance from the ridge axis.

This force is regarded as a secondary force and is often referred to as "ridge push". This is a misnomer as nothing is "pushing" horizontally and tensional features are dominant along ridges. It is more accurate to refer to this mechanism as gravitational sliding as variable topography across the totality of the plate can vary considerably and the topography of spreading ridges is only the most prominent feature. Other mechanisms generating this gravitational secondary force include flexural bulging of the lithosphere before it dives underneath an adjacent plate which produces a clear topographical feature that can offset, or at least affect, the influence of topographical ocean ridges, and mantle plumes and hot spots, which are postulated to impinge on the underside of tectonic plates.

Slab-pull: Current scientific opinion is that the asthenosphere is insufficiently competent or rigid to directly cause motion by friction along the base of the lithosphere. Slab pull is therefore most widely thought to be the greatest force acting on the plates. In this current understanding, plate motion is mostly driven by the weight of cold, dense plates sinking into the mantle at trenches.[20] Recent models indicate that trench suction plays an important role as well. However, the fact that the North American Plate is nowhere being subducted, although it is in motion, presents a problem. The same holds for the African, Eurasian, and Antarctic plates.

Gravitational sliding away from mantle doming: According to older theories, one of the driving mechanisms of the plates is the existence of large scale asthenosphere/mantle domes which cause the gravitational sliding of lithosphere plates away from them. This gravitational sliding represents a secondary phenomenon of this basically vertically oriented mechanism. This can act on various scales, from the small scale of one island arc up to the larger scale of an entire ocean basin.[21]

Alfred Wegener, being a meteorologist, had proposed tidal forces and centrifugal forces as the main driving mechanisms behind continental drift; however, these forces were considered far too small to cause continental motion as the concept was of continents plowing through oceanic crust.[22] Therefore, Wegener later changed his position and asserted that convection currents are the main driving force of plate tectonics in the last edition of his book in 1929.

However, in the plate tectonics context (accepted since the seafloor spreading proposals of Heezen, Hess, Dietz, Morley, Vine, and Matthews (see below) during the early 1960s), the oceanic crust is suggested to be in motion with the continents which caused the proposals related to Earth rotation to be reconsidered. In more recent literature, these driving forces are:

Forces that are small and generally negligible are:

For these mechanisms to be overall valid, systematic relationships should exist all over the globe between the orientation and kinematics of deformation and the geographical latitudinal and longitudinal grid of the Earth itself. Ironically, these systematic relations studies in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century underline exactly the opposite: that the plates had not moved in time, that the deformation grid was fixed with respect to the Earth equator and axis, and that gravitational driving forces were generally acting vertically and caused only local horizontal movements (the so-called pre-plate tectonic, "fixist theories"). Later studies (discussed below on this page), therefore, invoked many of the relationships recognized during this pre-plate tectonics period to support their theories (see the anticipations and reviews in the work of van Dijk and collaborators).[26]

Of the many forces discussed in this paragraph, tidal force is still highly debated and defended as a possible principal driving force of plate tectonics. The other forces are only used in global geodynamic models not using plate tectonics concepts (therefore beyond the discussions treated in this section) or proposed as minor modulations within the overall plate tectonics model.

In 1973, George W. Moore[27] of the USGS and R. C. Bostrom[28] presented evidence for a general westward drift of the Earth's lithosphere with respect to the mantle. He concluded that tidal forces (the tidal lag or "friction") caused by the Earth's rotation and the forces acting upon it by the Moon are a driving force for plate tectonics. As the Earth spins eastward beneath the moon, the moon's gravity ever so slightly pulls the Earth's surface layer back westward, just as proposed by Alfred Wegener (see above). In a more recent 2006 study,[29] scientists reviewed and advocated these earlier proposed ideas. It has also been suggested recently in Lovett (2006) that this observation may also explain why Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics, as Venus has no moon and Mars' moons are too small to have significant tidal effects on the planet. In a recent paper,[30] it was suggested that, on the other hand, it can easily be observed that many plates are moving north and eastward, and that the dominantly westward motion of the Pacific Ocean basins derives simply from the eastward bias of the Pacific spreading center (which is not a predicted manifestation of such lunar forces). In the same paper the authors admit, however, that relative to the lower mantle, there is a slight westward component in the motions of all the plates. They demonstrated though that the westward drift, seen only for the past 30Â Ma, is attributed to the increased dominance of the steadily growing and accelerating Pacific plate. The debate is still open.

The vector of a plate's motion is a function of all the forces acting on the plate; however, therein lies the problem regarding the degree to which each process contributes to the overall motion of each tectonic plate.

The diversity of geodynamic settings and the properties of each plate result from the impact of the various processes actively driving each individual plate. One method of dealing with this problem is to consider the relative rate at which each plate is moving as well as the evidence related to the significance of each process to the overall driving force on the plate.

One of the most significant correlations discovered to date is that lithospheric plates attached to downgoing (subducting) plates move much faster than plates not attached to subducting plates. The Pacific plate, for instance, is essentially surrounded by zones of subduction (the so-called Ring of Fire) and moves much faster than the plates of the Atlantic basin, which are attached (perhaps one could say 'welded') to adjacent continents instead of subducting plates. It is thus thought that forces associated with the downgoing plate (slab pull and slab suction) are the driving forces which determine the motion of plates, except for those plates which are not being subducted.[20] This view however has been contradicted by a recent study which found that the actual motions of the Pacific Plate and other plates associated with the East Pacific Rise do not correlate mainly with either slab pull or slab push, but rather with a mantle convection upwelling whose horizontal spreading along the bases of the various plates drives them along via viscosity-related traction forces.[31] The driving forces of plate motion continue to be active subjects of on-going research within geophysics and tectonophysics.

In line with other previous and contemporaneous proposals, in 1912 the meteorologist Alfred Wegener amply described what he called continental drift, expanded in his 1915 book The Origin of Continents and Oceans[32] and the scientific debate started that would end up fifty years later in the theory of plate tectonics.[33] Starting from the idea (also expressed by his forerunners) that the present continents once formed a single land mass (which was called Pangea later on) that drifted apart, thus releasing the continents from the Earth's mantle and likening them to "icebergs" of low density granite floating on a sea of denser basalt.[34] Supporting evidence for the idea came from the dove-tailing outlines of South America's east coast and Africa's west coast, and from the matching of the rock formations along these edges. Confirmation of their previous contiguous nature also came from the fossil plants Glossopteris and Gangamopteris, and the therapsid or mammal-like reptile Lystrosaurus, all widely distributed over South America, Africa, Antarctica, India, and Australia. The evidence for such an erstwhile joining of these continents was patent to field geologists working in the southern hemisphere. The South African Alex du Toit put together a mass of such information in his 1937 publication Our Wandering Continents, and went further than Wegener in recognising the strong links between the Gondwana fragments.

But without detailed evidence and a force sufficient to drive the movement, the theory was not generally accepted: the Earth might have a solid crust and mantle and a liquid core, but there seemed to be no way that portions of the crust could move around. Distinguished scientists, such as Harold Jeffreys and Charles Schuchert, were outspoken critics of continental drift.

Despite much opposition, the view of continental drift gained support and a lively debate started between "drifters" or "mobilists" (proponents of the theory) and "fixists" (opponents). During the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, the former reached important milestones proposing that convection currents might have driven the plate movements, and that spreading may have occurred below the sea within the oceanic crust. Concepts close to the elements now incorporated in plate tectonics were proposed by geophysicists and geologists (both fixists and mobilists) like Vening-Meinesz, Holmes, and Umbgrove.

One of the first pieces of geophysical evidence that was used to support the movement of lithospheric plates came from paleomagnetism. This is based on the fact that rocks of different ages show a variable magnetic field direction, evidenced by studies since the midâ€“nineteenth century. The magnetic north and south poles reverse through time, and, especially important in paleotectonic studies, the relative position of the magnetic north pole varies through time. Initially, during the first half of the twentieth century, the latter phenomenon was explained by introducing what was called "polar wander" (see apparent polar wander), i.e., it was assumed that the north pole location had been shifting through time. An alternative explanation, though, was that the continents had moved (shifted and rotated) relative to the north pole, and each continent, in fact, shows its own "polar wander path". During the late 1950s it was successfully shown on two occasions that these data could show the validity of continental drift: by Keith Runcorn in a paper in 1956,[35] and by Warren Carey in a symposium held in March 1956.[36]

The second piece of evidence in support of continental drift came during the late 1950s and early 60s from data on the bathymetry of the deep ocean floors and the nature of the oceanic crust such as magnetic properties and, more generally, with the development of marine geology[37] which gave evidence for the association of seafloor spreading along the mid-oceanic ridges and magnetic field reversals, published between 1959 and 1963 by Heezen, Dietz, Hess, Mason, Vine & Matthews, and Morley.[38]

Simultaneous advances in early seismic imaging techniques in and around Wadati–Benioff zones along the trenches bounding many continental margins, together with many other geophysical (e.g. gravimetric) and geological observations, showed how the oceanic crust could disappear into the mantle, providing the mechanism to balance the extension of the ocean basins with shortening along its margins.

All this evidence, both from the ocean floor and from the continental margins, made it clear around 1965 that continental drift was feasible and the theory of plate tectonics, which was defined in a series of papers between 1965 and 1967, was born, with all its extraordinary explanatory and predictive power. The theory revolutionized the Earth sciences, explaining a diverse range of geological phenomena and their implications in other studies such as paleogeography and paleobiology.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, geologists assumed that the Earth's major features were fixed, and that most geologic features such as basin development and mountain ranges could be explained by vertical crustal movement, described in what is called the geosynclinal theory. Generally, this was placed in the context of a contracting planet Earth due to heat loss in the course of a relatively short geological time.

It was observed as early as 1596 that the opposite coasts of the Atlantic Ocean—or, more precisely, the edges of the continental shelves—have similar shapes and seem to have once fitted together.[39]

Since that time many theories were proposed to explain this apparent complementarity, but the assumption of a solid Earth made these various proposals difficult to accept.[40]

The discovery of radioactivity and its associated heating properties in 1895 prompted a re-examination of the apparent age of the Earth.[41] This had previously been estimated by its cooling rate under the assumption that the Earth's surface radiated like a black body.[42] Those calculations had implied that, even if it started at red heat, the Earth would have dropped to its present temperature in a few tens of millions of years. Armed with the knowledge of a new heat source, scientists realized that the Earth would be much older, and that its core was still sufficiently hot to be liquid.

By 1915, after having published a first article in 1912,[43] Alfred Wegener was making serious arguments for the idea of continental drift in the first edition of The Origin of Continents and Oceans.[32] In that book (re-issued in four successive editions up to the final one in 1936), he noted how the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa looked as if they were once attached. Wegener was not the first to note this (Abraham Ortelius, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Eduard Suess, Roberto Mantovani and Frank Bursley Taylor preceded him just to mention a few), but he was the first to marshal significant fossil and paleo-topographical and climatological evidence to support this simple observation (and was supported in this by researchers such as Alex du Toit). Furthermore, when the rock strata of the margins of separate continents are very similar it suggests that these rocks were formed in the same way, implying that they were joined initially. For instance, parts of Scotland and Ireland contain rocks very similar to those found in Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Furthermore, the Caledonian Mountains of Europe and parts of the Appalachian Mountains of North America are very similar in structure and lithology.

However, his ideas were not taken seriously by many geologists, who pointed out that there was no apparent mechanism for continental drift. Specifically, they did not see how continental rock could plow through the much denser rock that makes up oceanic crust. Wegener could not explain the force that drove continental drift, and his vindication did not come until after his death in 1930.[44]

As it was observed early that although granite existed on continents, seafloor seemed to be composed of denser basalt, the prevailing concept during the first half of the twentieth century was that there were two types of crust, named "sial" (continental type crust) and "sima" (oceanic type crust). Furthermore, it was supposed that a static shell of strata was present under the continents. It therefore looked apparent that a layer of basalt (sial) underlies the continental rocks.

However, based on abnormalities in plumb line deflection by the Andes in Peru, Pierre Bouguer had deduced that less-dense mountains must have a downward projection into the denser layer underneath. The concept that mountains had "roots" was confirmed by George B. Airy a hundred years later, during study of Himalayan gravitation, and seismic studies detected corresponding density variations. Therefore, by the mid-1950s, the question remained unresolved as to whether mountain roots were clenched in surrounding basalt or were floating on it like an iceberg.

During the 20th century, improvements in and greater use of seismic instruments such as seismographs enabled scientists to learn that earthquakes tend to be concentrated in specific areas, most notably along the oceanic trenches and spreading ridges. By the late 1920s, seismologists were beginning to identify several prominent earthquake zones parallel to the trenches that typically were inclined 40–60° from the horizontal and extended several hundred kilometers into the Earth. These zones later became known as Wadati–Benioff zones, or simply Benioff zones, in honor of the seismologists who first recognized them, Kiyoo Wadati of Japan and Hugo Benioff of the United States. The study of global seismicity greatly advanced in the 1960s with the establishment of the Worldwide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN)[45] to monitor the compliance of the 1963 treaty banning above-ground testing of nuclear weapons. The much improved data from the WWSSN instruments allowed seismologists to map precisely the zones of earthquake concentration worldwide.

Meanwhile, debates developed around the phenomena of polar wander. Since the early debates of continental drift, scientists had discussed and used evidence that polar drift had occurred because continents seemed to have moved through different climatic zones during the past. Furthermore, paleomagnetic data had shown that the magnetic pole had also shifted during time. Reasoning in an opposite way, the continents might have shifted and rotated, while the pole remained relatively fixed. The first time the evidence of magnetic polar wander was used to support the movements of continents was in a paper by Keith Runcorn in 1956,[35] and successive papers by him and his students Ted Irving (who was actually the first to be convinced of the fact that paleomagnetism supported continental drift) and Ken Creer.

This was immediately followed by a symposium in Tasmania in March 1956.[46] In this symposium, the evidence was used in the theory of an expansion of the global crust. In this hypothesis the shifting of the continents can be simply explained by a large increase in size of the Earth since its formation. However, this was unsatisfactory because its supporters could offer no convincing mechanism to produce a significant expansion of the Earth. Certainly there is no evidence that the moon has expanded in the past 3 billion years; other work would soon show that the evidence was equally in support of continental drift on a globe with a stable radius.

During the thirties up to the late fifties, works by Vening-Meinesz, Holmes, Umbgrove, and numerous others outlined concepts that were close or nearly identical to modern plate tectonics theory. In particular, the English geologist Arthur Holmes proposed in 1920 that plate junctions might lie beneath the sea, and in 1928 that convection currents within the mantle might be the driving force.[47] Often, these contributions are forgotten because:

In 1947, a team of scientists led by Maurice Ewing utilizing the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's research vessel Atlantis and an array of instruments, confirmed the existence of a rise in the central Atlantic Ocean, and found that the floor of the seabed beneath the layer of sediments consisted of basalt, not the granite which is the main constituent of continents. They also found that the oceanic crust was much thinner than continental crust. All these new findings raised important and intriguing questions.[48]

The new data that had been collected on the ocean basins also showed particular characteristics regarding the bathymetry. One of the major outcomes of these datasets was that all along the globe, a system of mid-oceanic ridges was detected. An important conclusion was that along this system, new ocean floor was being created, which led to the concept of the "Great Global Rift". This was described in the crucial paper of Bruce Heezen (1960),[49] which would trigger a real revolution in thinking. A profound consequence of seafloor spreading is that new crust was, and still is, being continually created along the oceanic ridges. Therefore, Heezen advocated the so-called "expanding Earth" hypothesis of S. Warren Carey (see above). So, still the question remained: how can new crust be continuously added along the oceanic ridges without increasing the size of the Earth? In reality, this question had been solved already by numerous scientists during the forties and the fifties, like Arthur Holmes, Vening-Meinesz, Coates and many others: The crust in excess disappeared along what were called the oceanic trenches, where so-called "subduction" occurred. Therefore, when various scientists during the early sixties started to reason on the data at their disposal regarding the ocean floor, the pieces of the theory quickly fell into place.

The question particularly intrigued Harry Hammond Hess, a Princeton University geologist and a Naval Reserve Rear Admiral, and Robert S. Dietz, a scientist with the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey who first coined the term seafloor spreading. Dietz and Hess (the former published the same idea one year earlier in Nature,[50] but priority belongs to Hess who had already distributed an unpublished manuscript of his 1962 article by 1960)[51] were among the small handful who really understood the broad implications of sea floor spreading and how it would eventually agree with the, at that time, unconventional and unaccepted ideas of continental drift and the elegant and mobilistic models proposed by previous workers like Holmes.

In the same year, Robert R. Coats of the U.S. Geological Survey described the main features of island arc subduction in the Aleutian Islands. His paper, though little noted (and even ridiculed) at the time, has since been called "seminal" and "prescient". In reality, it actually shows that the work by the European scientists on island arcs and mountain belts performed and published during the 1930s up until the 1950s was applied and appreciated also in the United States.

If the Earth's crust was expanding along the oceanic ridges, Hess and Dietz reasoned like Holmes and others before them, it must be shrinking elsewhere. Hess followed Heezen, suggesting that new oceanic crust continuously spreads away from the ridges in a conveyor belt–like motion. And, using the mobilistic concepts developed before, he correctly concluded that many millions of years later, the oceanic crust eventually descends along the continental margins where oceanic trenches – very deep, narrow canyons – are formed, e.g. along the rim of the Pacific Ocean basin. The important step Hess made was that convection currents would be the driving force in this process, arriving at the same conclusions as Holmes had decades before with the only difference that the thinning of the ocean crust was performed using Heezen's mechanism of spreading along the ridges. Hess therefore concluded that the Atlantic Ocean was expanding while the Pacific Ocean was shrinking. As old oceanic crust is "consumed" in the trenches (like Holmes and others, he thought this was done by thickening of the continental lithosphere, not, as now understood, by underthrusting at a larger scale of the oceanic crust itself into the mantle), new magma rises and erupts along the spreading ridges to form new crust. In effect, the ocean basins are perpetually being "recycled," with the creation of new crust and the destruction of old oceanic lithosphere occurring simultaneously. Thus, the new mobilistic concepts neatly explained why the Earth does not get bigger with sea floor spreading, why there is so little sediment accumulation on the ocean floor, and why oceanic rocks are much younger than continental rocks.

Beginning in the 1950s, scientists like Victor Vacquier, using magnetic instruments (magnetometers) adapted from airborne devices developed during World War II to detect submarines, began recognizing odd magnetic variations across the ocean floor. This finding, though unexpected, was not entirely surprising because it was known that basalt—the iron-rich, volcanic rock making up the ocean floor—contains a strongly magnetic mineral (magnetite) and can locally distort compass readings. This distortion was recognized by Icelandic mariners as early as the late 18th century. More important, because the presence of magnetite gives the basalt measurable magnetic properties, these newly discovered magnetic variations provided another means to study the deep ocean floor. When newly formed rock cools, such magnetic materials recorded the Earth's magnetic field at the time.

As more and more of the seafloor was mapped during the 1950s, the magnetic variations turned out not to be random or isolated occurrences, but instead revealed recognizable patterns. When these magnetic patterns were mapped over a wide region, the ocean floor showed a zebra-like pattern: one stripe with normal polarity and the adjoining stripe with reversed polarity. The overall pattern, defined by these alternating bands of normally and reversely polarized rock, became known as magnetic striping, and was published by Ron G. Mason and co-workers in 1961, who did not find, though, an explanation for these data in terms of sea floor spreading, like Vine, Matthews and Morley a few years later.[52]

The discovery of magnetic striping called for an explanation. In the early 1960s scientists such as Heezen, Hess and Dietz had begun to theorise that mid-ocean ridges mark structurally weak zones where the ocean floor was being ripped in two lengthwise along the ridge crest (see the previous paragraph). New magma from deep within the Earth rises easily through these weak zones and eventually erupts along the crest of the ridges to create new oceanic crust. This process, at first denominated the "conveyer belt hypothesis" and later called seafloor spreading, operating over many millions of years continues to form new ocean floor all across the 50,000Â km-long system of mid-ocean ridges.

Only four years after the maps with the "zebra pattern" of magnetic stripes were published, the link between sea floor spreading and these patterns was correctly placed, independently by Lawrence Morley, and by Fred Vine and Drummond Matthews, in 1963,[53] now called the Vine-Matthews-Morley hypothesis. This hypothesis linked these patterns to geomagnetic reversals and was supported by several lines of evidence:[54]

By explaining both the zebra-like magnetic striping and the construction of the mid-ocean ridge system, the seafloor spreading hypothesis (SFS) quickly gained converts and represented another major advance in the development of the plate-tectonics theory. Furthermore, the oceanic crust now came to be appreciated as a natural "tape recording" of the history of the geomagnetic field reversals (GMFR) of the Earth's magnetic field. Today, extensive studies are dedicated to the calibration of the normal-reversal patterns in the oceanic crust on one hand and known timescales derived from the dating of basalt layers in sedimentary sequences (magnetostratigraphy) on the other, to arrive at estimates of past spreading rates and plate reconstructions.

After all these considerations, Plate Tectonics (or, as it was initially called "New Global Tectonics") became quickly accepted in the scientific world, and numerous papers followed that defined the concepts:

The Plate Tectonics Revolution was the scientific and cultural change which developed from the acceptance of the plate tectonics theory. The event was a paradigm shift and scientific revolution.[61]

Continental drift theory helps biogeographers to explain the disjunct biogeographic distribution of present-day life found on different continents but having similar ancestors.[62] In particular, it explains the Gondwanan distribution of ratites and the Antarctic flora.

Reconstruction is used to establish past (and future) plate configurations, helping determine the shape and make-up of ancient supercontinents and providing a basis for paleogeography.

Current plate boundaries are defined by their seismicity.[63] Past plate boundaries within existing plates are identified from a variety of evidence, such as the presence of ophiolites that are indicative of vanished oceans.[64]

Tectonic motion is believed to have begun around 3 to 3.5 billion years ago.[65][66][why?]

Various types of quantitative and semi-quantitative information are available to constrain past plate motions. The geometric fit between continents, such as between west Africa and South America is still an important part of plate reconstruction. Magnetic stripe patterns provide a reliable guide to relative plate motions going back into the Jurassic period.[67] The tracks of hotspots give absolute reconstructions, but these are only available back to the Cretaceous.[68] Older reconstructions rely mainly on paleomagnetic pole data, although these only constrain the latitude and rotation, but not the longitude. Combining poles of different ages in a particular plate to produce apparent polar wander paths provides a method for comparing the motions of different plates through time.[69] Additional evidence comes from the distribution of certain sedimentary rock types,[70] faunal provinces shown by particular fossil groups, and the position of orogenic belts.[68]

The movement of plates has caused the formation and break-up of continents over time, including occasional formation of a supercontinent that contains most or all of the continents. The supercontinent Columbia or Nuna formed during a period of 2,000 to 1,800 million years ago and broke up about 1,500 to 1,300 million years ago.[71] The supercontinent Rodinia is thought to have formed about 1 billion years ago and to have embodied most or all of Earth's continents, and broken up into eight continents around 600 million years ago. The eight continents later re-assembled into another supercontinent called Pangaea; Pangaea broke up into Laurasia (which became North America and Eurasia) and Gondwana (which became the remaining continents).

The Himalayas, the world's tallest mountain range, are assumed to have been formed by the collision of two major plates. Before uplift, they were covered by the Tethys Ocean.

Depending on how they are defined, there are usually seven or eight "major" plates: African, Antarctic, Eurasian, North American, South American, Pacific, and Indo-Australian. The latter is sometimes subdivided into the Indian and Australian plates.

There are dozens of smaller plates, the seven largest of which are the Arabian, Caribbean, Juan de Fuca, Cocos, Nazca, Philippine Sea, and Scotia.

The current motion of the tectonic plates is today determined by remote sensing satellite data sets, calibrated with ground station measurements.

The appearance of plate tectonics on terrestrial planets is related to planetary mass, with more massive planets than Earth expected to exhibit plate tectonics. Earth may be a borderline case, owing its tectonic activity to abundant water [72] (silica and water form a deep eutectic).

Venus shows no evidence of active plate tectonics. There is debatable evidence of active tectonics in the planet's distant past; however, events taking place since then (such as the plausible and generally accepted hypothesis that the Venusian lithosphere has thickened greatly over the course of several hundred million years) has made constraining the course of its geologic record difficult. However, the numerous well-preserved impact craters have been utilized as a dating method to approximately date the Venusian surface (since there are thus far no known samples of Venusian rock to be dated by more reliable methods). Dates derived are dominantly in the range 500 to 750 million years ago, although ages of up to 1,200 million years ago have been calculated. This research has led to the fairly well accepted hypothesis that Venus has undergone an essentially complete volcanic resurfacing at least once in its distant past, with the last event taking place approximately within the range of estimated surface ages. While the mechanism of such an impressive thermal event remains a debated issue in Venusian geosciences, some scientists are advocates of processes involving plate motion to some extent.

One explanation for Venus's lack of plate tectonics is that on Venus temperatures are too high for significant water to be present.[73][74] The Earth's crust is soaked with water, and water plays an important role in the development of shear zones. Plate tectonics requires weak surfaces in the crust along which crustal slices can move, and it may well be that such weakening never took place on Venus because of the absence of water. However, some researchers[who?] remain convinced that plate tectonics is or was once active on this planet.

Mars is considerably smaller than Earth and Venus, and there is evidence for ice on its surface and in its crust.

In the 1990s, it was proposed that Martian Crustal Dichotomy was created by plate tectonic processes.[75] Scientists today disagree, and think that it was created either by upwelling within the Martian mantle that thickened the crust of the Southern Highlands and formed Tharsis[76] or by a giant impact that excavated the Northern Lowlands.[77]

Valles Marineris may be a tectonic boundary.[78]

Observations made of the magnetic field of Mars by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft in 1999 showed patterns of magnetic striping discovered on this planet. Some scientists interpreted these as requiring plate tectonic processes, such as seafloor spreading.[79] However, their data fail a "magnetic reversal test", which is used to see if they were formed by flipping polarities of a global magnetic field.[80]

Some of the satellites of Jupiter have features that may be related to plate-tectonic style deformation, although the materials and specific mechanisms may be different from plate-tectonic activity on Earth. On 8 September 2014, NASA reported finding evidence of plate tectonics on Europa, a satellite of Jupiterâ€”the first sign of subduction activity on another world other than Earth.[81]

Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, was reported to show tectonic activity in images taken by the Huygens probe, which landed on Titan on January 14, 2005.[82]

On Earth-sized planets, plate tectonics is more likely if there are oceans of water. However, in 2007, two independent teams of researchers came to opposing conclusions about the likelihood of plate tectonics on larger super-Earths[83][84] with one team saying that plate tectonics would be episodic or stagnant[85] and the other team saying that plate tectonics is very likely on super-earths even if the planet is dry.[72]

Consideration of plate tectonics is a part of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and extraterrestrial life.[86]