Talk:Old World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Biological usage 2 Map 3 Another definition? 4 "The Old World consists of those parts of Earth known to Europeans, Asians, and Africans..." 5 Australasia vs. Oceania

[edit] Biological usage

Previously, this article said that Australasian organisms are called "Old World" in a biological context. I changed this to "sometimes" and removed the explanatory sentence about evolution.

I have no problem with talking about evolution (as some earlier editors apparently have), and I would not mind some comment on it being put back in. However, I want the paragraph on biological usage to be in accord with how biologists actually talk. I am not a biologist, but I did a Google search and found some articles talking about Australasian species as contrasted with Old World species and other articles that lumped them all together as "Old World". For example, an article of the former type is this one: [1]. Here is the relevant passage from that link:

The Australasian collections have been separated from the Old World specimens, with which they were previously filed, and the whole collection is now filed, within each genus, by species and then colour-coded geographic regions (i.e. N. America, Michigan, Caribbean Islands, Central & South America, Australasia and Old World), rather than by species within geographical region.

That, and other passages from other articles, suggest to me that the previous discussion was incorrect.

— Nowhither 11:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map

To improve this page would you be able to include a map of the Old World?

[edit] Another definition?

I think Old World can also mean a much smaller area if we use an European sense to understand it (obviously we should use an European sense because the term is seldom used outside Europe and USA), the parts that are much more detailedly known to Europeans, i.e. including North Africa (most importantly Egypt) and Middle-East along with Europe, not including other parts of Asia or Africa. These North African and Middle-Eastern parts have constantly been in interaction with Europe and have sometimes been conquered by European nations (Roman Empire, Crusades, Napoleon, etc.). Aranherunar 12:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Old World consists of those parts of Earth known to Europeans, Asians, and Africans..."

I can't speak for the Africans, but I think the knowledge of Asians (or at least East Asians) are irrevalent to the definition of Old World. If there were non-trivial landmasses (not part of Afro-Eurasia) known to Asians but kept as a super secrete from Europeans due to some conspiracy, those lands would not have been considered part of the Old World. On the other hand, had there been lands known only to Europeans and not to Asians, those lands would still be considered part of the Old World. It just so happens that the Europeans knew all that the Asians knew, but it's actually irrevalent what the Asians knew and didn't know. IMHO. -67.172.181.206 23:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australasia vs. Oceania

Australasia seems to contain Oceania (according to their respective articles), so it would seem that to say that the New World contains Australasia, but not Oceania, is a contradiction. According to the actual New World article, it would seem that it does not include either Australasia or Oceania.

The relevant quotes are:

From Old World:

The term is in distinction from the New World, meaning the Americas and Australasia.

And

Oceania and Antarctica are neither definitively Old World nor New World, since the terms "Old World" and "New World" predate their discovery by Europeans

From Australasia:

Australasia is a term variably used to describe a region of Oceania: New Zealand, Australia, and neighbouring islands in the Pacific Ocean.

This should be changed by someone with relevant historical knowledge on the subject.

-- Enjoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.133.249 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)