Finally. This same story from various sources has been submitted a half dozen times at least, glad it finally got some traction.<p>Poor Zealandia is <i>always</i> under-appreciated.<p><a href="http://worldmapswithout.nz/" rel="nofollow">http://worldmapswithout.nz/</a>
Reminds me of this subducted tectonic plate: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Plate" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Plate</a>
Aren't the other seven continents the dominant land-mass on a separately defined tectonic plate? According to the article there's no agreed upon definition.<p>In general, it's pretty easy to reclassify almost anything if you're willing to promote a new definition.
It kind of looks, from that map, that is could also be classified or considered a part of the Australian continent, given the "continent" mostly falls within the Australian plate.
Real continents <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plates" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tectonic_plates</a>
Geologists trying to gain relevance by toying with definitions. Not unlike, and even less significant than, the astronomical reclassification of Pluto as a dwarf-planet. Sign of the times I suppose.