Canadian Maps and Graphics

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I take some issue with the map you have in your post. For example, they have Anticosti as part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands, when the island is rather mountainous and infertile. Similarly, they show all the Maritimes as being part of the Appalachian Region. This is true for northern NB, and depending on how you define it, perhaps portions of NS, but large parts of the region are considered coastal lowlands (the Maritime Plain), and are more akin to the coastal plain along the US eastern seaboard.

This is a very common mistake on Canadian maps. On American maps there's a cutoff around coastal Massachusetts extending all the way down to Florida. But all of Nova Scotia tends to get lumped in with mountainous areas of Maine and New Hampshire.

The flora you see in Western NS is the same as areas like Cape Cod, not upstate NH.

It's also pretty weird to consider PEI part of "Appalachia". It's a mostly flat island covered with farms.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

This is pretty accurate. Alberta was at one point planned to be 2 provinces. The difference in settlement history between the land North/South of the battle river is pretty substantial. North you have a fur trading history, heavy Ukranian settlement, and most of the franco-albertan history/culture. South was more heavily influenced by strategic policing settlement (to keep the US from expanding northward) but settlement from the western US because they were the immigrant group that had experience with the dryland farming techniques. This is also how you end up with the pronounced Mormon presence in the area around Lethbridge. The stereotype of Albertan identity is much more driven by the southern part of the province.

Obviously the province is still pretty similar in the grand scheme of things, but there's definitely a split between north and south.

Peter Newmans book about Canada was pretty accurate in his description of Edmonton and Calgary.

Edmonton was a company town. (Northwest and Hudson Bay) so everyone likes order. But there was also the heavy European influence. Not just Ukrainian but other eastern and northern European settlers.

Calgary on the other hand was bootleggers. The get in fast make your money and get out. (Take and chance win or loose)

There is still some of that here.

[vid]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I thought agriculture was impossible on the Canadian Shield.

It's not impossible, it's just incredibly difficult. But if you like pouring 104 days of blood, sweat and tears into a farm that barely produces 492 miniature corn cobs it's very rewarding.

The thing about farming up here is that you can't just cut out a square and farm it. There is a lot of arable land, but it's in small patches all over the place, and it's not necessarily flat. You have to work around the muskeg and rock to take advantage of it. Small back yard gardens thrive here, if you pick the right spot, especially if you have a green house.

[ainvan]

NA in in the Cretaceous Period

[ainvan]

Canada is the largest exporter of pulses (edible seeds from pods, like chickpeas, lentils, peas and beans) in the world

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by ainvan

Canada is the largest exporter of pulses (edible seeds from pods, like chickpeas, lentils, peas and beans) in the world

So you can grow chickpeas on Ellesmere Island?

[ainvan]

Position of the north magnetic pole since 1590

[ainvan]

[ainvan]

[ainvan]

Coffee Place Geography US/Canada

[ainvan]

[ainvan]

[ainvan]

[TownGuy]

Neat map. We are mixedwood forest or Carolinian (deciduous) depending where you look. As that map shows it, the transitional line is just north of here.

Mixedwood forests really are the best of both worlds. Still get the lushness deciduous forests with the winter interest of a coniferous.

[lio45]

I'm not a fan of that map. What's special about "Acadian forest"?

NWO, Kingston, Montreal, and Edmundston NB all have the same forest type, but central NB is somehow different?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

Neat map. We are mixedwood forest or Carolinian (deciduous) depending where you look. As that map shows it, the transitional line is just north of here.

Mixedwood forests really are the best of both worlds. Still get the lushness deciduous forests with the winter interest of a coniferous.

Should've been called something like "Eastern Mixed Forest" and have included most of the Maritimes (the possible exception being the warmest bits of NS - even then, I'm not sure - which if so should have been in the same forest cover category as the deciduous-only warmest parts of Ontario).

[TownGuy]

Here's a neat with some of the dominant species...if you can read it..

[vid]

The map says Thunder Bay has Eastern Hemlock and Oak in its forests, but we don't. I didn't see an oak tree in the wild until I went to Manitoba.

Also, it doesn't include tamarack/larch, but we have a lot of that here.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

Here's a neat with some of the dominant species...if you can read it..

Again - that's BS. For example, I can guarantee you there are vast areas of that pale purple where there aren't any oaks (within Quebec; can't speak for Thunder Bay but I see vid already did that).

Balsam fir (only listed in "Acadian") is ubiquitous in many areas that are pale purple.

American Beech (only listed in "Carolinian") grows very well in plenty of areas that are pale purple (say, Montreal, Sherbrooke). But not all of the pale purple, obviously. As I mentioned in my previous post*, the pale purple zone is only valid as long as it's a general mixedwoods region, distinct from both its southern Carolinian and northern Boreal neighbors, and if that's the case, then there's zero reason to distinguish that from "Acadian mixedwoods". The differences within that pale purple zone are already so great they're dwarfing any differences between it and the Maritimes.


* it's the same map, so it's the same criticism...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by vid

The map says Thunder Bay has Eastern Hemlock and Oak in its forests, but we don't. I didn't see an oak tree in the wild until I went to Manitoba.

Also, it doesn't include tamarack/larch, but we have a lot of that here.

Eastern Hemlock could probably tolerate the extreme southern NWO climate, but it's a fairly rare tree even here. I happen to have tons of them on my land, but only next to the river. In other settings (than a humid river valley), good luck seeing them, even within their supposed natural range. They won't grow just anywhere and are much more picky than most species.

So, my point is, maybe you have some in your area, but just haven't looked in the right places. (Unlike oak, which you'd knew if you had. For starters, it would be a popular urban ornamental tree in TB.)