Petrified Yellowstone forrests: transport only or succession + transport?

The image in post 11 shows a tree that is buried in a pyroclstic flow (according to the source). It is neccessarily abraded as a result. It is also still standing. Abrasion is not exclusively diagnostic of transport. Lack of bark is not even neccessarily evidence of abrasion, as edge pointed out.The fossil forests of the Lamar River Fm. are rooted in tuffaceous sandstone, not fluvial sediments, not mudflows, not lacustrine sediments (as in the Spirit Lake floating stumps). The sandstones show no evidence of flow, imbrication, or other current indicators. They are indisputably volcanic ash falls.The fossil forests are incased in conglomerate. These are formed by lahars - a volcanic mudflow. Lahars definitely DO transport trees. They are the source of the abraded, horizontal trees in the Lamar River Fm. They are also possibly the source of SOME upright stumps transported to the site. The horizontal trees are aligned along the direction of flow. The conglomerate shows evidence of flowing AROUND the standing trunks (more evidence these stumps are in situ). As edge pointed out, truncation at an erosional surface IS consistent with biodecay.What would you consider to be valid evidence of "biodecay" in a 55 million year old petrified tree? Lack of bark, lack of branches, hollow stumps, missing roots.... ???
Aren't these found in some of the Lamar R. Fm. trees? Granted these can also be the result of abrasion in a lahar, but what additional features would you consider to be exclusively diagnostic of decay only?Here's some more good quotes from the Mt Hood fossilizing forest:"Dead trees buried by the lahar a few kilometers downstream from this site show that a mature forest of western red cedar and Douglas-fir once stood on the floor of the Sandy River valley. Cedar snags, highly resistant to decay, still stand today as tall as 30 m above the lahar surface. A few trees along the margins of the deposit, however, were not killed by the lahar. A few survived and are still living today." Volcano Hazards ProgramIt looks like a layer of roots was buried by the lahar... hard to tell, though. I might be taking a vacation to the area this summer. I'll try to get some more pictures if I do."A damaged survivor Douglas fir in the upper Sandy River valley showed extreme suppression of rings, starting with the 1782 ring, probably owing to abrasion trauma...

​

The coarse, debris-flow phase of the lahar buried forests up to 10 m along the Zigzag and Sandy Rivers for at least 35 km..."
http://gsa.confex.com/...2AM/finalprogram/abstract_46581.htmOne more superb example of SUPER-abrasion... this stump is still rooted, but the entire upper part was splintered into toothpicks by the Mt St Helens 1980 blast: [This message has been edited by wehappyfew, 02-01-2003]

"Good, then you agree that TB's statement about the lack of branches being evidence for transport is so much baloney.
--No, it is evidence, it just isn't diagnostic."Now, are you saying that subsequent pyroclastic eruptions might not abrade the standing snag? Are you saying that the part of the tree below ground level is not abraded?"
--I said neither."Yes, the trees are abraded ... they are abraded by transport ... of rock fragments."
--Point being?"I'm saying that here is a clear, easily understood alternative to just-so stories from you and TB (which have NO modern counterparts by the way)."
--You don't even seem to really understand the mainstream model for their deposition, so why should I take your assertion at face value? In fact most of my model is taken from Yuretich & Fritz et al. Much of which do have modern analogs."Really, TC! Do you think the climate was the same at Specimen Ridge? Do you think there are 300 years between all volcanic eruptions? Really, this is kind of elementary stuff here, TC. Your box confines your thinking. You need to get out more."
--I'm ready when you are when you give me something of substance. I say there is no instance of biodecay. Give me something that indicates that there is, not a bunch of wild accusations and speculative subjections.------------------

"The image in post 11 shows a tree that is buried in a pyroclstic flow (according to the source). It is neccessarily abraded as a result. It is also still standing. Abrasion is not exclusively diagnostic of transport. Lack of bark is not even neccessarily evidence of abrasion, as edge pointed out.
--True, though we can say from the works of Fritz & Yuretich et al. on Specimen ridge and the rest of the Lamar Formation, that the quality of the abrasion of many of the trees indicate that at least some were transported quite a distance even in the mainstream model."The fossil forests of the Lamar River Fm. are rooted in tuffaceous sandstone, not fluvial sediments, not mudflows, not lacustrine sediments (as in the Spirit Lake floating stumps). "
--They aren't rooted in mudflows, true. Though they are rooted in what is a complex system of lacustrine and fluvial depositional environments."The sandstones show no evidence of flow, imbrication, or other current indicators. They are indisputably volcanic ash falls."
--Ash fall comes with the package, yes. But of course, "One would expect the scouring action of these mudflows (as demonstrated by the abrasion of logs and stumps) to remove a significant volume of the soils." [Yuretich, 1984]
--There are instances of ripple cross-laminations in the Lamar River Formation, though they don't seem to be observed in the Specimen Ridge site root-zone horizons examined by Yuretich."The fossil forests are incased in conglomerate. These are formed by lahars - a volcanic mudflow. Lahars definitely DO transport trees. They are the source of the abraded, horizontal trees in the Lamar River Fm. They are also possibly the source of SOME upright stumps transported to the site. The horizontal trees are aligned along the direction of flow. The conglomerate shows evidence of flowing AROUND the standing trunks (more evidence these stumps are in situ)."
--No argument."As edge pointed out, truncation at an erosional surface IS consistent with biodecay."
--Not necessarily."What would you consider to be valid evidence of "biodecay" in a 55 million year old petrified tree? Lack of bark, lack of branches, hollow stumps, missing roots.... ?"
--Indication of rotting structures. Abrasive action doesn't produce the same texture as biodecay. And from that exhibited at specimen ridge and related et al, there doesn't seem to be evidence of such. Most of what you've listed is more indicative of abrasion rather than decay. Of course, hollow stumps may say otherwise. Do you have any examples in the Lamar river formation for "hollow" trunks?"Aren't these found in some of the Lamar R. Fm. trees? Granted these can also be the result of abrasion in a lahar, but what additional features would you consider to be exclusively diagnostic of decay only?"
--Yes, most of these are prevalent characteristics of the fossil "forests", though I haven't seen any reference to hollowed trees due to decay (or due to any other mechanism for that matter).--The information you've illustrated on the ~1781 Mount Hood Lahars are interesting. I don't believe I find difficulties in contrasting Mt. Hood with that seen in the Eocene Fossil forests in my model, though I don't think that they are insignificant either.------------------

quote:

---

"Good, then you agree that TB's statement about the lack of branches being evidence for transport is so much baloney.

​

--No, it is evidence, it just isn't diagnostic.

---

Then why bring it up? It is irrelevant.

quote:

---

"Yes, the trees are abraded ... they are abraded by transport ... of rock fragments."

​

--Point being?

---

Point being that abrasion does not necessarily mean transport. This is another irrelevant piece of evidence. You seem to have a lot of these.

quote:

---

"I'm saying that here is a clear, easily understood alternative to just-so stories from you and TB (which have NO modern counterparts by the way)."

​

--You don't even seem to really understand the mainstream model for their deposition, so why should I take your assertion at face value?

---

Why do you think I care? The point is that your position has no definitive support. Most people would understand this when confronted with the information that wehappy has presented to you.

quote:

---

In fact most of my model is taken from Yuretich & Fritz et al. Much of which do have modern analogs.

---

Then you must have some evidence to support your position. What is it? Yuretich and others offer you no support whatsoever. Why should we take your assertions at face value?

quote:

---

"Really, TC! Do you think the climate was the same at Specimen Ridge? Do you think there are 300 years between all volcanic eruptions? Really, this is kind of elementary stuff here, TC. Your box confines your thinking. You need to get out more."

​

--I'm ready when you are when you give me something of substance. I say there is no instance of biodecay. Give me something that indicates that there is, not a bunch of wild accusations and speculative subjections.

---

That is not the point. The point is that decay is irrelevant to the issue. You are simply grasping at staws trying to keep your illusions afloat.

Sorry to butt in, but this is getting simply too silly. TC is grasping at straws and avoiding the issues with a diligence and stubbornness that rivals any I have ever seen on these boards. Face it, TC, your fantastic story about transplanted trees has no concrete evidence whatever.

quote:

---

"The image in post 11 shows a tree that is buried in a pyroclstic flow (according to the source). It is neccessarily abraded as a result. It is also still standing. Abrasion is not exclusively diagnostic of transport. Lack of bark is not even neccessarily evidence of abrasion, as edge pointed out.

​

--True, though we can say from the works of Fritz & Yuretich et al. on Specimen ridge and the rest of the Lamar Formation, that the quality of the abrasion of many of the trees indicate that at least some were transported quite a distance even in the mainstream model.

---

LOL! Don't you understand that if ANY trees are in situ that your whole scenario evaporates?Also, please explain this 'quality of abrasion' and how it indicates siginficant transport...

quote:

---

"The fossil forests of the Lamar River Fm. are rooted in tuffaceous sandstone, not fluvial sediments, not mudflows, not lacustrine sediments (as in the Spirit Lake floating stumps). "

​

--They aren't rooted in mudflows, true. Though they are rooted in what is a complex system of lacustrine and fluvial depositional environments.

---

I thought they were flood deposits. Now you say they are lakes and streams. That sounds like what we have out there today... Unless, you have changed your mind, please give us evidence that these are flood deposits.

quote:

---

"The sandstones show no evidence of flow, imbrication, or other current indicators. They are indisputably volcanic ash falls."

​

--Ash fall comes with the package, yes.

---

Did you not read the post? Heck, I could consider the gneissic basement rock to be 'part of the package'. The point is that the substrate for the trees is composed of ashfall tuffs. Keep dancing if you want but but no one is watching.

quote:

---

But of course, "One would expect the scouring action of these mudflows (as demonstrated by the abrasion of logs and stumps) to remove a significant volume of the soils." [Yuretich, 1984]

---

And your point is? How do you know so much about the soil if so much of it was removed? Your logic evades me.

quote:

---

--There are instances of ripple cross-laminations in the Lamar River Formation, though they don't seem to be observed in the Specimen Ridge site root-zone horizons examined by Yuretich.

---

Then why bring them up?Maybe more later.

"Then why bring it up? It is irrelevant. "
--Who said it was irrelevant? It is relevant to any model for these fossil forests. If you can't explain the lack of branches, you don't have a good hypothesis. But this has been done, and I didn't bring it up in the first place, TB did as you've cited."Point being that abrasion does not necessarily mean transport. This is another irrelevant piece of evidence. You seem to have a lot of these."
--I never disagreed that it doesn't necessarily mean transport. Where are you getting your information from? Apparently not from any of my posts."Why do you think I care? The point is that your position has no definitive support. Most people would understand this when confronted with the information that wehappy has presented to you."
--I find no difficulty in most of what WeHappy has presented."Then you must have some evidence to support your position. What is it? Yuretich and others offer you no support whatsoever. Why should we take your assertions at face value?"
--I'm not asking you to. And what evidence would you like? Give me specifics."That is not the point. The point is that decay is irrelevant to the issue."
--Sure it is, if we find decay, that helps out your position that there has been a lengthy period of time in between these fossil "forests".------------------

[quote]"Then why bring it up? It is irrelevant. "--Who said it was irrelevant?You said it was not diagnostic. If it does not help discriminate between models, why are we wasting time on it?

quote:

---

It is relevant to any model for these fossil forests. If you can't explain the lack of branches, you don't have a good hypothesis.

---

It is relevant to all models. But it is easy to explain.

quote:

---

But this has been done, and I didn't bring it up in the first place, TB did as you've cited.

---

That is why I tried to terminate this irrelevant subject several posts back. I cannot understand why you are so focussed on one piece of minutia that you do not see the forst in front of you.

quote:

---

"Point being that abrasion does not necessarily mean transport. This is another irrelevant piece of evidence. You seem to have a lot of these."

​

--I never disagreed that it doesn't necessarily mean transport. Where are you getting your information from? Apparently not from any of my posts.

---

Then why do you use this as evidence for transport?

quote:

---

"Why do you think I care? The point is that your position has no definitive support. Most people would understand this when confronted with the information that wehappy has presented to you."

​

--I find no difficulty in most of what WeHappy has presented.

---

Actually, I predicted that you wouldn't. The point is that wehappy has given you a mechanisma and an example for in situ forests being terminated by volcanic activity. You have been able to do nothing of the sort to support your story.

quote:

---

"Then you must have some evidence to support your position. What is it? Yuretich and others offer you no support whatsoever. Why should we take your assertions at face value?"

​

--I'm not asking you to. And what evidence would you like? Give me specifics.

---

Unequivocal evidence, and preferrably an example, of transported trees such as you suggest for Specimen Ridge. So far most of your evidence has been non-diagnostic, as you have admitted.

quote:

---

"That is not the point. The point is that decay is irrelevant to the issue."

​

--Sure it is, if we find decay, that helps out your position that there has been a lengthy period of time in between these fossil "forests".

---

Nonsense. In most cases, the decayed portion of the tree is long gone. Furthermore, decay in an arrid environment is not as relevant as it is in the Pacific Northwest. And, we don't need three hundred years to grow a forest anyway. There may be that much time, but it is not necessary. Decay might be good to have, but it is not necessary at all.

I've translocated my reply to the Paleosols thread.------------------