folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta)
How could a one-year flood deposit the following: "In Yellowstone
Park there is a stratigraphic section of 2000 feet exposed which
shows 18 successive petrified forests.  Each forest grew to
maturity before it was wiped out with a lava flow." [J. Laurence
Kulp, quoted in Strahler, _Science and Earth History_, pp 221-224.]

>This is an easy one. These are not 18 separate petrified forests, but the
>repeated, rapid, cataclysmic deposits of trees from elsewhere. The
>"trees" found are in fact tree stumps, without extensive roots or
>branches. It is well-known that tree stumps that are ripped up in floods
>often are deposited roots-down. (For example, this month;s Science
>magazine shows such an effect from a huge flood in Washington. Gish and
>company have also found the same sort of event at Mt. St. Helens.)

I've seen the Mt. St. Helens paper [Coffin, H.G., 1983.  Erect
floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington.  Geology, v.11, p.298-299].  It
is a good, if short, observational paper.  The reason the roots are often
deposited down is because of boulders that the roots have trapped.  The
author makes a good point, however, note that at least as many logs and
stumps in the illustrations are _not_ upright [ibid. fig. 2, 3].
	Also note that the transported nature of the trees can be tested by
other methods.  For instance, trees grow in soils.  If you find a tree stump
with roots embedded in a paleosol (fossil soil), it must be in place.
Another test is whether leaves appropriate for the wood are found around the
stump (i.e. leaf litter), and other evidence that you were dealing with a
normal, "in place" forest floor at the horizon of the stumps.  As you imply,
an "extensive", delicate root system is more likely to be in place than
transported.

>Thus, what looks like "forest killed by volcano, tens of thousands of
>years until new forest, which is killed by volcano, ..." could have
>actually been entirely been deposited in rapid succession from a forest
>at another location. In fact, I think they presented (at their seminar)
>information  that one of their group had gotten a Master's Thesis out of
>looking into the different forest's tree rings and finding that the many
>layers were from the same forest (tree rings corresponded).

  One that I am familiar with is the "Fossil Forest" on Axel
Heiberg Island, Canadian Arctic:

Cristie, R.L., and McMillan, N.J. (eds.), 1991.  Tertiary
        fossil forests of the Geodetic Hills, Axel Heiberg Island,
        Arctic Archipelago, Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin
        403., 227pp.
        

        Here you find _mummified_ (i.e. non-mineralized) tree roots
and trunks in an unlithified "leaf-litter" (needles, leaves, like you
find in modern forests).  Amber is common.  And, you guessed it,
there are paleosols:
        Tarnocai, C. and Smith, C.A.S., 1991.  Paleosols of the
        Fossil Forest area, Axel Heiberg Island.  IN: [see above],
        p.171-187.
        They recognize 15 paleosols in a 22m section at the site,
including the ones with the tree stumps/logs.
        

        There is no evidence that this is a displaced occurrence.  The
stumps and leaf litter are exactly as it would be if you were walking
through the forest today (except that the tree trunks have fallen over
beside the stumps.  The spacing between trees is similar to modern
forests.  You can even burn the wood.

Explain that.
And when you are finished, check out this reference:

Carpenter, K., 1992.  Behavior of hadrosaurs as interpreted from footprints
in the "Mesaverde" Group (Campanian) of Coldorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, v.29, no.2, p.81-96.

Which describes dinosaur footprints and large tree stumps in the roof of two
coal seams in Cretaceous age sediments.

And visit Joggins, Nova Scotia, which has many upright stumps of
Carboniferous age giant lycopod trees in what look like river-deposited
sediments.  Giant lycopod trees are not woody, they are a tube of vascular
tissues with a pith-filled centre.  The root systems are branch into a
system 1-1.5m in diameter, and have many small rootlets (about 1cm dia, 10cm
long) projecting from the main root branches into the surrounding sediment -
- it is very unlikely that the rootlets or the pithy trunk could be
transported far without being crushed.

There are many more "fossil forest" horizons of different age worldwide.

-Andrewmacrae@geo.ucalgary.ca

----------

Note from TS: I contacted Andrew MacRae about the Yellowstone fossil
forest, and he had these further comments to add:

Fritz, W.J., 1980.  Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of
the Yellowstone "fossil forests".  Geology, v.8, p.309-313.

Yuretich, R.F., 1984.  Yellowstone fossil forests: New evidence for burial
in place.  Geology, v.12, p.159-162.

Fritz, W.J., 1984.  Comment and Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests: New
evidence for burial in place."  Geology, v.12, p.638-639.

Yuretich, R.F., 1984.  Comment and Reply on "Yellowstone fossil forests:
New evidence for burial in place."  Geology, v.12, p.639.

[Basically: both authors agree that the Specimen Ridge examples are in
place, and that *some* of the trees at *other* sections might be transported.]

[Fritz, 1984]
"In many places not cited by Yuretich, I have also interpreted the tall
stumps on Specimen Ridge to be in place and have state that the forests
are best explained by _both_ in situ and transported wood (Fritz, 1980a,
1981a, 1981b, 1982, 1983; Fritz and Harrison, 1984).  Furthermore, I have
proposed ways to differentiate in situ from transported stumps (Fritz,
1981a, 1982, 1983; Fritz and Harrison, 1984); by all these criteria, the
tall stumps on Specimen Ridge are in place."
[Some other locations may have transported stumps]

[Yuretich, 1984]
"Fritz's Comment clears up any lingering misunderstandings that may have
arisen as a result of the original publication about the Yellowstone
fossil forests that triggered this series of exchanges (Fritz, 1980c).  He
has clearly stated elsewhere (Fritz, 1980a, 1982) that the Specimen Ridge
trees are preserved in place, and I am glad this statement now appears in
_Geology_."

"Many details of the facies relationships in the Lamar River Formation
still must be studied, but I think we have at last gotten to the root of
the forest problem, and no longer need to be stumped by the origin of
these fossil trees."

-Andrewmacrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
home page: "http://geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/current_projects.html"
Check out the U. of Calgary resident Peregrine falcon:
http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/falcon
End**************************************************************************