>When I visited the Fossil Forests of Yellowstone, the story being told was
>one of successive forests buried in situ. The roadside plaque said this.
>The geological guides I was with said it. We examined the evidence at
>Specimen Ridge. The roots were not in situ; there were root balls, but
>the whole structure was allocthonous. I could see that; my guides could
>not. Limited exposure allows us to live with the prejudices we bring to
>the field. The work of Fritz has been outstanding; I would like to
>comment Art Chadwick and Harold Coffin for their notable contributions.
>This is an example of a scientific non-uniformitarian model.
This seems to have played itself out 14 years ago. I had read this
exchange in _Geology_, but it took a while to find the references...
I did find them on a talk.origins FAQ, though:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html>
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.
=====
In the last exchange, both Fritz and Yuretich agree that the trees at
Specimen Ridge were buried in situ, both from root evidence and from
the surrounding sedimentation. They both agree that there are other
fossil forests where the evidence is much more touchy or favors
transport interpretations. (Or some combination of both.)
I'm not sure what 'uniformitarianism' has to do with either model, but
that seems to be the end of the story (no further publications on the
matter).
-Greg