>It isn't at all clear why a 60-ring signature is orders of magnitude
>less certain than a few-ring signature a la Arct. It would seem to
>me that the 60-ring signature is stronger evidence, as it is not as
>susceptible to noise.
While Fritz and Ammons' work is based on ring width variations, Arct based
his signature on a suite of rings that shared not only ring width, but
numerous other intraannual markers as well. If you have ever worked with
dendrochronology, you will understand why this difference is so powerful.
It is the difference between subjective and objective matches.
>You seem to be ignoring the complexity of the site. There are some trees
>which are transports, and others which are in situ buried. If you want
>to know what criteria to apply, perhaps you should read Yuretich's 1984
>paper. Or you could just read a bit further...
Not at all, Greg. I have spent enough summer tromping around on those
hillsides to be well aware of the complexity. How well do you know the
sites yourself? think you might be benefitted by spending some time on the
slopes. I think I am well aware of the criteria that Yuretich used. I
think they are insufficient whe one is testing a model.
>I have no idea about soil profiles. The papers I've read didn't seem
>to feel a need to explain the concept, though (so I'm still in the dark),
>and the reviewers didn't balk, so it would seem the notion isn't completely
>irregular.
Perhaps that is because they recognize that it is not like any soil profile.
>I agree that the "successive fossil forests" idea is too simplistic. I
>think the balance of opinion is that the "all the trees rafted in" idea
>is also too simplistic, and is supported by sedimentological and
>dendrochronological evidence.
Huh??
That seems to be what you are arguing, though,
>on the basis that some stumps are clearly transported to the site. At
>one time, people may have argued that that didn't happen. According to
>the excerpt I quoted, though, that is no longer the case. I think the
>most interesting question outstanding at present is whether there
>was actually a forest ecology that was fossilized or not. The Ammons&co
>paper says there was, but I'm not sure their analysis is enough to base
>an investigation upon.
Come on Greg, what are you saying here. Haven't you read our paper? That
happens to be the subject of it.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu