Nope, I haven't, but what's subjective about ring widths? This seems
like a more objective criterion than judging whether a particular marker
is present (depending on the marker, obviously, I don't really know what
qualifies for that).
> >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've never been there, but I think the criteria used by Yuretich seem
like good ones.
> >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'm not sure what you mean here
> >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??
Specifically, that the notion that all the trees got there by floating
there is too simplistic to account for all the data.
> 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.
I know, which is why I'm skeptical about the outcome of the other one (the
Ammons et al one). That is, if they really *are* a "fossil forest," even
if a disturbed one (with stumps drifting in from yonder), you'd expect
the ecology to be more consistent than you found it to be. As I recall,
you found various types of pollens, leaves, etc. from temperate, tropical
ecologies across levels (that is, in the same levels), right? That's what
I'm remembering here. One thing I don't recall seeing is whether the
mix is homogeneous between levels, which is what a one-event deposition
would predict, or heterogeneous, which would be inconsistent with that.
The diagrams I looked at were intra-level (which seemed to be the focus
of the paper). Do you have multiple-level data to compare like this?
If I were to go out there and gather data, I'd probably start with the
theory that there were trees growing there, some of which were fossilized
in place, and some (series of) event(s) brought others in. Alas, I don't
even know when I'll get to Yellowstone next, period, much less have the
time to do it, so I'll have to rely on what other people can figure out.
-Greg