> minor point. Your expectation is not consistent with the observation that
> there had previously been a ball of dirt. The dirt, containing the fine
> roothairs would have come along with the tree. The waters then washed away
> the dirt exposing the root hairs contained in dirt ball.
> Question: what evidence do you have that the fine rootlets you saw were
> originally OUTSIDE of the dirt ball? Only if the rootlets were outside of
> the dirt ball is your expectation to be expected and a counter example to
> you expectation a surprise.
It doesn't matter. The point is that the roots were attached to the
tree, and if the tree, with it's roots attached, were buried in a lake
by being "silted in", the roots would crosscut the stratigraphic
layers. Roots crosscutting bedding is NOT conclusive evidence of growth
in situ, as indicated by Bob Gastaldo.
Try again, Glenn. :-)