Just a few comments. Thanks for the wider-angle photo of what is
described on Glenn's site (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cancoal.htm) as
"Big root." If others want to see the photo you sent to me offline, let
me know and I'll forward it as an attachment (I don't think we can do
attachments on the ASA site).
Beneath the word "Big" in the photo on Glenn's site (to the left of the
top of the big root about 6 inches) is a dark circular object, which
appears to to be a root in cross-section, and appears to have small
rootlets radiating out from it. I can't see those small rootlets around
the "Big root", although there does appear to be a small branch, just
above the main branch, which is pointing to the root in cross-section
(that could just be the way the rock fractured). It is hard to make much
sense of just what is going on below the branch of the big root; there's
not a clear branch off to the right like there is above.
Assuming these are tree roots, and assuming they are in situ, then they
are in (or below) the "shrub" part of the ecological succession of
"shrubs first, followed by trees." If these roots are in situ, then
where are all the other roots which would be associated with the root
ball of a tree? If one tree grew at this level then other trees should
have been able to florish here also - where are all the other trees; why
only one or two roots?
I tend to think that the "big root" on the right is a tree stem or trunk
which was washed in along with the root to the left. This would explain
why we only see isolated fragments of roots and/or tree stems, and
explain the branching upward of the "big root."
Incidentally, I notice in the long shrub root above these tree roots that
there are 3 shrub roots which do appear to branch off to the right and
upward from the long root. The lowermost root appears to connect to the
long root; the other two may or may not connect. Therefore, I'll back
off my statement that roots don't branch upward - they usually don't. I
suppose you and Glenn win that one. :-) But that vertical branch in the
"big root" does look peculiar!
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:18:34 -0700 "Kevin and Birgit Sharman"
Based on its distance below the bottom of the seam (~1 m) and its
diameter, I would say it's a tree root. It appears to branch upward, but
this may be because it comes out of the picture towards you. On the
right hand side, it looks like another branch downward. I will send you
another picture (showing a wider view). You may be right, though, it
just may branch upward, Bill. Modern tree roots I have seen almost
always branch downward, but they can branch in complex patterns.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Fri Jan 2 10:03:32 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 02 2004 - 10:03:38 EST