A note about underclays, in general: George M. Price, in his book "The New Geology" quotes Arber as follows, with regard to underclays:
"Professor E. A. N. Arber, of Cambridge University, has given us some very enlightening remarks about the 'underclays.' He says that 'nothing could be more unlike a soil, in the usual sense of the term, than an underclay.' ("Natural History of Coal," p. 95) He further points out: 'Not only are fire clays commonly found without any coal seams above them, but they may occur as the roof above the seam, or in the seam itself... Sometimes coals occur without any underclay, and rest directly on sandstones, limestones, conglomerates, or even on igneous rocks.' -- P. 98. 'Another difficulty in connection with the underclays is that their thickness commonly bears no relation to the extent of the seam above. Often thick coals overlie thin underclays, and vice versa.'"
Randy, just a quick question: who says that all soils are also underclays? Also find where anyone here has said that a soil must be present under coal beds. I don't think that anyone knows exactly what significance underclays have as to the age and formation of coal. This is a red herring.
'These stems in some instances are certainly not in situ. Examples have been found which are upside down, and in some districts the prone stems far exceed those still upright. No doubt the majority, if not all of these trunks have been drifted.' -- P. 114." (Price, p. 464)
In some cases, yes, certainly. However, does your logic tell you that, '...therefor all stems must be transported'? I don't know of anyone here who has said that no trees are transported, so what is the point?
"Lyell tells me that Binney has published in Proceedings of Manchester Society a paper trying to show that Coal plants must have grown in very marine marshes. (555/1. "On the Origin of Coal," by E.W. Binney, "Mem. Lit. Phil. Soc. Manchester," Volume VIII., 1848, page 148. Binney examines the evidence on which dry land has been inferred to exist during the formation of the Coal Measures, and comes to the conclusion that the land was covered by water, confirming Brongniart's opinion that Sigillaria was an aquatic plant. He believes the Sigillaria 'grew in water, on the deposits where it is now discovered, and that it is the plant which in a great measure contributed to the formation of our valuable beds of coal.'
(Loc. cit., page 193.)) Do you remember how savage you were long years ago at my broaching such a conjecture?"
Randy, do you realize that not all dry land is 'dry'? Or that it may not always be wet?
™ Version 4.2