The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 8 Print Reference: Pages 525-552 Article 4 2018 Paleobotany Supports the Floating Mat Model for the Origin of Carboniferous Coal Beds Roger W. Sanders Core Academy of Science, Dayton, Tennessee Steven A. Austin Cedarville University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Sanders, R.W., and S.A. Austin. 2018. Paleobotany supports the floating mat model for the origin of Carboniferous coal beds. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 525–552. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. Sanders, R.W., and S.A. Austin. 2018. Paleobotany supports the floating mat model for the origin of Carboniferous coal beds. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 525–552. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship. PALEOBOTANY SUPPORTS THE FLOATING MAT MODEL FOR THE ORIGIN OF CARBONIFEROUS COAL BEDS Roger W. Sanders, Core Academy of Science, PO Box 1076, Dayton, TN 37321 [email protected] Steven A. Austin, Cedarville University, 251 N. Main St., Cedarville, OH 45314. [email protected] ABSTRACT A review of the history of the debate on origin of Carboniferous coal shows the priority that autochthonists have placed on paleobotanical data and interpretation. New data and methodology are offered here for interpreting the paleobotany and paleoecology of dominant Carboniferous coal plants: tree lycopsids and the tree-fern Psaronius. Lycopsid and tree-fern anatomies are characterized by air-filled chambers for buoyancy with rooting structures that are not suited for growth into and through terrestrial soil. Lycopsid development included boat-like dispersing spores, establishment of abundant buoyant, photosynthetic, branching and radiating rhizomorphs prior to upright stem growth, and prolonged life of the unbranched trunk prior to abrupt terminating growth of reproductive branches. The tree fern Psaronius is now understood better than previously to have had a much thicker, more flaring, and further spreading outer root mantle that formed a buoyant raft. Its increasingly heavy leaf crown was counterbalanced by forcing the basally rotting cane-like trunk and attached inner portion of the root mantle continually deeper underwater. Lycopsids and tree-ferns formed living floating mats capable of supporting the trunks. Paleobotany of coal plants should now be best understood as supporting a floating raft that deposited the detritus that now forms Carboniferous coal beds. KEY WORDS floating mat model, origin of coal, Carboniferous paleobotany, paleoecology, tree lycopsids,Lepidophloios , Stigmaria, tree fern, Psaronius INTRODUCTION Among geologists, two broad categories of depositional models standing upright in shale strata, but they didn’t find them within for Carboniferous coals have been debated for three hundred coal beds. These upright trunks were interpreted to have formed years. The prevailing uniformitarian explanation of coal in situ within fossil soils containing Stigmaria, and the associated formation supposes coal beds to be authigenic and autochthonous coal beds were considered to be autochthonous, formed in large, (manufactured through a soil-forming environment from plants topographically elevated, freshwater mires. Later at Joggins grown in place) and deposited within coastal swamps, delta assemblages of upright trunks were supposed to represent in situ plains or river levee environments. The enduring catastrophist “fossil forests” on an elevated area. Among the autochthonous explanation, never silenced during hundreds of years, supposes modelers of the origin of Carboniferous coal, the priority is coal coal beds to be detrital and allochthonous (water-borne detritus paleobotany, not coal petrology. The autochthonist explanation transported to the submerged surface of sedimentation) and, likely, of the origin of coal became the dominant view in the Twentieth associated with rafts of floating vegetation. Our accompanying Century following the methodology of Charles Lyell. Gastaldo paper concerned the history of depositional models for the origin (1984), McCabe (1984), Scott (1998), and O’Keefe et al. (2008) of Carboniferous coals (Austin and Sanders 2018). We sketched are modern advocates of autochthony using the “paleobotany- the familiar autochthonous versus allochthonous coal debate and strata-petrology-environment” methodology. argued that there are actually three depositional models for the Advocates of the drift model for Carboniferous coals focused origin of Carboniferous coals: (1) swamp model, (2) drift model, on coal petrology. They studied coal composition, structure and and (3) floating mat model. texture under the microscope from coal thin sections. Two classic ROOT OF CONTROVERSY drift modelers were the French petrologist/paleobotanists Cyrille Advocates of the swamp model for Carboniferous coal devised Grand’Eury (1882) and Henry Fayol (1887). A vigorous “French paleoecological interpretations of plant fossils, especially rootlike School” of allochthonist thought continued through the Twentieth structures of lycopods. These paleobotanical ideas are placed Century and remains with us today. Interpretations made on fine- within strata sequences to assign the different rock layers to textured cannel coal (lithotype durain) were extended into what are terrestrial swamp, floodplain and levee environments. Among called coarser-textured and banded humic coal (lithotypes clarain the most famous early advocates of autochthony of Carboniferous and vitrain). Coal did not compare texturally well with modern coals (arguing from paleobotany through stratigraphy and petrology in situ swamp peat. Advocates of the drift model saw detrital to paleoenvironment) were the field geologists Charles Lyell textures, oriented plant structures and very thin shale partings and John Dawson. Lyell (1855) and Dawson (1854) examined dominating coal microstructure without rooting evidences within the rootlike fossil named Stigmaria in sandstones and shales at the original peat. Strata associated with coal beds also seemed Joggins in Nova Scotia. They also described fossil lycopod trunks to indicate submerged conditions. According to the drift model, 525 Copyright 2018 Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA www.creationicc.org Sanders and Austin ◀ Paleobotany supports the floating mat model ▶ 2018 ICC eroded plant detritus was transported in rivers as dispersed grains to provide sound support by the scientific literature for a floating and settled through water in lakes, submerged parts of deltas or lifestyle. Detailed documentation and extensive, in-context quotes marine estuaries. Both early and later allochthonists of the French are provided for lycopsids in Appendix A and for the tree fern School used the “petrology-strata-paleobotany-environment” Psaronius in Appendix B. methodology to understand the origin of Carboniferous coal. ARBORESCENT LYCOPSIDS The floating mat model has a robust three-hundred-year history that The basic structure of arborescent (tree and treelike) lycopsids has was summarized for the first time by Austin and Sanders (2018). been widely discussed and illustrated in the creationist literature, About the same time as the French School of allochthonists was especially Scheven’s (1996) Figures 1, 3, and 8, which have been developing subaqueous notions for coal deposition and elaborating reprinted by various authors. Therefore, a basic description of these the drift model, another group of allochthonists already had an plants is unnecessary. The interconnections of the fragmentary alternate understanding. This second group of allochthonists fossils of these plants are well enough known now for the organs was uneasy about coal plants being grown on upland terrain and of each biological species to go under a single name instead of then transported as debris by rivers to lakes or deltas. This group separate form-genera and species. One exception is that the proposed coal-forming plants existed on large floating rafts of rootlike horizontal axes of most species are identical and cannot vegetation and that coal was deposited as vegetation sank, either en easily be assigned to a particular trunk genus and species. These masse or as broken detritus. Assigning only secondary importance are assigned to the form genus Stigmaria, and usually to the form- to the paleobotany, these early allochthonists understood Stigmaria species S. ficoides. Hence these organs are often referred to as to be a solitary, prone-floating rhizomorph with water leaves, stigmarian axes or systems, though recent paleobotanists usually that when tangled with floating debris, became able to sprout use the