Re: not all Bw horizons are cambic?

I guess the Bw vs. cambic distinction, then, is the same as argillic vs. Bt and, perhaps,
spodic vs. Bh/s? For example, a horizon can be a Bt because of evidence of clay
translocation (clay films on ped faces or in pores, clay bridging, etc.) but not qualify
as argillic because it doesn't have the minimum percentage of clay increase
compared to the overlying eluvial horizon. So in this case, although the horizon is
designated Bt, it would still be only cambic and thus an Inceptisol. I would imagine,
though, that the majority of Bt horizons are argillic - otherwise the soils in which they
occur wouldn't be classified as Alfisols or Ultisols. Thanks for your earlier reply - have I
driven this topic into the ground yet?