A fossil footprint of....what?

[Calcivacation]

Found in glacial till, slumping sandy bank of stream, top of the ground. Land on western side of Seneca Lake, Schuyler County, New York.

 

What is the best likely candidate for having made this footprint? Matrix is tan sandstone.

 

I didn't know if black and white would help or not. My equipment is limited plus no sunshine right now.

 

 

[Calcivacation]

The first image is of the plain back side. The images did not post in the order they were showing, for some reason.

[Fossildude19]

I don't believe this is a footprint. It is a decent look-alike, but the rocks around that area are going to be Middle to Upper Devonian in age.

Very few critters with feet around, back then, and none found in that area, that I am aware of.

It also doesn't look like typical footprint type matrix - shale, mudstone or sandstone.

 

Looks more like dolostone or chert/quartzite. Better pictures might change my mind on the type of stone, however.

 

This is more likely a water worn imprint of something like a brachiopod , or even geologic in origin.

 

 

[Fossildude19]

Edited photo:

 

[Rockwood]

This isn't that far from being possibly a track. It would need to be exceptionally well defined to push the current paradigm that far though.

I agree that this looks too much like a result of the way it fractured, combined with the manner in which it is light. 

Notice the other shapes that are similar but not arranged so as to resemble a track. That is a thing that one needs to install a mental program for. looking for, instead of intentionally not seeing indications that are counter to what is hoped for. 

[Calcivacation]

Photo limitations aside, this is light tan sandstone. I have seen enough sandstone in my life to know it when I see it.

 

This is the impression of 5 digits, arranged as they should be to compare very favorably with any illustrative chart of modern animal footprints.

 

It seems like there is a tendency here to be too quick to debunk....why something isn't, rather than why it very well might be.

[Fossildude19]

44 minutes ago, Calcivacation said:

It seems like there is a tendency here to be too quick to debunk....why something isn't, rather than why it very well might be.

 

There is a tendency here to go with the facts that pertain to the situation at hand.

 

To be honest, there is only so much we can do by looking at a photograph. Sometimes less than ideal photos.

Part of the detective process here is to figure out where something was found. Was it found in a rock formation or outcrop, or loose as float?

Where was it found geographically? Knowing the outcropping strata's age in the area is a good clue as to what something might be. 

Another is to check against finds already made in the area.  What types of fossils have been previously found in the area?

 

Many of us here are amateurs, some are professional paleontologists, and some are very experienced avocational paleontologists, with many decades of experience finding and handling fossils. Our process is to use our experiences to figure out what you actually may have given the facts, not to support your theories as to what you have.

 

95% of the time we do a pretty good job of figuring things out.

Are we wrong? Sometimes yes.  And happily so, if you have actually found a fossil that we have misidentified. It is a learning experience. For all.

We are not trying to dash your hopes of what you think you have found, we are trying to match our experience to the facts.

 

And you are perfectly able to take what we, as experienced fossil collectors, can give you for information, or you can leave it, and try to get some clarity by taking your item to a nearby museum or university. You should be able to find an institution nearby that can have a look at your finds, and tell you what they may be.

WE are just trying to help.

[Calcivacation]

The glaciers brought material into the area from long distances. So, what's here is a mixture of native and non-native.

 

I do agree that photos are quite limiting. They are not a great substitute for in-person viewing.

 

I'm not the kind of person who wants a find to be a certain thing. Not overall and not in any particular case. I make comparisons, weigh evidence, and study items at great length. I don't reach conclusions lightly. And I do plenty of questioning of myself along the way. But, when I feel confident enough with a conclusion that I have reached, I stand by it unless or until the door has been 100 percent shut to my satisfaction. I never have a problem admitting when I'm wrong, but neither will I give in to any kind of tyranny of the majority or biased alignment of any group members.

 

Four years ago, I had found a Civil War era bullet in our back yard in Ohio, with a metal detector. I joined a very prominent message board to try to get some help with identification. EVERYONE that came into the conversation thread, without a single exception, swore up and down that it was not a bullet at all but just a lead sinker. Shortly thereafter, I was in Gettysburg, PA, and stopped in to the shop of a fellow who is an expert and who wrote 2 books on the subject. I had the bullet with me and he examined it. He quickly identified it as a .58 caliber. He even showed me a vintage .58 carbine that it was made for. He said that the bullet was a cold cast, which accounted for its slightly unusual appearance.

 

Anyhow, for the present, I will agree to disagree about this fossil and move on to other subjects.

[Rockwood]

3 hours ago, Calcivacation said:

This is the impression of 5 digits, arranged as they should be to compare very favorably with any illustrative chart of modern animal footprints.

 

Okay. What modern animal would have claws pointed toward the center of the hand/foot ? The would be digits are facing the wrong way as compared to any of the tracks that I have ever seen. And I have been walking on tracks for over 60 years.

[Calcivacation]

I simply see toes....in the correct direction....not claws. And, I believe that I can make out small pointed toenails at the very ends....again, in the correct direction.

[Rockwood]

8 minutes ago, Calcivacation said:

I simply see toes....in the correct direction....not claws. And, I believe that I can make out small pointed toenails at the very ends....again, in the correct direction.

Then I agree to disagree.

[Ludwigia]

One must admit that on the surface this does have a good resemblance to some kind of footprint. As Tim already mentioned, it's not ideal to diagnose some things here out of the distance just from photographs. I would suggest that if you seriously wish to find out more about this you should take it to your nearest natural science museum where a specialist on fossilized tracks could diagnose this for you.

[Fossildude19]

16 hours ago, Calcivacation said:

I never have a problem admitting when I'm wrong, but neither will I give in to any kind of tyranny of the majority or biased alignment of any group members

 

I really have a hard time seeing our experience and suggestions as being "tyranny".   Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government or rule." 

I don't believe any of us has been cruel, or oppressive, in any way, concerning you or your posts. 

 

While glacial erratics can definitely be considered, the type of stone, even if it is sandstone, does not convince me of this being a print. The alleged "print" just doesn't strike me as definitively print looking. It's close, but not quite right. I could definitely be wrong, but, based on my experiences, I don't believe it is a print.

(This from a guy who has collected a few, and seen many dinosaur and reptile footprints in my years of collecting fossils. I also live very close to one of the largest finds of dinosaur footprints ever found.)

 

I hope Calcivacation takes his find somewhere to be looked at by a paleontologist.  I would be happy to be wrong, and would welcome an update when more information is available. I would suggest PRI in Ithaca as a possibility.

 

I have stated what I believe. Using imprecise language just stirs up emotions into a discussion that should be impartial. Which, I believe we have been.

 

[Calcivacation]

I played around with lighting, plus actually took these with a different phone. I hope they help and that they also serve better to show the sandstone matrix. Last image is one of the old ones, for scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fossildude19]

@Calcivacation

 

Topics merged. Best to keep the same fossil in one topic. 

[Fossildude19]

I still have a hard time seeing this as an actual footprint.

The toe shape on all 4 digits is off. Asymmetrical. 

As I said before, it is a good mimic, but I think it is just geologic in nature, or some other imprint of something (not a foot), worn too much to identify.

 

 

[Rockwood]

Agreed. 

Another aspect that is usually an indication is the disturbance in the sediment caused by the creatures weight displacing the finer grains/more mobile sediments laterally. 

The smoosh factor, if you will.

[JohnJ]

On 10/26/2021 at 8:29 PM, Calcivacation said:

This is the impression of 5 digits, arranged as they should be to compare very favorably with any illustrative chart of modern animal footprints.

 

Although there are likely dozens of specific geologic scenarios that could have resulted in this tracklike pattern, I could easily see this caused by a highly eroded "hackle fringe fracture".

[Sagebrush Steve]

If you want to have an expert give you an opinion, I would suggest you contact Dr. Martin Lockley, who is generally considered to be the world’s foremost expert on fossil trackways: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/trackways/trackways6.php

 

I believe he is officially retired from the University of Colorado Denver, but still doing research.  The Republic of Korea awarded him their Presidential Citation just last year for his work on fossil trackways in that country.  You should be able to email him through the University of Colorado Denver.  Let us know what he says.

[Calcivacation]

2 hours ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

If you want to have an expert give you an opinion, I would suggest you contact Dr. Martin Lockley, who is generally considered to be the world’s foremost expert on fossil trackways: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/trackways/trackways6.php

 

I believe he is officially retired from the University of Colorado Denver, but still doing research.  The Republic of Korea awarded him their Presidential Citation just last year for his work on fossil trackways in that country.  You should be able to email him through the University of Colorado Denver.  Let us know what he says.

 

Okay, thanks. I located his email address and sent a message and images, so we'll see if he responds.

[Calcivacation]

No response thus far. In the interim, I would like to say that my approach here is rather like forensics. Thinking about possible conditions when this impression was made. Was something walking or standing still for a moment? How wet was the sand? Consistently so, or varied within these few inches? Did the wet sand get smeared a bit as a foot was removed? Did the wet sand flow back a bit after a foot was removed? Did an animal or bird have an injured or dislocated toe? What angle was this hunk of sand on, relative to the horizontal, when the impression was made? What kind of walking stride could have been involved?

 

There are so many variables involved that I find it difficult to start looking for other explanations too soon. My thought is that if it looks like a track except for being a little off, the first thing to do is to look into why a genuine track might be a little off.

Edited October 29, 2021 by Calcivacation
Punctuation

[Rockwood]

The answers to these questions are easier to find when multiple examples are available. Fortunately in the majority of places that a track is found they are actually quite common. The absence of more is often seen as a counter indication.

[JohnJ]

2 hours ago, Calcivacation said:

There are so many variables involved that I find it difficult to start looking for other explanations too soon. My thought is that if it looks like a track except for being a little off, the first thing to do is to look into why a genuine track might be a little off.

 

You are setting yourself up for errors without first establishing it is a track.  If established, then you can work on its nuances.

 

The multitude of possible 'non-track' origins, in addition to 'un-track-like' characteristics, suggest it is not an animal print.  Did you read about "hackle fringe fractures?

[R0b]

@Calcivacation you do seem to working towards a conclusion which is not good science nor forensics. Something we all have been guilty of at times. Probably the main thing that comes with experience is that the first thing you hope something is will not be the correct identification. Likelihood or probability is determined by the location / formation and how rare a fossil is. Most likely we find common stuf but we hope to find rare stuff. Not to ignore all the weird geologic processes that lead to stuf that doesn’t look natural. Various concretions, cone in cone, dendrites and so on. Good luck on this quest of learning.

 

 

 

[Calcivacation]

20 hours ago, R0b said:

@Calcivacation you do seem to working towards a conclusion which is not good science nor forensics. Something we all have been guilty of at times. Probably the main thing that comes with experience is that the first thing you hope something is will not be the correct identification. Likelihood or probability is determined by the location / formation and how rare a fossil is. Most likely we find common stuf but we hope to find rare stuff. Not to ignore all the weird geologic processes that lead to stuf that doesn’t look natural. Various concretions, cone in cone, dendrites and so on. Good luck on this quest of learning.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing that thread. I actually added a post to that just now.

 

I'm not going to push the idea of a track. I'm just going to quietly draw to my inside straight for a while.