Possible dino trace track or track

[weemama]

I found this in Southeastern Oklahoma. I found it at a lake. It was showing due to the water levels being down. I've contacted someone down in Keene, TX about it and they said there is a possibility one or both are acrocanthosaurus tracks or trace tracks. They have found tracks up in Atoka County. Which is 45 minutes away. There are tracks, also,also, a museum in Idabel, OK. Then, if you head south, there's dinosaur valley state park. Where you can view tracks in the river. I explained, to the person who specializes in this stuff, I moved it, but took documentation of where I found it. So the water could no longer erode it. There is a museum close. It is about to start their Dino Days again. I really want to go get it checked out. I've cleaned the piece up since I brought it home last year. But I'm afraid I will do damage. I want to clean it, but not destroy it. We have some ammonites we have been cleaning. Those seem a lot easier than what is going on with the possible track. 

 

The light colored rock, is another possible track found near the other one. Facing a different direction. This one I could not move. 

 

Is this my mind just playing tricks? Or did I possible find something? Either way, it has been a fun experience and practice, for me. 

[Rockwood]

I agree that there are indications of these being tracks. I can't go as far as to say they clearly are tracks though. You should have someone with experience in that area's preservation check them out. 

[Troodon]

The bottom half of Atoka County  has Cretaceous deposits.  Acro's are found there so its possible especially if other tracks have been found.   The size is correct but it's a difficult call since the preservation is not best.   What you're doing in getting it checked out by the local museum is the way to go.

[Mahnmut]

Big difference between cleaning an ammonite and a trace fossil is that all parts of the trace fossil are usually the same kind of material, same hardness. in your case there seems to be some colour contrast, but still its easy do destroy something by cleaning. Way to go getting to a professional!

[Fossildude19]

I am not convinced this is a dinosaur footprint.

The edges are too sharp, indicating that it is part of a fracture pattern, rather than an organic footprint impression.

I would vote no to this being a track.

[Rockwood]

54 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

The edges are too sharp, indicating that it is part of a fracture pattern, rather than an organic footprint impression.

Tracks sometimes penetrate multiple layers. I think weathering could potentially cause this. The bottom photo does show some very track like contours.

The piece would be shown inverted from its original position. 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Rockwood

[patelinho7]

I agree with Fossildude, the first photo looks too akin to something that naturally weathered along fracture lines. The middle one looks more like a track though. From my experience over on the east coast, most footprints should look “gooey”. That is to say, they should still look fairly similar to a footprint in mud. I think the middle one with the somewhat rounded raised edges in between the toes does a good job of this. What Rockwood said also makes sense however. 

[doushantuo]

I'd call this indifferent preservation.

Maybe an undertrack

some tracks in the Vectis Fm. of Cowleaze Chine(UK) look a bit similar

Edited May 19, 2023 by doushantuo

[JohnJ]

3 hours ago, weemama said:

I found this in Southeastern Oklahoma.

Have you identified the geologic formation where you found these?

[weemama]

1 hour ago, JohnJ said:

Have you identified the geologic formation where you found these?

I have not. I'm very new to all of this. So any tips or information is gladly welcomed.

[Fossildude19]

2 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Tracks sometimes penetrate multiple layers. I think weathering could potentially cause this. The bottom photo does show some very track like contours.

The piece would be shown inverted from its original position. 

 

I've collected some tracks. I've seen plenty. I'm quite familiar with underprints, and overprints. I'm not seeing that in the last picture.

I see a very sharp edge to the right most "toe" impression, that should absolutely not be that sharp.

That, and the slight edge in the middle of that "Toe" print look like fracture patterns to me.

 

Just not seeing a print here.

 

Cropped, enlarged, and contrasted:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JohnJ]

1 hour ago, weemama said:

I have not. I'm very new to all of this. So any tips or information is gladly welcomed.

Try tapping this map to identify the formation.

[Rockwood]

   I'd still call it a reason to keep looking.