flyguy784 Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 A small track I found in the Passaic formation, very early Jurassic I believe. Just posted it for your pleasure, although if anyone knows who made it, let me know. Print is 1 inch from middle toe to back edge of heel pad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I love Ichnos! (Especially terrestrials). "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFossilHunter Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 John, I am not sure it is a footprint. I would need to see it in person to be more certain. First of all that caved in part in the back that you are refeering to as heel pad is too far from the toes for such a small guy, and it's the wrong shape and doo depressed. I think it's too early for anoemopus whose footprints are sometimes preserved with tarcel impressions. so that wouldn't be part of the footprint. The shape of the cavities is a little strange too. Also, you have a lot of little depressions all over the rock which are not part of footprints and that indicated that your 3 depressions may be a coincidence. But again,don't lose faith yet, i have to see it. It still might be a footprint. On the positive note, I sort of see the angulation between the "toes" and the angle is not too different from what it should be. Also, it looks like the mud was messed up a bit coming down from the toe impressions which may mean that those are in fact the digits which just didn't get fully impressed. Are there other footprints or footprint part on that rock? that would be an indication that this is in fact a footprint. If it is, it will be very difficult to id the icnhogenus. The mud was pretty soft and the rock didn't perfectly conform to the shape of the foot. maybe you can post better pictures ( looks like the surface is a bit out of focus) and from different angles. Don't place the light on the side - in this case you don't need it. it results in the cavities bottom being in the shadow. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyguy784 Posted August 31, 2008 Author Share Posted August 31, 2008 You're breakin my heart Mike. I'll bring it along next get together. I sure could use your expertise to know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFossilHunter Posted August 31, 2008 Share Posted August 31, 2008 I am sorry John. I know how much you wanted to find your own tracks. It may still turn out to be one. I've seen lots of tracks when I wasn't sure if they were in fact tracks and I still don't know if they were. Sometimes, it's impossible to say. you should in the same spot where you found this one and if you find similar structures that you are sure are tracks then there's a good chance this one is too. I would be happy to see it in person and maybe i can tell more then. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now