Dino footprint, fairlight cove, east sussex, UK

[RichardC]

Found this rather nice dinosaur footprint a while back in Fairlight Cove, posted it as it is nice & clear (& I like the colour contrast). Geology dates to approximately 143 - 139 mya. There is also a nearby sunken forest thought to be 6,000 years old + that is usually overlooked & unknown to the majority of the beachcombers.

Not a location I often go to, but it is a great site and I will have to go back soon.

Happy days fossil hunting!

Edited February 29, 2016 by RichardC

[ynot]

Sounds like a good place to get lost! Nice print.

Tony

[JohnJ]

Richard, I'll have to play the ignorant, skeptic. I am not familiar with the area, but what distinguishes this as a print from any of the other erosional features?

[Runner64]

Richard, I'll have to play the ignorant, skeptic. I am not familiar with the area, but what distinguishes this as a print from any of the other erosional features?

Try this: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/45305-dinosaur-shark-fossils-from-sussex-wealdengland/page-7You can just wander the beaches and find these footprints on there. The water washes away the surrounding rock and leaves just the footprint that was fossilized.

Found this rather nice dinosaur footprint a while back in Fairlight Cove, posted it as it is nice & clear (& I like the colour contrast). Geology dates to approximately 143 - 139 mya. There is also a nearby sunken forest thought to be 6,000 years old + that is usually overlooked & unknown to the majority of the beachcombers. Not a location I often go to, but it is a great site and I will have to go back soon. Happy days fossil hunting!

I think it's really cool that you hunt there! I would like to visit there at some point. Is this one from Sussex? Edited March 1, 2016 by Runner64

[JohnJ]

Try this: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/45305-dinosaur-shark-fossils-from-sussex-wealdengland/page-7You can just wander the beaches and find these footprints on there. The water washes away the surrounding rock and leaves just the footprint that was fossilized.I think it's really cool that you hunt there! I would like to visit there at some point. Is this one from Sussex?

Thanks, Matt. I am very familiar with that topic. However, it is still a fair question. I think we can all agree that in an area where erosion exposes tracks, there could still be fortuitous erosional features that look like tracks. There must be definitive characteristics that stand in contrast to local, natural features which help identify these tracks and molds. I also suspect there are cases in this region that can only identified as a "possible track, or track mold".

[bone2stone]

Thanks, Matt. I am very familiar with that topic. However, it is still a fair question. I think we can all agree that in an area where erosion exposes tracks, there could still be fortuitous erosional features that look like tracks. There must be definitive characteristics that stand in contrast to local, natural features which help identify these tracks and molds. I also suspect there are cases in this region that can only identified as a "possible track, or track mold".

I agree, being from track country Glen Rose/Granbury Texas I have seen >>>>> plenty.

Found my own.

This one is iffy at best. If there were more it would increase credibility.

Jess B.

[RichardC]

Hi all, thank you for your comments. Fairlight Cove is in East Sussex and can be a little tricky to find, I ended up driving down several winding lanes before finding myself at the sea (I blame dodgy map reading by my co-pilot!)

The photo was taken over 5 years ago and sadly I have not been back since so I am not an expert on the area. My ID was based upon the following... Iguanadon prints are known in the area and my photo I think is consistent with these? The heel mark seemed to be impressed deeper into the rock, in addition looking carefully at the enlarged photos there is what looks to be toe or claw marks at the end of each digit, I did not think general weathering would likely produce such precise details? I cannot remember exactly the details as in 5 years the memory fades, but I think the print might have been preserved in a medium sized block that had fallen out of the cliff but an not 100% sure now (no track way would likely be found as the rest would still be somewhere in the cliff), I know the prints can frequently be found in the Ashdown sandstone but looking at other peoples photos of footprints at this location the rock looks a little different (that could be as the other photos are of footprints that were at the base of the cliffs and have been significantly more eroded / spent more time being weathered / algae growth etc...?).

I know fossilised wave patterns are frequently preserved in similar blocks to the one the print was in & I remember finding quite a few examples of these patterns nearby during my trip. I was under the impression that the dinosaur had walked along the shore compacting the sediments, this had then been filled in with a softer less compacted material, then when the surface was subsequently exposed the softer sediment eroded away leaving the print, I was then luck enough to find it before it became too eroded... At the time I did send my photos to the administrators of one of the websites that leads fossil hunting expeditions to this & other locations in the UK as I was not that familiar with this site & he advised that he also thought it was a dinosaur print.

I would be grateful for any thoughts on the above as I will admit I could be wrong as I do not know the area too well (though I hope I am not ). I would rather learn if I have got it incorrect than remain in the dark (knowledge is power!).

Regards,

Richard

Edited March 1, 2016 by RichardC

[Auspex]

I can see it, with the way the sediment is 'pushed up' between the 'toes'.

[Carl]

I'm very skeptical, too. The detail that kills it for me is the concentric lines within the "track" that expose the layers below the uppermost layer. I'm referring to the lines that resemble topo lines on a map. This would not at all be expected in a track where the animal's foot would compress layers on top of one another rather than expose them. However, this would be expected from scouring. I guess it is possible that this is a faint track that was then eroded like this but this would also be unlikely because the sediments within the track would be more compressed, and thus more resistant to weathering, than the surrounding sediments.

[Fossildude19]

The fact that it looks quite like the other, nearby erosion features makes me think that it isn't a track.

I would say a decent look alike.

Regards,

[fossilized6s]

The fact that it looks quite like the other, nearby erosion features makes me think that it isn't a track.

I would say a decent look alike.

Regards,

I agree with Tim.

I know tracks can be found there, but i believe they're mostly found in mudstone.

[RichardC]

Oh well, looks like my dreams of becoming a famous dinosaur hunter are ended . Will stick to the shark teeth!

Thanks for comments everyone, useful to know opinions.

[Carl]

NEVER GIVE UP!

[Raggedy Man]

...and never give in. We've all found something we "knew" was one thing, but turned out to be another. I really like that piece regardless of its true nature.

Keep looking!

Best regards,

Paul

[JohnJ]

Oh well, looks like my dreams of becoming a famous dinosaur hunter are ended . Will stick to the shark teeth!

Thanks for comments everyone, useful to know opinions.

You are still a "dinosaur hunter" and that is a good area to hunt.