Jump to content
SamuelTourville

Three Toed Tracks In Coconino Sandstone

Recommended Posts

SamuelTourville

I have a piece of Coconino sandstone with tracks from a three toed critter I'd appreciate some help identifying.

 

Thank you.

Slab 4.JPG

Slab 4 a.JPG

Edited by SamuelTourville
Removed request for value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goatinformationist

You will get no assay of value on this site, it is verboten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SamuelTourville

Thank you. Request removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot

Hey neighbor!

Can not help with id, but nice tracks!

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snolly50

Permian, mammal-like reptile, Cheilichnus duncani , I believe. Also called Laoporus. A very nice track way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DPS Ammonite

Thanks snolly50. Have you found any rebuttals to the article? I do not think that the Coconino formation was deposited in the Great Flood. However, I remember thinking that maybe there were occasional interdune lakes during wet times that might cover the dune deposits.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nimravis

Snolly's id is correct- here is an example in my collection.

 

IMG_0589.thumb.JPG.de4a88f1b4229e717cea6efd188e35b2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snolly50
48 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said:

 

Thanks snolly50. Have you found any rebuttals to the article? I do not think that the Coconino formation was deposited in the Great Flood. However, I remember thinking that maybe there were occasional interdune lakes during wet times that might cover the dune deposits.

 

John

 

Hi John, rebuttals abound, but I am loathe to cite them. On a personal level I really can't understand the conflict between science and religion. I certainly come down on the science side, simply because it is self-correcting. If it is wrong, eventually it will change. It does make me sad that many feel that they must "strain at gnats." To me it is far wiser to admit how little we know and embrace the intellect we have been provided to find out all we can. There is no threat in that and certainly no blasphemy. 

 

The Coconino tracks; 

I have slabs that clearly show sharp impressions. Some show clear evidence of foot slides - pushing up a sharply defined wall of sand.

Arthropod tracks, including spiders and centipedes, abound.

There are plates with raindrops.

 

It's a wonderful gift from the past. There is nothing there to argue about or to be overly concerned about. For me, it exists to instruct and amaze.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SamuelTourville

Hmm...I'm new to this, but the examples of  Chelichnus I have seen all have four toed impressions. This one is clearly three toes and clawed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snolly50
8 hours ago, SamuelTourville said:

Hmm...I'm new to this, but the examples of  Chelichnus I have seen all have four toed impressions. This one is clearly three toes and clawed.

 

Hello, you are correct, 4 toes are often seen. However, it is not uncommon to see a 3 toe only impression in the same trackway as 4 toe prints.

 

Here is a slab I have that displays two distinct ichnogenera. I you click it to enlarge fully, you may be able to spot some 3 toe impressions.

 

cocotracks.jpg.63040efef2dffd0ac16cbdb1f64dc210.jpg  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HamptonsDoc

Looks cool! Nice find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SamuelTourville

@doushantuo

I got through the first argument, then got bogged down in the second and quit. I have another piece pictured under Coconino Sand Tracks here in the Fossil Id section that shows very distinct rippling, which I had assumed was from wave action in shallow (shore) water. I'm still struggling with the idea that these tracks were made in the sand and preserved. It seems to me to be too much of an unstable environment. But of course I'm not an expert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
1 minute ago, SamuelTourville said:

@doushantuo

I got through the first argument, then got bogged down in the second and quit. I have another piece pictured under Coconino Sand Tracks here in the Fossil Id section that shows very distinct rippling, which I had assumed was from wave action in shallow (shore) water. I'm still struggling with the idea that these tracks were made in the sand and preserved. It seems to me to be too much of an unstable environment. But of course I'm not an expert.

Ripple marks can be caused by wind, and sand can get wet from a rain storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SamuelTourville

Looking at my pieces again in the other thread, two of them show sort of a spear head track, which I imagine could be made by walking down a sand dune, with the beginning of the print starting at a point and the sand compressing and spreading as the foot slides down and finally gains purchase.

Slab 1 9.5 x 20 x 1.75.jpg

Slab 2.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrangellian

Dang, I want one of those! You guys make these seem like they're easy to get. I was able to acquire a small piece from New Mexico, Sangre de Cristo Formation of Upper Pecos Valley (Lower Permian) but it pales in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve

The thing I don't understand about the idea of the tracks being made underwater, especially moving water, is how they would be preserved in such detail.  Seems the moving water would quickly wash them away.  When I walk on the beach in Maui my tracks barely last 30 seconds, not 300 million years.  What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve
2 hours ago, EMP said:

 

Well it doesn't have to be water. Slick mud, windy conditions (which would explain the "ripple marks"), and/or a sticky substrate can cause an animal (especially a young/aging or sick individual) to struggle while walking. Also, a non-solidified substrate would be that when a print is left it would likely be deformed slightly as the sediment contorts in the solidification process. 

Yes, that is true.  But if I understand correctly the claim in the Brand paper was that the tracks were made underwater and that the animals were pushed sideways as they walked by the flowing water. My thought was that any water moving swiftly enough to push an animal sideways would quickly wash away its tracks. But I'm no expert in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ynot
4 hours ago, Sagebrush Steve said:

Yes, that is true.  But if I understand correctly the claim in the Brand paper was that the tracks were made underwater and that the animals were pushed sideways as they walked by the flowing water. My thought was that any water moving swiftly enough to push an animal sideways would quickly wash away its tracks. But I'm no expert in this.

How old is the paper? I have one on La Brea Tar Pits circa 1920's  that claims the reason for an over abundance of Dire Wolf skeletons at the site is do to the Dire wolf being a very stupid animal.

It is obvious that the paper You are citing is incorrect in the assumption that the prints were laid down in moving water. Even in a stagnant situation the over saturation of the muds surface under the water would cause distortion of the print. However the ripples could have been created under water and the prints after the water had drained off, them another water event could have caused some distortions before burial.

Just some thoughts on the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sagebrush Steve
52 minutes ago, ynot said:

How old is the paper? I have one on La Brea Tar Pits circa 1920's  that claims the reason for an over abundance of Dire Wolf skeletons at the site is do to the Dire wolf being a very stupid animal.

It is obvious that the paper You are citing is incorrect in the assumption that the prints were laid down in moving water. Even in a stagnant situation the over saturation of the muds surface under the water would cause distortion of the print. However the ripples could have been created under water and the prints after the water had drained off, them another water event could have caused some distortions before burial.

Just some thoughts on the situation.

It is the paper that EMP provided a link to early in this thread.  Published in 1991.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peat Burns
1 hour ago, ynot said:

How old is the paper? I have one on La Brea Tar Pits circa 1920's  that claims the reason for an over abundance of Dire Wolf skeletons at the site is do to the Dire wolf being a very stupid animal.

It is obvious that the paper You are citing is incorrect in the assumption that the prints were laid down in moving water. Even in a stagnant situation the over saturation of the muds surface under the water would cause distortion of the print. However the ripples could have been created under water and the prints after the water had drained off, them another water event could have caused some distortions before burial.

Just some thoughts on the situation.

Based on their home institution, the authors of the paper are likely YEC's and may be approaching their investigations with pre-conceived biases that lack empirical evidence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SamuelTourville

Soooo, back to the original question of this thread.... What's the general opinion that these tracks that consistently show three toes are Chelichnus tracks at an angle wherein only three of four toes plant into the sand? I'm still unsure. In the second picture that shows a closeup of two tracks, the upper track appears to me to have the outer toes curling in and a foot that follows those curves to a narrow back of the foot. There are two other prints, to the left and at the top edge, that appear the same. Most of the Chelichnus tracks I've seen show a very rounded footprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doushantuo

"once more,with feeling"

10.1.1.820.7270.pdf

It appears(from McKeever)that Chelichnus,at least, is "five toed when well preserved".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×