Jump to content

Three Toed Tracks In Coconino Sandstone


SamuelTourville

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I had seen tracks with what appeared to be five toes, but I had assumed it was a different creature.

 

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a fossil skeleton or recreation of one of these little guys? I'm curious as to what they looked like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we could use an expert opinion here. :unsure: 

 

@mstimson29

    Tim    VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER

   MOTM.png.61350469b02f439fd4d5d77c2c69da85.png      PaleoPartner.png.30c01982e09b0cc0b7d9d6a7a21f56c6.png.a600039856933851eeea617ca3f2d15f.png     Postmaster1.jpg.900efa599049929531fa81981f028e24.jpg    VFOTM.png.f1b09c78bf88298b009b0da14ef44cf0.png  VFOTM APRIL - 2015  

__________________________________________________
"In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks."
John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~   ><))))( *>  About Me      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SamuelTourville said:

 

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.

 

 

The other toe could either be "curled in" like you're saying, it could have been eroded, or never had enough pressure put on it to leave a visible print in the first place. 

 

Actually looking at the piece, it could entirely be possible that the ripple marks were left by a gully of water after a storm or some other event which left a small bank like structure on either side, which would explain why the one set of tracks is deformed as if the animal was struggling over the ground where as the other is fine. Note how the ripple marks are only in one area and not the entire rock. I still stick by mammal like reptile, which I guess would be the Chelichus? 

 

I agree that mstimson will probably be able to shed better light on this. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017/3/14 at 11:46 PM, SamuelTourville said:

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.

 

Could be wet sand, like that near a gully of water or a stream/brook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 8:46 PM, 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.

Here's a link to a paper that might help: Link (you will have to scroll up to the top of the paper, I could only link it as a Google book search).    Figure 1 is a good photo of a Chelichnus specimen with a gait similar to yours, and the tracks near the top of the photo appear to show only 3 toes on the manus.  They claim it is well established that Chelichnus lived in an eolian environment and the tracks are made in dunes, which they admit is a sub-optimum medium for track preservation.  I would agree that the tracks in your first photo look to have been made in a wet environment, but that doesn't rule out eolian, as it does rain in the desert.  None of the papers I have read do a very good job of explaining how the tracks could be preserved in such an environment.  I seem to recall reading one paper that said that the sand was likely covered with some sort of organic material (slime?) when the animal walked on it, and that helped preserve the track by keeping the layers separated as more sand was distributed on top, but I can't find that paper now.  I'm no expert on this, so take it for what it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am too lazy to dig out the paper, but the ability of desert sand to "hold" footprints was explained in this manner. Not rain or stream banks, but morning fog, which would roll across the dunes at dawn, wetting the surface. The desert denizens would start their day scampering about their business, leaving, of course, trackways. As the sun rose the wind would start its daily routine and the trackways on the leeward side of the dune would quickly be infilled and covered (still a wet crust) by the dry sand blown and tumbled from the windward side.   

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, also are remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

Link to comment
Share on other sites

neoichnoloy,squamata:

 

nice piece,this one

reptilocomotethol Bellizard .pdf

straight out of the one journal devoted wholly to ichnology

This is solely a qualification of the publication,and NOT to be seen as a form of endorsement,approval,or positive review

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...