indominus rex Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 I found this on the internet claiming to be a Grallator footprint. But it looks too perfect, could this be a authentic dinosaur footprint? Life started in the ocean. And so did my interest in fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Its real but the shaded areas to show the toes have been added to enhance the view and make it more visually attractive to see and sell. It's a standard practice with footprints Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manticocerasman Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 I concur with Troodon, it is a real footprint, I got simmilar ones from France. growing old is mandatory but growing up is optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snolly50 Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 As already stated it is a "real" print. However, the "too perfect" you perceive is illusory. As Troodon pointed out it has been painted/stained to enhance the foot appearance. A water based and therefore removable pigment is generally employed. I don't like the practice and I do believe there are "natural" prints available that give a unmistakable footprint perception without any paint monkey business. However, it is an authentic piece and has not been manipulated in an unusual or deceitful way. 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 More sharing options...
caldigger Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 I am not a fan of the coloring/ shadowing of tracks or any fossil for that matter to show what it "should" look like. I see this a lot with many of those reptile and fish fossils. In fact that would be the first thing I would want to do upon receiving one is to remove the coloring. Au natural, that's more like it! Maybe we should start a naked fossil campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidgy's Dad Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Maybe they've just wetted it to 'emphasize' the print? Life's Good! Tortoise Friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Oh yeah! The deal here is 100% real! But this "liquid" is too scattered around the real contours, so I also believe it to be water. The great advice here is to question the seller what kind of "liquid" this is. And yes, it's a legitimate dinosaur footprint, but "Grallator" taking this footprint to a particular dinosaur species, in my opinion is fairy tale. I would rate it as being a footprint of an indeterminate theropod. Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamptonsDoc Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 Seems almost harder to find one of these that doesn't have paint on it to illustrate the footprint... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Seguidora-de-Isis said: Oh yeah! The deal here is 100% real But this "liquid" is too scattered around the real contours, so I also believe it to be water. The great advice here is to question the seller what kind of "liquid" this is. And yes, it's a legitimate dinosaur footprint, but "Grallator" taking this footprint to a particular dinosaur species, in my opinion is fairy tale. I would rate it as being a footprint of an indeterminate theropod. A couple of points, first identification of footprints is a lot like Dinosaur eggs where they are described to a ootaxon and not a specific species. Footprints are also not identified to species but to a type see attached chart. Second in my opinion the enhancements do in some areas extend beyond the toe pads but not to the extreme you show. I think we need we owe it to the seller to represents it fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanDye Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 9 hours ago, caldigger said: I am not a fan of the coloring/ shadowing of tracks or any fossil for that matter to show what it "should" look like. I see this a lot with many of those reptile and fish fossils. In fact that would be the first thing I would want to do upon receiving one is to remove the coloring. Au natural, that's more like it! Maybe we should start a naked fossil campaign. Liva le fossile d'naked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimravis Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 This has been going on for a long time. Here is a print of mine that was found in 1941 by Indiana Paleontologist Jesse James Galloway. It is a great 3D print, and like @snolly50 , I think it would not have been necessary with such a great print. But because the nomenclature on the piece and everything else, I have left it alone as a piece of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 26 minutes ago, Nimravis said: This has been going on for a long time. Here is a print of mine that was found in 1941 by Indiana Paleontologist Jesse James Galloway. It is a great 3D print, and like @snolly50 , I think it would not have been necessary with such a great print. But because the nomenclature on the piece and everything else, I have left it alone as a piece of history. I kind of like what they did with your specimen. It's subtle and enhances the print. It also helps others not familiar with impressions see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miocene_Mason Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 My earth science teacher managed to find a dino print in Frederick county MD, no idea where, and he outlined in with a sharpy to show students. “...whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.” ~ Charles Darwin Happy hunting, Mason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBrewer Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 If I was lucky enough to have a footprint I would coat just the print with weak Paraloid or similar which would just enhance it a little. It’s also reversable and can be removed with acetone which is important. (Too me anyhoo) John Map of UK fossil sites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HamptonsDoc Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 23 hours ago, Troodon said: I really like this chart- thank you! Just wish it had a size scale. Saved for future reference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 12 minutes ago, HamptonsDoc said: I really like this chart- thank you! Just wish it had a size scale. Saved for future reference! Scale is 50 cm but has nothing to do with the actual footprint since each type has multiple types of dinosaurs that are different in size. What's important is just the shape. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/ovrdino.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seguidora-de-Isis Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 On 21/02/2018 at 8:58 PM, Troodon said: A couple of points, first identification of footprints is a lot like Dinosaur eggs where they are described to a ootaxon and not a specific species. Footprints are also not identified to species but to a type see attached chart. Second in my opinion the enhancements do in some areas extend beyond the toe pads but not to the extreme you show. I think we need we owe it to the seller to represents it fairly. In fact unfortunately there is a language barrier here my great friend @Troodon. Perhaps the fault is Google Translate? Or maybe it's my fault that I do not speak English? But I hope, please, my friend try to understand me now. In fact I know that footprints, scientifically are not identified to species but yes to types. But the problem is with the laity. For example, I visited a government museum here in my country, and I saw a footprint discovered in the United States. And it was written on the bronze plaque: Dinosaur Species: Grallator Sp. When a friend, completely layman comes to visit my private collection here at home, he would expect to see: A block of mud (still moist) inside a cardboard box with a huge dinosaur footprint in the center... He would expect to see: Huge bones of phosphate and calcium, just like modern bones... I do not know how big it is a culture/intellectuality can be in your country, but here in my country the lay population in paleontology / archeology can reach an incredible 85% in every my country ... So, it becomes difficult for me to explain to my friend that in the past was mud or sand containing the footprint, and which later solidified and turned into rock, imagine then try to explain the formation of the positive with the negative in the same footprint.... It's complicated to explain how such a big bone has turned into rock... I see my friend's eyes on me with enormous mistrust ... And I can almost hear his thoughts: "What a lie! You took the whole year to sculpt it all"! So to try to explain this a bit better to the visitors that appear here, the footprints here in my private collection I write so on the board: Footprint of Theropod (Carnivorous Dinosaur). Species: Not determined. Type: Grallator. And I also believe that everyone's Museums should make this clear to their visitors ... Huge hug! Is It real, or it's not real, that's the question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.