Footprint?

[patelinho7]

I used to hunt Paint Branch Stream in College Park MD for fossils as a child (slightly before the Ray Stanford nodosaur find) and never found much. I returned after many years today (place was really bulldozed, shame) and found a great section of formation and tons of wood impression and lignite fossils. Also found two magnificent flat, thin possible footprints. I’m attaching the best one of which I dropped and broke to my great dismay. Let me know if you need additional shots or angles. I really want some insight on if it is a track. Notice that the clean break revealed the cross section which showed folds and sunken areas that match up perfectly with the “track”. Thanks in advance, I’m new here  

[patelinho7]

To clarify this is what I’m looking at. Not easily discernible in the photos but there are at least 3 clear toes on the rock

[Lone Hunter]

Being that it is a holiday weekend the people you need probably haven't had time to get on here.  I'm by no means an expert but that is more convincing than most things people think are tracks.  Considering the side view showing compression I'd say it's very plausible it's a footprint.

[Rockwood]

6 hours ago, Lone Hunter said:

Considering the side view showing compression I'd say it's very plausible it's a footprint.

Sorry. The side view, in my opinion, all but eliminates the idea of this being a fossil. The layers directly under the feature appear to be of uniform thickness. The weight of a creature should have compressed and displaced some of that volume directly under the track.

I'm afraid that without more examples to suggest a track way this can't be called a track.

[Fossildude19]

I am not convinced by the photos one way or the other.

Perhaps a cast of the "imprint" using play-doh or modeling clay might prove or disprove it as a footprint.

[patelinho7]

12 hours ago, Lone Hunter said:

Being that it is a holiday weekend the people you need probably haven't had time to get on here.  I'm by no means an expert but that is more convincing than most things people think are tracks.  Considering the side view showing compression I'd say it's very plausible it's a footprint.

Thank you! Good to know it’s not a total bust. 

[patelinho7]

5 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Sorry. The side view, in my opinion, all but eliminates the idea of this being a fossil. The layers directly under the feature appear to be of uniform thickness. The weight of a creature should have compressed and displaced some of that volume directly under the track.

I'm afraid that without more examples to suggest a track way this can't be called a track.

Interesting. I thought I saw some thinner bands directly under the depressions and thicker going downwards but I could be wrong. Good to know, thanks.

[patelinho7]

4 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I am not convinced by the photos one way or the other.

Perhaps a cast of the "imprint" using play-doh or modeling clay might prove or disprove it as a footprint.

Ok, I don’t have clay or play doh but I’ll try to get better photos when I get home today. The lighting didn’t do the imprint any justice, maybe I’ll even wet it. It looked most plausible at the creek when I washed it. It’s not clear in the photo but the central “toe” has what appears to be a claw impression at the top of the toe. That’s what convinced me at the time. Thanks!

[Plax]

I'm in the probably foot print group if there is one.

[Rockwood]

31 minutes ago, patelinho7 said:

I thought I saw some thinner bands directly under the depressions and thicker going downwards

Can you point this out ? I'm seeing something entirely different.

[Rockwood]

21 minutes ago, Plax said:

I'm in the probably foot print group if there is one.

Based on ?

[Plax]

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

Based on ?

It's a known footprint site and I can't think of another explanation. Keep in mind I'm saying probably. I italicized that word for emphasis but hard to see on a phone for instance.

[shark57]

I work with an expert who has studied footprints and written several papers on them. I will be seeing him later this week and will show him this post (he is not on the forum). We both live in northern Virginia so I will let you know if he wants to see the specimen in person.

[thelivingdead531]

2 hours ago, patelinho7 said:

Interesting. I thought I saw some thinner bands directly under the depressions and thicker going downwards but I could be wrong. Good to know, thanks.

I see them too. It’s an interesting piece, but I have no helpful knowledge on it. 
 

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

Can you point this out ? I'm seeing something entirely different.

Please excuse the sloppy work, I have no stylus for my tablet, but I tried to draw a line showing one of the layers where it seems to compress under the “toe” sections. 

[patelinho7]

1 hour ago, shark57 said:

I work with an expert who has studied footprints and written several papers on them. I will be seeing him later this week and will show him this post (he is not on the forum). We both live in northern Virginia so I will let you know if he wants to see the specimen in person.

Thanks a lot. I'm not sure if I'll be able to show the specimen as I'll be going back to school soon but I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, I'll get better photos on this thread that do the track more justice.

[patelinho7]

1 hour ago, Plax said:

It's a known footprint site and I can't think of another explanation. Keep in mind I'm saying probably. I italicized that word for emphasis but hard to see on a phone for instance.

Yeah. There's no way to be 100% sure but the shape coupled with the depressed sediments in the cross section and the rock type and shape make it very likely. And of course the fact that tracks are quite common at that site.

[patelinho7]

On 12/27/2021 at 1:08 PM, thelivingdead531 said:

I see them too. It’s an interesting piece, but I have no helpful knowledge on it. 
 

Please excuse the sloppy work, I have no stylus for my tablet, but I tried to draw a line showing one of the layers where it seems to compress under the “toe” sections. 
 

Thanks so much! 

[abyssunder]

I'm wondering, if there can't be ichnofossils of some sort? 

Maybe something close to Planolites isp?

Here is something similar(B):

(A) Arthropod trackway cf. Pterichnus isp. cross-cut by several Skolithos . (B) Eubrontes cf. gracilis dinosaur foot- print. (C) An in-situ, heavily-bioturbated slab showing two Palaeophycus tortuosus (Hall 1852). (D) Simplified line drawing of slab illustrating burrow morphology. Dashed lines indicate where the burrow has spalled away from the rock. Arrows show potential distal burrow swellings, but the material is too poorly preserved to call these galleries. (E) Cross-sectioned Palaeophycus specimen; line of cross-section in F shown by dashed line. Total length of burrow = 22.4 cm. F ) Palaeophycus cross-section, showing the lensoid shape and mud laminae (arrows). All photos are of bed soles. Scale bars: A,B, E, andF, = 1 cm; C, D = 10 cm.

 

Excerpt from here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264159745_Insights_into_an_early_Jurassic_dinosaur_habitat_Ichnofacies_and_enigmatic_structures_from_the_Portland_Formation_Hoover_Quarry_Massachusetts_USA/link/53d07d840cf25dc05cfe452f/download

Edited December 27, 2021 by abyssunder

[abyssunder]

34 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

I'm wondering, if there can't be ichnofossils of some sort? 

Maybe something close to Planolites isp?

Here is something similar(B):

Excerpt from here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264159745_Insights_into_an_early_Jurassic_dinosaur_habitat_Ichnofacies_and_enigmatic_structures_from_the_Portland_Formation_Hoover_Quarry_Massachusetts_USA/link/53d07d840cf25dc05cfe452f/download

Oups, looks like I'm wrong... 

Eubrontes cf. gracilis dinosaur foot- print

[patelinho7]

11 minutes ago, abyssunder said:

Oups, looks like I'm wrong... 

Eubrontes cf. gracilis dinosaur foot- print

It does look like a Eubrontes track but that's from Triassic and the formation where I was searching is Cretaceous

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, thelivingdead531 said:

I tried to draw a line showing one of the layers where it seems to compress under the “toe” sections. 

A better comparison to the layers directly surrounding the proposed track may be more informative. 

The condition of the substrate at the time the track was made can cause a great degree of variation in nearly all aspects of track fossils.

[abyssunder]

1 hour ago, patelinho7 said:

It does look like a Eubrontes track but that's from Triassic and the formation where I was searching is Cretaceous

Take a look here: "The new ichnotaxon Eubrontes nobitai ichnosp. nov. and other saurischian tracks from the Lower Cretaceous of Sichuan Province and a review of Chinese Eubrontes-type tracks".

s42501-021-00096-y.pdf

 

 

 

A big problem might be the scale... or maybe not.

Edited December 27, 2021 by abyssunder

[Fossildude19]

PDFs about Footprint fossils in Maryland:

 

DiverseDinosaur2-dom17.pdf

 

s41598-017-18619-w.pdf

[Sagebrush Steve]

1 hour ago, Fossildude19 said:

PDFs about Footprint fossils in Maryland:

 

DiverseDinosaur2-dom17.pdf 7.45 MB · 2 downloads

 

s41598-017-18619-w.pdf 4.94 MB · 3 downloads

Good old Martin Lockley, the world expert in fossil footprints!  In 2019 the Republic of Korea awarded him their Presidential Citation for his work on fossil trackways in that country.

[patelinho7]

Alright I’ve got some better (watered) photos now. I put a new non-watered photo for comparison. Please excuse the blurriness of the cross section shots- I tried to zoom in on the layers. The zoomed photo of the toe is attempting to highlight the “claw” qualities.

 

tagging those who may be interested in the better pics below

@Fossildude19

@Rockwood

@shark57