Fossil Amphibian/Reptile Footprint? Carboniferous of Rhode Island.

[Dino2033]

I found this on a Beach on the west side of Narragansett Bay. I have found numerous plant fossils less than 2 miles away from here and I think that it has some potential to be a footprint. The impression goes deeper where there would be claws and it appears to have 3 toes. I would love to hear what others have to say. It looks very similar to others that I have seen from the Rhode Island Formation (middle to late Pennsylvanian). I will provide more pictures if necessary. 

[westcoast]

I would say that it is not an unreasonable suggestion, however, I would vote a cautious 'no'. Ideally  with less-than- perfect footprints you need to see multiple in a series, also there are other marks on the slab that could be formed by other processes and finally in the different lighting in the images you show, the suggested footprint loses definition. 

I would go back and look for larger slabs that might reveal some better evidence.

[Lone Hunter]

Was that one rock that split with positive and negative impression?

[Fossildude19]

3 hours ago, Lone Hunter said:

Was that one rock that split with positive and negative impression?

Looks like it.

 

I would also vote no. Looks like footprint is a vague possibility, but, without anything further, or more of a trackway, I have to lean towards no.

[Paul1719]

Completely agree with previous comments, with potential poorly preserved footprints you need a trackway. Sorry :^(

[Dino2033]

7 hours ago, Lone Hunter said:

Was that one rock that split with positive and negative impression?

Yes it was

[Dino2033]

7 hours ago, westcoast said:

I would go back and look for larger slabs that might reveal some better evidence.

I will try, unfortunately it is at a beach where nearly all of the material is washed up from deeper in the bay (at least to my knowledge). If I find anything further i will share it here. Thanks to everyone for their opinions on this

[val horn]

Without a trackway there is no proof but i would call it a print and keep it on my display shelf.

[Dino2033]

5 hours ago, val horn said:

Without a trackway there is no proof but i would call it a print and keep it on my display shelf.

Hahaha definitely should. At least until I find a whole trackway.  

[EMP]

It doesn't look like tetrapod footprints I've found from the Carboniferous, but I'm far from an expert. Footprints, even from the same animal, can look very different due to all sorts of things; the sediment type, the way they were moving, geologic/biologic disturbance to the print, weathering, deformation, etc. I've seen paleontologists call some things footprints that to me look like nothing, so I wouldn't be surprised if an expert said this was one. Definitely worth hanging on to. 

 

Forgot to add that there are some people on the forum who are fairly knowledgeable with Paleozoic vertebrate ichnofossils. I think @mstimson29 is one of them. @jdp might be able to help, too. 

Edited October 31, 2023 by EMP

[Andúril Flame of the West]

I agree that this is a very compelling piece but I must also lean toward it being a result of geological processes rather than a footprint. Although it seems to have many convincing features, without proper context a decisive decision cannot be made. That being said, it is intriguing that you mention that other footprints have been found in the same formation and that your specimen bears some resemblance to these. I would also like to add that I have been looking into footprint fossils known from my area, and have come across many confirmed, isolated, prints in professional papers that, to my amateur eye, are far less convincing than what you have presented here. In fact, if I had discovered some of those footprints myself I would have immediately discarded them as if they were any old rock . Even though I suspect this has a geological origin, I would suggest that you try to reach out to a professional with knowledge of the fossils in your area - perhaps an author of one of the papers containing the confirmed tetrapod footprints you mentioned - in case it does turn out to be a significant find. 

[patelinho7]

Definitely a keeper. Can’t say for sure without more information on the locality and additional specimens found, but it’s not a clear-cut obviously geologic specimen. 

[jdp]

I wouldn't rule out a partial tetrapod print; the lithology looks right for trackway-bearing sediments and the morphology is not unreasonable. Hard to get an ID from a partial print but if you keep looking I would think some complete material might turn up.