|
|
Post by steveholmes on Dec 19, 2008 21:58:18 GMT -5
I'm a newbie here...but am an active member of another forum. I actually posted this on that forum and someone mentioned maybe posting a picture over here for the fossil experts. This plate came from an old gentleman in Utah. He collected alot of material in Emory County in the 50's. I have no idea if these are dino tracks or not..but would appreciate any help. I have about 8 of these plates...and this one has the most defined tracks or fossils. Thanks in Advance! Steve   |
|
|
|
Post by abuelito on Dec 19, 2008 22:07:13 GMT -5
hello friend ,,,yes i have seen them before,some times the track seems to reverse,,it was explined the animal sometimes was eating from a tree and turned to eat,and you can see where the track seems to turn,,,,,ab
|
|
|
|
Post by sandalscout on Dec 20, 2008 10:09:32 GMT -5
yeah, looks like valid tracks to me, abuelito is correct that they will often turn to reach things, something catches their attention, etc.
and being from Utah makes more than enough sense, tons of trackways out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jewelonly on Dec 20, 2008 11:14:27 GMT -5
Hi Steve,
Welcome to the board and thanks for posting these very interesting pics. I have been studying them and they have some similarity to a few of the small vertebrate tracks that we have found at a trackway site in North Alabama. I am going to try to get a couple of my friends, who have more experience identifying tracks, to look at them also. Are the tracks on your other plates about the same size as these?
Leah
|
|
|
|
Post by steveholmes on Dec 20, 2008 13:20:53 GMT -5
I honestly appreciate all your feedback and comments. I'll try to post a few other pics. Some of the others look more like scratches. This plate has the most noticeable of the tracks. I was wondering why the tracks are not going in...rather they are raised.
Thanks Again!
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by jewelonly on Dec 20, 2008 13:52:58 GMT -5
Steve,
The tracks are raised because they are the cast or positive side of the fossilized trace. The tracks were made in a tidal flat, probably, leaving an impression (negative) in the mud, and later filled in with sediment which formed a cast of the tracks.
Leah
|
|
|
|
Post by steveholmes on Dec 20, 2008 18:45:17 GMT -5
|
|
trish
Senior Member
Central Texas
Posts: 22
|
Post by trish on Dec 21, 2008 21:35:16 GMT -5
Isnt it amazing that those tracks have not been disturbed in thousands of years? Thats like us leaving a footprint and no one, or nothing disturbing it for hundreds or thousands of years.
Depending on the type of sand or mineral those tracks or in (or what ever you call it)...wonder how long it took that sand/minerals to harden before the tracks were safe from being covered.
I wouldnt break it if i were you Steve. I'd leave it alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by jewelonly on Dec 21, 2008 22:30:02 GMT -5
Steve,
Because of the nature of a tidal flat deposit, you will often have multiple layers of tracks in the same fossil bearing rock. If your host rock is shale, it can often be split, very carefully, into thinner layers; however, I would not use one of my best plates to test this on. Instead, I would try it with one that I could risk breaking, as this is always a possibility when splitting rock, despite your very best efforts.
Leah
|
|
|
|
Post by colorado on Dec 30, 2008 19:51:49 GMT -5
how about some type of early shore bird. I have seen crane tracks along the river that hold the (reverse effect stated earlier)
Colorado
|
|
