footprint ID

[austinh]

I was on a hike in the Cloverly Formation of eastern Wyoming and saw a footprint that has perplexed me. I snapped a photo of it, which may or may not be helpful, but I am no longer in the vicinity of the print so it is all I have to go on. The print looks like a cast in the photo, but it was actually true print.

 

The Cloverly formation is dated to 115-108 million years old, through my research I have found a short list of dinos that walked the area, based on this information the only two that seem to work are Deinonychus antirrhopus, a raptor (which should only show two toes in the print, there are two clear toes and claws on the left and middle toe, the third is muddled but maybe not enough to be raptor) or Microvenator celer, an early oviraptor with very limited information on it.

 

Didn't have a measuring device at the time, should have included an object for scale, but didn't, I do remember my hand fit nicely in the print,

so I am guessing it was about 50cm long x 35 cm wide give or take a few cm.

 

I realize it can be very hard to nail down a footprint, but any insights would be greatly appreciated. Always interested in learning about the world around me, past and present.   

Thanks

 

 

[Mark Kmiecik]

Keep in mind that it may not be an adult print. Comparison to other prints in the same formation would be helpful in determing the owner.

[austinh]

2 hours ago, Mark Kmiecik said:

Keep in mind that it may not be an adult print. Comparison to other prints in the same formation would be helpful in determing the owner.

That is true, only other print I saw was clearly a herbivore, round with no real toe definition. This appears to be a theropod from the claw marks and shape. This was a singular print that had calved off a cliff. Other than that little to work with unfortunately. Hoping somewhere here might have some experience with this formation. Long shot I imagine.    

[Jaybot]

Quite the find!  I know practically nothing about trace/track fossils, but I'm interested in hearing what this ends up being.

Happy hunting

[hemipristis]

Very nice!

[patelinho7]

 

It’s kinda hard to conclusively tell if it’s a track from one photo, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt especially since you seem to know the formation well and have found other tracks.

 

I actually only see the two toes in the photo above. I’m not convinced the leftmost indentation is part of the track, it looks like weathering to me. I would also ordinarily say that it’s very difficult and unrealistic to nail down a species, but I do agree that two toes seems to suggest a raptor such as Deinonychus 

[austinh]

3 hours ago, patelinho7 said:

 

It’s kinda hard to conclusively tell if it’s a track from one photo, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt especially since you seem to know the formation well and have found other tracks.

 

I actually only see the two toes in the photo above. I’m not convinced the leftmost indentation is part of the track, it looks like weathering to me. I would also ordinarily say that it’s very difficult and unrealistic to nail down a species, but I do agree that two toes seems to suggest a raptor such as Deinonychus 

I know one photo isn't much, but due to the nature of tracks and the fact I was in a state park where collecting wasn't allowed, photos are all we are left with. Should've grabbed more shots, but too late now. 

In terms of print or no print, that is a valid debate.  I can say that this formation preserves tons of wave ripples so the surface of the earth is preserved. I did see other prints in which the earth was obviously mounded next to the print. Also in this instance the rock was flat aside from this "print" it would have been an amazing feat of weathering to make a indentation that was rounded and shaped as this one in an otherwise flat rock. Not a scientific lock, but I would say pretty confident it is a print. I could also see several "pads" preserved in the print from the bottom of the foot, rounded indentations in the toes and heel of the print- again photo does not adequately represent all this, again sorry for that.

The toe on the left is certainly part of the print, the rock was chipped around the left toe which does muddle that.

I realize, and have never expected a definitive species, stated that several times, I simply have taken my research as far as I can go via the internet and was hoping to present this to a larger group that may, or may not, be able to help me take it further.