Ichnite Identification

[Link]

Hello everyone, this is my first post. I'd like an identification of this footprint I found about a year ago in Maryland. A road was being built, and among the upturned dirt I found this baby. Anyone have any idea what it is?

[Auspex]

Where in MD did it come from? If we can figure out the age of the formation, it could give us something to go on. Right now, it's going to take more imagination than I can muster.

[Link]

I believe it came from either the Cretaceous area or the Paleozoic Basic Igneous area.

[Auspex]

Well, 'taint igneous, so if you're right about it being Cretaceous, it's likely a marine deposit; stuff eroded off the Appalachians. If that's the case, it's hard to imagine it as a track.

[Link]

Hmm. I have to say that I'm surprised (and not entirely convinced) that such a distinctive five-toed print could be a pseudofossil. Of course, I'm probably biased.

[Boesse]

I'm not convinced I'm looking at a track or trace fossil at all. It looks like it's some sort of a concretion.

Bobby

[Link]

Well, here are a few more photos...

[Boesse]

Sorry, still not seeing anything remotely footprint like. Prints and tracks are usually relegated to a terrestrial environent; most traces that get preserved in the marine record are traces of invertebrates, and sometimes vertebrate feeding traces. From what I remember, the majority of post-Jurassic sedimentary rocks in Maryland are all marine.

Bobby

[Link]

I'm probably beating a fossilized horse, but here's a traced sketch showing how I see a footprint. The large circle's the center pad; the small circles are the toes.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

It doesn't have any of the characteristics of a track.

[Link]

Considering that it's probably a concretion, should I give it a smack to see if anything is inside?

[mommabetts]

I would have to agree with everyone else, sorry. As far as smacking it, that is up to you.

[TheFossilHunter]

I've seen thousands of tracks. This one is not a track, my friend. Sorry. Youcan smack it, but I don't see any signs of anything promising inside either, so don't get your hopes up...

[Frank Menser]

Not an expert here, but your drawing doesn't look like what I am seeing there (one of the hazards of photographs VS what you see in real life...

[Link]

Well, I actually traced the rock outline, similar to how you trace your hand to make a handprint... So it should be pretty accurate.

[Shamalama]

The rock looks like it's composed of a fairly coarse sandstone in which case it is unlikely, but possible, it's a foot print. Also, since you found it solo and there are no other associated tracks its harder to "see" it and a pattern which would indicate walking by an animal.

There have been prints found in the Triassic lowland deposits along the NE coast, noteably in Connecticut and New Jersey. Most of those prints are three toed theropods (?) and are found in a red, thin bedded sandstone. The sandstone was lain down in repeating sequences of coarse grains getting finer until a silty mud at the top, then the sequence starts all over again. This represents a cycle of ebb and flow as the basin lakes were filled with sediment and then deepened by regional tectonic movements. The prints are found in the top layer of silty mud and then filled in with more mud followed by the coarser sandstone.

Not trying to discourage, just explain what others might be seeing.

[Link]

That information helps. Thanks!

In case it's important, here's a little bit more information about this rock:

When I first dug it up, there was a clawlike projection, about half an inch long, on one of the "toes." It's since broken off, but you can see where it was from the different color on the rightmost (when looking at it) toe in the second picture I posted.

[TheFossilHunter]

That information helps. Thanks!

In case it's important, here's a little bit more information about this rock:

When I first dug it up, there was a clawlike projection, about half an inch long, on one of the "toes." It's since broken off, but you can see where it was from the different color on the rightmost (when looking at it) toe in the second picture I posted.

Hey Link,

Anything can potentially be a footprint if found in the area with the geology that suggests itself to preserving footprints. However, there is nothing about this rock that suggests it's a footprint. Definetely not it's shape - it looks like a regular rock. So why would you think it is a footprint? tell me this:

Was the age of the strata right for the dinos?

has it been found in an area known to produce footprints?

did it come out of a cavity ( which may have been made by a dino foot)? or was it loose?

Did you see any other footprint-like structures nearby, and especially next to it suggesting that it might be part of a trackway?

Was the strata nearby arranged in layers making preservation of footprints possible?

Were there any other trace fossils present ( mud cracks, traces of plants, insects etc, whcih are often found associated with footprints?)

If you don't asnwer yes to any of these questions, then, i suggest you make a determination that it's not a footprint, because the probability of it being a footprint would then be zero to slim.

Mike

[Link]

Actually, it was the shape that made me think footprint... As for the questions, though:

1. Yes, it's from the Cretaceous.

2. Not that I know of.

3. Hard to say; it was revealed by the road construction.

4. Nope, but it's not a pristine area.

5. See #3.

6. Not that I saw.

[TheFossilHunter]

Actually, it was the shape that made me think footprint... As for the questions, though:

1. Yes, it's from the Cretaceous.

2. Not that I know of.

3. Hard to say; it was revealed by the road construction.

4. Nope, but it's not a pristine area.

5. See #3.

6. Not that I saw.

Then I'd say, give it up. It's no more a footprint than any other rock you pick up in cretaceous area. The shape does not really suggest it's a dino track.

[Link]

Then I'd say, give it up. It's no more a footprint than any other rock you pick up in cretaceous area. The shape does not really suggest it's a dino track.

Well, I never assumed it was a dinosaur track. I still think the shape looks like a footprint, but hey, whatever.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

From KPS (abridged):

...

There is no "mounding" or squish marks as one would expect from the foot of an animal displacing soft mud as it walked.

The edges of genuine tracks would display curved layering from the pressure of the foot.

There are no underprints on the bottom of the bedding plane as is common in genuine fossil tracks. (For example, genuine fossil bird tracks from localities such as the Green River Shale show underprints.

The "toes" are not dug into the mud deeper than the "heels" as would be expected if the "tracks" were made by a forward-moving animal.

There are no examples of "positive" tracks that would form when mud filled in a trackway. These positives are known as "hyporeliefs" to ichnologists (scientists who study trace fossils).

...

[Link]

I'm beginning to come to terms with the fact that there's a good chance that this is only a rock. It certainly looked (and still looks) like a five-toed track to me, although apparently I'm the only one who sees anything resembling a track. I can't say I'm not disappointed, but oh well.

[TheFossilHunter]

From KPS (abridged):

...

There is no "mounding" or squish marks as one would expect from the foot of an animal displacing soft mud as it walked.

The edges of genuine tracks would display curved layering from the pressure of the foot.

There are no underprints on the bottom of the bedding plane as is common in genuine fossil tracks. (For example, genuine fossil bird tracks from localities such as the Green River Shale show underprints.

The "toes" are not dug into the mud deeper than the "heels" as would be expected if the "tracks" were made by a forward-moving animal.

There are no examples of "positive" tracks that would form when mud filled in a trackway. These positives are known as "hyporeliefs" to ichnologists (scientists who study trace fossils).

...

he Solius,

He did not mean that the track was on top of that rock. He meant to say the actual rock was a natural cast of a track (all of the rock). So these above would not apply in this case.

[TheFossilHunter]

I'm beginning to come to terms with the fact that there's a good chance that this is only a rock. It certainly looked (and still looks) like a five-toed track to me, although apparently I'm the only one who sees anything resembling a track. I can't say I'm not disappointed, but oh well.

Don't lose your heart. Everyone of us has found tons of pseudofossils and wished they were real. Sometimes you want it to be real so much, it's hard to let it go.

But hey, there is always a chance the majority is wrong, and you one person is right. Seriously, it happens.