[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Stego/Ankylo limbs (really ceratopsian limbs)

On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Nicholas J. Pharris wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Rob Meyerson wrote:
> > Ultimately, one does not just take a track and from that make assertions on 
> > how
> > the animal moved.  
> No.  One takes a series of tracks and makes assertions about how the 
> animal moved.
> > saying that this closes the book on anything; I am saying that sprawling
> > forelimbs must be considered a possible alternative, since it is possible 
> > that
> > even a sprawling mount matches trackway data.
> But a sprawling mount does not match trackway data.  If the forelimbs 
> had sprawled, the forefeet would have been far apart.  If the forelimbs 
> had sprawled and the animal had brought its feet in under its body, the 
> forefeet would have been intoed.  Neither of these is the case.  The 
> animal's forelimbs did not sprawl (at least that's my interpretation).

Just catching up here after a bit..so 'scuse me if this has already been
brought up. 

Has anybody considered if these trackways have been distorted by natural 
forces either during formation(when they were still soft) or later?
I'm wondering if perhaps this sort of event would result in the 
spacing/position of prints that would throw off correct interpretation.

Granted, this kind of distortion wouldn't cause an outtoed animal's 
tracks to look intoed, but what if their position shrunk or expanded to 
the point where it could make a sprawling creature look like it was 
walking erect?