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


    Thanks, Emma, for the insight!  I thought we'd hear from you, and what
you say sounds very plausible. I've seen many pieces of Early Cretaceous
track-bearing substrate upon which the claw marks from within the overburden
had penetrated below.  Your information does not give me a good impression
of Lull's fidelity to accuracy, whatever the cause(s), at least in his old

    But, what would you make of, for example, ichnogenus Steropoides (Same
reference as before.), the majority of inchnospecies of which show a
seemingly complete hallux mark extending back at a substantial angle from
the main part of the foot, unlike the Anchisauripus examples?  The majority
of Steropoides examples might be taken for imprints of a truly reversed
hallux, if Lull has accurately represented them.  I do not have the
advantage of having seen the actual specimens, as you possibly have, so your
insight would be appreciated.  I would ask the same concerning ichnospecies
Arachnichus dehiscens.

    You commented, about Lull declaring a theropod origin for Anchisauripus,
"...[golly, I'd LOVE to know HOW Lull "knew" this]), though we now know
Anchisaurus to be a prosauropod - although, Anchisauripus is almost
certainly a Theropod (and therefore NOT the track of Anchisaurus)."  Is
there any possibility that he got the idea that it is of theropod origin of
Anchisauripus for the same reason that we now reason it had that origin? --
or was that too early in 'paleontological time'?

    Yours is a good point, about the great example of how not to name tracks
when one cannot demonstrate a specific origin, as is normally the case, of

    I have not seen the 1915 version of Lull's work (First Edition), but the
change you describe is quite significant.

    But let me add this in closing, the digit I impressions present in the
Maryland theropod tracks mentioned definitely are NOT underprints from claw
marks of tracks in substrate that had overlain them.  They are of an
entirely different character, and project, uninterrupted, out from the main
body of well impressed tracks.  Admittedly, there are few of these and they
are isolated (single tracks), and I have no evidence of them in the
non-avian trackways presently found. I do see them in the avian trackway,
however.  Yet, if the non-avian examples are artifactual, their cause is far
different than the underprints of claws which you mention.

    It would have been very nice if Lull had been able to provide high
resolution photos of the tracks, but the printing would have been much more
expensive, even though it might have shown the error of his interpretation.

    Your experienced insight is always welcome, Emma.  Now may it
'RAINFORTH', abundantly, here in drought-besieged Maryland, revealing more
tracks and trackways in the stream beds.

    Sorry, I just couldn't resist because it is thundering outside right
now.  :)

    Ray Stanford

"You know my method.  It is founded upon the observance of trifles." --
Sherlock Holmes in The Boscombe Valley Mystery

----- Original Message -----
From: "Emma Rainforth" <EmmaR@mesalands.edu>
To: <dinotracker@earthlink.net>; <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:30 PM
Subject: Anchisauripus (RE: ABOUT THE REVERSED HALLUX AND...)

Wait ANOTHER minute.
Let's NOT look at Lull 1953!