[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: More on the baby Triceratops
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 17:29:31 -0700, Ken.Carpenter wrote
> No, not all tracks are underprints. The presence of scale patterns from
> the underside of the foot proove that. Second, some very small juvenile
> tracks of hadrosaurs are known from a coal swamp in Utah. These are
> segregated from adult tracks.
Of course, "segregated" need not equate with "left behind to fend for
themselves" if my second point was the case. Adults with larger foot surface
areas and leg muscles capable of extracting the foot from mud may have been
more comfortable wading through areas that juveniles prefered to skirt
around. If those muddier areas are more likely to preserve tracks, then the
juvie tracks might not get preserved at all. That doesn't mean they weren't a
part of the herd though (of course, negative evidence doesn't prove they WERE
> Dann Pigdon wrote:
>> Seriously though - aren't most prints actually underprints? If so,
>> the juvies may not have been heavy enough to make prints of
>> sufficient depth to be preserved.
>> Alternatively, the sort of muddy areas where prints would be best
>> preserved may have been avoided by the juveniles (with perhaps a
>> small number of adults as chaperones). They may have gone around
>> those areas, while adults and sub- adults plowed straight through.
>> A third option: if juvies were kept in the middle of the travelling
>> group, their tiny prints might have been obliterated by larger
>> animals walking behind them.
GIS / Archaeologist http://heretichides.soffiles.com
Melbourne, Australia http://www.geocities.com/dannsdinosaurs