[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dinosaur footprint trackway NOT found
I was listed as a reviewer in the acknowledgments but I did not review
this manuscript. I did review an earlier, simpler version of this
paper for a different journal, but that paper was not published.
Dinosaur tracks in the same formation, also near Coyote Buttes, have
been reported most recently by Milan et al 2008, in which earlier
papers on the subject are cited. The paper describes a new
ichnospecies Navahopus coyoteensis and discusses impressions the
authors interpret as crouching behavior. A latex mold of the type
specimen was deposited at the Museum of Northern Arizona subsequent to
the description and publication. The reference is below:
MilÃn, J., Loope, D.B., and Bromley, R.G. 2008. Crouching theropod and
Navahopus sauropodomorph tracks from the Early Jurassic Navajo
Sandstone of USA. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 53 (2): 197â205.
You can see this paper here:
http://app.pan.pl/acta53/app53â197.pdf Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 53 (2):
or here: http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app53/app53-197.pdf
I have seen other unquestionable tracks and trackways in this same
area, apart from the tracks that Milan et al reported, that are
probably different from N. coyoteensis. I have not seen the site
reported by Seiler and Chan, and have no opinion regarding the
authenticity of their identifications or interpretations. However,
considering the existence of at least two other sets of tracks in the
immediate vicinity, the notion that a set of tracks representing a
trampled horizon is not as surprising as the press seemed to indicate.
Paleontologists who have challenged the Seiler and Chan interpretation
have seen the site firsthand, and reportedly found no evidence that
these impressions are tracks. This is a healthy discourse that will
surely lead to more rather than less collaboration and improve our
understanding of the Navajo Sandstone in the Coyote Buttes area,
especially in the context of other unquestionable tracks in the
Museum of Northern Arizona
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:44 AM, <MKIRKALDY@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 11/7/2008 7:39:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> Dinosaur Experts Bust Up Prehistoric Party Theory
> SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - So maybe there was no dinosaur dancing after all.
> Paleontologists say there are no signs of dinosaur tracks at a
> remote spot along the Utah-Arizona border that was previously
> described by University of Utah geologists as a "dinosaur dance
> floor" for its density of tracks. <SNIP>
> Considering that the geologists claim that they had been studying the site
> for two years, could find 4 types of prints, and could formulate behavior
> scenarios, it seems ironic that a team of real print experts could dismiss
> dinosaur prints as potholes with one visit. Also, beware of intuition in
> "His intuition suddenly told him the Dino tracks depressions were not
> erosion-caused potholes, common in sandstone, but rather impressions left by
> of dinosaurs. Two years of further study corroborated his hunch, documenting
> what may have been a veritable "dinosaur dance floor" recorded in the
> three-quarter-acre site, according to findings Seiler published this month
> in the
> paleontology journal Palaois."
> I wonder who reviewed the paper?
> See the original news story at:
> **************AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other
> Holiday needs. Search Now.