Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts
Imilchil dinosaur megatracksite (Morocco) with deformed footprints
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Creisler
May 8, 2025, 2:09:45 PMMay 8
to DinosaurMa...@googlegroups.com
Ben Creisler
Highlights
The study of Imilchil megatracksite showed that length/width footprint ratios depends on its direction.
The length/width ratio is related to the deformation of the rock containing them.
The sediment deformation may be deformation by seismic movements.
The extension of the site has allowed the detection of this oriented deformation
In smaller sites, this variation style of ichnotaxonomic characters will be totally unnoticed.
Abstract
Outcrop 3.1AAI from the Imilchil macrotracksite shows deformed footprints depending on their orientation; in other words, the footprints are elongated or flattened depending on the direction of the trackway that contains them. The deformation evident in the footprints is not observed on the study surface of the site. This outcrop is an example of morphometric and biomorphic ichnotaxonomic characters (length and width of footprints and digits, outline shapes, interdigital angles, trackway deviation, trackway width, pace length, stride length, pace angle and orientation) that are modified by the deformation of sediments. The characters, measurements and their ratios are usually employed to deduce anatomical features and behavior of trackmakers. However, in the case of 3.1AAI, drawing conclusions directly from these characters for the identification of biological ichnotaxa and behavior could lead to errors. Another consideration that 3.1AAI provides is the importance of large and very large continuous tracksites in the critical analysis of the validity of footprint measurements and shapes of any outcrop. Fortunately 3.1AAI is a large outcrop from which we can demostrate the effect of deformation on the footprints, a fact that is imperceptible in many small outcrops. This study underscores the limitations of morphometry in accurately measuring dinosaur footprints in sites lacking apparent signs of deformation.
====
A new paper:
Masrour M., Boutakiout M., Herrero Gascón J., Ochoa Martínez R., Ta Fernández F. & Pérez-Lorente F. (2025)
The uncertain representativeness of theropod footprint morphometric data-
Journal of African Earth Sciences 105676
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2025.105676
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1464343X25001438
The uncertain representativeness of theropod footprint morphometric data-
Journal of African Earth Sciences 105676
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2025.105676
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1464343X25001438
Highlights
The study of Imilchil megatracksite showed that length/width footprint ratios depends on its direction.
The length/width ratio is related to the deformation of the rock containing them.
The sediment deformation may be deformation by seismic movements.
The extension of the site has allowed the detection of this oriented deformation
In smaller sites, this variation style of ichnotaxonomic characters will be totally unnoticed.
Abstract
Outcrop 3.1AAI from the Imilchil macrotracksite shows deformed footprints depending on their orientation; in other words, the footprints are elongated or flattened depending on the direction of the trackway that contains them. The deformation evident in the footprints is not observed on the study surface of the site. This outcrop is an example of morphometric and biomorphic ichnotaxonomic characters (length and width of footprints and digits, outline shapes, interdigital angles, trackway deviation, trackway width, pace length, stride length, pace angle and orientation) that are modified by the deformation of sediments. The characters, measurements and their ratios are usually employed to deduce anatomical features and behavior of trackmakers. However, in the case of 3.1AAI, drawing conclusions directly from these characters for the identification of biological ichnotaxa and behavior could lead to errors. Another consideration that 3.1AAI provides is the importance of large and very large continuous tracksites in the critical analysis of the validity of footprint measurements and shapes of any outcrop. Fortunately 3.1AAI is a large outcrop from which we can demostrate the effect of deformation on the footprints, a fact that is imperceptible in many small outcrops. This study underscores the limitations of morphometry in accurately measuring dinosaur footprints in sites lacking apparent signs of deformation.
====
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages