Re: PARTICULAR sauropods aquatic?

[Dinogeorge@aol.com]

In a message dated 9/2/99 12:57:25 PM EST, krzic@slo-kabel.si writes:

<< Didn't M. Lockley explain this trackway as undertracks of sauropod manus
 imprints, thus discarding the partly-swimming theory? >>

The problem I had with this explanation is that the hind feet, which in 
sauropods carry quite a bit more of the weight than the front feet, would 
have left stronger and deeper impressions than the front feet. I believe that 
in sauropod trackways that show both hind foot and forefoot impressions, the 
forefoot impressions are generally weaker. Plus there is one hind foot 
impression in the trackway, at the point where the trackway changes 
direction--as if the animal used its hind foot once, to kick itself into a 
new direction off the substrate. Why would just this one print remain, if all 
the other prints were originally present but didn't make it to the undertrack 
level?