Re: PARTICULAR sauropods aquatic?

["Krzic" <krzic@slo-kabel.si>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Dinogeorge@aol.com <Dinogeorge@aol.com>
To: krzic@slo-kabel.si <krzic@slo-kabel.si>
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: 2. september 1999 23:10
Subject: Re: PARTICULAR sauropods aquatic?


>
>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?

These questions should be directed to M. Lockley. After all, he is
specialized in the field of dinosaur ichnology. I suppose he knows a "bit"
more about the issue than we do. He probably had very good reasons to
interpret the trackway in the way he did.


 Sincerely,
Berislav Krzic: economist, editor, illustrator, webmaster, writer
dinosaurbero@geocities.com
illustrissimus@usa.net
ILLUSTRISSIMUS PRODUCTIONS
http://illustrissimus.virtualave.net/
DINOSAUR ILLUSTRATED MAGAZINE
http://illustrissimus.virtualave.net/dimfront.html
BERI'S DINOSAUR WORLD
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1638/front.html
PORTFOLIO
http://members.tripod.com/~dinosaurbero/portfront.html
A TRIBUTE TO DAN DARE
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/austen/64/d.html