Re: Controversial "Diatryma" footprint (Update)

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

> http://www.scn.org/~bh162/patterson_diatryma.html

I found the following quote from the story particularly interesting:

<<<"The descriptions of the new ichnogenus and ichnospecies were detailed
and carefully written, but at the time this research was conducted the
specimen was not available for Dr. Lockley?s examination; the holotype
specimen thus has the unusual distinction of never having been seen by
the taxonomist who named it.">>>


And therein lies the crux of the controversy.

Had Lockley had access to the original slab, he would have immediately
noted that there is *no* distortion of the laminae at the bottom of the
impression or along the margins of the impression.

Further, there are additional features that do not support the idea that
this artefact was pressure-caused.

As it was written in 1st Laminations, chapter 1, verse 1:  "Whenst thou
walketh, always walketh on soft laminated substrate.  If thou followest
these words, thy footprints will be easy to distinguish from false
footprints."

<pb>
--