[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: [dinosaur] "Quadrupedal" theropod tracks from Australia revised as two bipedal track-makerss



A follow-up paper:

Anthony Romilio (2020)
Additional notes on the Mount Morgan dinosaur tracks from the Lower Jurassic (Sinemurian) Razorback beds, Queensland, Australia.
Historical Biology (advance online publication)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2020.1755853
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2020.1755853


In a recent paper, community-held archival material was used to evaluate the palaeo-biology of dinosaur track-makers from the 'fireclay caverns' of Mount Morgan. With the ensuing interest, community members disclosed additional photographic documentation of Mount Morgan dinosaur tracks. The described theropodan and ornithischian tracks are consistent with the known Mount Morgan ichnofaunal record, while evidence of Anomoepus track-makers walking with the atypical plantigrade pedal posture has not been previously documented in Australia.

Virus-free. www.avg.com

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:33 AM Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:

Ben Creisler
bcreisler@gmail.com

A new paper:


Anthony Romilio, Roslyn Dick, Heather Skinner & Janice Millar (2020)
Archival data provides insights into the ambiguous track-maker gait from the Lower Jurassic (Sinemurian) Razorback beds, Queensland, Australia: evidence of theropod quadrupedalism?
Historical Biology (advance online publication)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08912963.2020.1720014
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2020.1720014



The ichnological and palaeobiological interpretation of the first dinosaur tracks described from the Lower Jurassic (Sinemurian) Razorback beds, anthropogenic 'fireclay caverns' of Mount Morgan, Australia, is reviewed. This track sequence of two size categories has been widely accepted as having been formed by a theropod walking in an uncharacteristic quadrupedal stance. However, the morphology of the purported manus impression remained ambiguous due to the poor reproduction quality of the original image data. Here, we present previously unpublished archival photographic and replica material of this track surface. These clearly show the morphological details of the track series that are consistent with registration by two different sized bipedal track-makers. Overall, our findings illustrate that retained archival data can be pivotal in the resolution of palaeoichnological obscurities.

=====