The dinosaur footprints of Whitby: Part 2 – problems matching footprints to dinosaurs

Dr Trevor Watts (UK) In the first part of this article (The dinosaur footprints of Whitby: Part 1), I considered the immediate surroundings of Whitby as a seemingly unlikely place to find many dinosaur footprints; and I looked at the environments that existed here in mid-Jurassic times; and finally discussed how the footprints came to be shaped as I find them. In this part, I look at the problems that are encountered in trying to match the footprints to particular dinosaur species, and at the idea of ‘ichno-species’. I also suggest a simple compromise in classifying the footprints. Matching a footprint to a particular species of dinosaur isn’t easy, for several reasons. 1. Relatively few dinosaur species have been identified as living at this time or in this region In many parts of the world, the relevant rocks have been eroded away, or are deeply buried under later beds, or no beds were laid down, or the environment was marine. On a worldwide scale, there are remarkably few places where footprints coincide with skeletal remains that might be matched with them. The Middle Jurassic is a time about which very little is known with regard to the variety, numbers and development of dinosaurs, anywhere in the world. In fact, it is the least understood part of the Jurassic. Fig. 1. Replica foot and footprint photographed at both Dinosaur Valley State Park, Texas and Springfield Science Museum, Connecticut. In this particular area, it is extremely rare to find any skeletal remains … Read More

To access this post, you must purchase Annual subscription, 12 Month Subscription or Monthly subscription.
%d bloggers like this: