Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-5ws7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-04T04:12:54.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variations in salamander trackways resulting from substrate differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Leonard R. Brand
Leonard R. Brand*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As part of a study of vertebrate trackways in the cross-stratified Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona, trackways made by living salamanders under different substrate conditions were compared. The sample of 230 trackways of the western newt, Taricha torosa, included ten combinations of the following substrate characteristics: 1) sediment: muddy or of fine sand; 2) attitude: level or sloped (25 degrees); 3) moisture content: dry, damp, wet, or submerged.

Trackways in wet mud produced the most accurate representation of the number of toes per foot and the arrangement of toes. All other conditions studied yielded a reduced average number of toes per foot, and a large sample was needed before the data had the potential to indicate the true structure of the trackmaker's feet. Trackways made on sloped, submerged mud or sand, sloped, dry sand, and sloped, damp sand rarely included the full complement of toes. The positions and orientations of the toe marks were distorted if the animals were walking underwater or on sloped, damp sand. Trackways on the slopes of cross-stratified deposits make reliable identification of the trackmaking animals exceptionally difficult.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 70 , Issue 6 , November 1996 , pp. 1004 - 1010
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brand, L. 1979. Field and laboratory studies on the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) vertebrate footprints and their paleoecological implications. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 28:25–38.Google Scholar
Brand, L. 1992. Reply (to comments) on “Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin”. Geology, 20:668–670.Google Scholar
Brand, L., and Tang, T. 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin. Geology, 19:1201–1204.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., Lockley, M., Halfpenny, J., and Michel, A. E. 1991. Modern vertebrate track taphonomy at Lake Manyara, Tanzania. Palaios, 6:371–389.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. W. 1926. Fossil footprints from the Grand Canyon. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 77(9):1–41.Google Scholar
Gilmore, C. W. 1927. Fossil footprints from the Grand Canyon: second contribution. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 80(3):1–78.Google Scholar
Haubold, H. 1971. Ichnia Amphibiorum et Reptiliorum fossilium. Handbuch der Palaoherpetologie, Teil 18. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 124 p.Google Scholar
Haubold, H. 1974. Die Fossilen Saurierfährten. Die Neue Brehm-Bucherei, A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, 168 p.Google Scholar
Haubold, H. 1984. Saurierfährten. Die Neue Brehm-Bucherei, A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, 232 p.Google Scholar
Laporte, L. F., and Behrensmeyer, A. K. 1980. Tracks and substrate reworking by terrestrial vertebrates in Quaternary sediments of Kenya. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 50:1337–1346.Google Scholar
Lockley, M. G. 1986. The paleobiological and paleoenvironmental importance of dinosaur footprints. Palaios, 1:37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockley, M. G. 1987. Dinosaur tracks symposium signals a renaissance in vertebrate ichnology. Paleobiology, 13:246–252.Google Scholar
Lull, R. S. 1918. Fossil footprints from the Grand Canyon of the Colorado. American Journal of Science, 45:337–346.Google Scholar
Martinez, J., and Iglewicz, B. 1981. A test for departure from normality based on a biweight estimator of scale. Biometrika, 68:331–333.Google Scholar
McKee, E. D. 1947. Experiments on the development of tracks in fine cross-bedded sand. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 17:23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeever, P. J. 1991. Trackway preservation in eolian sandstones from the Permian of Scotland. Geology, 19:726–729.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norusis, M. J. 1988. SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics V2.0, p. B1–B39. SPSS Inc., Chicago.Google Scholar
Padian, K., and Olsen, P. E. 1984a. The fossil trackway Pteraichnus: not Pterosaurian, but crocodilian. Journal of Paleontology, 58:178–184.Google Scholar
Padian, K., and Olsen, P. E. 1984b. Footprints of the Komodo Monitor and the trackways of fossil reptiles. Copeia, 1984:662–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peabody, F. E. 1959. Trackways of living and fossil salamanders. University of California Publications in Zoology, 63:1–71.Google Scholar
Spamer, E. E. 1984. Paleontology in the Grand Canyon of Arizona: 125 years of lessons and enigmas from the late Precambrian to the present. The Mosasaur, 2 (December):45–128.Google Scholar