Find hikes, GPS routes, photos and triplogs journals. Extensive collection of flora, fauna, geology and culture labels. Archaeologist, biologist, book authors, historians and outfitters galore keep our content true.
https://hikearizona.com/dex2/
'round here, we call that a LawyerDschur wrote:There are also some permian leoporius (which is a mammal like reptile)
Name of trackways dinosaur or others are always named separately from the critter that made them. It is the study of ichnites. They are interesting since it shows the behavior of the animal. If you are ever in Australia one of the best sites is at Larks Quarry. It is the site of the worlds only stampede of dinosaurs. A herd of small plant eating dinosaurs were chased by a big meat eater. It is a really neat site to see. There are also lots of trace fossils in the Grand Canyon and on the rim.big_load wrote:The tracks at Moenave are also a must-see for their importance in the history of our understanding of dinosaurs. They are dilophosaur tracks (the two-crested critter memorialized by a statue outside the Mesa Museum). The tracks were given a name long before anybody knew what made them.
I should have been more specific. If you accept dilophosaur as the maker of Eubrontes Giganteus, doesn't its formal track name (first discovered 1802, described 1836 by Hitchcock) predate general acceptance of the existence of dinosaurs as a whole? There are three famous early descriptions in 1824-1833 (Buckland and Mantell), but Hitchcock still thought Eubrontes was a bird.Dschur wrote: Name of trackways dinosaur or others are always named separately from the critter that made them. It is the study of ichnites. They are interesting since it shows the behavior of the animal.
No as ichnogenera and taxonomic general are considered totally separate. One cannot supplant the other. And one couldn't accept Dilophosaurus as the maker of Eubrontes tracks, as the age range of Eubrontes exceeds that of Dilophosaurus, and all medium-sized, early theropods had similar feet. And if Hitchcock described Eubrontes in 1836, that would not predate even earlier dinosaur discoveries (some of which you mention) from "across the pond." People back then knew that dinosaurs existed, they just didn't know what to make of them.big_load wrote:I should have been more specific. If you accept dilophosaur as the maker of Eubrontes Giganteus, doesn't its formal track name (first discovered 1802, described 1836 by Hitchcock) predate general acceptance of the existence of dinosaurs as a whole? There are three famous early descriptions in 1824-1833 (Buckland and Mantell), but Hitchcock still thought Eubrontes was a bird.Dschur wrote: Name of trackways dinosaur or others are always named separately from the critter that made them. It is the study of ichnites. They are interesting since it shows the behavior of the animal.
I suppose that makes sense as each needs its own identification before an association can be made, more so if the association is inherently difficult.PageRob wrote:No as ichnogenera and taxonomic general are considered totally separate. One cannot supplant the other.
Right on the money.big_load wrote:I suppose that makes sense as each needs its own identification before an association can be made, more so if the association is inherently difficult.