Respone to Newbie Dinofest Report, 4-22-97 (long)

["Ray Stanford" <starsong@prodigy.net>]

Sherry Michael wrote:


>Was anyone in the baby sauropod footprint discussion?  Dolph Seilacher
ripped into the poor presenter (sorry I don't recall his name). I know
Dolph is well respected, but he sounded pretty off base making sweeping
statements about the validity of dino tracks.

    Yes, Sherry, I was there.  I was the presenter!  Heartfelt thanks for
your sympathies.

    Actually, I didn't perceive Adolph Seilacher as really ripping into me
or my presentation, but he certainly was mistaken in asserting that no true
(original surface) dinosaur tracks have ever been found,  "...only
under-prints and overprints"!  I reasoned that the statement was inaccurate,
and explained my position.

    Actually I was relieved, however,  when Bob Bakker stood up following my
presentation on the sauropod hatchling tracks and told everybody that my
track finds are genuine,  very extensive, precedent-setting, and important.
[Bakker recently spent six hours examining the track collection.   His
findings during that visit were the basis for that declaration. If anyone
doubts this and has the opportunity, ask Bakker what he thinks of this
collection.]

    In a later encounter at the hotel, Sielacher was quite nice and said
he'd like to someday see my whole collection , so I gave him my card,  told
him to plan on visiting if he's in the D.C. area, and later attended his
fascinating talk.  I kind of got the impression that he may have actually
appreciated this rank amateur standing up to him (but that's subjective and
I wouldn't want to assert that it accurately represents Seilacher's personal
feelings).

    It is quite natural for professional scientists to be initially
surprised and/or skeptical when an amateur appears on the scene and reports
important finds the professionals had no idea might be found at the
locations involved.  It speaks well of those same scientists if they come,
examine the claims and their attendant evidences, and acknowledge what is
actually there. (Of course, disparaging the claims before first-hand
examination is not an admirable approach; but being human, some do this with
almost predictable consistently.  One comes to half-expect  it.)

    After Peter Kranz (who presented the DINOFEST paper on
Astrodon/Pleuroceolus) had seen the collection sometime in the first quarter
of 1997, he became interested in having a report on it included in a
projected book he is hoping the Maryland Geological Survey will be able to
publish.  Geologists there were naturally skeptical  about my finding over
100 cretaceous dino tracks (now over 150) from Maryland, so one of them
asked me if they could come see the collection,and whether, afterward,  I
would be willing to take them to some of the sites.  [No problem.]

    The five geologists arrived, exuding a skepticism that was almost
palpable.  To their credit, however, after examining the tracks (and even
the piece of fossilized Cycadoidea marylandica found at one of the sauropod
sites), they announced that although they had come expecting either a hoax
or to find tracks from elsewhere misrepresented as being from the
Baltimore - Washington 'dinosaur corridor', they now realized the
authenticity
and importance of the collection.  Thereupon, I asked if they'd like me to
take them to some of the source sites.  They said that was not necessary,
because -- having seen the tracks -- they could, themselves, show me the
places where they were found!  So, everybody went to have lunch, instead.

    I do not recall the names of all the five of the geologists, but one
was Kenneth A. Schwarz, Geologist/Chief, Earth Science Information Center,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey.  So,
desk-top skeptics out there, ask the geologists at MGS what they think of
the
collection.

    DINOSAURS OF THE EAST COAST, the book by Weishampel and Luther Young
(The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), had said that no Cretaceous
dinosaur tracks had been reported from Maryland.  On December 23,1997,
Weishampel finally got to see my collection.  Weishampel's openness to the
paleontological contributions of amateurs became very real to me when he
wrote in my copy of DINOSAURS OF THE EAST COAST, "To Ray -- Now that I know
you, this book is due for a big rewrite!  [signed] Dave Weishampel"  As in
the case of Bakker, it was a deeply appreciated honor for Weishampel to
attend my Friday presentations at DINOFEST '98.

    Robert Weems of the U.S. Geological Survey has been a frequent visitor
to the expanding collection, and he has been a steadfast encouragement and
also a help at sorting things out.  In fact, it was he who encouraged me to
present the Texas hatchling sauropod tracks at DINOFEST.

    If more professionals were, like those named, friendly and encouraging
to amateurs wanting to do things the proper way, productive cooperation
could prevent important fossils from falling to the oblivion of basements
and attics. As to my Maryland collection, it is ultimately destined for a
single museum in the east coast area. [No basement, no attic, no sales, no
gifts to relatives.]

    Thanks, Sherry and any who have taken time to read this.  Allowing me
the opportunity to set the record straight is appreciated.  If anyone has
questions concerning the sauropod hatchling tracks from Travis County,
Texas, you may communicate with me off-list.  The same goes for the Maryland
track finds.

    Ray Stanford


















    In the case of my finds,