Pterosaurs are front-heavy, so the foot prints are expected to vanish in higher sediment layers than the hand prints.
Not so. Check out pterosaur info. com > behaviors for an animation of a walking pterosaur that actually fits the tracks. It's essentially bipedal using its forelimbs as canes. And, if you can imagine using a cane at the beach, you'll understand why the forelimbs press a little deeper. Less surface area.
DM; Pterosaur walks on soft mud on all fours, many layers of mud get deformed, the top layers erode away, and one of the underprint layers ends up being published.
In every case? Seems unreasonable.
DM wrote:
Maybe that's where the multiple naris comes in.
It does not exist. It is a misinterpretation of cracks in the fossil. Several people have pointed this out onlist.
No. They haven't. Not with pictures.
And funny that the cracks form identical phylogenetic patterns. That's unreasonable.
Identical to what?
Tell me David, if _some_ poling marks turn out to be primary ichnites, does that change any of your hypotheses?