Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma


Marc Verhaegen
 

Age constraints for the Trachilos footprints from Crete.

We present an updated time frame for the 30-m thick late-Miocene sedimentary Trachilos section from Crete, that contains the potentially oldest hominin footprints.

The section is characterized by normal magnetic polarity.

New & published foraminifera bio-stratigraphy results suggest an age of the section within the Mediterranean bio-zone MMi13d, younger than ~6.4 Ma.
Calcareous nanno-plankton data from sediments exposed near Trachilos, and belonging to the same sub-basin indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB, between 6.023 & 6.727 Ma.

By integrating the magneto- & bio-stratigraphic data, we correlate the Trachilos section with normal polarity Chron C3An.1n, between 6.272 & 6.023 Ma.

Using cyclo-stratigraphic data based on magnetic susceptibility, we constrain the Trachilos footprints age at ~6.05 Ma, roughly 0.35 Ma older than previously thought.

Some uncertainty remains related to an inaccessible interval of ~8 m section & the possibility that the normal polarity might represent the slightly older Chron C3An.2n.

Sediment accumulation rate & bio-stratigraphic arguments, however, stand against these points, and favor a deposition during Chron C3An.1n.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98618-0


 

This dating study establishes the age of the rocks at Trachilos Beach to be Miocene. They mention that the rocks are shallow marine. They also report that there are no beach deposits at Trachilos Beach until sometime in the Pleistocene. If they had mentioned that mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology, their paper would not have been accepted in Nature. 

--

AquaticApe.net


fceska_gr
 

'mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology...'

I'm not sure that is strictly true, and I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Documentation of mammal footprints from the Sivas Basin:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337102936_Primary_report_of_first_documentation_of_mammal_footprints_from_the_late_Oligocene_in_the_Sivas_Basin_Turkey

Neanderthal footprints found in Gibraltar:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190213100452.htm

F.

On 12/10/2021 11:51 π.μ., Allan Krill wrote:
This dating study establishes the age of the rocks at Trachilos Beach to be Miocene. They mention that the rocks are shallow marine. They also report that there are no beach deposits at Trachilos Beach until sometime in the Pleistocene. If they had mentioned that mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology, their paper would not have been accepted in Nature. 

--

AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:51 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma
 
This dating study establishes the age of the rocks at Trachilos Beach to be Miocene. They mention that the rocks are shallow marine. They also report that there are no beach deposits at Trachilos Beach until sometime in the Pleistocene. If they had mentioned that mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology, their paper would not have been accepted in Nature. 

--

AquaticApe.net


 

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 02:09 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

'mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology...'

I'm not sure that is strictly true, and I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Your footprint examples are in river sediments and wind-blown sediments, not marine sediments. 

Mammal footprints typically occur with desiccation mudcracks and raindrop marks, and none of these can occur in marine sediments like those at Trachilos, which have been dated by marine foraminifera and nannoplankton. If the marine water is so shallow that a mammal can walk in it, the sediments are typically disturbed by tides, waves, and bioturbation. The flat and smooth Trachilos sediments were probably deposited below wave base, and were later disturbed by dewatering.

Paleoanthropologists typically make claims that are beyond belief, and no one (except maybe creationists) complains. It is like in religion, where respected leaders tell their followers to accept belief in miracles, and those who don't believe are either too polite or too intimidated to challenge those claims. 

--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

Trachilos sediments have been dated by marine foramenifera, therefore they could not have been marine sediments.

Just meaningless noise now from the stalker.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:46 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma
 
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 02:09 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

'mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology...'

I'm not sure that is strictly true, and I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Your footprint examples are in river sediments and wind-blown sediments, not marine sediments. 

Mammal footprints typically occur with desiccation mudcracks and raindrop marks, and none of these can occur in marine sediments like those at Trachilos, which have been dated by marine foraminifera and nannoplankton. If the marine water is so shallow that a mammal can walk in it, the sediments are typically disturbed by tides, waves, and bioturbation. The flat and smooth Trachilos sediments were probably deposited below wave base, and were later disturbed by dewatering.

Paleoanthropologists typically make claims that are beyond belief, and no one (except maybe creationists) complains. It is like in religion, where respected leaders tell their followers to accept belief in miracles, and those who don't believe are either too polite or too intimidated to challenge those claims. 

--
AquaticApe.net


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

The paleoenvironment at Trachilos is well understand. It was a lagoon beach bar, and not subaqueous when the prints were made. As I recall they were dated by forams above and below the tracks stratigraphically.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Gareth Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 2:08 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

Trachilos sediments have been dated by marine foramenifera, therefore they could not have been marine sediments.

 

Just meaningless noise now from the stalker.

From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 10:46 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 02:09 AM, fceska_gr wrote:

'mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology...'

I'm not sure that is strictly true, and I'm sure there are plenty more examples.

Your footprint examples are in river sediments and wind-blown sediments, not marine sediments. 

Mammal footprints typically occur with desiccation mudcracks and raindrop marks, and none of these can occur in marine sediments like those at Trachilos, which have been dated by marine foraminifera and nannoplankton. If the marine water is so shallow that a mammal can walk in it, the sediments are typically disturbed by tides, waves, and bioturbation. The flat and smooth Trachilos sediments were probably deposited below wave base, and were later disturbed by dewatering.

Paleoanthropologists typically make claims that are beyond belief, and no one (except maybe creationists) complains. It is like in religion, where respected leaders tell their followers to accept belief in miracles, and those who don't believe are either too polite or too intimidated to challenge those claims. 

--
AquaticApe.net

 


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

In many types of dating you can follow the beds to adjacent places that have been dated. This is what they did, and what they mean by an adjacent basin. Of course ichnofossils including tracks are found in diverse types of sedimentary rocks, and hominins tracks are known from beach deposits such as the oldest known human fossils (tracks) from England. “Calcareous nannoplankton data from sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB, between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma._______________________________________________________________________________From the Nature article “Calcareous nannoplankton data from sediments exposed near Trachilos and belonging to the same sub-basin indicate deposition during calcareous nannofossil biozone CN9bB, between 6.023 and 6.727 Ma.”

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Gareth Morgan
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:36 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 11:51 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

This dating study establishes the age of the rocks at Trachilos Beach to be Miocene. They mention that the rocks are shallow marine. They also report that there are no beach deposits at Trachilos Beach until sometime in the Pleistocene. If they had mentioned that mammal footprints in shallow marine sedimentary rocks are otherwise unknown in paleontology, their paper would not have been accepted in Nature. 

--

AquaticApe.net

 


 

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:02 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
The paleoenvironment at Trachilos is well understand. It was a lagoon beach bar
These fine grained flat-lying sediments look nothing like lagoon or beach bar sediments. Maybe you can give us a reference to a proper geological description of these or other nearby Miocene sedimentary rocks, that claims they were subaerial? (A proper description will include thin sections and other sedimentary structures besides the supposed footprints.)
 
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:28 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma
 
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:02 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
The paleoenvironment at Trachilos is well understand. It was a lagoon beach bar
These fine grained flat-lying sediments look nothing like lagoon or beach bar sediments. Maybe you can give us a reference to a proper geological description of these or other nearby Miocene sedimentary rocks, that claims they were subaerial? (A proper description will include thin sections and other sedimentary structures besides the supposed footprints.)
 
--
AquaticApe.net


 

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:42 PM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
How to use Google...
Thanks Gareth. Mammals are much more abundant than primates. Mammals walk on marine beaches, beach bars, and lagunas, but they don't leave fossil footprints there. Maybe you or someone else can find an example of fossil footprints of any mammal other than primates, in any marine sedimentary rocks.

Fossil footprints of any mammal in marine sedimentary rocks would be sensational. 
 
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:51 AM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma
 
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:42 PM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
How to use Google...
Thanks Gareth. Mammals are much more abundant than primates. Mammals walk on marine beaches, beach bars, and lagunas, but they don't leave fossil footprints there. Maybe you or someone else can find an example of fossil footprints of any mammal other than primates, in any marine sedimentary rocks.

Fossil footprints of any mammal in marine sedimentary rocks would be sensational. 
 
--
AquaticApe.net


 

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 01:02 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
https://whc.unesco.org/fr/listesindicatives/5851/
The fossils and fossil footprints in your reference are in fluvial sedimentary rocks, not marine sedimentary rocks. Here is the paragraph that explains this:

Rocks were formed in a moment of the history of the Earth when the climate was cold and dry, and the sea was not where it is today; it had gone back dozens of kilometres towards the South-East of its current position. The former Pehuén co was a great valley of an ancient river and, in its lowest parts, fresh water accumulated during periods of heavy rains that swept along the mud from the nearest ravines. As a consequence, ponds were formed, that were inhabited by waterfowls, and where pumas, deer, guanacos, bears, horses and strange huge animals that are extent today (Megatherium, Macrauchenia, Stegomastodon) came to drink water.


The tracks of all these creatures were marked on the mud, which after drying and covering with layers of sand and new mud mantles, they were transformed slowly in a succession of semi-consolidated rocks. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

 Marine sediment settles deep on the sea floor.

Estuarial sediment happens in estuaries.


Palaeoichnological sites, per link...

alternated layers of clay and sand formed in shallow water bodies, with more or less marine influence.

 hunters-gatherers in an estuary 

 In England, Severn Estuary, Formby Point can be found; in South Wales, Mersey and Kenfig estuaries. All of them belong to the Mesolithic and Neolithic.



The Trachilos prints are in carbonate–siliciclastic tidal sedimentation

Google it for tracks of camels and horses


Idiot


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 2:12 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma
 
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 01:02 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
https://whc.unesco.org/fr/listesindicatives/5851/
The fossils and fossil footprints in your reference are in fluvial sedimentary rocks, not marine sedimentary rocks. Here is the paragraph that explains this:

Rocks were formed in a moment of the history of the Earth when the climate was cold and dry, and the sea was not where it is today; it had gone back dozens of kilometres towards the South-East of its current position. The former Pehuén co was a great valley of an ancient river and, in its lowest parts, fresh water accumulated during periods of heavy rains that swept along the mud from the nearest ravines. As a consequence, ponds were formed, that were inhabited by waterfowls, and where pumas, deer, guanacos, bears, horses and strange huge animals that are extent today (Megatherium, Macrauchenia, Stegomastodon) came to drink water.


The tracks of all these creatures were marked on the mud, which after drying and covering with layers of sand and new mud mantles, they were transformed slowly in a succession of semi-consolidated rocks. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net


 

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 07:10 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
Google it for tracks of camels and horses

Gareth, you’ve proven me wrong here. (I practically beg to be proven wrong, the way I stick my neck out.) If there is a rule that mammal footprints don’t occur in marine sediments, you’ve found «the exception that proves the rule.»

Of course I had to be convinced that the reference really describes mammal footprints. I am convinced, because it also mentions desiccation mud cracks and raindrop marks. So the muds are really subaerial (which has not been shown for any rocks at Trachilos.)

I had also to be convinced that the rocks are marine. That is much more uncertain. The authors here consider them marine, but the rocks were deposited in a very complex geologic setting, including delta and river environments from a major river. And other geologists do not consider the rocks marine at all. The authors of this reference write:

 

The Bouse Formation deposits display tidal cyclicity similar to that of the modern Gulf of California (Marinone, 1997; O’Connell et al., 2017), and the tectonic setting and basin geometries are well-constrained (Dorsey et al., 2018; Gardner & Dorsey, 2021). Published analyses, however, are incomplete, and some studies favour a lacustrine origin for the Bouse Formation in its southern exposures along the lower Colorado River region (Spencer & Jonathan Patchett, 1997; House et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2013; Bright et al., 2016, 2018a,b).

 

Then they write the same thing again: 

 

Although some authors favour an isolated inland-lake model for the Bouse Formation in the study area (Spencer & Jonathan Patchett, 1997; House et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2008, 2013; Bright et al., 2016, 2018a,b), the lacustrine model is incompatible with abundant evidence for intertidal, marine to brackish-water fossils and trace fossils, and widespread tide-influenced sedimentary structures (Buising, 1990; Turak, 2000; O’Connell et al., 2017; Dorsey et al., 2018; Gardner & Dorsey, 2021).

 

So it is disputed whether the mammal footprints are in marine sediments or in lake (lacustrine) sediments. But these authors are convinced that there are marine sediments with mammal footprints here, and I won't claim they are wrong.

 

--
AquaticApe.net


Gareth Morgan
 

marine sediments with mammal footprints

WTF difference does it make? 

Idiot.


From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 8:55 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma
 
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 07:10 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
Google it for tracks of camels and horses

Gareth, you’ve proven me wrong here. (I practically beg to be proven wrong, the way I stick my neck out.) If there is a rule that mammal footprints don’t occur in marine sediments, you’ve found «the exception that proves the rule.»

Of course I had to be convinced that the reference really describes mammal footprints. I am convinced, because it also mentions desiccation mud cracks and raindrop marks. So the muds are really subaerial (which has not been shown for any rocks at Trachilos.)

I had also to be convinced that the rocks are marine. That is much more uncertain. The authors here consider them marine, but the rocks were deposited in a very complex geologic setting, including delta and river environments from a major river. And other geologists do not consider the rocks marine at all. The authors of this reference write:

 

The Bouse Formation deposits display tidal cyclicity similar to that of the modern Gulf of California (Marinone, 1997; O’Connell et al., 2017), and the tectonic setting and basin geometries are well-constrained (Dorsey et al., 2018; Gardner & Dorsey, 2021). Published analyses, however, are incomplete, and some studies favour a lacustrine origin for the Bouse Formation in its southern exposures along the lower Colorado River region (Spencer & Jonathan Patchett, 1997; House et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2013; Bright et al., 2016, 2018a,b).

 

Then they write the same thing again: 

 

Although some authors favour an isolated inland-lake model for the Bouse Formation in the study area (Spencer & Jonathan Patchett, 1997; House et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2008, 2013; Bright et al., 2016, 2018a,b), the lacustrine model is incompatible with abundant evidence for intertidal, marine to brackish-water fossils and trace fossils, and widespread tide-influenced sedimentary structures (Buising, 1990; Turak, 2000; O’Connell et al., 2017; Dorsey et al., 2018; Gardner & Dorsey, 2021).

 

So it is disputed whether the mammal footprints are in marine sediments or in lake (lacustrine) sediments. But these authors are convinced that there are marine sediments with mammal footprints here, and I won't claim they are wrong.

 

--
AquaticApe.net


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

Right away when I first saw this photo I noticed that at the actual local, these are at the very top of the beds. So I knew people would be trying to claim they are much younger sediments deposited locally on top. Such claims have been made, but are not valid for a number of reasons I will not get into here. Just at a glance I can tell, as can many who actually have some understanding of ichnofossils, that these were subaerial when made, and until the mud dried. If not, there would not be so many obvious signs the mud was quite tacky and not fully saturated when the tracks were made and until the mud hardened. ______________________________________________________________________________________________Paleoanthropologists, unable to accept hominin tracks could be so old in “Europe”, used their axiomatic knowledge that there could not be hominin tracks in Europe this old to censor them and rule them out as hominin tracks. The sort of statements they made then, and some still make, demonstrate remarkable ignorance of many subjects, sedimentary geology, absolute dating, hominin foot morphology, how fossil foot prints look (some still claim these are not even foot prints which is an incredibly ignorant assumption), paleoenvironments in the region (there was often no barrier to gene flow between Trachilos and similar age likely hominin remains in Africa). They delayed publication two years, so many of us were delayed from getting this very important information for two years due to their incompetence and incompetent censorship. __________________________________________________________________________________________________These could in fact be great ape tracks, and the outline of all but the larger individual are quite great ape like. They are however without any doubt bipedal hominids with the hallux in line with the other toes. The first such tracks or feet known to science. In my opinion they are best assigned to the genus Homo and do not have close affinities with Graecopithecus which very well could be a hominin like great ape with affinities with Pan and australopiths. ______________________________________________________________________________________________One might think a professional paleoanthropologist has minimal competency in ichnopaleontology. Trachilos proves many do not.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Allan Krill
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 11:55 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 07:10 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:

Google it for tracks of camels and horses

Gareth, you’ve proven me wrong here. (I practically beg to be proven wrong, the way I stick my neck out.) If there is a rule that mammal footprints don’t occur in marine sediments, you’ve found «the exception that proves the rule.»

Of course I had to be convinced that the reference really describes mammal footprints. I am convinced, because it also mentions desiccation mud cracks and raindrop marks. So the muds are really subaerial (which has not been shown for any rocks at Trachilos.)

I had also to be convinced that the rocks are marine. That is much more uncertain. The authors here consider them marine, but the rocks were deposited in a very complex geologic setting, including delta and river environments from a major river. And other geologists do not consider the rocks marine at all. The authors of this reference write:

 

The Bouse Formation deposits display tidal cyclicity similar to that of the modern Gulf of California (Marinone, 1997; O’Connell et al., 2017), and the tectonic setting and basin geometries are well-constrained (Dorsey et al., 2018; Gardner & Dorsey, 2021). Published analyses, however, are incomplete, and some studies favour a lacustrine origin for the Bouse Formation in its southern exposures along the lower Colorado River region (Spencer & Jonathan Patchett, 1997; House et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2013; Bright et al., 2016, 2018a,b).

 

Then they write the same thing again: 

 

Although some authors favour an isolated inland-lake model for the Bouse Formation in the study area (Spencer & Jonathan Patchett, 1997; House et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2008, 2013; Bright et al., 2016, 2018a,b), the lacustrine model is incompatible with abundant evidence for intertidal, marine to brackish-water fossils and trace fossils, and widespread tide-influenced sedimentary structures (Buising, 1990; Turak, 2000; O’Connell et al., 2017; Dorsey et al., 2018; Gardner & Dorsey, 2021).

 

So it is disputed whether the mammal footprints are in marine sediments or in lake (lacustrine) sediments. But these authors are convinced that there are marine sediments with mammal footprints here, and I won't claim they are wrong.

 

--
AquaticApe.net

 


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

Marine sediments form in all depths of sea water. From a thin film such as in a calm lagoon to deep water. I worked in interdigitated marine and terrestrial sediments with months in the field in those types of deposits in the Caliente Formation Miocene. Most of what I studied for marine was shallow water marine, sometimes with poor mammal ichnofossils and sometimes with fossil terrestrial mammals. Some locals with both marine fossils and terrestrial mammals mixed.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Gareth Morgan
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 8:14 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

 Marine sediment settles deep on the sea floor.



Estuarial sediment happens in estuaries.





Palaeoichnological sites, per link...



alternated layers of clay and sand formed in shallow water bodies, with more or less marine influence.

 

 hunters-gatherers in an estuary 



 In England, Severn Estuary, Formby Point can be found; in South Wales, Mersey and Kenfig estuaries. All of them belong to the Mesolithic and Neolithic.







The Trachilos prints are in carbonate–siliciclastic tidal sedimentation



Google it for tracks of camels and horses



 

Idiot

From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 2:12 PM
To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [AAT] Trachilos footprints ~6 Ma

 

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 01:02 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:

https://whc.unesco.org/fr/listesindicatives/5851/

The fossils and fossil footprints in your reference are in fluvial sedimentary rocks, not marine sedimentary rocks. Here is the paragraph that explains this:


Rocks were formed in a moment of the history of the Earth when the climate was cold and dry, and the sea was not where it is today; it had gone back dozens of kilometres towards the South-East of its current position. The former Pehuén co was a great valley of an ancient river and, in its lowest parts, fresh water accumulated during periods of heavy rains that swept along the mud from the nearest ravines. As a consequence, ponds were formed, that were inhabited by waterfowls, and where pumas, deer, guanacos, bears, horses and strange huge animals that are extent today (Megatherium, Macrauchenia, Stegomastodon) came to drink water.


The tracks of all these creatures were marked on the mud, which after drying and covering with layers of sand and new mud mantles, they were transformed slowly in a succession of semi-consolidated rocks. 

 
--
AquaticApe.net