English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Distinguishing the difference between theropod and ornithopod footprints has proved a difficult task due to their similarities. Herein our aim was to produce a method where a skeleton could be more closely matched to actual fossilised footprints. The reconstructed pes of the Australian Megaraptoran  Australovenator wintonensis  was utilised for this footprint reconstruction. It was 3-D printed in life size, molded and cast to produce a flexible theropod foot for footprint creation. The Dinosaur Stampede National Monument, Lark Quarry, Queensland, Australia was used as our case study to compare fossilised dinosaur footprints with our reconstructed theropod prints. The footprints were created in a sediment that resembled the paleo-sediments of Lark Quarry prior to being traversed by dinosaurs. Measurements of our  Australovenator  prints with two distinctly different print types at Lark Quarry revealed similarities with one distinct trackway which has been the center of recent debate. These footprints consist of 11 consecutive footprints and show distinct similarities in both size and proportions to our  Australovenator  footprints.

A methodology of theropod print replication utilising the pedal reconstruction of Australovenator and a simulated paleo-sediment