Following in the Steps of a Peculiar Protomammal

Five-toed tracks found in Argentina revise what paleontologists thought about a strange group of animals called dicynodonts.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


There’s something undeniably cute about dicynodonts. A case could easily be made that they were the manatees of the Permian and Triassic, protomammal cousins of ours whose barrel-shaped bodies, smushed faces, and tusks gave them their own “so ugly they’re adorable” vibe. Naturally, most of what we know about what they looked like comes from the synthesis of bones and comparative anatomy, but that’s not all. Fossil footprints found in the Late Triassic rock of Argentina’s Los Menucos Group have added a little bit more to our understanding of how these ancient synapsids looked and moved.

The tracks in question, described by paleontologist Paolo Citton and colleagues, can be categorized as Pentasauropus. This is the name given for similar five-toed tracks found in strata of similar age in South Africa, attributed to the shuffling steps of dicynodonts. But, Citton and coauthors point out, there’s something slightly off between the tracks and what was expected of dicynodont posture based on bones alone. The tracks appear to indicate that the animal who made the tracks stood more or less on tiptoe while still but that the whole of the foot - bones and soft tissues - was weight-bearing while the animal moved.

Naturalists have seen this before. The feet of elephants, where comparatively small toes and a fleshy support pad work together, offer a rough approximation of what was going on with the Pentasauropus trackmaker over 200 million years ago. What this may mean, Citton and colleagues propose, is that this kind of specialization allows for larger body sizes - opening up possibilities - rather than directly following increased size as an anatomical coping mechanism. If the dicynodonts had survived longer, perhaps they could have gotten beyond the pig and cow sizes.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What this means is that we not only have a better idea of how these animals looked - their feet bearing fleshy pads that acted as shock absorbers - but also how they moved, plodding along in an elephant-type way despite being significantly smaller. Bones and tracks each have their virtues in isolation, but can even more powerfully refine our picture of the past when they are brought together.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe