Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 29;18(3):e0282354. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282354

Unique trackway on Permian Karoo shoreline provides evidence of temnospondyl locomotory behaviour

David P Groenewald 1,¤,*, Ashley Krüger 2, Michael O Day 1,3, Cameron R Penn-Clarke 1, P John Hancox 1, Bruce S Rubidge 1
Editor: Jörg Fröbisch4
PMCID: PMC10057796  PMID: 36989249

Abstract

Large-bodied temnospondyl amphibians were the dominant predators in non-marine aquatic ecosystems from the Carboniferous to the Middle Triassic. In the Permian-aged lower Beaufort Group of the main Karoo Basin, South Africa, temnospondyls are represented exclusively by the family Rhinesuchidae and are well represented by body fossils, whereas trace fossils are scarce. Accordingly, most interpretations of the behaviour of this family are based on skeletal morphology and histological data. Here we document the sedimentology and palaeontology of a late Permian palaeosurface situated immediately below the palaeoshoreline of the Ecca Sea (transition from the Ecca Group to the Beaufort Group) near the town of Estcourt in KwaZulu-Natal Province. The surface preserves numerous ichnofossils, including tetrapod footprints and fish swim-trails, but most striking are seven body impressions and associated swim trails that we attribute to a medium-sized (~1.9 m long) rhinesuchid temnospondyl. These provide valuable insight into the behaviour of these animals. The sinuous shape of some of the traces suggest that the tracemaker swam with continuous sub-undulatory propulsion of the tail.

Introduction

The main Karoo Basin is renowned for its rich vertebrate body fossil record, as well as its extensive ichnological record comprising terrestrial and aquatic traces from the Upper Pennsylvanian to the Lower Jurassic. A diverse array of trace fossils has been recognised with attributed trace- and trackmakers including fish [e.g. 1, 2], invertebrates [e.g. 310], therapsids [9, 1116], dinosaurs and other reptiles [1627], and amphibians [21, 2830].

A large palaeosurface with several remarkable trace fossils is exposed along the course of a tributary of the Rensburgspruit in the uThukela District, KwaZulu-Natal Province. The most striking ichnofossils are of seven large (>1 m long) impressions recording resting and locomotor behaviours. While the unique morphology of these traces and the importance of the site has previously been recognised [e.g. 31], neither the site nor the trackways have been fully described. This is mainly because the size (> 1 m) and shallow depth (< 5 mm) of the impressions resulted in traditional casting methods being unsuccessful. Other traces preserved on the palaeosurface include numerous smaller (10–15 cm diameter) subcircular to blob-shaped depressions and paired and unpaired linear traces.

In this paper, we document the site with its sedimentary structures and unique traces as well as its stratigraphic context. Using high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) surface scans and aerial orthophotographs, we provide the first comprehensive description of the large impressions. A probable tracemaker for the impressions is assigned and locomotory behaviour of the tracemaker is inferred.

Geological and palaeontological context

Geological background and stratigraphy of the palaeosurface

Named in honour of the late Mr Dave Green, who discovered this remarkable site and had a passion for palaeontology, the Dave Green palaeosurface (S28.967122°, E29.987366°) is located along a tributary of the Rensburgspruit on the farm Van der Merwe’s Kraal 972, approximately 10 km northeast of the town Estcourt in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa (Figs 1 and 2). The region spans the Ecca-Beaufort transition and is primarily underlain by late Permian (Changhsingian) siliciclastic deposits of the Waterford and Balfour formations that are intruded by lower Jurassic dolerite dykes and sills [3237]. The Dave Green palaeosurface covers an area of approximately 600 m2 and is situated in the upper Waterford Formation, immediately below the Ecca-Beaufort contact, which records the transition from marine/ lacustrine to fluvial environmental conditions [31, 3437].

Fig 1. Geological setting of the Dave Green palaeosurface.

Fig 1

A) Simplified geological map of the main Karoo Basin. Position of the study area is indicated. B) Aerial photo of the palaeosurface (taken by AK). C) Stratigraphic log measured along the Rensburgspruit.

Fig 2. Orthophoto of the palaeosurface with the positions of the seven large impressions and paths followed for the high-resolution scans indicated.

Fig 2

Numbers used for the impressions are the same throughout the text.

In the southern Karoo Basin, the Waterford Formation constitutes the uppermost Ecca Group [3843], but has recently been shown to also be present in the north of the basin, where it gradationally overlies the Volksrust or Tierberg formations [37]. This diagnostic and easily recognisable formation, which incorporates strata previously assigned to the upper Volksrust and/or conformably overlying lower Balfour Formation (including the now defunct Normandien and Estcourt formations [36, 37]), is characterized as being generally arenaceous in nature, generally ripple-marked, as well as containing rhythmically-bedded carbonaceous shale and ubiquitous soft sediment deformation structures (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Features of the upper Waterford and lower Balfour formations in the study area.

Fig 3

A) Large calcareous nodules. B) Rounded/ Smoothed symmetrical ripples on the top of the thick sandstone unit. C) Dark grey, laminated mudstones. D) Iron oxide haloes in sandstone unit. E) Soft sediment deformation. Note how the laminations follow the deformation bed. F) Sequence of rhythmites, comprising alternating mudstone and sandstone units. G) Large symmetrical ripples with sharp, straight crests and Skolithos burrows. H) Yellow-green mudstones typical of this facies association. I) Sandstone lens showing lateral/ downstream accretion. J) Calcareous concretions within a sandstone. K) Slickenside surfaces and nodules in mudstones. L) Fossilised wood weathering out of the mudstones. M) Horsetail impressions. N) Glossopteris leaf impressions. O) Large, unidentified bone c.f. dicynodont.

Previous studies showed that these deposits accumulated in a regressive delta front and delta plain [34, 37, 41, 4346]. Within the study area, the Waterford Formation is at least 140 m thick and is considered to be Wuchiapingian in age [36]. Mudstones of the Waterford Formation are commonly dark to medium grey (N3 –N5) and Olive Green (5GY 3/2), whereas siltstones and sandstones are typically lighter, varying between medium light grey to light grey (N6 –N8), and occasionally light brown (5YR 6/4). Laminated mudstones typically display platy/ flaky weathering and may contain fragmentary plant impressions and invertebrate traces.

The overlying Balfour Formation is, with respect to the Waterford Formation, markedly more argillaceous, with interspersed sandstone lenses that typically have an erosional base. In contrast to the dark grey to olive-green mudstones of the underlying Waterford Formation, mudstones of the Balfour Formation are generally moderate yellow (5Y 7/6) to dark greenish yellow (10Y 6/6), are massive to finely-laminated, display a blockier weathering pattern, and may contain calcareous nodules and slickensided surfaces (Fig 3). Plant impressions and tetrapod vertebrate remains are more abundant and complete in the Balfour Formation than the underlying Waterford Formation. The depositional environment for the Balfour Formation in the northeastern main Karoo Basin has been interpreted as having accumulated in high-load meandering river systems [34, 36, 37, 39, 44, 4751].

Local palaeontology

Van der Merwe’s Kraal 972, as well its immediate surrounds, is palaeontologically rich, comprising a diverse assemblage of plant, insect, and vertebrate body fossils in addition to trace fossils [31, 34, 5256]. Green [34] undertook detailed sedimentological and palaeontological work on the farm but although she noted and briefly discussed the Dave Green palaeosurface in her “shoreline log”, she largely ignored the tetrapod traces. Green (1997) did, however, document 15 trackways from two surfaces roughly 1.1 km to the south of the Dave Green palaeosurface. These surfaces, which have since been re-covered by silt and mud, had been exposed during the excavation of a dam and Green [34] considered them to be from a laterally equivalent stratigraphic level as the Dave Green palaeosurface. The 15 trackways were attributed to small-to-medium sized dicynodont trackmakers, based on track morphology and because dicynodonts are the most commonly represented group in the body fossil record, and interpreted as reflecting undertracks and movement of an animal buoyed by water [34]. Plant fossils found near the Dave Green palaeosurface include impressions of Glossopteris leaves and sphenophyte stems (Calmites and Paracalamites; DPG pers. obs.), as well as silicified wood identified as Agathoxylon africanum (M. Bamford pers. comm. 2019; Groenewald 2021) (Fig 3). Plant fossils below the palaeosurface are generally more fragmentary than those above it. Vertebrate fossils below the palaeosurface are restricted to isolated and fragmented fish bones and scales, whereas vertebrate fossils recovered from the Balfour Formation by us and previous workers on the farm van der Merwe’s Kraal 972 include a partial rhinesuchid amphibian skull (BP/1/7858; c.f. Laccosaurus) and fragmentary dicynodont material. Although the body fossils are not diagnostic, the lowermost vertebrate assemblage zone of the Beaufort Group in this part of KwaZulu-Natal is the late Permian (Lopingian) Daptocephalus Assemblage Zone (AZ), although it is unclear which subzone is present [37, 57].

Materials and methods

We recorded the lithostratigraphy and sedimentology of the study area by measuring a stratigraphic section through the exposures of interbedded sandstones, siltstones and mudstones along the stream bed that crosses the palaeosurface. For this we used a Jacob’s staff and Abney level, noting the lithology, colour, sedimentary structures, and fossils present. These data were used to characterise lithofacies and lithofacies associations as well as architectural elements after Miall [58, 59] to provide palaeoenvironmental context to the deposits (Table 1). A recent detailed appraisal of the sedimentology and lithostratigraphy across the Ecca-Beaufort contact in the north of the main Karoo Basin may be found in Groenewald et al. [37] and is referred to herein. The described study complied with all relevant regulations and the necessary permit (REF: SAH19/13092) was obtained from KwaZulu-Natal Amafa and Research Institute.

Table 1. Descriptions and interpretations of lithofacies types [modified after Miall [60]; * denotes newly erected lithofacies types from Groenewald et al. [37]] from the studied stratigraphic interval.

Lithofacies Lithofacies Description Interpretation
Code
St Trough cross-bedded sandstone Medium- to coarse-grained sandstones with cross-bedded units in which the lower bounding surfaces are curved and truncate other facies or cosets. Migration of three-dimensional dunes.
Sp Planar cross-bedded sandstone Fine- to coarse-grained sandstones in which the foresets dip between 15° and 35°. Migration of two-dimensional dunes.
Sr Ripple cross-laminated sandstones Very fine- to medium-grained sandstones with ripple cross-laminations. Lower flow regime, wave and wind induced ripples.
Sm Massive or weakly graded sandstone Very fine- to coarse-grained sandstones in which no internal sedimentary structures are observed. Rapid deposition, e.g., sediment gravity flows. Alternatively, loss of sedimentary structures could be due to bioturbation and/ or weathering.
Sd* Sandstone/siltstone beds with deformation structures Fine-grained sandstone and siltstone beds that display soft-sediment deformation structures including load casts, ball and pillows, and water escape and flame structures. Rapid sedimentation, liquefaction, reverse density gradation, shear stress, or collapse of channel banks.
R* Rhythmically interbedded mudstones, siltstones, and sandstones Alternating heterolithic beds of fine- to medium-, and occasionally coarse-grained sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones. Lower bounding surface of coarser beds is sharp, whereas the upper bounding surface commonly has symmetrical ripple marks. Deposition in parts of the interdistributary bay proximal to subaqueous distributary channels. Finer-grained argillaceous beds were deposited through suspension settling during periods of lower energy while the interbedded coarser-grained beds were deposited under higher energy conditions.
Fl Laminated fines Relatively thick (> 0.5 m) successions of horizontally and ripple-cross laminated mudstones. Suspension settling, or deposition under lower flow regime conditions. Depositional settings include distal interdistributary bays, lagoons, and on tidal flats; away from channels and where wave activity is minimal. Fluvial settings include ephemeral floodplain pools and ponds.
Fm Massive siltstones and mudstones Massive beds of siltstone and mudstone displaying no apparent bedding planes. Co-occurs with Facies Fl and thin sandstone lenses may be present. Either through suspension settling, with bioturbation, diagenesis, or weathering resulting in the lack of sedimentary structures, or through rapid deposition e.g., hyperpycnal/hypopycnal flows.

Due to the large area of the palaeosurface and the relatively shallow impressions that are preserved, traditional casting methods were not successful. Consequently, we combine high-resolution surface scanning and aerial images to digitise and accurately record the surface.

An orthophotograph of the palaeosurface was created using 16 photographs taken with a DJI (Shenzhen, China) Spark unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The photographs were taken 9.8 m meters above the surface (f/2.6, 1/100s, at 25 mm focal length) using the integrated 1/2.3" CMOS (Effective pixels: 12 MP) sensor and gimble. Each photograph was automatically GPS tagged using the UAV’s built in GPS functionality and later stitched into the encompassing orthophotograph using Microsoft Image Composite Editor 2.0.

In addition to photographing the large traces, high-resolution three-dimensional models for six of the better-preserved large traces were produced by scanning using an Artec Eva (Luxembourg City, Luxembourg; http://www.artecthree-dimensional.com/hardware/artec-eva/) handheld structuredlight 3D scanner and processed in Artec Studio 10 and Artec Studio 11 software. The models were exported as Polygon File Format (.ply) and processed further using the software CloudCompare 2.9.1 (https://www.danielgm.net/cc/) and ParaView v. 5.10.1 (https://www.paraview.org/).

Results

Sedimentology

The Dave Green palaeosurface ichnofossils are preserved on the upper bedding plane of a ~10 cm thick ripple-marked fine-grained sandstone bed with a thin (~2 mm) mudstone drape, which we interpret to be situated in the uppermost part of the Waterford Formation (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Sedimentary structures preserved on the palaeosurface.

Fig 4

A and B) Well preserved asymmetrical ripples indicate a westerly current direction. C) Current-modified ripples, with tongues of sand on the lee side of the ripples, in the northwestern part of the surface. D) Rill marks on smoothed ripple marks in the northwestern part of the surface. E) Depressions with interference ripples F) Smooth, unrippled section in the foreground with rippled surface in the background and a ‘corridor’ of subcircular to blob-shaped depressions (tracks) between the two. G) Aerial view of the portion of the ‘corridor’ passing between impressions 2 and 3. H) Closer view of smooth areas surrounded by ripple marked depressions which could indicate the presence of a microbial mat on the surface, as seen in modern environments (I and J). I) Modern example of smooth areas surrounded by ripple marked depressions at the Mbotyi River Mouth, South Africa. J) Modern example of an algal mat and ripple patches from Mellum Island tidal flats, Germany (modified from [61]).

The exposed palaeosurface is formed in a succession of interbedded mudstones, siltstones, and sandstones in the upper 0.5 m of the Waterford Formation, that are in turn overlain by mudstones and sandstones of the Balfour Formation (Fig 1). Preserved asymmetrical ripples are well defined (Fig 4A and 4B) with sinuous crestlines and well-developed bifurcations, especially in the western half of the surface. The ripples have a wavelength of 35 mm and an amplitude of 3 mm. Palaeocurrent readings from the asymmetrical ripples, with ripple crest strike orientation of 168-348º, indicate a westerly current direction of 258°. Current-modified and rounded, smooth-topped ripples with rill marks and Gyrochorte-like invertebrate traces are present on the northwestern part of the surface (Fig 4C and 4D).

Several medium-sized depressions (>20 cm diameter) contain symmetrical ripples with a strike orientation of 98–278°, almost perpendicular to that of the asymmetrical ripples (Fig 4E). Large, smooth areas surrounding asymmetrically ripple-marked sections (Fig 4F and 4H) were observed in many parts of the surface; in such areas, no ripples are preserved, or the amplitude of the ripples is much smaller, while the wavelength remains the same. Numerous smaller, subcircular depressions, many with asymmetrical ripples, are also preserved (Fig 4F and 4G). We consider these to represent trackways with poor morphological preservation and describe them further below under Subcircular depressions.

Ichnology

The exposed palaeosurface is covered with numerous traces and tracks of various size and form (Fig 5). For the purposes of this paper, we will describe and discuss the different tracks in three groups based on the morphology and arrangement of the traces: “Large impressions”, “Subcircular depressions”, and “Linear traces”.

Fig 5. Sketch map of the palaeosurface showing the location of the seven large impressions, smooth areas with subcircular depressions, and linear traces.

Fig 5

The palaeocurrent as indicated by the asymmetrical ripples is 258°. The six large impressions are numbered 1–7 and this scheme is followed in the text and subsequent figures. The linear traces are labeled LT1 –LT3.

Large impressions

At least seven large elongate and spindle-shaped impressions are preserved on the surface (Figs 2, 5 and 6; Table 2). These impressions vary in length between approximately 1.5–2.1 m, and the shape of each trace may be described in three sections, namely: 1) a tapered “tail” opening towards, 2) an expanded intermediate region (present in impressions 3, 4, 5), and 3) a wide rounded rectangular “body” between 200 mm and 220 mm wide (Fig 6). The outer edge of the impressions manifest as pushed-up ridges or bulges. Some of the impressions are followed or preceded by smoothed traces 120–190 mm wide and up to several metres long, which generally interrupt or obliterate the ripples. These smooth traces connect some of the impressions (e.g., Impressions 3, 4, 5) and reveal two large semi-circular patterns (Fig 5). Vague sinusoidal patterns are present in some of the smooth traces e.g., Impressions 3 and 5.

Fig 6. Oblique field photographs of the six best preserved large impressions from the Dave Green palaeosurface and simplified sketch of an impression showing the characteristic “body”, “tail”, and intermediate expanded sections.

Fig 6

Numbering of the impressions corresponds with the rest of the figures and text. In parts 1–6: scale bars equal 30 cm.

Table 2. Dimensions of the better-preserved large impressions and selected smooth traces.
Trace Length (cm) Width (cm)
Impression 2A 209 18.0–20.0
Impression 2B 152 18.0–23.0
Impression 3 159 18.0–21.0
Impression 4 161 15.0–18.0
Impression 5 159 18.0–21.0
Smooth trace following impression 3 - 12.0–13.0
Smooth trace following impression 4 - 19.5–20.0
Smooth trace following impression 5 - 13.5–18.5
Smooth trace following impression 7 - 12.0–14.5

Impression 2 is 3.15 m long and consists of two superimposed impressions, with the tail section of the second impression (B) overprinting on the body section of the first (A; Fig 7). The length of Impression 2A is ~2.09 m, whereas that of Impression 2B is ~1.52 m. The width for the body portion of the impressions varies between ~180 and 200 mm, with the expanded section in Impression 2B attaining a width of ~230 mm. A low ridge is present along the midline of Impression 2 (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Details of Impression 2.

Fig 7

Textured scan (Left) with the outline of the impressions [2A (yellow) and 2B (white)] and footprints compared to the false-colour depth model (Right). Depth scale is in mm.

At least 15 round depressions, interpreted as footprints, are preserved between 90 and 160 mm away from the body impressions in Impression 2 (Fig 7). These depressions, eleven of which are alongside impression 2A and four are alongside impression 2B, have diameters between 33 and 63 mm and some have smooth expulsion rims. The footprints have poor morphological preservation (M-preservation grade 0 using the scale of Marchetti et al. [62]) that makes it difficult to distinguish manus from pes. However, there are only four footprints adjacent to impression 2B, with the posterior pair of footprints positioned between 530 and 590 mm from the anterior pair for the right and left, respectively (RP3-RM5 and LP3-LM4). A similar distance separates the supposed posterior and anterior pairs of footprints, taking into account progression while generating the body trace (LP1/RP1-LM2/RM2 or LP2/RP2-LM3/RM4), in impression 2A (Fig 7). This most probably corresponds to the gleno-acetabular distance, which is reported to be a good estimate of the body length of a tracemaker [6365]. As such, we estimate the body length of the tracemaker to be approximately 560 mm.

Impression 3 (Fig 6 and S1 Fig) has a length of ~1.59 m and a body width of between 180 and 210 mm, pinching down to ~140 mm at the juncture between the body and expanded intermediate section. A low ridge is present in the centre of the expanded intermediate section and near the point where the tail and intermediate portions join. Impression 3 leads into a 120–130 mm wide smooth trace (S1 Fig) and is cut by a second smooth trace that is 120–145 mm wide and which crosses in front of impression 3. A faint impression (impression 7) is present near the inferred start of this second smooth trace (S1 Fig).

Impression 4 (Fig 6 and S2 Fig) is 1.61 m long, and the width of the body portion varies between 150 and 180 mm. It is also followed by a ~195–200 mm wide smoothed trace.

Impression 5 (Fig 6 and S3 Fig) is ~1.59 m long and 180–210 mm wide in the body section, narrowing to about 160 mm at the point between the body and intermediate portions. A small, ovoid depression (~38 mm wide, ~60 mm long), possibly a footprint, is present 125 mm to the right and near the back of the body impression (S3 Fig). A low ridge is present along the midline of the impression and is most prominent around the juncture between the tail and intermediate portions. Impression 5 is followed by a wavy trace 135–185 mm wide (Fig 6 and S3 Fig).

Subcircular depressions

Several groupings of smaller, subcircular and blob-shaped depressions occur across the palaeosurface. Three such groupings, indicated in Fig 5 as “Smooth area with depressions” since the area surrounding the depressions is often smooth and not rippled, are: 1) a “corridor” ~0.9 m wide that crosses the surface from the western to eastern side (Fig 4G and Fig 8A–8E); 2) a concentration just north of the present-day island; and 3) a higher density of these depressions preserved in the northwestern part of the surface (Fig 8). The depressions vary in size and shape with diameters ranging from 10–15 cm. The bottom of many of the depressions is sculpted with asymmetrical ripples and little-to-no morphological details are preserved.

Fig 8. Groupings of subcircular depressions interpreted as footprints on the Dave Green palaeosurface.

Fig 8

A) Aerial oblique photograph of the western portion of the “corridor” of footprints between Impression 2 and 3. B) Overhead photograph of the ‘corridor’ between Impressions 2 and 3 with the false-colour depth model (C). D) Overhead view of the eastern portion of the ‘corridor’ with an oblique view of the footprints between points ‘a’ and ‘b’ (E). F) Overhead view of the concentration of depressions just north of the present-day ‘island’. G) Overhead view of the depressions in the northwestern part of the surface. Large impressions are numbered in A-C and G. Scale bars equal 30 cm (A, D-F) and 50 cm (B and C).

Linear traces

Several examples of single or paired linear traces are preserved on the palaeosurface. These traces are not very deep and are most readily observed during the low-angle light of early morning. Three of these, LT1, LT2, and LT3, are indicated on the map (Fig 5).

The first linear trace (LT1) consists of a paired trace that can be followed southwards from the northwestern edge of the surface, where it either overprints or is overprinted by Impression 1 (Fig 9A and 9B). It makes a sharp turn just south of Impression 7 (Fig 9C and 9D) and can be followed eastwards across the surface to the margin of the palaeosurface (Fig 9E). The individual traces are ~1 cm wide and the paired traces are ~35 cm apart. Except for a short, sinuous section near Impression 4, the trails are relatively straight. In the sinuous section (Fig 9F), the trails have a wavelength of 36–39 cm and an amplitude of 5 cm.

Fig 9. Linear traces preserved on the palaeosurface.

Fig 9

A-E) A large, paired trace (LT1) can be followed southwards from the northwestern edge of the surface, overprinting (or overprinted by) Impression 1 (A and B). The trace makes a sharp turn (C and D) and heads eastwards (E). The trace is mostly straight except for a small sinuous section (F). The box outlined in E is the area shown in F. G) Paired trace (LT2) cutting through ripple crests only. The trace crosses the smoothed swim trail in the Southwestern corner of the surface. H) Long linear trace (LT3) on northern part of the surface. I) Undichna trace in north-western part of the surface (Off mapped area). Arrows show unidentified invertebrate traces. J) Linear paired trace cutting ripple crests in north-western part of the surface (Off mapped area). Hammer (~30 cm) for scale (A, C, D, F, H and J). Scale card in B = 8 cm and numbers on scale card in I = cm.

A second linear trace (LT2) is present in the southeastern corner of the surface. LT2 consists of an approximately 7 cm wide paired straight trace that can be followed for roughly 4 m and crosses the smooth trace connecting Impressions 5 and 6 (Fig 9G). LT2 affects the tops of the ripple crests but not the troughs.

A third linear trace (LT3) cuts across the northern portion of the surface. Although faint, this long unpaired trace is almost 8 m long and disrupts both the ripple crests and troughs (Fig 9H).

Northwest of the mapped palaeosurface, a further two linear traces were observed on the rippled sandstone surface. The first of these is a ~3 mm wide sinuous trace with a wavelength of ~3 cm and amplitude of ~2 cm (Fig 9I). The size of the trace allows for it to be attributed to Undichna unisulca and not Cochlichnus, as differentiated by Minter and Brady (2006). The second is a straight paired trace, with the two ~3 mm wide traces 3 cm apart (Fig 9J). This trace disturbs the ripple crests and some of the troughs.

Discussion

Depositional setting

Based on sedimentological field observations, we interpret the Dave Green palaeosurface to represent a sandy tidal flat or the sandy floor of a shallow embayment or lagoon. The traces made by fish, which overprint some of the large impressions and are therefore younger, suggests that the palaeosurface was submerged at the time that the large impressions were made and Gyrochorte-like traces in the northwestern part of the surface provide evidence for a moderate energy, near-shore to shallow water environment [66]. The water was likely brackish-to-fresh based on the conclusions of several studies using trace elements from the upper Ecca Group [51, 67, 68]. The presence of unrounded asymmetric ripple crests, with the exception of some ripples in the northwestern part of the exposure, suggest that the surface was not reworked and rill marks on the surface of some of the smoothed ripples (Fig 4D) indicate the subsequent fall in water level leading to subaerial exposure of at least the ripple crests [6971]. However, that the surface did not dry out completely before being buried by mud is suggested by the absence of desiccation cracks or other evidence for extended exposure.

Depressions on the mapped surface that contain symmetrical ripples (Fig 4E) with crest strike orientations differing from that of the asymmetrical ripples by around 70°, could have formed as erosional depressions, or possibly footprints, which remained filled with water following the drop in water level. Wind blowing across the surface of these water-filled depressions could have resulted in the formation of the symmetrical ripple marks.

The smoother, non-rippled areas of the surface are possibly where a biofilm or microbial mat was growing on the sand in a shallow water environment and similar structures can be seen on present day tidal flats (Fig 4I and 4J) [61, 69, 70, 7274]. The transition between the rippled and non-ripples areas is smooth, indicating that the surfaces are penecontemporaneous [74]. In parts of the palaeosurface, the surface weathers with distinctive quadrangular chips. These resemble ‘mat chips’ produced by the erosion of modern microbial mats by waves and currents [72] and further support the presence of a microbial mat on the surface. Tracks and traces require the substrate to be ‘just right’ in order to be preserved [75]. Under certain conditions, the presence of microbial mats have been shown to favour or enhance the preservation of footprints [76, 77] and microbial mats are commonly associated with fossil trackways, including in the main Karoo Basin [2, 9, 25, 29]. In the case of the Dave Green Palaeosurface, microbial mats likely stabilised the surface sediments, preventing the formation of ripple marks in the smooth areas, and could have also influenced the mineralisation of the drape on the surface [61, 73].

Potential tracemakers

Large impressions

The seven large impressions preserved on the palaeosurface are interpreted to be body and tail impressions formed as temporary resting traces [cubichnia; 78], whereas the smoothed linear traces are interpreted as locomotory (swim) traces [repichnia; 78]. Superficially, the large impressions preserved on the palaeosurface are similar in appearance to some present-day examples produced by crocodiles and alligators (Fig 10B) [79, 80]. However, crocodylomorphs do not appear in the fossil record until the Upper Triassic/ Lower Jurassic [8187] and the earliest crown-group crocodilians are from the Late Cretaceous, or possibly a little older [86, 88, 89]. Since the Dave Green ichnofossils are late Permian in age, it is highly improbable that the traces were made by a crocodylomorph. The only plausible candidate for the maker of the large impressions and traces is a rhinesuchid temnospondyl (Fig 10C), since this clade is the only group of tetrapods with a “crocodile-like” body plan known from the Daptocephalus AZ, and indeed the immediate vicinity of the study area [57, 9092].

Fig 10.

Fig 10

Comparison of Impression 2 from the palaeosurface (A) with a present-day body impression and trail of Alligator mississippiensis on the foreshore at St. Catherines Island, Georgia, United States (B). Photograph courtesy of St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program, Gale A. Bishop and modified with permission from [93]. C) A rhinesuchid temnospondyl such as Laccosaurus or Uranocentrodon is probably the tracemaker. Scale bar = 30 cm (A and B).

Based on the preserved impressions, the tail and body of the tracemaker was ~ 1.59 m long. Adding a skull with a length of ~30 cm, typical for late Permian rhinesuchids, gives a total length of 1.89 m for the tracemaker. This is within the size of Uranocentrodon senekalensis, which has a skull length of up to 50 cm and a total adult body length of between 2.3 and 3.75 m [94]. Laccosaurus watsoni is slightly smaller with a skull length of approximately 23 cm for the holotype [95] but too few specimens are reliably attributed to this genus to estimate it’s maximum body size.

Body impressions of amphibians showing most or all of the body outline are rare, with only three named ichnospecies described from the Palaeozoic, Hermundurichnus fornicatus [96, 97] and Sauropleura longicaudata [98, 99] from the Carboniferous-Permian of Europe and Temnocorpichnus isaacleai from the late Mississippian of eastern Pennsylvania in North America [100103]. Amphibian body resting traces associated with trackways and swimming traces have previously been described by Turek (1989), but were not named. All these examples are, however, as much as 10 times smaller than the impressions reported here.

While some species of stereospondyls, including rhinesuchids such as Uranocentrodon senekalensis, had ventral osteoderms that were likely covered by a horny keratin layer [104, 105], the studied impressions generally have smooth bottoms and do not show any definitive evidence for the tracemaker having ventral osteoderms. Consistency or grain size of the substrate [106], or movement of the animal, smearing the trace and thereby destroying the impressions, could account for the lack of fine morphological detail in the traces. The lack of morphology in the associated footprints could also be the result of the interplay between the algal mat and substrate properties [76, 77]. Alternatively, post-registration growth of the microbial mat on the substrate could have resulted in the loss of morphological detail over time [61, 69, 70, 73, 74, 76, 77, 107].

Subcircular depressions

We interpret the numerous smaller, subcircular to blob-shaped depressions on the surface as likely representing footprints made by a group or several groups of medium-large terrestrial tetrapods that waded and crossed through the water, rather than being erosional depressions. This is based on the grouping of the depressions as well as the ‘corridor’ that crosses the surface. The lack of morphology in the depressions is an indication of the fluid, liquified character of the substrate [106, 108]. The thin upper layer of the palaeosurface comprises a finer grained, mineralised drape that was capable of preserving smaller traces such as fish fin traces and Cochlichnus traces, but the walls of deeper depressions penetrating the more liquefied underlying substrate collapsed. The act of larger animals walking on the substrate would have torn the microbial film, exposing the sand underneath while the current was strong enough to form ripples in the base of these depressions. This indicates that these trackways were probably made before the temnospondyl traces. The morphology of the traces provides little information on the identity of the trackmaker but the most likely candidates are dicynodont therapsids. Trackways made by groups of dicynodonts have been reported previously from the Karoo [12, 13], and they are the most common animals of the required body size recorded by body fossils from the area.

Linear traces

The ichnotaxon Undichna is used to describe traces that are sinusoidal or scalloped, single, paired, or multiple sets of overlapping grooves that form regular, repeating patterns in bottom sediments of aquatic environments [1, 78, 109, 110]. These patterns are thought to have been made by pectoral, pelvic, anal, and caudal fins of fish dragging along the substrate during swimming behaviour [1, 78, 110, 111]. Differences in the amplitude and wavelength of these patterns are related to the fish size and shape, direction and velocity of the water current, and swimming speed [110]. As such, we interpret the linear and sinusoidal traces seen on the palaeosurface as likely being created by fish of various shapes, sizes, and swimming styles. While most of the traces are straight and lack the sinusoidal pattern characteristic of Undichna, this could be explained by the fish drifting with the current, or swimming with thunniform or ostraciform motion, resulting in the much lower amplitude of the pectoral fins and, thereby, of the trace itself. The sharp turn seen in LT1 could have been avoidance behaviour of the fish. It is also possible, however, that some of the more linear examples such as LT2 and LT3, which have a similar orientation to the palaeocurrent direction, were created by a stick drifting and dragging along the sediment, thereby forming a pseudo trace fossil (R. Gess, pers. comm. 2015).

Rhinesuchid locomotion

The trackway preserved on the Dave Green palaeosurface provides evidence for both swimming and bottom walking behaviours. Because of this, and in contrast to many present-day and fossil examples of crocodilian and temnospondyl trackways, which typically comprise a trackway with a central tail or belly drag [28, 29, 79, 80], the impressions and traces on the Dave Green palaeosurface lack associated footprints or scratch marks, with the exception of Impression 2.

Temnospondyl locomotion has traditionally been compared with extant examples of salamanders, newts, and crocodilians, since these are considered to have similar bauplans–sprawling gait with limbs of equal size, elongated trunk, and a tail–and are capable of both aquatic and terrestrial locomotion [29, 112114]. Work by Marchetti [115] and Marsicano et al. [29] has suggested that large temnospondyls used mainly their forelimbs rather than hindlimbs for propulsion during terrestrial locomotion, as a consequence of their relatively larger skull, heavier pectoral girdle, and relatively reduced pelvic girdle and tail.

When considering the locomotory capabilities of stereospondyls, a number of different categories, ranging from terrestrial crawlers to fully aquatic swimmers, are recognized [105]. With the exception of some terrestrially adapted species e.g. Lydekkerina huxleyi [116, 117], most stereospondyls have small limbs with rudimentarily ossified humeri, femora and girdle elements. This suggests limited terrestrial locomotory ability and most stereospondyls are therefore thought to have been aquatic [105, 117], an interpretation further supported by histological studies [118]. Some forms were adept swimmers, with a long, laterally compressed tail probably providing propulsion and the gracile forelimbs being used more for manoeuvring than active swimming [105] or when performing bottom-walking behaviour in a manner similar to extant crocodiles [114, 119]. Others resembled the modern cryptobranchid salamanders in body proportions and were likely less active swimmers but sufficiently agile to lunge and capture larger prey items [105, 120].

Impressions 2 and 3 are relatively close together and appear to follow on from one another (Figs 2 and 5). As such, we consider these to have been formed by the same individual. The direction of movement can be determined by looking at the tail to body direction. For example, Impression 2 indicates an animal that was moving in a south-easterly direction, as evinced by the tail thickening in the body direction as well as the more pronounced expulsion rim along the posterior margin of some of the footprints, indicating the direction that the animal pushed against the substrate.

The fact that many of the impressions are isolated and have no connecting trackways or swim traces (e.g., the gap between Impressions 2 and 3) is interpreted as evidence for subaqueous activity [111] i.e., representing where the animal left the ground and either floated or swam for a short distance within the water column before making contact with the substrate again. An alternative interpretation is that the gaps resulted from a preservational bias due to different mechanical properties of the substrate in different areas at the time of registration. However, because of the lack of disturbance or deformation of surface between impressions, especially to the ripple crests, this is considered less likely. Impression 2 (Fig 7), with associated footprints, would have probably been created when the animal touched down and performed bottom walking behaviour. The absence of morphological detail in the footprints is likely because the sediment was under water and very soft [108], and can also be associated with the way that amphibians and other animals walk underwater, since their legs are not bearing the full weight of the body [111, 112, 114, 119, 121, 122]. It should be noted that variable footfall patterns and stride lengths have been reported for underwater walking, depending on the conditions and behaviour, e.g. similar but more variable stride length have been recorded in California newts walking underwater compared to on land [112], whereas much greater paces and strides have been recorded for bottom walking crocodiles, especially when punting or carried by waves [119]. Changes in the footprint trackway associated with impressions 2A and 2B could therefore reflect a shift from bottom walking, with a similar but more variable stride length to terrestrial pedestrianism in 2A, after which the trackmaker pushed up and floated a short distance before settling on the bottom–hence only leaving four footprints associated with Impression 2B. It is also possible that both impressions were created through walking but that some of the tracks were just not preserved.

Impressions 3 and 5 provide insight into the swimming locomotion of the temnospondyl. Upon entering the water crocodylomorphs progress with lateral undulations of the tail and body [123, 124], tucking their limbs next to the body to reduce drag [123]. A similar swimming motion can be seen in extant salamanders [121, 125]. The expanded area present anterior to the tail in some of the impressions is interpreted as the area where the hind limbs of the tracemaker were tucked in next to the body while swimming. The swim trace preserves slight sinusoidal movements, which are interpreted as having been formed through continuous sub-undulatory propulsion (undulations that have no recovery stroke) in a manner similar to that observed in extant crocodiles [123, 124] and salamanders [121, 125].

Impression 3 shows one trace that is crossed and overprinted by a second trace (from Impression 7) moving from west to east and which leads into a second large circular route that crosses the northern half of the palaeosurface before curving back towards Impression 1 (Fig 5). The large, semi-circular routes of the traces across the surface, and the associated orientation of the animal relative to the current along the route, with many impressions facing into or perpendicular to the inferred palaeocurrent direction, suggest that the animal was capable of swimming independently of the current. However, the absence of well-defined ripples in most of the body impressions in conjunction with the swim traces indicates that the current was no longer strong enough to overprint the traces with new ripple marks before the surface was buried and preserved by the overlying strata. Microbial mat growth could have also had an influence, especially with Impressions 2, 3 and 4 which occur closer to the smooth areas where inferred microbial mat growth is most abundant, helping solidify the substrate and inhibiting the formation of ripple marks. The lack of ripple marks could also suggest that the water was too shallow or absent at the time registration, although, if this were the case, we would expect to see more footprints associated with the traces.

Some of the traces preserve sharp turns or changes in direction, e.g., Impressions 3, 4, and 5. No observable footprint impressions or disturbances to the adjacent rippled surface are associated with the turns as observed in other amphibian swimming traces [121], and the slightly enlarged area anterior to the tail implies that the hind limbs were tucked against the body. It is possible that the animal used its front legs to help steer in a manner similar to younger crocodiles [124] and that they did not touch the substrate. Another possibility is that the animal did not use its legs at all while swimming, as seen in larger crocodiles [124], but they were used only when the animal touched the substrate, or while bottom walking [116, 119]. While a direction of travel cannot be determined for LT1, it is worth noting that Impressions 1–4 run almost parallel to LT1 (Fig 5). If LT1 is taken to have been travelling north-south before turning and heading west-east, this could suggest that the tracemaker was actively following the fish, and that the traces record some hunting behaviour. Furthermore, the point where the smooth trace and LT1 are closest together, is near the sinuous section, i.e., at which point the fish put in a burst of speed to escape.

Although the presence of multiple body impressions on a single bedding plane in other localities has been interpreted as representing some type of gregarious, possible even mating behaviour–as suggested for Temnocorpichnus isaacleai [100], we consider the impressions to represent the behaviour of one, maybe two individuals. This interpretation is based on the fact that many of the impressions appear to follow on from one another and are sometimes linked by the smoothed swim traces to form two circular routes. The second circular route overprints the first one at impression 3 and they were therefore made at different times. However, the lack of well-defined body impressions along the second route limits comparison of body measurements of the tracemakers and it is uncertain whether they were made by the same individual or by two separate individuals living in the same area.

Conclusions

The remarkable Dave Green palaeosurface preserves a number of unique trace fossils attributed to medium to large tetrapods, fish, and invertebrates that inhabited a predominantly sandy tidal flat or shallow sandy lagoon in the late Permian. The application and benefit of utilising digital recording methodologies, including 3D surface scanning and UAV photography of palaeosurfaces, is evident here. Among the many trace fossils are at least seven morphologically unique body impressions with associated swim traces, which we interpret as having been made by a medium to large rhinesuchid temnospondyl with a total length of approximately 1.89 m. These traces provide evidence for an active lifestyle of swimming and bottom-walking behaviour in rhinesuchid amphibians during the Changhsingian, possibly while looking for food or hunting. The preserved swim traces also support interpretations that rhinesuchid temnospondyls swam using an undulatory motion of the tail and held their legs tucked in next to the body in a manner similar to extant crocodiles.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Details of impressions 3 and 7.

Textured scan (top), with the outlines of the impressions and associated swim trails of impression 3 (White) and impression 7 (Yellow), shown next to the false-colour depth model (bottom). Depth scale is in mm.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Details of impression 4.

Textured scan (Left) with the outline of the impression and swim trace shown next to the false-colour depth model (Right). Depth scale is in mm.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Details of impression 5.

Textured scan (Left) with the outline of the impression and swim trace shown next to the false-colour depth model (Right). Depth scale is in mm.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

Thanks goes to Dr Natasha Barbolini and Dr Gideon Groenewald for assistance in the field and helpful discussions, and to Dave and Sandra Green for access to the site, assistance, and for providing accommodation during the field visits. Thanks also go to Dr Billy de Klerk, Dr Rose Prevec and Dr Rob Gess for their valuable inputs. We are grateful to Academic Editor Prof. Jörg Fröbisch for handling our manuscript, and to Dr Lorenzo Marchetti and Dr Eudald Mujal for their constructive reviews. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the NRF, GENUS, PAST, or the European Union.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Three-dimensional models have been uploaded to the MorphoSource data archive: https://www.morphosource.org/projects/000494771?locale=en.

Funding Statement

Financial support for this project was provided by the National Research Foundation (NRF) and its African Origins Platform, GENUS (the DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Palaeosciences), and the Palaeontological Scientific Trust (PAST). DPG received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (grant agreement: 101060666) when revising the manuscript. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Anderson AM. Fish trails from the early Permian of South Africa. Palaeontology. 1976;19: 397–409, pl. 54. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sciscio L, Bordy EM, Head HV. A Late Triassic aquatic community: Undichna-like and related swimming traces from a freshwater pond in the lower Elliot Formation of South Africa. J Afr Earth Sci. 2020;172: 104026. doi: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2020.104026 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Anderson AM. The Umfolozia arthropod trackways in the Permian Dwyka and Ecca series of South Africa. J Paleontol. 1981;55: 84–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bordy EM, Linkermann S, Prevec R. Palaeoecological aspects of some invertebrate trace fossils from the mid- to Upper Permian Middleton Formation (Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group, Karoo Supergroup), Eastern Cape, South Africa. J Afr Earth Sci. 2011;61: 238–244. doi: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2011.06.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gastaldo RA, Rolerson MW. Katbergia Gen. nov., a new trace fossil from the Upper Permian and Lower Triassic rocks of the Karoo Basin: implications for palaeoenvironmental conditions at the P/TR Extinction event. Palaeontology. 2008;51: 215–229. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00743.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hobday DK, Tavener-Smith R. Trace fossils in the Ecca of northern Natal and their palaeoenvironmental significance. Palaeontol Afr. 1975;18: 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mason TR, Christie ADM. Palaeoenvironmental significance of ichnogenus Diplocraterion Torell from the Permian Vryheid Formation of the Karoo Supergroup, South Africa. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 1986;52: 249–265. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Savage NM. A varvite ichnocoenosis from the Dwyka Series of Natal. Lethaia. 1971;4: 217–233. doi: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.1971.tb01290.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Smith RMH. Sedimentology and Ichnology of Floodplain Paleosurfaces in the Beaufort Group (Late Permian), Karoo Sequence, South Africa. PALAIOS. 1993;8: 339–357. doi: 10.2307/3515265 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stanistreet IG, le Blanc Smith G, Cadle AB. Trace fossils as sedimentological and palaeoenvironmental indices in the Ecca Group (Lower Permian) of the Transvaal. Trans Geol Soc South Afr. 1980;83: 333–344. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bordy EM, Sztanó O, Rampersadh A, Almond J, Choiniere JN. Vertebrate scratch traces from the Middle Triassic Burgersdorp Formation of the main Karoo Basin, South Africa: Sedimentological and ichnological assessment. J Afr Earth Sci. 2019;160: 103594. doi: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2019.103594 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.de Klerk WJ. A dicynodont trackway from the Cistecephalus Assemblage Zone in the Karoo, east of Graaff-Reinet, South Africa. Palaeontol Afr. 2002;38: 73–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.MacRae C. Fossil vertebrate tracks near Murraysburg, Cape Province. Palaeontol Afr. 1990;27: 83–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Marchetti L, Klein H, Buchwitz M, Ronchi A, Smith RMH, De Klerk WJ, et al. Permian-Triassic vertebrate footprints from South Africa: Ichnotaxonomy, producers and biostratigraphy through two major faunal crises. Gondwana Res. 2019;72: 139–168. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2019.03.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Marchetti L, Klein H, Buchwitz M, Ronchi A, Smith RMH, De Klerk WJ, et al. Reply to discussion of “Permian—Triassic vertebrate footprints from South Africa: Ichnotaxonomy, producers and biostratigraphy through two major faunal crises” by Marchetti, L., Klein, H., Buchwitz, M., Ronchi, A., Smith, R.M.H., DeKlerk, W.J., Sciscio, L., and Groenewald, G.H. (2019). Gondwana Res. 2020;78: 379–383. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2019.08.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Porchetti SD, Nicosia U. Re-Examination of Some Large Early Mesozoic Tetrapod Footprints from the African Collection of Paul Ellenberger. Ichnos. 2007;14: 219–245. doi: 10.1080/10420940601049990 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bordy EM. Darting towards Storm Shelter: A minute dinosaur trackway from southern Africa. South Afr J Sci. 2021;117: 94–104. doi: 10.17159/sajs.2021/9145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bordy EM, Rampersadh A, Abrahams M, Lockley MG, Head HV. Tracking the Pliensbachian–Toarcian Karoo firewalkers: Trackways of quadruped and biped dinosaurs and mammaliaforms. Potter-McIntyre S, editor. PLOS ONE. 2020;15: e0226847. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ellenberger P. Les niveaux paléontologiques de premiere apparition des mammiféres primordiaux en Afrique du Sud et leur ichnologie: Establissement de zones stratigraphiques detaillées dans le Stormberg de Leshoto (Afrique du Sud)(Trias Superieur a Jurassique). IUGS, 2nd symposium on gondwana stratigraphy and palaeontology. Pretoria, South Africa: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; 1970. pp. 343–370.
  • 20.Ellenberger P. Contribution à la classification des pistes de vertébrés du Trias: les types du Stormberg d’Afrique du Sud (I Partie). Palaeovertebrata Mém Extraordin. 1972;1972: 1–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ellenberger P. Contribution à la classification des pistes de vertébrés du Trias: les types du Stormberg d’Afrique du Sud (Hème partie: le Stormberg Superieur—I. Le biome de la zone B/1 ou niveau de Moyeni: ses biocénoses). Palaeovertebrata Mém Extraordin. 1974;1974: 1–143. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Olsen PE, Galton PM. A review of the reptile and amphibian assemblages from the Stormberg of southern Africa, with special emphasis on the footprints and the age of the Stormberg. 1984 [cited 11 Oct 2015]. http://mobile.wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/16131
  • 23.Raath MA, Kitching JW, Shone RW, Rossouw GJ. Dinosaur tracks in Triassic Molteno sediments: the earliest evidence of dinosaurs in South Africa? Palaeontol Afr. 1990;27: 89–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Raath MA, Yates AM. Preliminary report of a large theropod dinosaur trackway in Clarens Formation sandstone (Early Jurassic) in the Paul Roux district, northeastern Free State, South Africa. Palaeontol Afr. 2005;41: 101–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sciscio L, Bordy EM, Reid M, Abrahams M. Sedimentology and ichnology of the Mafube dinosaur track site (Lower Jurassic, eastern Free State, South Africa): a report on footprint preservation and palaeoenvironment. PeerJ. 2016;4: e2285. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Van Dijk DE. Trackways in the Stormberg. Palaeontol Afr. 1978;21: 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wilson JA, Marsicano CA, Smith RMH. Dynamic Locomotor Capabilities Revealed by Early Dinosaur Trackmakers from Southern Africa. Farke AA, editor. PLoS ONE. 2009;4: e7331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007331 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Cisneros JC, Day MO, Groenewald J, Rubidge BS. SMALL FOOTPRINTS EXPAND MIDDLE PERMIAN AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN KAROO. PALAIOS. 2020;35: 1–11. doi: 10.2110/palo.2018.098 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Marsicano CA, Wilson JA, Smith RMH. A Temnospondyl Trackway from the Early Mesozoic of Western Gondwana and Its Implications for Basal Tetrapod Locomotion. Carrier D, editor. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e103255. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Van Dijk DE, Channing A, Van Den Heever JA. Permian trace fossils attributed to tetrapods (Tierberg formation, Karoo basin, South Africa). Palaeontol Afr. 2002;38: 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rossouw C. Management proposals for the declaration of palaeontological and geological sites and the low impact adaptation of one of the sites on the farm Van der Merwes Kraal 972, Estcourt District. 2010.
  • 32.Council for Geoscience. 2828 Harrismith 1:250 000 Geological Map Series. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, South Africa. Pretoria: Council for Geoscience; 1998.
  • 33.Geological Survey. 2928 Drakensberg 1:250 000 Geological Map Series. Compiled by: Linström, W., 1979. Government Printer, Pretoria, South Africa. Pretoria: Council for Geoscience; 1981.
  • 34.Green D. Palaeoenvironments pf the Estcourt Formation (Beaufort Groups), KwaZulu-Natal. Msc Thesis, University of Natal, Durban. 1997.
  • 35.Groenewald DP. Tetrapod trackways and the Ecca-Beaufort contact in the Estcourt district. Unpublished Honours research project, University of the Witwatersrand. 2015.
  • 36.Groenewald DP. A litho- and biostratigraphic analysis of the lower Beaufort Group in the distal sector of the main Karoo Basin, South Africa–implications for the depositional history of the distal foredeep to back-bulge basin. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand. 2021.
  • 37.Groenewald DP, Day MO, Penn-Clarke CR, Rubidge BS. Stepping out across the Karoo retro-foreland basin: Improved constraints on the Ecca-Beaufort shoreline along the northern margin. J Afr Earth Sci. 2022;185: 104389. doi: 10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2021.104389 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Johnson MR. Stratigraphy and Sedimentology of the Cape and Karoo Sequences in the Eastern Cape Province. Phd Thesis. Phd thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown. 1976.
  • 39.Johnson MR, Van Vuuren CJ, Visser JNJ, Cole DI, Wickens H de V., Christie ADM, et al. Sedimentary rocks of the Karoo Supergroup. In: Johnson MR, Anhaeusser CR, Thomas RJ, editors. The Geology of South Africa. Pretoria: Council for Geoscience; 2006. pp. 461–499. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mason R, Rubidge B, Hancox J. Terrestrial vertebrate colonisation and the Ecca- Beaufort boundary in the south-eastern main Karoo Basin, South Africa: implications for Permian basin evolution. South Afr J Geol. 2015;118: 145–156. doi: 10.2113/gssajg.118.2.145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rubidge BS, Hancox P. J, Catuneanu O. Sequence Analysis of the Ecca Beaufort contact in the Southern Karoo. South Afr J Geol. 2000;103: 81–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rubidge BS, Hancox PJ, Mason R. Waterford Formation in the south-eastern Karoo: Implications for basin development. South Afr J Sci. 2012;108: 3–7. doi: 10.4102/sajs.v108i3/4.829 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.SACS SAC for S. Stratigraphy of South Africa—Handbook 8 Part 1: Lithostratigraphy of the Republic of South Africa, South West Africa/Namibia and the republics of Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda. Pretoria: Geological Survey; 1980.
  • 44.Botha BJV, Linström W. A note on the stratigraphy of the Beaufort Group in north-western Natal. Trans Geol Soc South Afr. 1978;81: 35–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Linström W. Die Ecca/Beaufortkontak in sentraal- en suid-Natal. Symposium on stratigraphic problems relating to the Ecca-Beaufort Contact. Pretoria, South Africa; 1987. pp. 23–24.
  • 46.Smith RMH, Eriksson PG, Botha WJ. A review of the stratigraphy and sedimentary environments of the Karoo-aged basins of Southern Africa. J Afr Earth Sci Middle East. 1993;16: 143–169. doi: 10.1016/0899-5362(93)90164-L [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Botha BJV, Linström W. Palaeogeological and palaeogeographical aspects of the upper part of the Karoo Sequence in North-Western Natal. Ann Geol Surv South Afr. 1977;12: 177–192. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Groenewald GH. Stratigrafie en sedimentologie van die Groep Beaufort in die noordoos-Vrystaat. Bull Van Geol Opname Van Suid-Afr. 1989;96: 62. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Groenewald GH. The use of palaeontology in the correlation of lithostratographic units in the Beaufort Group, Karoo Sequence of South Africa. Palaeontol Afr. 1990;27: 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Muntingh DJ. Die Geologie van die Gebied Frankfort: Explanation of sheet 2728, scale1: 250 000. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Geological Survey of South Africa; 1989.
  • 51.Muntingh DJ. Sedimentologie en stratigraphie van die Ecca-Beaufort-oorgang in die noordoostelike gedeelte van die hoof Karookom. Bull Van Geol Opname Van Suid-Afr. 1997;121: 46. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.van Dijk DE. Insect Faunas of South Africa from the Upper Permian and the Permian/ Triassic Boundary. Palaeontol Afr. 1997;34: 43–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.van Dijk DE, Geertsema H. A new genus of Permian Plecoptera (Afroperla) from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr Entomol. 2004;12: 268–270. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Geertsema H, van Dijk DE, van den Heever JA. Palaeozoic insects of southern Africa: a review. Palaeontol Afr. 2002;38: 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lacey WS, van Dijk DE, Gordon-Gray KD. Fossil plants from the Upper Permian in the Mooi River district of Natal, South Mrica. Ann Natal Mus. 1975;22: 349–420. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Selover RW, Gastaldo RA. A reinterpretation of the Wagendrift Quarry, Estcourt, KwaZulu-Natal Province, and its implications for Karoo Basin Paleogeography. South Afr J Geol. 2005;108: 429–438. doi: 10.2113/108.3.429 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Viglietti PA. Biostratigraphy of the Daptocephalus Assemblage Zone. South Afr J Geol. 2020;123: 191–206. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Miall AD. The geology of fluvial deposits: Sedimentary facies, basin analysis, and petroleum geology. Springer; 1996.
  • 59.Miall AD. Stratigraphy: A Modern Synthesis. Springer; 2016.
  • 60.Miall AD. The geology of fluvial deposits. Springer; 2006.
  • 61.Gerdes G. Chapter two: Structures left behind by modern microbial mats in their host sediments. In: Schieber J, Bose PK, Eriksson PG, Banerjee S, Sarkar S, Alterman W, et al., editors. Atlas of microbial mat features preserved within the clastic rock record. Elsevier; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Marchetti L, Belvedere M, Voigt S, Klein H, Castanera D, Díaz-Martínez I, et al. Defining the morphological quality of fossil footprints. Problems and principles of preservation in tetrapod ichnology with examples from the Palaeozoic to the present. Earth-Sci Rev. 2019;193: 109–145. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Padian K, Olsen PE. The fossil trackway Pteraichnus: not pterosaurian, but crocodilian. J Palaeontol. 1984;58: 178–184. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Schneck WM, Fritz WJ. An Amphibian Trackway (Cincosaurus cobbi) from the Lower Pennsylvanian (“Pottsville”) of Lookout Mountain, Georgia: A First Occurrence. J Paleontol. 1985;59: 1243–1250. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Thulborn T. Dinosaur Tracks. London, U.K.: Chapman and Hall; 1990.
  • 66.de Gibert JM, Benner JS. The trace fossil Gyrochorte: ethology and paleoecology. Rev Espanola Paleontol. 2002;17: 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Veevers JJ, Cole DI, Cowan EJ. Southern Africa: Karoo Basin and Cape Fold Belt. Geological Society of America Memoirs. Geological Society of America; 1994. pp. 223–280. doi: 10.1130/MEM184-p223 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Zawada PK. Trace elements as possible palaeosalinity indicators for the Ecca and Beaufort Group mudrocks in the southwestern Orange Free State. South Afr J Geol. 1988;91: 18–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Reineck H-E, Singh IB. Depositional Sedimentary Environments. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Selley RC. Ancient Sedimentary Environments. Third. London: Chapman and Hall; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Stow DA. Sedimentary Rocks in the field—a colour guide. Fifth Impression. Burlingham, MA: Academic Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Cuadrado DG, Carmona NB, Bournod C. Biostabilization of sediments by microbial mats in a temperate siliciclastic tidal flat, Bahia Blanca estuary (Argentina). Sediment Geol. 2011;237: 95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2011.02.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Cuadrado DG, Carmona NB, Bournod CN. Mineral precipitation on modern siliciclastic tidal flats colonized by microbial mats. Sediment Geol. 2012;271–272: 58–66. doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2012.06.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Schieber J. Possible indicators of microbial mat deposits in shales and sandstones: examples from the Mid-Proterozoic Belt Supergroup, Montana, USA. Sediment Geol. 1998;120: 105–124. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Falkingham PL, Hage J, Bäker M. Mitigating the Goldilocks effect: the effects of different substrate models on track formation potential. R Soc Open Sci. 2014;1: 140225–140234. doi: 10.1098/rsos.140225 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Carmona N, Bournod C, Ponce JJ, Cuadrado D. The Role of Microbial Mats in the Preservation of Bird Footprints: A Case Study from the Mesotidal Bahia Blanca Estuary (Argentina). In: Noffke N, Chafetz H, editors. Microbial Mats in Siliciclastic Depositional Systems Through Time. SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology; 2011. pp. 37–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Marty D, Strasser A, Meyer CA. Formation and Taphonomy of Human Footprints in Microbial Mats of Present-Day Tidal-flat Environments: Implications for the Study of Fossil Footprints. Ichnos. 2009;16: 127–142. doi: 10.1080/10420940802471027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Seilacher A. Trace fossil analysis. Berlin: Springer; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Farlow JO, Robinson NJ, Kumagai CJ, Paladino FV, Falkingham PL, Elsey RM, et al. Trackways of the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Northwestern Costa Rica: Implications for Crocodylian Ichnology. Ichnos. 2018;25: 30–65. doi: 10.1080/10420940.2017.1350856 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Milàn J, Hedegaard R. Interspecific variation in track and trackways from extant crocydilians. In: Milàn J, Lucas SG, Lockley MG, Spielmann JA, editors. Crocodyle tracks and traces. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science; 2010. pp. 15–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Clark JM, Xu X, Forster CA, Wang Y. A Middle Jurassic ‘sphenosuchian’ from China and the origin of the crocodilian skull. Nature. 2004;430: 1021–1024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Colbert EH. A pseudosuchian reptile from Arizona. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1952;99: 561–592. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Colbert EH, Mook CC. The ancestral crocodilian Protosuchus. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist. 1951;94: 143–182. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Crush PJ. A late Upper Triassic sphenosuchid crocodilian from Wales. Palaeontology. 1984;27: 131–157. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Dollman KN, Choiniere JN. Palate evolution in early-branching crocodylomorphs: Implications for homology, systematics, and ecomorphology. Anat Rec. 2022;305: 2766–2790. doi: 10.1002/ar.24993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Lockley MG, Lucas SG, Milàn J, Harris JD, Avanzini M, Foster JR, et al. The fossil record of crocodylian tracks and traces: an overview. In: Milàn J, Lucas SG, Lockley MG, Spielmann JA, editors. Crocodyle Tracks and Traces. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Parrish MJ. A new specimen of an early crocodylomorph (cf. Sphenosuchus sp.) from the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation of Petrified Forest National Park. J Vertebr Paleontol. 1991;11: 198–212. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Brochu CA. Phylogenetic approaches toward crocodylian history. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci. 2003;31: 357–397. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Schwab JA, Young MT, Neenan JM, Walsh SA, Witmer LM, Herrera Y, et al. Inner ear sensory system changes as extinct crocodylomorphs transitioned from land to water. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117: 10422–10428. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2002146117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Eltink E, Schoch RR, Langer MC. Interrelationships, palaeobiogeography and early evolution of Stereospondylomorpha (Tetrapoda: Temnospondyli). J Iber Geol. 2019;45: 251–267. doi: 10.1007/s41513-019-00105-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Marsicano CA, Latimer E, Rubidge B, Smith RMH. The Rhinesuchidae and early history of the Stereospondyli (Amphibia: Temnospondyli) at the end of the Palaeozoic. Zool J Linn Soc. 2017;181: 357–384. doi: 10.1093/zoolinnean/zlw032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Tarailo DA. Taxonomic and ecomorphological diversity of temnospondyl amphibians across the Permian-Triassic boundary in the Karoo Basin (South Africa). J Morphol. 2018;279: 1840–1848. doi: 10.1002/jmor.20906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Kržič B, Bishop GA. Fosilne Sledi in Odtisi Krokodilov izZgodnje Kriede. Zivljenje Teh Mag. 2022;Letnik LXXIII: 51–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.van Hoepen ECN. Stegocephalia of Senekal, O.F.S. Ann Transvaal Mus. 1915;5: 125–149. [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Haughton SH. Investigations in South African Fossil Reptiles and Amphibia (Part 13)—Descriptive Catalogue of the Amphibia of the Karroo System. Ann South Afr Mus. 1925;22: 227–261. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Lockley MG, Meyer C. Dinosaur tracks and other fossil footprints of Europe. New York: Columbia University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Walter H, Werneburg R. Über Liegesupren (Cubichnia) aquatischer Tetrapoden (?Diplocauliden, Nectridea) aus den Rotteroder Schichten (Rotliegendes, Thüringer Wald/DDR). Freib Forschungsheft. 1988;419: 96–106. [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Langiaux J. Premières observations a Morteru (Stéphanien de Blanzy-Montceau) ichnites, faune, flore. Rev Pèriodique Vulg Sci Nat Hist “Physiophile” Montceau—Mines. 1980;93: 77–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Langiaux J, Parriat H, Scotty D. Faune fossile du bassin de Blanzy- Montceau acquisitions r´ecentes. Rev Pèriodique Vulg Sci Nat Hist “Physiophile” Montceau—Mines. 1974;80: 55–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Lucas SG, Fillmore DL, Simpson EL. Amphibian Body Impressions from the Mississippian of Pennsylvania, USA. Ichnos. 2010;17: 172–176. doi: 10.1080/10420940.2010.502488 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Acton QA. Issues in Global Environment: Biology and Geosciences. 2011th ed. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholarly Editions; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Fillmore DL, Lucas SG, Simpson EL. Ichnology of the Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation, eastern Pennsylvania. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Fillmore DL, Lucas SG, Simpson EL. Ichnological diversity of the continental Mississippian Mauch Chunk Formation, eastern Pennsylvania. In: Lucas SG, DiMichele WA, Barrick JE, Schneider JW, Spielmann JA, editors. The Carboniferous-Permian Transition. Albuquerque: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Findlay GH. On the structure of the skin in Uranocentrodon (Rhinesuchus) senekalensis, Van Hoepen. Palaeontol Afr. 1968;11: 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Schoch RR, Milner AR. Stereospondyli: Stem-Stereospondyli, Rhinesuchidae, Rhytidostea, Trematosauroidea, Capitosauroidea. München: Verlag Dr. Frederich Pfiel; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Milàn J. Experimental Ichnology—experiments with track and undertrack formation using emu tracks in sediments of different consistencies, with comparisons to fossil dinosaur tracks. Msc Thesis (Unpublished), University of Copenhagen. 2003.
  • 107.Reineck H-E, Singh IB. Depositional Sedimentary Environments. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Milàn J. Variations in the morphology of emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) tracks reflecting differences in walking pattern and substrate consistency: Ichnotaxonomic implications. Palaeontology. 2006;49: 405–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00543.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Minter NJ, Braddy SJ. The fish and amphibian swimming traces Undichna and Lunichnium with examples from the Lower Permian of New Mexico, USA. Palaeontology. 2006;49: 1123–1142. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00588.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Trewin NH. The ichnogenus Undichna, with examples from the Permian of the Falkland Islands. Palaeontology. 2000;43: 979–997. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Hasiotis ST, Platt BF, Hembree DI, Everhart MJ. The Trace-Fossil Record of Vertebrates. In: Miller W, editor. Trace Fossils: Concepts, Problems and Prospects. Amsterdam: Elsivier; 2007. pp. 196–218. [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Ashley-Ross MA, Lundin R, Johnson KL. Kinematics of level terrestrial and underwater walking in the California newt, Taricha torosa. J Exp Zool Part Ecol Genet Physiol. 2009;311A: 240–257. doi: 10.1002/jez.522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Ashley-Ross MA, Bechtel BF. Kinematics of the transition between aquatic and terrestrial locomotion in the newt Taricha torosa. J Exp Biol. 2004;207: 461–474. doi: 10.1242/jeb.00769 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Mujal E, Schoch RR. Middle Triassic (Ladinian) amphibian tracks from the Lower Keuper succession of southern Germany: Implications for temnospondyl locomotion and track preservation. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2020;543: 109625. doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2020.109625 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Marchetti L. Can undertracks show higher morphologic quality than surface tracks? Remarks on large amphibian tracks from the Early Permian of France. J Iber Geol. 2019;45: 353–363. doi: 10.1007/s41513-018-0080-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Canoville A, Chinsamy A. Bone Microstructure of the stereospondyl Lydekkerina huxley reveals adaptive strategies to the harsh post Permian-extinction environment. Anat Rec. 2015;298: 1237–1254. doi: 10.1002/ar.23160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Pawley K, Warren A. Immaturity vs paedomorphism: a rhinesuchid stereospondyl postcranium from the Upper Permian of South Africa. Palaeontol Afr. 2004;40: 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 118.McHugh JB. Paleohistology and histovariability of the Permian stereospondyl Rhinesuchus. J Vertebr Paleontol. 2014;34: 59–68. doi: 10.1080/02724634.2013.787429 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Farlow JO, Robinson NJ, Turner ML, Black J, Gatesy SM. Footfall pattern of a bottom-walking crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). PALAIOS. 2018;33: 406–413. doi: 10.2110/palo.2018.037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Wild R. Die Saurierfunde von Kupferzell. Schwäbische Heim Stuttg. 1980;31: 110–117. [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Turek V. Fish and amphibian trace fossils from westphalian sediments of bohemia. Palaeontology. 1989;32: 623–643, pls. 73–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Brand L. Variations in Salamander Trackways Resulting from Substrate Differences. J Palaeontol. 1996;70: 1004–1010. [Google Scholar]
  • 123.McAllister JA. Dakota Formation Tracks from Kansas: Implications for the recognition of tetrapod subaqueous traces. In: Gillette DD, Lockley MG, editors. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces. Cambridge University Press; 1991. pp. 343–348. [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Seebacher F, Elsworth PG, Franklin CE. Ontogenetic changes of swimming kinematics in a semi-aquatic reptile (Crocodylus porosus). Aust J Zool. 2003;51: 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 125.D’Août K, Aerts P. Kinematics and efficiency of steady swimming in adult axolotls (Ambystoma mexicanum). J Exp Biol. 1997;200: 1863–1871. doi: 10.1242/jeb.200.13.1863 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jörg Fröbisch

7 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-30091Unique trackway on Permian Karoo shoreline provides evidence of temnospondyl locomotory behaviour.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Groenewald,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 21 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jörg Fröbisch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that you have referenced (ie. Bewick et al. [5]) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting and well-executed study, describing and interpreting some remarkable body traces attributed to amphibians. Nevertheless, some parts of the manuscript can be improved. Some additional information on coordinates and stratigraphy should be provided. Some close-ups of the circular tracks should be added to the figures. The interpretation of the trace 2 should be expanded, and labels for the single tracks added. The morphology of the body traces shluld be compared with those already described from the Palaeozoic, a new ichnotaxonomy can be proposed. In general, the interpretation in several part can be more tentative. The 3D models could be deposited in an online repository. All the comments are in the attached pdf

Best regards,

Lorenzo Marchetti

Reviewer #2: Dear colleagues,

I have carefully read and reviewed the manuscript, which deals with conspicuous impressions produced by a tetrapod (an amphibian, as the authors thoroughly discuss) on a large palaeosurface from the upper Permian of the Waterford Fm. (Karoo Basin, South Africa). The reported traces are impressive and very interesting, adding valuave knowledge on the locomotion of amphibians (and particularly rhinesuchids) and their palaeoecology. In addition, the authors carried out a very detailed sedimentological study allowing for a detailed palaeoenvironmental reconstruction.

The manuscript is very well writen and the figures are of good quality and very informative. I think this work deserves to be published after a minor revision is undertaken. I have only found minor issues to correct and/or clarify in the text and a few in the figures (for the latter only to show some figured elements better). I annotated all my comments and suggestions in the attached PDF by using the Adobe Reader Comment tools.

The only major point to consider in the text is on the interpretation of the order of impression of some of the traces. It is claimed that the traces described as "Circular impressions" were made before the temnospondyl traces (see comment on page 16 of the manuscript, lines 394-394). However, I can't see this clearly with the given data. The authors show provide further discussion/evidence for this. In any case, I still see this as a minor point because it doesn't change the main message of this research.

There is another point that I didn't comment in the PDF, but that it might be interesting to mention in the manuscript, and in any case only if the authors find this appropriate. As the authors clearly demonstrated, the palaeosurface described was formed in a tidal flat or a lagoon, i.e., a coastal-marine setting. Just as a suggestion, the authors could add a short discussion on the fact that temnospondyl traces are found in such a setting, because usually (though not exclusively) temnospondyls are reported from freshwater settings. Of course, this should not change any content of the manuscript, which I find very good, it would only be adding some palaeoecological remarks on rhinesuchids roaming a coastal-marine setting.

I hope that my review is useful to the authors, for any doubt, I would be glad to give further feedback to the authors. I am looking forward to seeing this work published.

Best regards,

Eudald Mujal (Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Lorenzo Marchetti

Reviewer #2: Yes: Eudald Mujal

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-30091_LM.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-30091_reviewerEM.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 29;18(3):e0282354. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282354.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Feb 2023

Response to Reviewers

Comments from the Journal and the two reviewers are presented below, with our responses in italics. The changes are also shown in a Word document with track changes. Line and page numbers correspond to the annotated version of the manuscript [track changes -> All markup (Show All Revisions Inline)]. All figures have been deleted from the Word documents of the manuscripts.

Response to Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

I have formatted the style of the document to fit with the style requirements of the journal.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

I have added the following in lines 177-179 (Pg. 6): “The described study complied with all relevant regulations and the necessary permit (REF: SAH19/13092) was obtained from KwaZulu-Natal Amafa and Research Institute.”

3. We note that you have referenced (i.e. Bewick et al. [5]) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

We have not referenced Bewick et al. and I am not sure what this is referring to.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

The image referred to in Figure 1 is an aerial photograph of the palaeosurface that we took as part of this study using a drone. As such, there is no issue for us to use it. We modified the figure caption to read:

Fig. 1. Geological setting of the Dave Green palaeosurface. A) Simplified geological map of the main Karoo Basin. Position of the study area is indicated. B) Aerial photo of the palaeosurface (taken by AK). C) Stratigraphic log measured along the Rensburgspruit.

Figure 9 (now Fig. 10) included in image of a saltwater crocodile on a tidal flat and we were unable to get the necessary permission to use it. As such, I have modified the figure to include a photo of an impression of an alligator for which I have obtained permission from the photographer, Gale Bishop. I have uploaded the completed Content Permission Form.

Caption of Fig. 10 reads: “Fig. 10. Comparison of Impression 2 from the palaeosurface (A) with a present-day body impression and trail of Alligator mississippiensis on the foreshore at St. Catherines Island, Georgia, United States (B). Photograph courtesy of St. Catherines Island Sea Turtle Program, Gale A. Bishop and modified with permission from [92]. C) A rhinesuchid temnospondyl such as Laccosaurus or Uranocentrodon is probably the tracemaker. Scale bar = 30 cm (A and B).

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We have not cited any retracted papers.

Some references that have been added include:

[61] Marchetti L, Belvedere M, Voigt S, Klein H, Castanera D, Díaz-Martínez I, et al. Defining the morphological quality of fossil footprints. Problems and principles of preservation in tetrapod ichnology with examples from the Palaeozoic to the present. Earth-Sci Rev. 2019;193: 109–145. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.04.008.

[75] Carmona N, Bournod C, Ponce JJ, Cuadrado D. The Role of Microbial Mats in the Preservation of Bird Footprints: A Case Study from the Mesotidal Bahia Blanca Estuary (Argentina). In: Noffke N, Chafetz H, editors. Microbial Mats in Siliciclastic Depositional Systems Through Time. SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology; 2011. pp. 37–45. doi:10.2110/sepmsp.101.037

[76] Marty D, Strasser A, Meyer CA. Formation and Taphonomy of Human Footprints in Microbial Mats of Present-Day Tidal-flat Environments: Implications for the Study of Fossil Footprints. Ichnos. 2009;16: 127–142. doi:10.1080/10420940802471027

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting and well-executed study, describing and interpreting some remarkable body traces attributed to amphibians. Nevertheless, some parts of the manuscript can be improved. Some additional information on coordinates and stratigraphy should be provided. Some close-ups of the circular tracks should be added to the figures. The interpretation of the trace 2 should be expanded, and labels for the single tracks added. The morphology of the body traces shluld be compared with those already described from the Palaeozoic, a new ichnotaxonomy can be proposed. In general, the interpretation in several part can be more tentative. The 3D models could be deposited in an online repository. All the comments are in the attached pdf

Best regards,

Lorenzo Marchetti

Comments from the PDF:

Line 63 (Pg.1): all citations should go in chronological order in the text, unless this journal says otherwise

The reference style has been changed to follow the guidelines of PLOS ONE.

Line 64 (Pg. 2): better "reptiles including dinosaurs" or "dinosaurs and other reptiles"

Changed “dinosaurs and reptiles” to "dinosaurs and other reptiles"

Line 66 (Pg. 2): I agree on the body traces, but not on the pes and manus footprints because they do not show anatomical detail. Please rephrase. For an extensive discussion about trace preservation, see: Marchetti, L., Belvedere, M., Voigt, S., Klein, H., Castanera, D., Díaz-Martínez, I., ... & Farlow, J. O. (2019). Defining the morphological quality of fossil footprints. Problems and principles of preservation in tetrapod ichnology with examples from the Palaeozoic to the present. Earth-Science Reviews, 193, 109-145.

Changed “remarkably well-preserved” to “remarkable”

Line 69 (Pg.2): [regarding the “preserving”] better "generated by" or similar

Changed “preserving” to “recording”

Line 85 (Pg. 2): [locality of the site] Please add coordinates

Added coordinates in line 85 “(S28.967122°, E29.987366°)”

Line 102 (Pg. 3): [Regarding the Waterford Formation] could you provide the thickness of this formation? Also information on its age would be important. And please specify if the contact with the overlying Balfour Formation is conformable

Inserted “Within the study area, the Waterford Formation is at least 140 m thick and is considered to be Wuchiapingian in age (Groenewald 2021).” in lines 121-122

Inserted “conformably overlying” before “lower Balfour” in Line 106

Inserted “(Lopingian)” between “late Permian” and “Daptocephalus” in line 166

Line 142 (Pg. 4): [Heading “Palaeontology”] of the locality

Changed to “Local palaeontology”

Line 152 (Pg. 4): [attributed to small-to-medium sized dicynodont trackmakers] on which bases?

Added “, based on track morphology and because dicynodonts are the most commonly represented group in the body fossil record,” after “trackmakers” in lines 152-154.

Deleted “them” in line 154

Line 155 (Pg. 5): [Regarding fossils] here it would be important to know in which formation these fossils were found, and if they were stratigraphically above or below the palaeosurface, if possible

Added the following after “Fig. 3).” in line 158: “Plant fossils below the palaeosurface are generally more fragmentary than those above it. Vertebrate fossils below the palaeosurface are restricted to isolated and fragmented fish bones and scales, whereas vertebrate fossils recovered from the Balfour Formation by us and previous workers on the farm van der Merwe’s Kraal 972 include a partial rhinesuchid amphibian skull (BP/1/7858; c.f. Laccosaurus) and fragmentary dicynodont material.”

Line 194 (Pg. 7): it would be good to make the 3D models available in a public digital repository

The 3D models have been uploaded to Morphosource

Line 203 (Pg. 8): [Regarding “The Dave Green ichnofossils are”] perhaps better to add "palaeosurface"

Inserted “palaeosurface” after “Green”

Line 205 (Pg. 8): [Regarding “upper part”] better uppermost or topmost

Changed “upper” to “uppermost”

Line 217 (Pg. 8): [Regarding “upper”] see comment above. The fact that the palaeosurface is at the boundary between the two formations should be better remarked

Because we have stated uppermost in line 205, I do not think it is necessary to repeat “uppermost” here as well. In the Abstract, we state that the palaeosurface is situated “immediately below the paleaoshoreline of the Ecca Sea” (Line 50), and again under Geological background (line 92), we state that the palaeosurface is situated “immediately below the Ecca-Beaufort contact”

Line 224 (Pg. 8): [Referring to “Palaeocurrent readings”] which is the ripple strike orientation?

Palaeocurrent for asymmetrical ripples is perpendicular to strike, in the direction of the lee side. Have included “, with ripple crest strike orientation of 168-348º,” after “asymmetrical ripples”

Line 229 (Pg. 9): [Referring to “with a strike orientation of 278°”] which is the current direction?

Symmetrical ripples do not indicate palaeocurrent direction. I have changed the strike orientation to “98-278º”

Line 228 (Pg. 9): [Referring to “Several medium-sized depressions”] are these trace fossils or sedimentary structures?

Here we do not specify as it is uncertain. The origin of the depressions is discussed in lines 377-382 and we state (line 380) that they “could have formed as erosional depressions, or possibly footprints,”

Line 233 (Pg. 9): [Referring to “smaller, [sub]circular depressions,”] please specify that these are ichnofossils

Line 233: Changed “circular” to “subcircular”

Changed line 234-236 to read “We consider these to represent trackways with poor morphological preservation and describe them further below under Subcircular depressions.”

Line 240 (Pg. 9): [Referring to “in three groups”] please specify that is based on morphology and arrangement of the traces

Added “based on the morphology and arrangement of the traces” after “groups”

Line 271 (Pg. 11): [Referring to “15 round depressions”] please provide the diameter

Changed lines 272-275 to read “These depressions, eleven of which are alongside impression 2A and four are alongside impression 2B, have diameters between 33 and 63 mm and some have smooth expulsion rims.”

Line 275 (Pg. 11): [Referring to “lack of morphology”] please explain this in terms of preservation

Lines 275-277 now read: “The footprints have poor morphological preservation (M-preservation grade 0 using the scale of Marchetti et al. (2019a)) that makes it difficult to distinguish manus from pes.”

Line 279 (Pg. 11): [Referring to “A similar distance separates the posterior from the anterior pair of footprints in impression 2A.”] how can you tell? Impression 2A has 11 associated footprints. Perhaps specify that a similar distance can be measured between supposed posterior and anterior pairs taking into account progression while generating the body trace, which in fact results longer than 2B. You should add numbers to the pairs in the figure and refer to them (also provide measurements of gleno-acetabular distance, stride, pace angulation, trackway width)

Included “(RP3-RM5 and LP3-LM4)” after “respectively” in line 279

Lines 279-282 now read: “A similar distance separates the supposed posterior and anterior pairs of footprints, taking into account progression while generating the body trace (LP1/RP1-LM2/RM2 or LP2/RP2-LM3/RM4), in impression 2A (Fig. 7).”

Fig. 7 has been modified following the suggestions, including adding numbers to the impressions and footprints and marking the gleno-acetabular distance.

Line 300 (Pg. 12): [Referring to “swim”] interpretation later

Deleted “swim”

Line 302 (Pg. 12): [“Circular depressions”] please add close-ups of these structures, they are not visible in the current figures

Changed “circular depressions” to “Subcircular depressions”

Replaced “closely grouped” with “Subcircular” in Line 241

Modified the paragraph describing these and have also added a new figure, Figure 8.

Lines 303-313 now read: “Several groupings of smaller, subcircular and blob-shaped depressions occur across the palaeosurface. Three such groupings, indicated in Fig. 5 as “Smooth area with depressions” since the area surrounding the depressions is often smooth and not rippled, are: 1) a “corridor” ~0.9 m wide that crosses the surface from the western to eastern side (Fig. 4G and Fig 8A-E); 2) a concentration just north of the present-day island; and 3) a higher density of these depressions preserved in the northwestern part of the surface (Fig. 8). The depressions vary in size and shape with diameters ranging from 10–15 cm. The bottom of many of the depressions is sculpted with asymmetrical ripples and little-to-no morphological details are preserved.”

Lines 332-333 (Pg. 13): [“and lack the typical sinuous shape normally associated with fish trails”] this should go in the discussion

I have deleted this half of the sentence. In the discussion it already says in lines 477-478 “While most of the traces are straight and lack the sinusoidal pattern characteristic of Undichna,”

Added “of” to the sentence between “most” and “the” in lines 477-478

Line 364 (Pg. 14): [Referring to the second “which”] with?

This is an error and I have deleted “which”

Line 365 (Pg. 14): [“indicate that the palaeosurface was submerged at the time that the traces were made”] please be more tentative here, the Undichna assignment is not certain and the surface may have been flooded again

The assignment to Undichna is also quite certain for some of the linear traces, e.g. LT1 and the Undichna unisulca trace shown in Fig. 9I.

Changed to: “indicate” to “suggests”

Line 366 (Pg. 14): Replace “traces” with “large impressions”

Done

Line 383 (Pg. 15): [Referring to “The smoother, non-rippled areas of the surface are possibly where a biofilm or microbial mat was growing on the sand in a shallow water environment…”] is it possible that these areas were simply not submerged or deep enough for the ripple formation? Interestingly, the supposed tracks are in these areas. Also, if microbial mats were present, there should be sedimentological evidence such as elephant skin structures

Areas with smooth, non-rippled surfaces adjacent to rippled ‘erosional patches’ are commonly observed on tidal flats (Cuadrado et al. 2011) and we feel we have adequately shown this with the photographs in Figure 4.

CUADRADO, D. G., CARMONA, N. B. & BOURNOD, C. 2011. Biostabilization of sediments by microbial mats in a temperate siliciclastic tidal flat, Bahia Blanca estuary (Argentina). Sedimentary Geology 237(1–2), 95–101. doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2011.02.008

We have also added the following (Lines 387-390): “In parts of the palaeosurface, the surface weathers with distinctive quadrangular chips. These resemble ‘mat chips’ produced by the erosion of modern microbial mats by waves and currents (Cuadrado et al. 2011) and further support the presence of a microbial mat on the surface.”

Line 390-391 (Pg. 15): about trace preservation in microbial mats, see: Marty, D., Strasser, A., & Meyer, C. A. (2009). Formation and taphonomy of human footprints in microbial mats of present-day tidal-flat environments: implications for the study of fossil footprints. Ichnos, 16(1-2), 127-142.

I have now cited this paper in lines 392 and 443-446

Line 398 (Pg. 16): you can consider doing a new ichnotaxonomy of the large impressions. Also, a morphological comparison with the other supposed Paleozoic amphibian body impressions should be done

Because there is, at this stage, not a physical cast of the specimen that can be deposited in a collection and easily accessed for study by others, we have decided not to do the full ichnotaxonomy yet. We have tried to make casts but because the structure is large and very shallow it was not possible to make a cast which reliably reflected the morphology. A full morphological comparison is also something that will be done at a later stage.

Lines 429-430 (Pg. 17): add the ichnospecies name to both these ichnogenera [Hermundurichnus and Sauropleura]

Done

Lines 429: please indicate in which instances your traces differ from these ichnospecies

The most notable difference, size, has already been stated in lines 435-436: “All these examples are, however, as much as 10 times smaller than the impressions reported here.”

Line 464 (Pg. 18): [dicynodont therapsids as most likely trackmakers] please add an explanation for this, and references for dicyndont tracks found in the Balfour Formation

Modified the paragraph so it now reads: “The morphology of the traces provides little information on the identity of the trackmaker but the most likely candidates are dicynodont therapsids. Trackways made by groups of dicynodonts have been reported previously from the Karoo (de Klerk 2002; MacRae 1990), and they are the most common animals of the required body size recorded by body fossils from the area.”

Line 518 (Pg 20): [“The fact that many of the impressions are isolated and have no connecting trackways or swim traces (e.g., the gap between Impressions 2 and 3) is interpreted as evidence for subaqueous activity (Hasiotis et al. 2007)”] it can also be a preservational bias due to different mechanical properties of the substrate in different areas at the time of the impression

Added the following two sentences (lines 522-525): “An alternative interpretation is that the gaps resulted from a preservational bias due to different mechanical properties of the substrate in different areas at the time of registration. However, because of the lack of disturbance or deformation of surface between impressions, especially to the ripple crests, this is considered less likely.”

Line 535 (Pg 21): [“Changes in the footprint trackway associated with impressions 2A and 2B could therefore reflect a shift from bottom walking, with a similar but more variable stride length to terrestrial pedestrianism in 2A, after which the trackmaker pushed up and floated a short distance before settling on the bottom – hence only leaving four footprints associated with Impression 2B.”] or it was all walking and the other tracks were just not preserved

Line 539: Inserted “It is also possible that both impressions were created through walking but that some of the tracks were just not preserved.” after “Impression 2B.”

Line 563 (Pg.22): [“However, the absence of well-defined ripples in most of the body impressions in conjunction with the swim traces indicates that the current was no longer strong enough to overprint the traces with new ripple marks before the surface was buried and preserved by the overlying strata.”] or the water was too shallow/absent

Added “The lack of ripple marks could also suggest that the water was too shallow or absent at the time registration, although, if this were the case, we would expect to see more footprints associated with the traces.” at the end of the paragraph (Line 569-571)

585-596: this part is very interpretive, consider editing, reducing or removing

I have edited this paragraph,and it now reads (Line 572-585): “Some of the traces preserve sharp turns or changes in direction, e.g., Impressions 3, 4, and 5. No observable footprint impressions or disturbances to the adjacent rippled surface are associated with the turns as observed in other amphibian swimming traces (Turek 1989), and the slightly enlarged area anterior to the tail implies that the hind limbs were tucked against the body. It is possible that the animal used its front legs to help steer in a manner similar to younger crocodiles (Seebacher et al. 2003) and that they did not touch the substrate. Another possibility is that the animal did not use its legs at all while swimming, as seen in larger crocodiles (Seebacher et al. 2003), but they were used only when the animal touched the substrate, or while bottom walking (Farlow et al. 2018b; Mujal & Schoch 2020). While a direction of travel cannot be determined for LT1, it is worth noting that Impressions 1-4 run almost parallel to LT1 (Fig. 5). If LT1 is taken to have been travelling north-south before turning and heading west-east, this could suggest that the tracemaker was actively following the fish, and that the traces record some hunting behaviour. Furthermore, the point where the smooth trace and LT1 are closest together, is near the sinuous section, i.e., at which point the fish put in a burst of speed to escape.”

I also edited lines 325-335 to follow the same direction of travel, i.e., start in the north. Figure 9 has also been updated to reflect these changes. This paragraph now reads: “The first linear trace (LT1) consists of a paired trace that can be followed southwards from the northwestern edge of the surface, where it either overprints or is overprinted by Impression 1 (Fig. 9A and B). It makes a sharp turn just south of Impression 7 (Fig. 9C and D) and can be followed eastwards across the surface to the eastern margin of the palaeosurface (Fig. 9E). The individual traces are ~1 cm wide and the paired traces are ~35 cm apart. Except for a short, sinuous section near Impression 4, the trails are relatively straight. In the sinuous section (Fig. 9F), the trails have a wavelength of 36–39 cm and an amplitude of 5 cm.”

Figure 4G: add close-ups

Created a new figure, Fig. 8, which shows the subcircular depressions better.

Fig 7: [scale] better in cm

The figure has been modified and now includes a scale bar of 50 cm

Fig 7: add track numbers and body trace letters

Done

Reviewer #2: Dear colleagues,

I have carefully read and reviewed the manuscript, which deals with conspicuous impressions produced by a tetrapod (an amphibian, as the authors thoroughly discuss) on a large palaeosurface from the upper Permian of the Waterford Fm. (Karoo Basin, South Africa). The reported traces are impressive and very interesting, adding valuable knowledge on the locomotion of amphibians (and particularly rhinesuchids) and their palaeoecology. In addition, the authors carried out a very detailed sedimentological study allowing for a detailed palaeoenvironmental reconstruction.

The manuscript is very well written and the figures are of good quality and very informative. I think this work deserves to be published after a minor revision is undertaken. I have only found minor issues to correct and/or clarify in the text and a few in the figures (for the latter only to show some figured elements better). I annotated all my comments and suggestions in the attached PDF by using the Adobe Reader Comment tools.

The only major point to consider in the text is on the interpretation of the order of impression of some of the traces. It is claimed that the traces described as "Circular impressions" were made before the temnospondyl traces (see comment on page 16 of the manuscript, lines 394-394). However, I can't see this clearly with the given data. The authors show provide further discussion/evidence for this. In any case, I still see this as a minor point because it doesn't change the main message of this research.

There is another point that I didn't comment in the PDF, but that it might be interesting to mention in the manuscript, and in any case only if the authors find this appropriate. As the authors clearly demonstrated, the palaeosurface described was formed in a tidal flat or a lagoon, i.e., a coastal-marine setting. Just as a suggestion, the authors could add a short discussion on the fact that temnospondyl traces are found in such a setting, because usually (though not exclusively) temnospondyls are reported from freshwater settings. Of course, this should not change any content of the manuscript, which I find very good, it would only be adding some palaeoecological remarks on rhinesuchids roaming a coastal-marine setting.

I hope that my review is useful to the authors, for any doubt, I would be glad to give further feedback to the authors. I am looking forward to seeing this work published.

Best regards,

Eudald Mujal (Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart)

Regarding the marine setting – The lower Ecca Group is generally accepted as having been deposited under marine conditions, whereas the upper Ecca Group was deposited under brackish-to-fresh water. As such, we have changed “marine” in line 365 to “water” and added the following sentence after “(de Gibert & Benner 2002).” in line 366: “The water was likely brackish-to-fresh based on the conclusions of several studies using trace elements from the upper Ecca Group (Muntingh 1997; Veevers et al. 1994; Zawada 1988).”

Comments from the PDF:

Line 49 (Pg. 1): [“a late Permian”] “an upper”

We have left this unchanged. The “late” applies as a chronological rather than a stratigraphic term. The palaeosurface is not considered upper Permian stratigraphically, since it is at the base of the Beaufort Group in KwaZulu-Natal Province. Because the palaeosurface is late Permian in age, we have used late Permian.

Line 55 (Pg. 1): Replace “marks” with “grooves”

Changed to: “The sinuous shape of some of the traces”

Line 56 (Pg. 1): Change trackmaker to tracemaker

Done

Line 78 (Pg. 2): [“photogrammetry scans”] I think this should rather be "surface scans".

Changed to "surface scans"

Line 79 (Pg.2): [“trackmaker”] Since most of the impressions you are describing are not tracks (understood as the imprints produced by autopodia), I would write "tracemaker" instead of "trackmaker". In fact, I see that later in the text you use "tracemaker".

Done. Also changed in line 80

Line 89 (Pg. 3): replace “late” with upper

Left unchanged. See response for line 49

Line 101 (Page 3): [Fig 2 caption] Replace “manuscript” with “text”

Done

Line 105 (Pg. 3): “f” lowercase in “Formation”

Done

Line 120 (Pg. 4): replace “suggest” with “suggested”

Changed “suggest” to “showed”

Line 138-141 (Pg. 4): [“The depositional environment for the Balfour Formation in the northeastern main Karoo Basin has been interpreted as high load meandering river environments (Botha & Linström 1977, 1978; Green 1997; Groenewald 2021, 1989, 1990; Groenewald et al. 2022; Johnson et al. 2006; Muntingh 1989, 1997).”] This sentence is the nearly the same as the anterior one. Please delete one of the two.

Deleted the second sentence

Line 137 (Pg. 4): Replace “environments” with “systems”

Done

Line 157 (Pg. 5): [D.G.] insert “P.”

Changed to DPG

Line 163 (Pg. 5): delete “c.f.”

Unchanged. The identity of BP/1/7858 is tentative

Changed “an almost complete rhinesuchid” to “partial rhinesuchid” as BP/1/7858 comprises only the posterior portion of the skull and the snout is missing.

Line 165 (Pg. 5): [“KZN”] Is this KwaZulu-Natal? If so, write this instead of the abbreviation (not used anywhere else in the text).

Changed to “KwaZulu-Natal

Table 1: Write the facies codes in italics.

Done

Table 1: insert “,” between “deposition” and “e.g.” [in the interpretation of “Sm”]

Done

Table 1: [“couple” in the interpretation of “Sm”] Should this be "could"?

Corrected to “could”

Table 1: [“Fl” in description of “Fm”] also in italics

Done

Line 181 (Pg. 7): Change “which” to “that”

Done

Line 186 (Pg. 7): [“photogrammetry”] I think this should rather be "surface scanning".

Changed “white-light source photogrammetry” to “surface scanning”

Lines 183-187 “Consequently, we used high-resolution scanning to digitise and accurately record the palaeosurface. Combining surface scanning and aerial images, we were able to accurately portrait the surface trackway.” have been combined and rewritten and now reads (Lines 183-185) “Consequently, we combine high-resolution surface scanning and aerial images to digitise and accurately record the surface.”

Line 194 (Pg. 7): Above you mentioned photogrammetry was performed, but here it is not mentioned, I guess before you meant surface scanning. Please either add information on any photogrammetric models you did or remove the references to photogrammetry.

All references to photogrammetry have been removed.

Added “and ParaView v. 5.10.1 (https://www.paraview.org/)” at the end of line 200

Line 226 (Pg. 9): [“Gyrochorte-like invertebrate traces are present on the northwestern part of the surface (Fig. 4C and D).”] I can't identify the Gyrochorte-like traces in the cited subfigures. Could you please point them (e.g., with arrows) in the photographs?

I have modified the photo in 4D and placed arrows to show the invertebrate traces

Line 255 (Pg. 10): Upper case (as done elsewhere for "Impression/s #number").

Done. Also in Line 257

Caption Fig. 6: [“In parts 1–5: scale] Should this be 1-6? Otherwise provide the length of the scale bar in 6

Corrected to “1–6”

Caption Fig.7 First letter capitalized [for “impression”] (as done in the text).

Done

Table 2: I would put both length and width in mm, so that they both are in the same units.

Put them both into cm in the table. In the text the measurements remain unchanged.

Table 2: If possible/relevant, could you add also dimensions for Impression 6? I suggest this mainly because it is shown in Fig. 6.

We do not have the measurements for this one as the measurements were taken off the models produced by the scans and Impression 1 and 6 were not scanned.

Line 284 (Pg.11): Delete “-“ in “Trace-maker”

Done. Also done elsewhere in the text

Line 291 (Pg. 12): Do you mean "faint" here?

Replaced “feint” with “faint”

Line 304 (Pg. 12): Insert “of” before “such”

We have left unchanged as “three of such” does not make sense.

Line 303 has been changed and now reads: “Several groupings of smaller, subcircular and blob-shaped depressions occur across the palaeosurface.”

Caption Fig. 8[ now 9]: Delete “pairedlarge”

Done

Caption Fig. 8[now 9]: Add the length of the hammer here please (e.g., Hammer (30 cm long) for scale). And move this to the end of the caption, since the hammer appears in several photos.

Done

Caption Fig. 8 [now 9]: The arrows are not very visible, they should be (slightly) larger and/or in another colour (e.g., white, or with black outline and white infill).

Arrows have been modified in Figure 9I and are now more visible

Inserted new picture in Figure 9 (9B) which shows the trace crossing Impression 1.

Line 357 (Pg. 14): Add an “h” to “Undicna”

Done

Line 364 (Pg. 14): Delete second which in sentence

Done

Line 390-391 (Pg. 15): [comment] See also Marty et al. (2009: Ichnos), who discussed on the different preservations of tracks in microbial mats.

Marty, D., Strasser, A., Meyer, C.A., 2009. Formation and taphonomy of human footprints in microbial mats of present-day tidal-flat environments: implications for the study of fossil footprints. Ichnos 16, 127–142.

These lines have been modified and now read: “Tracks and traces require the substrate to be ‘just right’ in order to be preserved (Falkingham et al. 2014). Under certain conditions, the presence of microbial mats have been shown to favour or enhance the preservation of footprints (Carmona et al. 2011; Marty et al. 2009) and microbial mats are commonly associated with fossil trackways, including in the Karoo Basin (Marsicano et al. 2014; Sciscio et al. 2016, 2020; Smith 1993).”

Line 393 (Pg 15): Add “Basin” after “Karoo”

Done. Also added “main” before Karoo in the same line.

Line 398 (Pg. 16): [“impressions”] italics

The headings are now formatted according to the style of PLOS ONE (14 pt and Bold)

Line 404-405 (Pg. 16): [“Early Jurassic”] Change “Early” for “Lower”

Done

Figure 9 [now 10]: It might be better to add a letter (B) in the photograph of Impression 2, separating it from the subfigure A. In this sense, B should be then C.

Done

Caption Figure 9 [now 10]: [“impression”] Upper case

Done

Figure 9 [now 10]: As a whole, I like this figure a lot! I would add a scale bar in B [C in the updated figure].

C is not drawn to scale

Caption Figure 9 [now 10]: [“trace-maker”] delete “-”

Done

Line 421 (Pg. 16): Change “trackmaker” to “tracemaker”

Done

Line 422 (Pg. 16): Replace “late” with “upper”

We have left this unchanged. The “late” applies as a chronological rather than a stratigraphic term. The palaeosurface is not considered upper Permian stratigraphically, since it is at the base of the Beaufort Group in KwaZulu-Natal Province. Because the palaeosurface is late Permian in age, we have used late Permian.

Line 440 (Pg. 17): [“trace maker”] Without space between the two words.

Done

Lines 447 (Pg. 17): As before, please check also Marty et al. (2009), as well as Carmona et al. (2011), who also focused on the taphonomy of tracks on microbial mats.

Marty, D., Strasser, A., Meyer, C.A., 2009. Formation and taphonomy of human footprints in microbial mats of present-day tidal-flat environments: implications for the study of fossil footprints. Ichnos 16, 127–142.

Carmona, N., Bournod, C., Ponce, J.J., Cuadrado, D., 2011. The role of microbial mats in the preservation of bird footprints: a case study from the mesotidal Bahia Blanca estuary (Argentina). In: SEPM Special Publications, 101, pp. 37–45. https://doi.org/ 10.2110/sepmsp.101.037.

These references have been included and lines 444-446 have been modified to read: “The lack of morphology in the associated footprints could also be the result of the interplay between the algal mat and substrate properties (Carmona et al. 2011; Marty et al. 2009). Alternatively, post-registration growth of the microbial mat on the substrate could have resulted in the loss of morphological detail over time (Carmona et al. 2011; Cuadrado et al. 2012; Gerdes 2007; Marty et al. 2009; Reineck & Singh 1975, 1980; Schieber 1998; Selley 1985).”

Line 459 (Pg. 19): [“liquefied”] change to “liquified”

Both spellings are correct. Left unchanged

Line 462-463 (Pg. 18): [“This indicates that these trackways were probably made before the temnospondyl traces.”] I am not totally convinced. With what I see in Fig. 4G, the "corridor" of footprints is not smoothed/overprinted by any structure, and it seems that Impressions 2 and 3 are connected by a smooth trace, as shown in Fig. 5. Therefore, I would expect that the depressions in the corridor at the height of Impressions 2 and 3 should be more smoothed than the others (i.e., overprinted by the temnospondyl tracemaker). In this sense, the trackways you interpret should have been imprinted after the temnospondyl traces. Maybe it is a matter that I don't see this well in the figures. If you have a close up of this region, it would be worth it to figure it.

The area is now better figured in a new figure (Figure 8)

It is also not clear that the trackway has overprinted a swim trace, as one cannot be picked up on either side of the “corridor”. Our main argument for the order of the traces i.e., that the trackway is older, is because there are ripples in some of the footprints but not in the amphibian body traces. This is explained in Lines 459-462. It is not definite and for that reason we have said that the trackways were probably made before the impressions (line 462).

Line 477 (Pg. 19): Insert “of” after “most”

Done

Line 482 (Pg. 19): Do some of the more linear traces align with the palaeocurrents? If so, this could support the hypothesis of a stick drifting and dragging along the sediment. It would be worth it to mention the relationship in orientation between these traces and the palaeocurrents.

Modified the sentence to read: “It is also possible, however, that some of the more linear examples such as LT2 and LT3, which have a similar orientation to the palaeocurrent direction, were created by a stick drifting and dragging along the sediment, thereby forming a pseudo trace fossil (R. Gess, pers. comm. 2015).”

Line 518 (Pg. 20): Please see comment in page 16 (lines 393-394) above. Could it be that the traces aren't connected because the circular structures interpreted as trackways overprinted the connection area?

That may be the case between Impressions 2 and 3, but what about between Impressions 1 and 2, and 5 and 6 where there are areas with no subcircular depressions.

Line 530 (Pg. 21): Please consider to cite here Farlow et al. (2018b) and Mujal & Schoch (2020), who also discussed this fact.

Done

Line 553 (Pg.22): Change “trackmaker” to “tracemaker”

Done

Lines 558, 559, and 572 (Pg. 22): Capitalise “I” in “impression”

Done

Additional changes:

Line 67: Changed “Estcourt district” to “uThukela District”

Line 93: changed “recording” to “, which records”

Line 107: Inserted “Formation” after “Balfour” and moved the “)” from behind “Estcourt” to after the citations

Line 151: changed “P” to “p” in “palaeosurface”

302 (Pg. 12): Here, and throughout the text, changed “circular depressions” to “subcircular depressions” or “subcircular to blob-shaped”

Lines 378-379: Deleted “similar to the oscillatory ripples from other parts of the section (Groenewald 2015, 2021), but”

Line 396: Corrected spelling of “mineralization” to “mineralization”

Lines 487-491: Inserted “Because of this, and in contrast to many present-day and fossil examples of crocodilian and temnospondyl trackways, which typically comprise a trackway with a central tail or belly drag (Cisneros et al. 2020; Farlow et al. 2018a; Marsicano et al. 2014; Milàn & Hedegaard 2010), the impressions and traces on the Dave Green palaeosurface lack associated footprints or scratch marks, with the exception of Impression 2.”

Lines 541-547: Moved paragraph: “Impressions 2 and 3 are relatively close together and appear to follow on from one another (Figs. 2 and 5). As such, we consider these to have been formed by the same individual. The direction of movement can be determined by looking at the tail to body direction. For example, impression 2 indicates an animal that was moving in a south-easterly direction, as evinced by the tail thickening in the body direction as well as the more pronounced expulsion rim along the posterior margin of some of the footprints, indicating the direction that the animal pushed against the substrate.” earlier in the text. It is now between lines 511-517.

Lines 515-516: Changed “slightly bulged area behind” to “more pronounced expulsion rim along the posterior margin of”

Line 623: Changed “for” to “during” and “goes” to “go”

Line 624: inserted “We are grateful to Academic Editor Prof. Jörg Fröbisch for handling our manuscript, and to Dr Lorenzo Marchetti and Dr Eudald Mujal for their constructive reviews.”

Line 626-628: Changed to read:” Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of are not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF, the CoE-PalGENUS, or to PAST, or the European Union.”

Line 636: Changed “JH” to “PJH”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Jörg Fröbisch

14 Feb 2023

Unique trackway on Permian Karoo shoreline provides evidence of temnospondyl locomotory behaviour.

PONE-D-22-30091R1

Dear Dr. Groenewald,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jörg Fröbisch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I carefully read through the revised version of your manuscript and consider all points raised by the reviewers as addressed to my satisfaction.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Jörg Fröbisch

2 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-30091R1

Unique trackway on Permian Karoo shoreline provides evidence of temnospondyl locomotory behaviour.

Dear Dr. Groenewald:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Jörg Fröbisch

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Details of impressions 3 and 7.

    Textured scan (top), with the outlines of the impressions and associated swim trails of impression 3 (White) and impression 7 (Yellow), shown next to the false-colour depth model (bottom). Depth scale is in mm.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Details of impression 4.

    Textured scan (Left) with the outline of the impression and swim trace shown next to the false-colour depth model (Right). Depth scale is in mm.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Details of impression 5.

    Textured scan (Left) with the outline of the impression and swim trace shown next to the false-colour depth model (Right). Depth scale is in mm.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-30091_LM.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-30091_reviewerEM.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files. Three-dimensional models have been uploaded to the MorphoSource data archive: https://www.morphosource.org/projects/000494771?locale=en.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES