In the panorama of Italian Paleontologists dealing with Italian paleontological material, today we know Matteo Antonelli, PhD student at Sapienza – University of Rome, who presented one of his latest works during the Be Geoscientist event, the first Congress for Young Italian Geologists to is held from 7 to 10 October 2021 near the Department of Earth, Environmental and Resources Sciences of the Federico II University of Naples.
Matteo presented his latest work, whose scientific article is unpublished and has not yet been published. This is the analysis of some of the footprints of the Pugliese Geosite of Molfetta, a surface of the quarry layer present at the top of a carbonate succession of 15 meters high. We are in the Lower Cretaceous period, specifically at the Albian – Aptian limit. The site appears to have 800 footprints. Those studied were analyzed both using traditional methods but also and above all through the use of innovative technologies such as high resolution digital photogrammetry. From the studies carried out, the footprints of Molfetta show numerous similarities with the footprints found in North Africa, with anatomical characters such as to hypothesize their attribution to the group of carcharodontosauridae. The Carcharodontosauria are large theropods that appear for the first time in Africa and Europe in the Upper Jurassic, to then be the protagonists of an important evolutionary “explosion” also at the biogeographical level during the Lower Cretaceous, reaching the apex of the food chain at the beginning of the Upper Cretaceous period. The presence of traces referring to this group of dinosaurs would imply important evaluations from the paleogeographical point of view, as it could support the hypothesis of a “dispersal” from Gondwana towards the Apula Platform through the Panormide Platform (Northern Sicily) during the interval Aptiano- Albiano. Further investigations also revealed traces attributable to herbivorous dinosaurs, in particular the group of armored dinosaurs: the ankylosauridae.
Matteo’s study was the starting point for a series of questions and curiosities that Matteo was quick to satisfy. Here is our interview!
Matteo, have you identified about 800 footprints in the Molfetta Geosite, have you relied on an existing bibliography or did you start from scratch?
Molfetta is a geosite that was discovered years ago by an Apulian researcher but that despite its great potential and its great importance, the studies that have been carried out in the past have been limited to the purpose of making the site usable. In fact, at the level of paleontological and icnological documentation, no other studies have ever been made and this therefore leaves ample room for scientific insights and potential new discoveries that could surprise us.
Fortunately, in recent years, thanks to the contribution of important Italian paleontologists, the myth that in Italy there were no traces of dinosaurs or that these were so scarce that it was not worth studying them has finally been dispelled. Unfortunately, however, still today there are still those who follow this trend of thinking, what do you think about it?
Italy is full of testimonies of the presence of dinosaurs, the testimonies are everywhere and cover almost the entire Mesozoic (from the Triassic onwards). The focus of my studies is in fact to use the testimonies of Italian dinosaurs as a paleontological constraint to understand Italian paleogeography.
At your presentation you talked about a technique widely used in the geological and geomorphological field that you have applied, however, in the paleontological field. Is using photogrammetry in paleontology a technique recently acquired in this scientific sector or has it been used since the dawn of this data acquisition technique?
The first photogrammetry works applied to paleontology date back to 2008, yet although the works are recent, the turning point has actually occurred in the last few years, thanks to the fact that the technique is becoming more and more detailed. Comparing works that are only ten years apart, it is possible to see how the advancement in resolution and in the software used in photogrammetry has allowed for the acquisition of much more detailed data.
To these data are added the analyzes of the limbs of birds, which are taken as a reference in the case of the limbs of theropods. One of the most interesting and debated questions that have interested the study of dinosaur legs was that relating to the passage of the bone structure in the area of the fingertips. The two most debated theories were: does each fingertip correspond to a junction of the phalanges or does it correspond to a phalanx? Today the most accredited theory is the first, namely that the fingertips were the seat of the junctions between phalanges. If we have come to credit this theory it is certainly also thanks to the contribution of acquisition technologies such as those of high resolution photogrammetry thanks to which we are able to obtain a detail of morphologies that we could not see with the naked eye, even reaching a resolution such that it allows to distinguish precisely the imprint of the fingertips.
What is the degree of systemic identification that can be achieved by analyzing the footprints? Is it possible to establish the genus or even the species?
It is difficult to establish the genus, let alone establish the species, it is impossible! However, assumptions can be made to try to understand the family to which they belong, considering the geological period you are studying, the size that the animal could have, the geographical proximity of other sectors in which certain groups lived. Surely what is emerging, studying the various sites scattered throughout Italy where there are fossil footprints of the Dinosauria group, is that there is a very high diversity. It would seem that for the Cretaceous period all major groups are present.
Matteo, one last question before leaving you. Today we see a lot of the trend towards what would seem a digital paleontology, therefore a paleontology that seems to no longer have to do with the figure of the geologist or the paleontologist who goes on the field, what do you think? Do you agree with this philosophy of thought or do you think that field activity is fundamental and that it cannot be replaced by digital acquisition?
Personally I believe that the field activity is fundamental. There are manual analysis techniques developed dozens of years ago that have endured for so long and this cannot be ignored. I myself, when I go to study a site of fossil footprints, I pay a lot of attention to what are the sensations under my fingers, paying attention to how the fossil trace is going to understand if there are more depressed or more prominent points. These are feelings and indicators that you cannot have with a purely digital study technique.
We thank Matteo very much for his willingness to answer our questions, to stay in touch with his scientific research activity we are attaching the link to his research profile and to follow one of his beautiful paleontological drawings:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matteo-Antonelli
