Why is larger track harder to spot?

 

It is hard to believe, but people are more likely to notice the small dinosaur tracks, than the large ones. Even many professional paleontologists fall into that group. Although, it is rather ironic. Don't you think? I mean, many dinosaurs were known for their giant size. After all they were the largest terrestrial animals that ever lived. 

A few years ago, at first doubtful of my own eyes, I managed finding very large dinosaur tracks on the Istrian beach which is very busy with tourists in the Summer months.The age is Early Cretaceous, Late Albian. Before some 100 million years ago.

In the photo is a giant iguanodontoid footprint (right foot) measuring about 85-90 cm in length. This was my first find of a gigantic ornithopod track. I have never expected that I will find a couple of even much larger iguanodontoid foot impressions, in the same area, just a year later. The red outline is my interpretation of the main shape. There are several less preserved prints of the same animal around this impression. 

These are footprints from other countries for comparison:

Note the resemblance with Caririchnium sp. from the Uhangri formation (image from the Research Report on the Haenam Dinosaur Tracksite, Korea, 1998)...

...or with this footprint of Hadrosauropodus nangxiogensis (from Xing et al. 2009).

It seems, the Istrian iguanodontoid footprints show both features of an hadrosaurian track and the iguanodontian one.

Edmontosaurus with a fleshy rooster-like comb (repost)

Besides being a cartoonist I am also a paleoartist. I have been a paleoartist for decades. You can see some of my restorations at the Natural History Museum's in London site:
Natural History Museum London Picture Library
or at my old neglected Tripod site:
Beri's Dinosaur World (BDW)
I am happy to note that although many of the life restorations of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals are decades old (the oldest dating from 1983), they still can pass as reasonably accurate ones or even don't have any major flaws regardless of the recent advances in paleontology and numerous new discoveries.
To cut the long story short, recently a new wonderful and very surprising Edmontosaurus fossil with some soft body parts impressions has been discovered and described. According to this find, not only the various dinosaurs had the bony combs, crests, horns and sails, but they might have been decorated with the fleshy ornaments as well. The Edmontosaurus had a fleshy rooster's comb.
National Geographic Society site has the story. Julius Csotonyi has produced a nice life restoration for the paper and the magazine.

However, looking at the published paper, I have noticed that the fleshy comb might have been larger and of a bit different shape than Julius has painted it. Here is my interpretation: