2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2006.11.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comments on the paper “Reconnaissance of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain Region, USA: Paleoenvironmental, stratigraphic, and paleoclimatic significance of terrestrial and freshwater ichnocoenoses” by Stephen T. Hasiotis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
(58 reference statements)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many researchers have contested the hypothesis of Triassic bees based on body fossil and phylogenetic evidence [2], [16], [22][24], but in 2010 Lucas and colleagues [10] reappraised the PEFO borings, disputing many of the primary observations reported by Hasiotis [6]. Limitations of the in situ ∼15 m long petrified log prevented a better morphological and process-based alternative explanation for the borings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many researchers have contested the hypothesis of Triassic bees based on body fossil and phylogenetic evidence [2], [16], [22][24], but in 2010 Lucas and colleagues [10] reappraised the PEFO borings, disputing many of the primary observations reported by Hasiotis [6]. Limitations of the in situ ∼15 m long petrified log prevented a better morphological and process-based alternative explanation for the borings.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…23) recorded giant cylindrical structures that resemble megarhizoliths. Regrettably, the description of the trace fossils in that paper is too brief to allow any discussion regarding their origin (Bromley et al, 2007). However, when analysing the origin of this type of structure, Roth et al (2006) ruled out fulgurite and termite nests because of the lack of any micro-or macromorphological characters.…”
Section: A Comparison Of the Megarhizoliths With Other Biogenic Strucmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies have hypothesized that backfilled burrows are made exclusively in subaqueous settings by deposit-feeding invertebrates, which ingest sediments at one end and excrete sediments and waste products at the other, producing a meniscate backfill; these studies also suggest that it is unlikely insects could produce such burrows (e.g., Frey et al, 1984;Squires and Advocate, 1984;Genise, 2004;Genise et al, 2004;Mángano, 2004, 2007;Bromley et al, 2007). Our study demonstrates conclusively that insects such as masked chafer beetle larvae produce actively backfilled burrows in terrestrial, subaerial welldrained settings without ingesting sediment or wholesale deposit feeding.…”
Section: Paleoecological Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Backfilled burrows are thought traditionally to have been produced primarily through deposit feeding, in which organisms ingest sediment and pass it through their bodies, filling the burrow at the posterior end (e.g., Ekdale et al, 1984;Frey et al, 1984;Bromley, 1996). Many backfilled burrows in continental strata, dating back to the late Paleozoic, are thought to have been produced in lacustrine and fluvial deposits by worms or aquatic arthropods (e.g., Frey et al, 1984;Squires and Advocate, 1984;Savrda et al, 2000;Genise et al, 2004;Mángano, 2004, 2007;Bromley et al, 2007). Other research, however, demonstrates that these types of burrows were made in subaerial terrestrial environments (e.g., Willis and Roth, 1962;O'Geen and Busacca, 2001; and were frequent components of ancient paleosols (e.g., Bown and Kraus, 1983;Hasiotis and Dubiel, 1994;Retallack, 2001a, * Corresponding author. 2001b; Genise et al, 2004;.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%