Names for trace fossils: a uniform approach

Abstract

The taxonomic treatment of trace fossils needs a uniform approach, independent of the ethologic groups concerned. To this aim, trace fossils are rigorously defined with regard to biological taxa and physical sedimentary structures. Potential ichnotaxobases are evaluated, with morphology resulting as the most important criterion. For trace fossils related to bioerosion and herbivory, substrate plays a key role, as well as composition for coprolites. Size, producer, age, facies and preservation are rejected as ichnotaxobases. Separate names for undertracks and other poorly preserved material should gradually be replaced by ichnotaxa based on well‐preserved specimens. Recent traces may be identified using established trace fossil taxa but new names can only be based on fossil material, even if the distinction between recent and fossil may frequently remain arbitrary. It is stressed that ichnotaxa must not be incorporated into biological taxa in systematics. Composite trace fossil structures (complex structures made by the combined activity of two or more species) have no ichnotaxonomic standing but compound traces (complex structures made by one individual tracemaker) may be named separately under certain provisions. The following emendations are proposed to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: The term ‘work of an animal’ should be deleted from the code, and ichnotaxa should be based solely on trace fossils as defined herein.

Late Carboniferous paleoichnology reveals the oldest full-body impression of a flying insect

“…However, the true utility of an ichnotaxon is to facilitate communication among scientists regarding a common morphology and interpretation of ethology across multiple specimens. Ichnotaxa, to be useful, must be recurrent through time and/or space (18). It is not constructive to assign an ichnotaxon at this time, because the conditions required to produce an FBI of a large flying insect with significant morphological detail would be exceedingly rare in the geologic record.…”

Probable root structures and associated trace fossils from the Lower Pleistocene calcarenites of Favignana Island, southern Italy: dilemmas of interpretation

“…Their de scrip tion and in ter preta tion are the main aim of this pa per. They can be con sid ered in the terms of ichnotaxonomy be cause root struc tures are not only body fos sils (e.g., Pieńkowski, 2004) but also struc tures of re cur rent shape, re sult ing from de for ma tion of the sub strate by a liv ing or gan ism (see Sarjeant, 1975;Bertling et al, 2006). Such prac tice has been adopted for root struc tures in Pleis tocene calcarenites in It aly by D' Alessandro and Iannone (1982).…”

The trace fossil Lepidenteron lewesiensis (Mantell, 1822) from the Upper Cretaceous of southern Poland

“…However, due to its interpretative elements (reference to the ethological category domichnia and to sedentary worms as tracemakers), this diagnosis does not meet the recommended and widely accepted diagnostic criteria, i.e. ichnotaxobases (Bertling et al 2006). Moreover, the diagnosis refers to bioclasts glued to the wall (Röhrenwand), but the trace fossil does not have an actively produced structure that can be called a wall sensu Bromley (1996).…”

“…List of studied localities, their GPS co-ordinates, stratigraphic position and character of outcrop can meet the diagnosis. The selection of ichnotaxobases should be inspired by biological interpretation (Fürsich 1974;Bertling et al 2006). Therefore, possible inclusion of large tetrapod burrows in Lepidenteron would on the basis of such a broad diagnosis contradict the recommendation that ichnotaxobases should be as close as possible to the biological reality.…”

“…Suhr (1988) also included values of diameter and length of Lepidenteron in the diagnosis, 0.5-40 mm, and up to more than 30 cm, respectively. Size is generally not accepted as an ichnotaxobase (Bertling et al 2006), although some caution is necessary, because some large tetrapod burrows with bones at the bottom Table 1. List of studied localities, their GPS co-ordinates, stratigraphic position and character of outcrop can meet the diagnosis.…”