Defining the morphological quality of fossil footprints: Problems and principles of preservation in tetrapod ichnology with examples from the Palaeozoic to the present

The morphology of fossil footprints is the basis of vertebrate footprint ichnology. However, the processes acting during and after trace fossil registration which are responsible for the final morphology have never been precisely defined, resulting in a dearth of nomenclature. Therefore, we discuss the concepts of ichnotaphonomy, ichnostratinomy, taphonomy, biostratinomy, registration and diagenesis and describe the processes acting on footprint morphology. In order to evaluate the morphological quality of tetrapod footprints, we introduce the concept of morphological preservation, which is related to the morphological quality of footprints (M-preservation, acronym MP), and distinguish it from physical preservation (P-preservation, acronym PP), which characterizes whether or not a track is eliminated by taphonomic and diagenetic processes. M-preservation includes all the morphological features produced during and after track registration prior to its study, and may be divided into substages (ichnostratinomic, registrational, taphonomic, stratinomic, diagenetic). Moreover, we propose an updated numerical preservation scale for M-preservation. It ranges from 0.0 (worst preservation) to 3.0 (best preservation); intermediate values may be used and specific features may be indicated by letters. In vertebrate footprint ichnotaxonomy, we regard the anatomy-consistent morphology and to a lesser extent the trackway pattern as the only acceptable ichnotaxobases. Only footprints showing a good morphological preservation (grade 2.0–3.0) are useful in ichnotaxonomy, whereas ichnotaxa based on poor morphological preservation (grade 0.0–1.5) are considered ichnotaphotaxa (nomina dubia) characterized by extramorphologies. We applied the preservation scale on examples from the Palaeozoic to the present time, including three ichnotaphotaxa and 18 anatomy-consistent ichnotaxa/morphotypes attributed to several vertebrate footprint producers. Results indicate the utility, feasibility and suitability of this method for the entire vertebrate footprint record in any lithofacies, strongly recommending its use in future ichnotaxonomic studies.Fil: Marchetti, Lorenzo. Urweltmuseum Geoskop; AlemaniaFil: Belvedere, Matteo. Office de la Culture. Section d'Archéologie et Paléontologie; SuizaFil: Voigt, Sebastian. Urweltmuseum Geoskop; AlemaniaFil: Klein, Hendrik. Saurierwelt Paläontologisches Museum; AlemaniaFil: Castanera, Diego. Institut Català de Paleontologia Miquel Crusafont.; EspañaFil: Díaz Martínez, Ignacio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigación en Paleobiología y Geología; ArgentinaFil: Marty, Daniel. Naturhistorisches Museum Basel; SuizaFil: Xing, Lida. China University of Geosciences; ChinaFil: Feola, Silverio Francisco. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca. Instituto Geológico del Sur. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Geología. Instituto Geológico del Sur; ArgentinaFil: Melchor, Ricardo Nestor. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa; ArgentinaFil: Farlow, James O.. Purdue University; Estados Unido