Comments On The Draft Proposal To Amend The Code With Respect To Trace Fossils

Volume: 61Start Page: 35End Page: 3

Comments on the draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils

In the recent proposal to clarify the meaning of the term ichnotaxon, Bertling et al. (2003) suggested that the Glossary definition of 'work of an animal' should be emended. To supplement the proposed definition of trace fossil, the draft included clearly worded lists of structures that qualify as trace fossils and otherwise. In the proposal, fossil cocoons, pupal cases, plant galls and spider webs are considered to be animal products instead of true trace fossils. However, a vigorous general discussion in the ichnologic community in July and August 2003 (Skolithos, 2003) resulted in a consensus that these terms include some structures that qualify as trace fossils, suggesting the need to refine the wording further. Such refinement is proposed herein to reduce ambiguity between trace and body fossils, delineating a sharper boundary around the ichnological realm.Fil: Genise, Jorge Fernando. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia"; ArgentinaFil: Bertling, Markus. University of Münster; AlemaniaFil: Braddy, Simon J.. Geological Institute; DinamarcaFil: Bromley, Richard G.. Geological Institute; DinamarcaFil: Mikulás, Radek. Institute of Geology; República ChecaFil: Nielsen,K.S.S.. Geological Institute; DinamarcaFil: Rindsberg, Andrew K.. Geological Survey of Alabama; Estados UnidosFil: Schlirf, Michael. Institute for Plaeontology; AlemaniaFil: Uchman, Alfred. Institute of Geological Sciences; Poloni

Draft Proposal To Emend The Code With Respect To Trace Fossils: Request For Comments

Volume: 60Start Page: 141End Page: 14

Names for trace fossils: a uniform approach

20 pagesInternational audienceThe 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