Bertling, M

Braddy, S J

Bromley, R G

Genise, J

Mikulas, R

Nielsen, K S S

Rindsberg, Andrew K

Schlirf, M

Uchman, A

The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature

Bertling et al. (2003) have proposed various changes to a new edition of the Code which were commented on by Tubbs (2003). His comments show that major arguments obviously have not been put in a way fully comprehensible for the non-ichnologist. Among other things, he states it is not the case that the Code draws a distinction between fossilized tracks and other "works" such as galls, coprolites and nests (para. 7). This necessitates two replies: In a separate note, Genise et al. (2004) explain why some kinds of galls and cocoons must not be considered traces or trace fossils, respectively. This should prohibit apodictic declarations such as names based on fossilized galls, cocoons, etc. are ichnotaxa (Tubbs 2003, para. 2, original italics). And in this paper, we address other arguments raised by Tubbs that need further consideration. Fil: Genise, Jorge Fernando. Museo Paleontológico Egidio Feruglio; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Bertling, Markus. University of Münster; AlemaniaFil: Rindsberg, A. K.. Geological Survey of Alabama; Estados UnidosFil: Schlirf, Michael. Institute Of Palaeontology;Fil: Braddy, Simon J.. Institute for Palaeontology; AlemaniaFil: Nielsen, K. S. S.. Geological Institute; DinamarcaFil: Mikulás, Radek. Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; República ChecaFil: Uchman, Alfred. Jagellonian University Cracow;Fil: Bromley, R. G.. Geological Institute; Dinamarc

Genise, Jorge Fernando

Bertling, Markus

Rindsberg, A. K.

Schlirf, Michael

Braddy, Simon J.

Nielsen, K. S. S.

Mikulás, Radek

Uchman, Alfred

Bromley, R. G.

LAReferencia - Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas Latinoamericanas

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

Genise, J.

Bertling, M.

Braddy, S. J.

Mikuláš, R.

Nielsen, K. S. S

Schlirf, M.

Jagiellonian Univeristy Repository

Bulletin o f Zoological N om enclature 6I< 1) M arch 2004 35Comments on the draft proposal to amend the Code with respect to trace fossils(Proposal, see BZN 60: 141-142. 215-216)(1) J. Gcnise1. M. Bertling“, S.J. B raddy\ R.G. Bromley4. R. M ikulas\ K.S.S. Nielsen4, A.K.. Rindsberg6, M. Schlirf7 and A. UchmanN (see p. 39 for addresses)In the recent proposal to clarify the meaning of the term ichnotaxon. Bertling et al. (BZN 60: 141-142) 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.Cocoon is used in the invertebrate literature with different meanings. Many insect cocoons arc structures built of silk and different amounts of other materials to oviposit, or protect larvae and pupae (e.g. Chapman, 1982). Pal/iclmus Retallack, 1984, FiaovicJmus Johnston et al., 1996. Rebuffoichmts Roselli. 1939, and Teisseirei Rosclli, 1985 arc available ichnotaxa for pupal chambers (or cocoons or pupal cases) found in paleosols (Genise et al., 2002). f  ossil wasp cocoons have also been recorded but not named (e.g. Bown et al.. 1997). Eleven ichnogenera are attributed to trichoptcran (caddisfly) cases made with silk and various coarse materials in aquatic environments (e.g. Sukatcheva, 1982, 1999). The ichnotaxonomy ofcaddisffy cases is well developed. The first ichnogenus was erected by Bose (1805) and, at present, this is one of the few ichnotaxonomic arrangements that utilizes ichnosubgcncra (Sukatcheva, 1982). These cocoons involve behaviour (weaving) and modification of substrate (silk and other materials), thus qualifying as true trace fossils.In contrast, the so-called ‘cocoons’ of clitcllatcs (e.g. Manum ct al.. 1991) and puparia of dipterans (e.g. Chapman, 1982) are just secretions and tanned larval cuticles, respectively; they involve neither behaviour nor modification of substrate. These more likely qualify as body fossils. Thus, we consider all kinds of constructed cocoons (e.g. woven cocoons, caddisfly cases) as trace fossils, whereas simply secreted cocoon-like structures and larval cuticles, such as clitellate ‘cocoons’ and dipteran puparia. are body fossils.Similarly, the proposal ruled out spider webs as traces because they were considered, along with eggs and pearls, as secretions (Bertling et al.. 2003). However, in spider webs and egg cocoons, the producer weaves the silk in a second step into a construction (i.e. a trace; e.g. Foelix. 1982). Fossil silk threads from spider webs are exceedingly rare in the fossil record (Poinar, 1998); the oldest examples have recently been reported from Early Cretaceous Lebanese amber (Zschokke. 2003). Cocoons are also sometimes preserved in amber (Poinar, 1998). One ichnogenus of caddisfly cases, Secrindusia, is basically composed of silk with few if any clastic particles (Sukatcheva, 1999). Indeed, the morphology of fossil trichoptcran cases shows a36 Bulletin ol Z oo log ica l N om encla tu re  61(1) M arch  2004continuum  from structures composed almost entirely o f silk to those in which silk is only sparingly used to cement other materials. It is impossible to demark a boundary between traces and non-traccs based on the am ount o f silk incorporated within a structure. Regarding the proposed definition o f trace fossil, in constructed webs, nets and cocoons, silk is considered to be the substrate that is modified by the producer.In addition, the substrate to which these silk structures are attached may also be modified. Trichopleran silk nets and cases may play an im portant role in the deposition of travertine (Drysdale. 1999; Leggitt & Loewen, 2002). Silky webs, nets and cocoons are true traces, not com parable to eggshells o r pearls, which are un-rcworkcd secretions. N or are they com parable with agglutinated foraminifcran tests, which incorporate sand grains actively on the cell wall. These tests may fully match the producer morphology, and as such they are considered body fossils.Plant galls may be initiated by viruses, fungi, other plants and invertebrates, especially arthropods. Accordingly, diverse kinds o f galls exist that may involve the abnorm al production of organs or tissues, which in turn may be patternless or show a repeated size and shape (Scott ct al., 1992). Ichnologically, it is im portant to consider that in insect-made galls, the larva grows by feeding from the plant tissues, pupates and emerges as an adult. In doing so, it produces a boring, pellets, a pupal cham ber and an exit hole, all o f them true traces that have been recorded in fossil leaves and stems (e.g. Scott ct al.. 1992; Labandcira & Phillips, 1996). In o ther cases, galls may preserve only the plant reaction tissue and as such may not qualify as trace fossils. The oviposition. plus the larval boring, pellets, pupation cham ber and exit hole together make up a com posite trace fossil inside the reaction tissue, similar to other traces in leaves, but with disproportionate development o f reaction tissue. Resides, all recognized traces o f phytophagy, not just galls, produce reaction tissue (Scott et al.. 1992: Labandcira, 1998). It is impossible to rule out traces involved in galls, if only because they arc surrounded by particularly developed reaction tissues. Moreover, the gall inducer often directly controls the growth, shape and consistency of the reaction tissue (even by D N A  transfer). It is difficult in this case to decide where the behaviour o f the gall inducer starts to  be replaced by mere 'secretion' by the plant. Hence, the term gall should be discarded because it is ichnologically am biguous, whereas more properly defined plant reaction tissue may be included as a clear example o f a structure that does not qualify as a trace fossil.In conclusion, the proposal by Bcrtling ct al. (2003) is affirmed though slightly modified. The Code must be clear, and thus has to define ichnotaxon accurately. We propose to  define an ichnotaxon as the name o f a trace fossil (including burrows, borings and etchings, tracks and trackways, coprolitcs. gastroliths, regurgitalilhs, nests, woven cocoons, spider webs, leaf mines, some type o f galls, bite and gnaw structures).Additional referencesBose, M.I.. 1X05. Note sur un fossil remarquable de la montagne de Saint-Gcrand-lc Puy entre Moulins et Roanne. Département de l'Ailier, appéle l lndusie tubulcusc. Journal des Mines. 17: 397 400.Bonn, T.M., Hasiotis, S.T.. Gcnise, J.F., Maldonado, F. & Brouwers, E.M. 1997. Trace fossils of llymcnoptcra and other insects and paleocnvironmcnts of the Claron Formation (Palcoccnc and Foccnc), southwestern Utah. United States (ieohgical Survey Bulletin, 2153: 42 58.B ulletin  o f  Z o o lo g ica l N o m e n c la tu re  f i l t h  M arch  2004 37Chapman. R.K. 1982. The Insects. Structure and Function. 919 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Massachusetts.Drysdale, R.N. 1999. The scdimcntologica) significance of hydropsy chid caddis-fly larvae (Order: Trichoptera) in a travertine-depositing stream: Louie Creek, northwest Queensland. Australia. Journal o f  Sedimentary Research. 69: 145 150.Foelix, R.F. 1982. Biology o f  Spiders. 306 pp. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.Genise, J.F ., Sciutto, J.C ., Laza, J.H ., Gonzalez, M.G. & Bellosi, E. 2002. Fossil bee nests, coleopteran pupal chambers and tuflaccous paleosols from the Late Cretaceous Laguna Palacios Formation, central Patagonia (Argentina). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology\ Palaeoecology. 177: 215-235.Johnston, P.A., Eberth, D.A. & Anderson, P.K. 19%. Alleged vertebrate eggs from Upper Cretaceous redbeds, Gobi Desert, arc fossil insect (Colcoptcra) pupal chambers: Fictovichnus new ichnogenus. Canadian Journal o f  Earth Sciences. 33: 511-525. Labandeira, C.C. 1998. Early history of arthropod and vascular plant associations. Annual Review o f Earth and Planetary Sciences. 26: 329-377.Labandeira, C.C. & Phillips, T.L. 1996. A Carboniferous insect gall: Insight into early écologie history of the Holomctabola. Proceedings o f the National Academe ol Sciences. 93: 847Q 8474.Lcggitt, V.L. & Locwcn, M.A. 2002. Eocene Green River Formation “ Oocardium tufa’’ reinterpreted as complex arrays of calcified caddisfly (Insccta: Trichoptera) larval cases. Sedimentary Geology. 148: 139-146.Manum, S.B., Bose, M.N. & Sawyer, R.T. 1991. Clitcllatc cocoons in freshwater deposits since the Triassic. Zoohgica Script a. 20: 347 366.Poinar, G. 1998. Trace fossils in amber: a new dimension for the ichnologist. Ichnos, 6: 47 52. RetaUack, G .J. 1984. Trace fossils of burrowing beetles and bees in an Oligocene paleosol.Badlands National Park. South Dakota. Journal o f  Paleontology. 58: 571-592.Roselli, F.L. 1939. Apunics de geologia y palcontologia uruguaya. Sobre insectosdel Cretâcico del Uruguay o descubrimiento de admirables instintos constructivos de esa época. Bolet in dc la StKiedad Amigos dc las Ciencias Namralcs ’Kraglievich-Fontana. 1: 72-102.Roselli, F.L. 1985 Pakoicnologia: nidos de inscctos fôsiks dc la cubertura Mesozoica del Uruguay. Publicactoncs del Museo Municipal de Nttcva Palmira. 1(1): I 56.Scott, A.C., Stephenson, J . &. Chaloner, W.G. 1992. Interaction and cocvolution of plants and arthropods during the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic. Philosophical Transactions o) the Royal Society o f  London. B, 335: 129 165.SkoUthos 20Ô3. Archives o f SKOLH HOS&LISTSFRV.RFOIRIS.FS. Forum on trace fossils. RcdlRIS. URL http://listscrv.rcdiris.es/archives/skolithos html. accessed October 3. 2003.Sukatcbcva, I.D. 1982. The historical development of the Order Trichoptera. Proceedings o f  the Palaeontological Institute o f the Russian Academy of Sciences, 197: 1111.Sukatcbcva, I.D. 1999. The Lower Cretaceous caddisfly (Trichoptera) case assemblages.Proceedings o f the First Palaeoentomological Conference. Moscow. 1998: 163-165. Zschokke, S. 2003. Spider-web silk from the Early Cretaceous. Nature. 424: 636 637.(2) M. Bertling2, A.K. Rindsberg6, M. Schlirf7, J.K. Nielsen4. R. xVlikulass. J. G cnisc\ K.S.S. Nielsen4, A. Uchman8 and R.G. Bromley4 (see p. 39 for addresses)Bertling et al. (BZN 60: 141-142) have proposed various changes to a new edition of the Code, which were commented on by Tubbs (BZN 60: 215-216). His comments show that major arguments obviously have not been put in a way fully compre­hensible for the non-ichnologist. Among other things, he states it is not the case ‘that the Code draws a distinction between fossilized tracks and other “works” such as galls, coprolites and nests’ (para. 7). This necessitates two replies. In a separate note.Bulletin o f Z oo log ica l N om enc la tu re  <>l(l) M arch  2004Genise et al. (see (1) above) explain why some kinds o f galls and cocoons must not be considered traces o r trace fossils, respectively. This should prohibit apodictic declarations such as ‘names based on fossilized galls, cocoons, etc. are ichnotaxa’ (see B /N  60: 215 216). And in the current comment, we address other argum ents raised by Tubbs that need further consideration.A crucial issue is the relationship o f the terms ’work o f an anim al', ‘ichnotaxon’ and ‘trace fossil*. Tubbs adm its tha t ‘confusion perhaps arises from the G lossary' (para. 3) but nonetheless argues in favour o f retaining the wording o f the Code and creates the impression that the current wording covers all ichnological nomcnclatural needs. This is not the case. The Bertling et al. proposal originated from the need felt by ichnologists to revise the obsolete definitions in the Code that have been carried forward from earlier editions. T ubbs argues that the revised definitions differ from those given in the Code, which is true and intended. This statem ent is his main argum ent for rejecting the proposal. As biologists and geologists, we fully understand the difficulty that non-specialists have in dealing with names that arc based ultimately on living behavior rather than genetic material. However, as specialists who have debated these topics for several years, wfe consider that we have now defined the objects o f our study in the most parsim onious way.Further on. Tubbs slates that ‘all these fossils [galls, cocoons, etc.] arc commonly called trace fossils* (para. 2). A part from the fact that very few papers have ever been published on fossil galls and cocoons, introducing common* usage o f specialist terms into a legislative work that aim s at maximum clarity is counterproductive. In addition, some structures that are com m only considered the work o f  anim als (and other organisms) are not considered trace fossils, e.g. soils and biologically induced or destroyed bedding. Against this background. Bertling et al. tried to  clarify the terms ‘w ork o f an anim al', ‘ichnotaxon* and ‘trace fossil’ precisely because their Code definitions are obsolete. The seemingly most commonly understandable term, ‘work of an animal*, is the most am biguous, especially as it has hardly been used in the last few decades o f ichnological literature. Based on the perception that the Code should not contain am biguous expressions, Bertling et al. favoured eliminating the obsolete and unscientific, thus unnecessary term , ‘work o f an animal* from the Code. Tubbs cites the proposal in a misleading way in stating that ‘Bertling et al. propose . . .  to define ‘work o f an anim al’ as trace fossils . . .  as well as secretions such as eggs . . as it was not the aim o f the proposal to deline the term ‘work o f an animal* but to explain its ambiguity. T ubbs's comm ent also shows why terms of common usage should be avoided. Trace fossils and their names (ichnotaxa). on the other hand, are well defined, even though some specialists in marginal fields (e.g., fossil eggs) have idiosyncratic ideas about ichnology. It would be o f little help therefore to add a Glossary entry ‘trace fossil', as offered by Tubbs (para. 7) w ithout deleting ‘wrork of an animal* from the text.A different issue is the question whether the Code covers ichnotaxa o f non-animal origin. In the eyes o f the ichnological comm unity, it was a welcome sign o f progress in the current edition o f the C ode to sec ‘anim als' in Article 1.2.1 changed to ‘organisms'. How else should one deal with ichnotaxa whose producers cannot be assigned to a kingdom? Dozens o f ichnotaxa o f questionable producer assignment have been erected under the provisions o f the Code and are used by active and respected ichnologists (e.g.. Kadtke, 1991; Vogel et al.. 2000). These trace fossils mayBulletin o f  ZoologMTjl N om encla tu re  61< l) M arch  2004 39have been produced by protists, fungi, chlorophytes o r cyanobacteria, i.e. they may be o f  animal origin or not. Tubbs denies this situation encountered in daily ichnologtcal work in stating ‘if the agent is known not be an animal the Code docs not apply*. Following this personal interpretation o f Article 1.2.1, an ichnotaxon would be subject to the Code as long as its producer would be unknown; it would fall outside the provisions o f the Code as soon as the non-anim al origin o f the trace fossil could be dem onstrated. This argum ent can be considered unrealistic because the producer can never be identified with certainty. There will always be a chance that extinct o r unknown organism s have produced structures that look like those nowadays resulting from different life activities.Even more dram atic is Tubbs's misconception that ‘fossilized works o f animals* and ‘trace fossils' are synonym ous (para. 3). This statem ent, which is demonstrably erroneous, is a circular argum ent based on the current wording o f the Code. There are many more trace fossils than those o f anim al origin but neither the botanical nor the bacterial Code contains provisions for ichnotaxa. This means that an ichnotaxon going back to an unknown or non-anim al producer currently has no leg a l7 standing. F or these reasons, we adhere to our opinion that any trace fossils irrespective o f their origin should be covered by the zoological Code.Some other points arc uncontested. We understand the reasoning provided by Tubbs not to revoke Article 1.3.6 as originally proposed. Also, ichnologists will gladly accept the clarification that ichnofamilies require typification and that ichnofamilics do  not compete with biotaxa.Additional referencesRadtke, G. 1991. Die mikroendolithischen Spurenfossilien im Alt-Tcrtiar W-buropas und ihrc palokologische Bedeutung. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckettberg. 138: 1 150. Vogel, K~, Gektidis, M., Golubi, S., Kiene, W.E. & Radtke, G. 2000. Experimental studies on microbial bioerosion at Lee Stocking Island, Bahamas and One Tree Island, Great Barrier Reef. Australia: implications for paleoecological reconstructions. Lethaia, 33: 190-204.(1) COSICET- Museo Paleontoldgico Egidin Feruglio (9100) Freien, Chuhul. Argentina(2) Geological and Palaeontological Institute. University of Munster, Corrensstr 24, 12-4X14*) Münster. Germany(3) Department o f Earth Sciences. University o f Bristol. Bristol BSS IPJ, U.K.(4) Geological Institute, os ter Voidgade 10. DK-1350 Copenhagen K. Detvnark(5) Institute o f Geology. Academy o f Sciences o f the Czech Republic. Rozvojovii 135. CZ-16500 Praha 6. Czech Republic(6) Geological Survey o f Alabama. P.O. Bo.x 869999. Tuscaloosa. .4L 25486-6999, U.S.A.(7) Institute for Palaeontology. Pleicherwall I. D-97070 Wurzburg. Germany(8) Institute o f Geological Sciences. Jagiellonian University, ul. Oleandry 2a, PL-30 063 Krakow. Poland.Comment on the neotvpifkation of protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora)(General Article; see BZN 59: 165-169: 60: 48 4 9 , 143. 216- 217)S.A. RevetsKoninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetemchappen. Departement Paleontologie. Vautierstraat 29. B I000 Brussels. Belgium

English

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

Bromley, Richard G.

Nielsen,K.S.S.

Rindsberg, Andrew K.

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

Biodiversity Heritage Library OAI Repository

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

Genise, JF

Braddy, SJ

Bromley, RG

Mikulás, R

Nielsen, KSS

Rindsberg, AK

Explore Bristol Research

CONICET Digital

https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/item/68047/uchman_et-al_comments_on_the_draft_proposal_2004.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

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

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LAReferencia - Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas Latinoamericanas

Jagiellonian Univeristy Repository

LAReferencia - Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas Latinoamericanas

Biodiversity Heritage Library OAI Repository

Explore Bristol Research

CONICET Digital

CONICET Digital