Taxacom: Question regarding trace fossils - any experts out there?

[Tony Rees]

Hi all,

I am working through a partial upgrade of the treatment of trace fossils in
my database, an area in which I am not very familiar...

My question at this time regards the taxonomic treatment of trace fossils
that are non-animal in nature (or at least, their inferred makers); the
majority of ichnospecies, -genera, -families at this time being produced by
animals, and thereby treated under the zoological Code. From reading at
least one work (Wisshak et al., 2019, "Bioerosion ichnotaxa: review and
annotated list", Facies (2019) 65:24,
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1007%2Fs10347-019-0561-8&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce504fbd23eac42c9d64708db62d3d9ad%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638212434254694529%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=CzXnpdB1P6wFZAq7tGyGHZMnvhorC3w79d1oUxV4j%2FA%3D&reserved=0 ) , trace fossils supposedly
produced by non-animal e.g. Fungi (such as Palaeomycelites Bystrov, 1956)
and Algae (such as Ophthalmichnus Wisshak et al., 2014) are treated the
same way therein (in "zoological" ichnofamilies Ichnoreticulinidae
and Centrichnidae, respectively).

Previously I had e.g Palaeomycelites under fossil fungi, and would have put
Ophthalmichnus under fossil diatoms, but can transfer them to the newer
"zoological" ichnofamilies with a few keystrokes. So my question is, would
"accepted treatment" (presumably according to most workers in this
taxonomic area), or would my previous inclination to keep at least
botanical trace fossils in the higher taxa of their apparent makers be
preferable?

For reference, the Wisshak et al., 2019 paper cited above deals with
erosion fossils only, which are only a subset of all trace fossils. For
others e.g. trackways I presently keep these in higher taxa equivalent to
their makers (e.g. dinosaurs, humans, etc.) and fossil egg families in
Aves, Reptilia, and so on, but of course can change if this does not
correspond with modern "accepted practice". Your thoughts and advice
welcome!

(Relevant present "under reconstruction" sector of IRMNG is at
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2Faphia.php%3Fp%3Dtaxdetails%26id%3D207&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce504fbd23eac42c9d64708db62d3d9ad%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638212434254694529%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8Lx2Mv4UcCGgsrtc94Q8PsqIFbRyywy44EWWPJ%2FvhFg%3D&reserved=0 - excludes fossil
trackways and oofossils, also stromatolites, at this time - the latter are
presently under Cyanophyta).

Regards - Tony Rees, Australia
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irmng.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Ce504fbd23eac42c9d64708db62d3d9ad%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638212434254694529%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=JK0OAPjDkO0fLrmVnBUP4Tenkp7QuCkqDLS%2FhX7KMcY%3D&reserved=0