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

Fri Jun 2 01:32:30 CDT 2023

Searching around, I found this text in Bertling et al., 2006 ("Names for
trace fossils: a uniform approach", Lethaia 39(3), 265-286, DOI
10.1080/00241160600787890)

" Names for ‘the work of animals’ (in the wording of ICZN) have always been
protected by the zoological code. Ichnotaxa of plant and fungal origin on
the other hand had no legal standing under any of the codes until 1999. A
call to formalize general practice among ichnologists and extend the
regulations of the ICZN to all trace fossils (following earlier proposals
by Sarjeant & Kennedy (1973) and Pemberton & Frey (1982)) has resulted in a
major improvement in the 4th edition (ICZN 1999, Art. 1.2.1). Names of
‘animals’ may now be based on the ‘fossilized work of organisms’, which
means that protistan, plant and fungal trace fossils (e.g. their
microborings) are included in ‘animals’ for the purposes of the code."

So following this principle, it seems that it would be acceptable to place
traces attributable to fungi and/or algae within "Trace fossils" under the
zoological Code, rather than alongside their presumed originating organisms
in kingdoms Fungi, Chromista (or even Bacteria) or whatever.

Happy to hear any alternative or dissenting views of course. I have not yet
implemented the above for trackways and (possibly) coprolites but may do
some time before the next static IRMNG content release, due around May next
year (this year's has just gone, prior to implementation of much
improvement to the treatment of ichnotaxa).

Of possible interest, the above cited paper lists "burrows, tracks and
trackways in soft substrates and borings in hard substrates" as well known
examples of ichnofossils. Other examples are given as Coprolites;
Gastroliths; Regurgitaliths; All kinds of nests; Spider webs; Woven cocoons
; Caddisfly cases; ‘Sand reefs’; Bite and gnaw structures (signs of
predation); Signs of human biology.

Excluded from ichnofossils are the following: Eggs; Calculi; Pearls;
Embedment structures; Secreted cocoons; Plant reaction tissues; Soils;
Stromatolites; Pathological structures (signs of diseases); Signs of human
technology.

Just so we all know :)

Regards - Tony

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 05:16, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, (at least) one error in my text above - egg fossils are oo- taxa, not
> ichno-taxa, so probably/possibly follow different rules.
>
> Regards - Tony
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 05:10, Tony Rees via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> 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%7C40f2463870334f7869a708db63332d7e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638212843694481843%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=veUtN8fncebM2dJ7tCQvqbU%2F5F3ouoO5oPf15YSE2aQ%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%7C40f2463870334f7869a708db63332d7e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638212843694481843%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=RA3JupU9MDEqBMWNfGAHz81ftCDiRLh9ncyF8rpLuSY%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%7C40f2463870334f7869a708db63332d7e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638212843694481843%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WubwUodZCHFxmO8NzgOqJD9UUiwy6XgJKJpSaxXt7NQ%3D&reserved=0
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7C40f2463870334f7869a708db63332d7e%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638212843694481843%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=eoIuK8jHQOvaoitjWoOwOek9gelH6Zb3F8lskGgQD5Y%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
>> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>>
>