[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: ichnogenera and ichnospecies



>> But no, you cannot use the body fossil name for a trace fossil, no matter 
>> how certain you are of its maker.  To paraphrase a recently controversial 
>> question:  Were you there to actually see what the trace-maker was?  Then 
>> how can you be so certain?  Another advantage to sticking with the 
>> ichnological name is that it tells people what you have, in fact, 
>> found--whether it is a set of foot bones or just the marking left by that 
>> foot as it walked along.  So, if you abandon the ichnofossil name you 
>> have lost a bit of information in your attempt at communication.
>
>    Using the same logic, wouldn't you have to give a seperate name to 
>every individual trackway, even if footprints from two trackways are 
>virtually identical?

Not necessarily.  If trackways show a similar morphology, then we can give them
the same name.  For example (Warning!!! Invert Analogy Ahead!), there is an
Early Cambrian ichnofossil that is a trilobite trackway (proven because one was
found at the end of the track) that has the "form genus" name of cruziana.  This
name is valid for all similar trackways.

Rob

***
"Don't panic!"