[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.


"Don't panic!"