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

Re: An odd paper request

Quoting "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>:

Isn't there a separate code for ichnology?

I don't know if there's an actual code, but there is a separate tradition.

There is a separate tradition which ends up complicating things as some authors refuse to give ichno specimens taxanomic names.

Actually nomina nuda is the term Bertling et al. 2006 used when discussing the paper. I believe they chose the term based on the idea that since the second edition of the ICZN modern "works of animals"* named after 1931 are not allowed (Art. 1.2.1 or Art. 1.3.6 but that gives the date as 1930 not 1931 in the copy I am looking at).

...are not allowed under the ICZN, which deals with taxonomy, not with ichnotaxonomy. It is not allowed to use a trace as the type for a taxon of animals, but it is allowed (in ichnotaxonomy) to use a trace as the type for a taxon of traces, an ichnotaxon.

Actually the ICZN is very clear on its government over ichnotaxonomy every time animal taxonomy is discussed it also repeats that the same rules apply to ichnotaxa. A fossil trace can be used as the type for a taxon of fossil traces but a modern trace can not be used to name any group regardless of taxonomy or ichnotaxonomy. Disagreement occurs over whether or not we can use the terms for fossil traces to describe identical living traces with some authors saying yes you can and others saying that would go against the code.

Ootaxonomy (for eggshells) is similar

Only in the aspect that they have their own traditions (some authors use an interesting system similar to the form and organ genera of palaeobotany) but there seems to be no formal agreed upon rules governing them.