[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!"