Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:56:28.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Naming trace fossils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1997

R. GOLDRING,
J. E. POLLARD and
A. M. TAYLOR
R. GOLDRING
Affiliation:
Postgraduate Research Institute for Sedimentology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, P. O. Box 227, Reading, RG6 6AB, UK. Email: R.Goldring@reading.ac.uk
J. E. POLLARD
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
A. M. TAYLOR
Affiliation:
Ichron Limited, 16 Dalby Court, Gadbrook Business Centre, Rudheath, Northwich, Cheshire CW9 7TN, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

A different approach to the naming of trace fossils is advocated. The primary ichnotaxobase should be the form of the burrow actually occupied, and the secondary ichnotaxobase should be the morphology of the structure that reflects the manner in which this burrow has been displaced and/or extended. Only by attempting to name trace fossils in this way will it be possible to eliminate features due to sedimentological factors that took place on termination of the animal’s activities, including passive infill and diagenesis. To discriminate between different preservational states the citation should include both the taxonomic and preservational aspects.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 134 , Issue 2 , March 1997, pp. 265 - 268
Copyright
© 1997 Cambridge University Press