Revision as of 18:31, 20 September 2014 edit Renamed user sdfkjlskdfreu8r98 (talk \| contribs) 3,650 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:31, 20 September 2014 edit undo Renamed user sdfkjlskdfreu8r98 (talk \| contribs) 3,650 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 6: Most researchers classify trace fossils only as far as the ichnogenus rank, based upon trace fossils that resemble each other in morphology but have subtle differences. Some authors have constructed detailed hierarchies up to ''ichnosuperclass'', recognizing such fine detail as to identify ''ichnosuperorder'' and ''ichnoinfraclass'' (e.g. [http://www.paleofile.com/Demo/Localities/Africademo/Algeria.htm]), but such attempts are controversial. The most promising cases of phylogenetic classification are those in which similar trace fossils show details complex enough to deduce the makers, such as [[bryozoan]] [[bioerosion\|borings]], large [[trilobite]] trace fossils such as ''[[Cruziana]]'', and [[vertebrate]] [[footprints]]. However, most trace fossils lack sufficiently complex details to allow such classification. ==Ethologic classification==

Trace fossil classification: Difference between revisions