Trace fossil classification: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:34, 20 September 2014

Revision as of 18:37, 20 September 2014

Line 3:

==Taxonomic classification== <!--intro links here-->

The '''taxonomic classification of trace fossils''' parallels the taxonomic classification of [[organism]]s under the [[International Code of Zoological Nomenclature]]. In [[trace fossil]] nomenclature a [[Latin]] [[binomial nomenclature|binomial name]] is used, just as in [[animal]] and [[plant]] [[Taxonomy (biology)|taxonomy]], with a [[genus]] and [[specific name (zoology)|specific epithet]]. However, the binomial names are not linked to an organism, but rather just a trace fossil. This is due to the rarity of association between a trace fossil and a specific organism or group of organisms. Trace fossils are therefore included in an ''[[ichnotaxon]]'' separate from [[Linnaean taxonomy]]. When referring trace fossils, the terms ''ichnogenus'' and ''ichnospecies'' parralel genus and [[species]] respectively.

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.