Wyniki wyszukiwania - BazTech

Ograniczanie wyników

2 Annales Societatis Geologorum Poloniae

2 2015

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

In defence of an iconic ichnogenus : Oichnus Bromley

Wisshak M., Kroh A., Bertling M., Knaust D., Nielsen J. K., Jagt J. W. M., Neumann C., Nielsen K. S. S.

Annales Societatis Geologorum Poloniae

2015

Vol. 85, No. 3

445--451

By establishing the bioerosion ichnogenus Oichnus, Richard Bromley (1981) addressed ‘small round holes in shells’ and catalysed a series of still ongoing discussions on ichnotaxonomical principles. In a recent revision by Zonneveld and Gingras (2014), Oichnus was rejected, together with Tremichnus Brett, 1985 and Fossichnus Nielsen, Nielsen and Bromley, 2003, by means of subjective synonymisation with the presumed senior synonym Sedilichnus Müller, 1977. However, Sedilichnus is nomenclaturally unavailable, because it is an atelonym (conditionally proposed). In addition, reinvestigation of the type material of ‘Sedilichnus’ shows that it probably describes variably shaped oscula and thus is a genuine morphological character of the host sponge Prokaliapsisjanus, rather than a bioerosion trace fossil. The ichnogenera Oichnus and Tremichnus are re vised, leading to the synonymisation of Balticapunctum Rozhnov, 1989 with Tremichnus, and of Fossichnus with Oichnus. The refined ichnogeneric diagnoses return Oichnus to complete or incomplete bioerosive penetrations in calcareous skeletal substrates, commonly interpreted as praedichnia with or without signs of attachment, while Tremichnus (now including O. excavatus) exclusively refers to shallow pits passing into echinoderm skeletons that are interpreted as domichnia or fixichnia.

Bioerosional ichnotaxa and the fossilization barrier

Bromley R. G., Nielsen K. S. S.

Annales Societatis Geologorum Poloniae

2015

Vol. 85, No. 3

453--455

For the establishment of a new ichnogenus or ichnospecies, the type material shall be fossil, not unfossilized material. This is not always possible, because the transition between the two states, the fossilization barrier, is extremely vague defined. In most fossil material, this is not a problem. However, in the case of bioerosion structures (borings, rasping traces, attachment scars in hard substrates), the problem is serious. For example, when does a sponge boring in an oyster shell be come fossilized? The question arises when Recent and sub-Recent materials are considered. Two examples are discussed. (1) Microborings are described and named in foraminifera dredged from the sea floor. In this material, it is not possible to distinguish between “fossilized” and “unfossilized” foraminifera. Bioturbation and other processes may have mixed recently dead, Pleistocene and older foraminifera in the sea-floor sediments. (2) Small, characteristic borings are made by slipper limpets in pagurized gastropod shells. The structures would constitute a new ichnospecies of Oichnus, but these borings have not been found in “fossilized material” and the borings therefore remain nameless. Because bioerosion structures constitute “ready-made fossils”, it is suggested that the onset of fossilization be equated with the death of the bioeroding tracemaker.