Home  ›  What Can Trace Fossils Tell You About Ancient Organisms?

What Can Trace Fossils Tell You About Ancient Organisms?

Written By Monday, February 14, 2022 Add Comment Edit

This article is about a type of fossil. For Dinosaur Footprints park in Massachusetts, see Dinosaur Footprints.

Geological record of biological action

A trace fossil, besides ichnofossil (; from Greek: ἴχνος ikhnos "trace, track"), is a fossil record of biological activity simply not the preserved remains of the found or fauna itself. Trace fossils contrast with body fossils, which are the fossilized remains of parts of organisms' bodies, usually altered by later chemic activity or mineralization. The written report of such trace fossils is ichnology and is the piece of work of ichnologists.

Trace fossils may consist of impressions made on or in the substrate by an organism. For example, burrows, borings (bioerosion), urolites (erosion caused by evacuation of liquid wastes), footprints and feeding marks and root cavities may all be trace fossils.

The term in its broadest sense also includes the remains of other organic material produced past an organism; for case coprolites (fossilized debris) or chemical markers (sedimentological structures produced by biological ways; for example, the germination of stromatolites). However, almost sedimentary structures (for instance those produced past empty shells rolling along the sea floor) are not produced through the behaviour of an organism and thus are non considered trace fossils.

The written report of traces – ichnology .– divides into paleoichnology, or the study of trace fossils, and neoichnology, the written report of mod traces. Ichnological science offers many challenges, every bit about traces reflect the behaviour – not the biological affinity – of their makers. Accordingly, researchers classify trace fossils into form genera, based on their appearance and on the implied behaviour, or ethology, of their makers.

Occurrence [edit]

Traces are better known in their fossilized form than in modern sediments.[ane] This makes information technology hard to translate some fossils by comparing them with modern traces, fifty-fifty though they may be extant or even common.[1] The chief difficulties in accessing extant burrows stalk from finding them in consolidated sediment, and being able to access those formed in deeper water.

This coprolite shows distinct top and bottom jaw bite marks, peradventure from a prehistoric gar fish. Discovery location: South Carolina, United states; age: Miocene; dimensions: 144.6mm Ten 63.41mm or 5.vii" X 2.five"; weight: 558g (1lbs 4oz)

Trace fossils are best preserved in sandstones;[1] the grain size and depositional facies both contributing to the better preservation. They may likewise be found in shales and limestones.[1]

Classification [edit]

Trace fossils are by and large difficult or incommunicable to assign to a specific maker. Merely in very rare occasions are the makers found in association with their tracks. Further, entirely different organisms may produce identical tracks. Therefore, conventional taxonomy is not applicative, and a comprehensive course of taxonomy has been erected. At the highest level of the nomenclature, five behavioral modes are recognized:[1]

  • Domichnia, abode structures reflecting the life position of the organism that created information technology.
  • Fodinichnia, three-dimensional structures left by animals which eat their way through sediment, such as deposit feeders;
  • Pascichnia, feeding traces left by grazers on the surface of a soft sediment or a mineral substrate;
  • Cubichnia, resting traces, in the form of an impression left by an organism on a soft sediment;
  • Repichnia, surface traces of creeping and crawling.

Fossils are further classified into form genera, a few of which are even subdivided to a "species" level. Classification is based on shape, form, and implied behavioural mode.

To go on body and trace fossils nomenclatorially separate, ichnospecies are erected for trace fossils. Ichnotaxa are classified somewhat differently in zoological nomenclature than taxa based on body fossils (see trace fossil nomenclature for more information). Examples include:

  • Late Cambrian trace fossils from intertidal settings include Protichnites and Climactichnites, amongst others
  • Mesozoic dinosaur footprints including ichnogenera such equally Grallator, Atreipus and Anomoepus
  • Triassic to Recent termite mounds, which tin can encompass several square kilometers of sediment

Information provided by ichnofossils [edit]

Mesolimulus walchi fossil and track, a rare example of tracks and the animal that made them fossilized together

Trace fossils are important paleoecological and paleoenvironmental indicators, because they are preserved in situ, or in the life position of the organism that made them.[2] Because identical fossils tin be created by a range of different organisms, trace fossils tin only reliably inform u.s. of ii things: the consistency of the sediment at the time of its deposition, and the energy level of the depositional surround.[iii] Attempts to deduce such traits as whether a deposit is marine or non-marine take been fabricated, but shown to be unreliable.[iii]

Paleoecology [edit]

Trace fossils provide us with indirect prove of life in the past, such every bit the footprints, tracks, burrows, borings, and feces left behind past animals, rather than the preserved remains of the trunk of the actual fauna itself. Unlike nigh other fossils, which are produced just after the expiry of the organism concerned, trace fossils provide us with a record of the activity of an organism during its lifetime.

Trace fossils are formed past organisms performing the functions of their everyday life, such as walking, crawling, burrowing, deadening, or feeding. Tetrapod footprints, worm trails and the burrows fabricated by clams and arthropods are all trace fossils.

Perhaps the about spectacular trace fossils are the huge, three-toed footprints produced by dinosaurs and related archosaurs. These imprints give scientists clues as to how these animals lived. Although the skeletons of dinosaurs tin be reconstructed, only their fossilized footprints can determine exactly how they stood and walked. Such tracks tin can tell much virtually the gait of the fauna which made them, what its stride was, and whether or non the front limbs touched the ground.

Even so, near trace fossils are rather less conspicuous, such equally the trails made by segmented worms or nematodes. Some of these worm castings are the but fossil record we have of these soft-bodied creatures.[ commendation needed ]

Paleoenvironment [edit]

Fossil footprints made past tetrapod vertebrates are difficult to identify to a particular species of animal, only they can provide valuable information such equally the speed, weight, and beliefs of the organism that made them. Such trace fossils are formed when amphibians, reptiles, mammals or birds walked across soft (probably wet) mud or sand which after hardened sufficiently to retain the impressions before the side by side layer of sediment was deposited. Some fossils tin can fifty-fifty provide details of how wet the sand was when they were being produced, and hence let estimation of paleo-current of air directions.[4]

Assemblages of trace fossils occur at certain water depths,[ane] and can also reflect the salinity and turbidity of the water column.

Stratigraphic correlation [edit]

Some trace fossils tin be used equally local index fossils, to date the rocks in which they are establish, such as the couch Arenicolites franconicus which occurs only in a 4 cm (1+ 1⁄2  in) layer of the Triassic Muschelkalk epoch, throughout wide areas in southern Germany.[5]

The base of the Cambrian menstruum is defined by the first advent of the trace fossil Treptichnus pedum.[6]

Trace fossils have a further utility equally many appear before the organism thought to create them, extending their stratigraphic range.[seven]

Ichnofacies [edit]

Ichnofacies are assemblages of individual trace fossils that occur repeatedly in time and space.[8] Palaeontologist Adolf Seilacher pioneered the concept of ichnofacies, whereby geologists infer the country of a sedimentary system at its fourth dimension of deposition by noting the fossils in association with one some other.[1] The principal ichnofacies recognized in the literature are Skolithos, Cruziana, Zoophycos, Nereites, Glossifungites, Scoyenia, Trypanites, Teredolites, and Psilonichus.[8] [nine] These assemblages are non random. In fact, the array of fossils preserved are primarily constrained by the ecology conditions in which the trace-making organisms dwelt.[9] Water depth, salinity, hardness of the substrate, dissolved oxygen, and many other environmental weather control which organisms tin inhabit item areas.[8] Therefore, by documenting and researching changes in ichnofacies, scientists can translate changes in environment.[9] For example, ichnological studies accept been utilized across mass extinction boundaries, such as the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction, to aid in understanding environmental factors involved in mass extinction events.[10] [11]

Inherent bias [edit]

Diagram showing how dinosaur footprints are preserved in dissimilar deposits

Most trace fossils are known from marine deposits.[12] Substantially, at that place are two types of traces, either exogenic ones, which are made on the surface of the sediment (such as tracks) or endogenic ones, which are fabricated within the layers of sediment (such as burrows).

Surface trails on sediment in shallow marine environments stand less gamble of fossilization considering they are subjected to moving ridge and current action. Weather condition in serenity, deep-water environments tend to be more favorable for preserving fine trace structures.

Most trace fossils are usually readily identified by reference to similar phenomena in modern environments. Nonetheless, the structures made past organisms in recent sediment take only been studied in a limited range of environments, mostly in littoral areas, including tidal flats.[ citation needed ]

Evolution [edit]

The earliest complex trace fossils, not including microbial traces such as stromatolites, date to 2,000 to 1,800 1000000 years ago. This is far likewise early for them to have an animal origin, and they are thought to have been formed by amoebae.[xiii] Putative "burrows" dating every bit far back as 1,100 meg years may have been fabricated past animals which fed on the undersides of microbial mats, which would take shielded them from a chemically unpleasant body of water;[14] withal their uneven width and tapering ends make a biological origin so difficult to defend[fifteen] that fifty-fifty the original writer no longer believes they are accurate.[16]

The first testify of burrowing which is widely accepted dates to the Ediacaran (Vendian) period, around 560 one thousand thousand years agone.[17] During this period the traces and burrows basically are horizontal on or simply below the seafloor surface. Such traces must have been made by motile organisms with heads, which would probably have been bilateran animals.[18] The traces observed imply simple behaviour, and point to organisms feeding higher up the surface and burrowing for protection from predators.[19] Contrary to widely circulated opinion that Ediacaran burrows are merely horizontal the vertical burrows Skolithos are also known.[20] The producers of burrows Skolithos declinatus from the Vendian (Ediacaran) beds in Russian federation with appointment 555.3 million years ago have not been identified; they might have been filter feeders subsisting on the nutrients from the suspension. The density of these burrows is up to 245 burrows/dm2.[21] Some Ediacaran trace fossils have been found directly associated with trunk fossils. Yorgia and Dickinsonia are often establish at the cease of long pathways of trace fossils matching their shape.[22] The feeding was performed in a mechanical mode, supposedly the ventral side of torso these organisms was covered with cilia.[23] The potential mollusc related Kimberella is associated with scratch marks, perhaps formed past a radula,[24] further traces from 555 million years ago appear to imply agile crawling or burrowing action.[25]

As the Cambrian got underway, new forms of trace fossil appeared, including vertical burrows (due east.g. Diplocraterion) and traces normally attributed to arthropods.[26] These represent a "widening of the behavioural repertoire",[27] both in terms of affluence and complexity.[28]

Trace fossils are a particularly significant source of information from this period because they represent a data source that is not directly continued to the presence of easily fossilized difficult parts, which are rare during the Cambrian. Whilst exact consignment of trace fossils to their makers is difficult, the trace fossil record seems to indicate that at the very least, large, bottom-dwelling, bilaterally symmetrical organisms were rapidly diversifying during the early Cambrian.[29]

Further, less rapid[ verification needed ] diversification occurred since,[ verification needed ] and many traces have been converged upon independently by unrelated groups of organisms.[1]

Trace fossils also provide our earliest evidence of animal life on land.[30] Bear witness of the beginning animals that appear to have been fully terrestrial dates to the Cambro-Ordovician and is in the grade of trackways.[31] Trackways from the Ordovician Tumblagooda sandstone allow the behaviour of other terrestrial organisms to be adamant.[iv] The trackway Protichnites represents traces from an amphibious or terrestrial arthropod going back to the Cambrian.[32]

Common ichnogenera [edit]

Trypanites borings in an Upper Ordovician hardground from northern Kentucky. The borings are filled with diagenetic dolomite (yellowish). Note that the boring on the far right cuts through a shell in the matrix.

  • Anoigmaichnus is a bioclaustration. Information technology occurs in the Ordovician bryozoans. Apertures of Anoigmaichnus are elevated above their hosts' growth surfaces, forming brusque chimney-similar structures.
  • Arachnostega is the name given to the irregular, branching burrows in the sediment fill of shells. They are visible on the surface of steinkerns. Their traces are known from the Cambrian period onwards.[33]
  • Asteriacites is the name given to the five-rayed fossils establish in rocks and they tape the resting place of starfish on the bounding main floor. Asteriacites are found in European and American rocks, from the Ordovician period onwards, and are numerous in rocks from the Jurassic period of Deutschland.
  • Burrinjuckia is a bioclaustration. Burrinjuckia includes outgrowths of the brachiopod's secondary shell with a hollow interior in the mantle cavity of a brachiopod.
  • Chondrites (not to exist confused with stony meteorites of the same name) are small-scale branching burrows of the same diameter, which superficially resemble the roots of a plant. The most likely candidate for having synthetic these burrows is a nematode (roundworm). Chondrites are found in marine sediments from the Cambrian menses of the Paleozoic onwards. They are especially common in sediments which were deposited in reduced-oxygen environments.
  • Climactichnites is the name given to surface trails and burrows that consist of a series of chevron-shaped raised cross confined that are usually flanked on either side by a parallel ridge. They somewhat resemble tire tracks, and are larger (typically about 10 cm or 4 in wide) than most of the other trace fossils made by invertebrates. The trails were produced on sandy tidal flats during Cambrian time. While the identity of the animal is still conjectural, it may accept been a large slug-similar animate being – its trails produced as it crawled over and processed the moisture sand to obtain food.[34] [35]
  • Cruziana are excavation trace marks made on the body of water floor which accept a ii-lobed structure with a fundamental groove. The lobes are covered with scratch marks made past the legs of the excavating organism, usually a trilobite or allied arthropod. Cruziana are about common in marine sediments formed during the Paleozoic era, peculiarly in rocks from the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. Over 30 ichnospecies of Cruziana accept been identified. See also Isopodichnus.
  • Entobia is a boring produced by endolithic clionaid sponges consisting of galleries excavated in a carbonate substrate; oftentimes has swollen chambers with connecting canals.
  • Gastrochaenolites are clavate (club-shaped) borings also produced in calcareous hard substrates, ordinarily by bivalves.
  • Oikobesalon is an unbranched, elongate burrow with single-archway and circular cross-section produced past terebellid polychaetes. They are covered with sparse lining which has a transverse ornamentation in the grade of fusiform annulation.
  • Petroxestes is a shallow groove boring produced by mytilacean bivalves in carbonate hard substrates.
  • Protichnites consists of two rows of tracks and a linear depression between the ii rows. The tracks are believed to accept been made by the walking appendages of arthropods. The linear depression is idea to be the result of a dragging tail. The structures bearing this name were typically made on the tidal flats of Paleozoic seas, but similar ones extend into the Cenozoic.
  • Rhizocorallium is a blazon of couch, the inclination of which is typically within x° of the bedding planes of the sediment. These burrows can be very large, over a meter long in sediments that show practiced preservation, east.g. Jurassic rocks of the Yorkshire Coast (eastern United Kingdom), but the width is usually only upwardly to 2 centimetres ( 3⁄4  in), restricted by the size of the organisms producing it. It is thought that they represent fodinichnia as the animal (probably a nematode) scoured the sediment for food.
  • Rogerella is a small pouch-shaped boring with a slit-like aperture currently produced by acrothoracican barnacles.
  • Rusophycus are bilobed "resting traces" associated with trilobites and other arthropods such equally horseshoe crabs.
  • Skolithos: One well-known occurrence of Cambrian trace fossils from this period is the famous 'Pipe Stone' of northwest Scotland. The 'pipes' that give the rock its proper name are closely packed straight tubes- which were presumably made by some kind of worm-like organism. The name given to this type of tube or couch is Skolithos, which may exist 30 cm (12 in) in length and between 2 and iv cm ( iii⁄iv and i+ 1⁄2  in) in bore. Such traces are known worldwide from sands and sandstones deposited in shallow h2o environments, from the Cambrian flow (542–488 Ma) onwards.
  • Thalassinoides are burrows which occur parallel to the bedding plane of the rock and are extremely abundant in rocks, worldwide, from the Jurassic period onwards. They are repeatedly branched, with a slight swelling present at the junctions of the tubes. The burrows are cylindrical and vary from 2 to five cm ( 3⁄4 to 2 in) in diameter. Thalassinoides sometimes contain scratch marks, debris or the actual remains of the crustaceans which made them.
  • Teichichnus has a distinctive form produced by the stacking of thin 'tongues' of sediment, atop one another. They are again believed to be fodinichnia, with the organism adopting the addiction of retracing the same route through varying heights of the sediment, which would allow it to avoid going over the same area. These 'tongues' are often quite sinuous, reflecting perhaps a more than food-poor environment in which the feeding animals had to cover a greater expanse of sediment, in club to acquire sufficient nourishment.
  • Tremichnus is an embedment construction (i.e. bioclaustration) formed by an organism that inhibited growth of the crinoid host stereom.
  • Trypanites are elongated cylindrical borings in calcareous substrates such equally shells, carbonate hardgrounds and limestones. Usually produced past worms of various types and sipunculids.

Other notable trace fossils [edit]

Less ambiguous than the in a higher place ichnogenera, are the traces left behind past invertebrates such every bit Hibbertopterus, a giant "bounding main scorpion" or eurypterid of the early Paleozoic era. This marine arthropod produced a spectacular track preserved in Scotland.[36]

Bioerosion through time has produced a magnificent record of borings, gnawings, scratchings and scrapings on hard substrates. These trace fossils are usually divided into macroborings[37] and microborings.[38] [39] Bioerosion intensity and multifariousness is punctuated by two events. 1 is called the Ordovician Bioerosion Revolution (come across Wilson & Palmer, 2006) and the other was in the Jurassic.[40] For a comprehensive bibliography of the bioerosion literature, delight run into the External links below.

The oldest types of tetrapod tail-and-footprints engagement back to the latter Devonian period. These vertebrate impressions take been establish in Ireland, Scotland, Pennsylvania, and Australia. A sandstone slab containing the track of tetrapod, dated to 400 1000000 years, is amongst the oldest bear witness of a vertebrate walking on land.[41]

Important homo trace fossils are the Laetoli (Tanzania) footprints, imprinted in volcanic ash 3.7 Ma (million years ago) – probably by an early Australopithecus.[42]

Defoliation with other types of fossils [edit]

Asteriacites (ocean star trace fossil) from the Devonian of northeastern Ohio. Information technology appears at first to be an external mold of the torso, but the sediment piled betwixt the rays shows that it is a couch.

Trace fossils are non trunk casts. The Ediacara biota, for instance, primarily comprises the casts of organisms in sediment. Similarly, a footprint is non a unproblematic replica of the sole of the foot, and the resting trace of a seastar has different details than an impression of a seastar.

Early paleobotanists misidentified a wide variety of structures they institute on the bedding planes of sedimentary rocks as fucoids (Fucales, a kind of brown algae or seaweed). However, even during the primeval decades of the study of ichnology, some fossils were recognized as beast footprints and burrows. Studies in the 1880s by A. G. Nathorst and Joseph F. James comparing 'fucoids' to modern traces made it increasingly clear that most of the specimens identified as fossil fucoids were animal trails and burrows. True fossil fucoids are quite rare.

Pseudofossils, which are not true fossils, should also not be confused with ichnofossils, which are truthful indications of prehistoric life.

Gallery of trace fossils [edit]

  • Sponge borings (Entobia) and encrusters on a modern bivalve trounce, Due north Carolina

  • Lockeia from the Chagrin Shale (Upper Devonian) of northeastern Ohio. This is an example of the trace fossil ethological group Fugichnia.

  • Naticid wearisome in Stewartia from the Calvert Formation, Zone ten, Calvert County, Maryland (Miocene)

  • Trace fossils as convex hyporeliefs on bottom of bed; Bull Fork Formation (Upper Ordovician); Caesar Creek, Ohio

History [edit]

Charles Darwin's The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms [a] is an case of a very early work on ichnology, describing bioturbation and, in particular, the burrowing of earthworms.[43]

Run into also [edit]

  • 20th century in ichnology
  • Bioerosion – Erosion of hard substrates by living organisms
  • Brutalichnus
  • Bird ichnology
  • Egg fossil
  • Ichnite - fossilized footprints
  • Ichnofacies – Trace fossil
  • Index fossil – Fossils used to define and identity geologic periods
  • List of non-Dinosauria fossil trackway manufactures
  • Neoichnology
  • Nereites irregularis – Trace fossil
  • Spoor (animal)
  • Trace fossil classification
  • Fashion up structure

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d eastward f g h Seilacher, D. (1967). "Bathymetry of trace fossils". Marine Geology. v (5–6): 413–428. Bibcode:1967MGeol...5..413S. doi:10.1016/0025-3227(67)90051-5.
  2. ^ Boggs, Jr., Sam (2006). Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (PDF) (quaternary ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. pp. 102–110. ISBN978-0131547285. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2017-02-01 .
  3. ^ a b Woolfe, Grand.J. (1990). "Trace fossils equally paleoenvironmental indicators in the Taylor Group (Devonian) of Antarctica". Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 80 (3–4): 301–310. Bibcode:1990PPP....80..301W. doi:x.1016/0031-0182(xc)90139-X.
  4. ^ a b Trewin, N.H.; McNamara, Thousand.J. (1995). "Arthropods invade the land: trace fossils and palaeoenvironments of the Tumblagooda Sandstone (? late Silurian) of Kalbarri, Western Australia". Transactions of the Royal Lodge of Edinburgh: Earth Sciences. 85 (three): 177–210. doi:ten.1017/s026359330000359x.
  5. ^ Schlirf, M. (2006). "Trusheimichnus New Ichnogenus From the Middle Triassic of the Germanic Basin, Southern Germany". Ichnos. 13 (4): 249–254. doi:10.1080/10420940600843690. S2CID 129437483.
  6. ^ Gehling, James; Jensen, Sören; Droser, Mary; Myrow, Paul; Narbonne, Guy (March 2001). "Burrowing below the basal Cambrian GSSP, Fortune Caput, Newfoundland". Geological Magazine. 138 (2): 213–218. Bibcode:2001GeoM..138..213G. doi:10.1017/S001675680100509X. S2CID 131211543.
  7. ^ east.g. Seilacher, A. (1994). "How valid is Cruziana Stratigraphy?". International Journal of Earth Sciences. 83 (4): 752–758. Bibcode:1994GeoRu..83..752S. doi:10.1007/BF00251073. S2CID 129504434.
  8. ^ a b c Boggs, Jr., Sam (2006). Principles of Sedimentology and Stratigraphy (PDF) (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. pp. 102–110. ISBN9780131547285. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2017-02-01 .
  9. ^ a b c MacEachern, James; Pemberon, S. George; Gingras, Murray K.; Bann, Kerrie 50. (2010). "Ichnology and Facies Models". In James, Noel; Dalrymple, Robert Due west. (eds.). Facies Models 4. pp. 19–58. ISBN9781897095508.
  10. ^ Buatois, Luis A.; Angulo, Solange; Mangano, María Grand. (2013-04-01). "Onshore expansion of benthic communities after the Belatedly Devonian mass extinction". Lethaia. 46 (2): 251–261. doi:10.1111/let.12001. ISSN 1502-3931.
  11. ^ Marrow, Jared R.; Hasiotis, Stephen T. (2007). "Endobenthic Response through Mass-Extinction Episodes: Predictive Models and Observed Patterns". In Miller III, William (ed.). Trace Fossils: Concepts, Problems, Prospects. Elsevier Science. pp. 575–598. ISBN978-0444529497.
  12. ^ Saether, Kristian; Christopher Clowes. "Trace Fossils". Archived from the original on 2009-04-16. Retrieved 2009-06-19 .
  13. ^ Bengtson, South; Rasmussen, B (January 2009). "Paleontology. New and ancient trace makers". Science. 323 (5912): 346–7. doi:ten.1126/scientific discipline.1168794. PMID 19150833. S2CID 1922434.
  14. ^ Seilacher, A.; Bose, P.M.; Pflüger, F. (1998-10-02). "Triploblastic Animals More Than one Billion Years Ago: Trace Fossil Evidence from Bharat". Scientific discipline. 282 (5386): fourscore–83. Bibcode:1998Sci...282...80S. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.282.5386.eighty. PMID 9756480.
  15. ^ Budd, G.E.; Jensen, S. (2000). "A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla" (abstract). Biological Reviews. 75 (2): 253–295. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1999.tb00046.x. PMID 10881389. S2CID 39772232.
  16. ^ Jensen, S. (2008). "PALEONTOLOGY: Reading Behavior from the Rocks". Science. 322 (5904): 1051–1052. doi:10.1126/science.1166220. S2CID 129734373.
  17. ^ Frances S. Dunn and Alex G. Liu (2017). "Fossil Focus: The Ediacaran Biota". Paleontology Online.
  18. ^ Fedonkin, Thou.A. (1992). Vendian faunas and the early on evolution of Metazoa. In Lipps, J., and Signor, P. W., Eds., Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa: New York, Plenum Printing. Springer. pp. 87–129. ISBN978-0-306-44067-0 . Retrieved 2007-03-08 .
  19. ^ Dzik, J (2007). "The Verdun Syndrome: simultaneous origin of protective armour and infaunal shelters at the Precambrian–Cambrian transition". In Vickers-Rich, Patricia; Komarower, Patricia (eds.). The Rise and Autumn of the Ediacaran Biota. Special publications. Vol. 286. London: Geological Society. pp. 405–414. doi:10.1144/SP286.thirty. ISBN9781862392335. OCLC 156823511. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  20. ^ M. A. Fedonkin (1985). "Paleoichnology of Vendian Metazoa". In Sokolov, B. S. and Iwanowski, A. B., eds., "Vendian System: Historical–Geological and Paleontological Foundation, Vol. one: Paleontology". Moscow: Nauka, pp. 112–116. (in Russian)
  21. ^ Grazhdankin, D. 5.; A. Yu. Ivantsov (1996). "Reconstruction of biotopes of ancient Metazoa of the Belatedly Vendian White Body of water Biota". Paleontological Journal. xxx: 676–680.
  22. ^ Ivantsov, A.Y.; Malakhovskaya, Y.E. (2002). "Giant Traces of Vendian Animals" (PDF). Doklady World Sciences. 385 (half-dozen): 618–622. ISSN 1028-334X. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-07-04. Retrieved 2007-05-x .
  23. ^ A. Yu. Ivantsov. (2008). "Feeding traces of the Ediacaran animals". HPF-17 Trace fossils ? ichnological concepts and methods. International Geological Congress - Oslo 2008.
  24. ^ New data on Kimberella, the Vendian mollusc-similar organism (White sea region, Russia): palaeoecological and evolutionary implications (2007). "Fedonkin, Thousand.A.; Simonetta, A; Ivantsov, A.Y.". In Vickers-Rich, Patricia; Komarower, Patricia (eds.). The Rise and Fall of the Ediacaran Biota. Special publications. Vol. 286. London: Geological Society. pp. 157–179. doi:10.1144/SP286.12. ISBN9781862392335. OCLC 156823511. {{cite volume}}: CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  25. ^ Co-ordinate to Martin, M.Westward.; Grazhdankin, D.V.; Bowring, S.A.; Evans, D.A.D.; Fedonkin, M.A.; Kirschvink, J.50. (2000-05-05). "Age of Neoproterozoic Bilatarian Torso and Trace Fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for Metazoan Evolution". Scientific discipline. 288 (5467): 841–v. Bibcode:2000Sci...288..841M. doi:x.1126/science.288.5467.841. PMID 10797002. S2CID 1019572.
  26. ^ Such equally Cruziana and Rusophycus. Details of Cruziana'due south germination are reported past Goldring, R. (January ane, 1985). "The formation of the trace fossil Cruziana". Geological Magazine. 122 (one): 65–72. Bibcode:1985GeoM..122...65G. doi:10.1017/S0016756800034099. Retrieved 2007-09-09 .
  27. ^ Conway Morris, Due south. (1989). "Burgess Shale Faunas and the Cambrian Explosion". Science. 246 (4928): 339–46. Bibcode:1989Sci...246..339C. doi:10.1126/science.246.4928.339. PMID 17747916. S2CID 10491968.
  28. ^ Jensen, S. (2003). "The Proterozoic and Earliest Cambrian Trace Fossil Record; Patterns, Issues and Perspectives". Integrative and Comparative Biology. 43 (1): 219–228. doi:10.1093/icb/43.one.219. PMID 21680425.
  29. ^ Although some cnidarians are constructive burrowers, east.k. Weightman, J.O.; Arsenault, D.J. (2002). "Predator classification by the sea pen Ptilosarcus gurneyi (Cnidaria): office of waterborne chemical cues and physical contact with predatory sea stars" (PDF). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 80 (1): 185–190. doi:10.1139/z01-211. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-04-21 . most Cambrian trace fossils have been assigned to bilaterian animals.
  30. ^ "Life on terra firma began with an invasion". Phys.org News . Retrieved 2017-06-04 .
  31. ^ MacNaughton, R.B.; Cole, J.M.; Dalrymple, R.W.; Braddy, S.J.; Briggs, D.Due east.G.; Lukie, T.D. (2002). "Commencement steps on country: Arthropod trackways in Cambrian-Ordovician eolian sandstone, southeastern Ontario, Canada". Geology. 30 (5): 391–394. Bibcode:2002Geo....30..391M. doi:ten.1130/0091-7613(2002)030<0391:FSOLAT>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 0091-7613. S2CID 130821454.
  32. ^ Collette, J.H.; Gass, K.C.; Hagadorn, J.W. (2012). "Protichnites eremita unshelled? Experimental model-based neoichnology and new evidence for a euthycarcinoid affinity for this ichnospecies". Periodical of Paleontology. 86 (iii): 442–454. doi:x.1666/11-056.ane. S2CID 129234373.
  33. ^ Vinn, O.; Wilson, One thousand.A.; Zatoń, M.; Toom, U. (2014). "The trace fossil Arachnostega in the Ordovician of Estonia (Baltica)". Palaeontologia Electronica. 17.3.40A: i–nine. Retrieved 2014-06-10 .
  34. ^ Getty, Patrick; James Hagadorn (2009). "Palaeobiology of the Climactichnites trailmaker". Palaeontology. 52 (iv): 758–778. CiteSeerX10.1.1.597.192. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00875.10.
  35. ^ Getty, Patrick; James Hagadorn (2008). "Reinterpretation of Climactichnites Logan 1860 to Include Subsurface Burrows, and Erection of Musculopodus for Resting Traces of the Trailmaker". Periodical of Paleontology. 82 (six): 1161–1172. doi:10.1666/08-004.ane. S2CID 129732925.
  36. ^ Whyte, MA (2005). "Palaeoecology: A gigantic fossil arthropod trackway". Nature. 438 (7068): 576. Bibcode:2005Natur.438..576W. doi:10.1038/438576a. PMID 16319874. S2CID 4422644.
  37. ^ Wilson, G.A., 2007. Macroborings and the evolution of bioerosion, pp. 356–367. In: Miller, W. III (ed.), Trace Fossils: Concepts, Bug, Prospects. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 611 pages.
  38. ^ Glaub, I., Golubic, S., Gektidis, K., Radtke, Thousand. and Vogel, Thou., 2007. Microborings and microbial endoliths: geological implications. In: Miller 3, W (ed) Trace fossils: concepts, problems, prospects. Elsevier, Amsterdam: pp. 368–381.
  39. ^ Glaub, I. and Vogel, K., 2004. The stratigraphic record of microborings. Fossils & Strata 51:126–135.
  40. ^ Taylor, P.D. and Wilson, G.A., 2003. Palaeoecology and evolution of marine hard substrate communities. Earth-Science Reviews 62: 1–103."Archived re-create" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2009-07-21 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as championship (link)
  41. ^ Vickers-Rich, P. (1993). Wildlife of Gondwana. NSW: Reed. pp. 103–104. ISBN0730103153.
  42. ^ David A. Raichlen, Adam D. Gordon, William E. H. Harcourt-Smith, Adam D. Foster, Wm. Randall Haas, Jr (2010). Rosenberg, Karen (ed.). "Laetoli Footprints Preserve Earliest Direct Evidence of Human-Like Bipedal Biomechanics". PLOS ONE. five (3): e9769. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...five.9769R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009769. PMC2842428. PMID 20339543. {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  43. ^ Donovan, Stephen Yard., ed. (1994). The Palaeobiology of Trace Fossils. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN978-0-471-94843-8.

Further reading [edit]

  1. ^ Darwin, C. R. (1881), The germination of vegetable mould, through the action of worms, with observations on their habits, London: John Murray, retrieved 26 September 2014
  • Bromley, R.M., 1970. "Borings as trace fossils and Entobia cretacea Portlock equally an case", pp. 49–90. In: Crimes, T.P. and Harper, J.C. (eds.), Trace Fossils. Geological Journal Special Issue 3.
  • Bromley, R.G., 2004. "A stratigraphy of marine bioerosion". In: The application of ichnology to palaeoenvironmental and stratigraphic analysis. (Ed. D. McIlroy), Geological Society of London, Special Publications 228:455–481.
  • Palmer, T.J., 1982. "Cambrian to Cretaceous changes in hardground communities". Lethaia 15:309–323.
  • Seilacher, Adolf (2007). Trace Fossil Analysis . Springer-Verlag. 226 p. ISBN9783540472254.
  • Vinn, O. & Wilson, M.A. (2010). "Occurrence of behemothic borings of Osprioneides kampto in the lower Silurian (Sheinwoodian) stromatoporoids of Saaremaa, Estonia". Ichnos. 17 (3): 166–171. doi:x.1080/10420940.2010.502478. S2CID 128990588. Retrieved 2014-01-10 .
  • Wilson, 1000.A., 1986. "Coelobites and spatial refuges in a Lower Cretaceous cobble-domicile hardground fauna". Palaeontology 29:691–703.
  • Wilson, Thou.A. and Palmer, T.J., 2006. "Patterns and processes in the Ordovician Bioerosion Revolution". Ichnos thirteen: 109–112.[1]
  • Yochelson, Eastward.L. and Fedonkin, M.A., 1993. Paleobiology of Climactichnites, and Enigmatic Late Cambrian Fossil. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 74:1–74.

External links [edit]

  • Encyclopaedia-style article nigh trace fossils
  • Ichnogenus images
  • Chuck D. Howell's Ichnogenera Photos
  • Glossary of Ichnology Terms

mccollimince.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_fossil

0 Response to "What Can Trace Fossils Tell You About Ancient Organisms?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel