Trace fossils in COL

[mdoering]

We have Ichnofossils names coming into the COL XR and need to decide where to best place these in the overall COL hierarchy.
See discussion about Abeliella Mägdefrau, 1937 and how IRMNG places them under Animalia
#980

Ichnofossil taxonomy now falls under the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature:

Fossil animal taxa and animal trace fossils, or ichnotaxa, are covered by the ICZN.

• https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/?frame=1
• https://code.iczn.org/chapter-4-criteria-of-availability/article-10-provisions-conferring-availability/?frame=1

Ichnofossil names are normally binomial (ichnogenus and ichnospecies) and their naming follows the rules of priority as outlined therein. To learn more about the classification of ichnofossils, refer to the ICZN and the proposal to amend the code for trace fossils proposed by Bertling et al. (2006). Other ichnological classification systems that have been proposed include: toponomic (described in Simpson, 1975), reservoir ichnology (Knaust 2014), and diagenetic classification of trace fossils and their relationship to cement distribution in sedimentary rocks (e.g., Abdel-Fattah et al. 2011).

As there are also trace fossils based on Bacteria, e.g. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite, a new root level group "Ichnofossils" might be best for COL?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_fossil
• https://fossiilid.info/112
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/ichnofossils

[TonyRees]

The late Markus Bertling's 2007 work "What's in a Name? Nomenclature, Systematics, Ichnotaxonomy" can be read here: https://pismin.com/10.1016/B978-044452949-7/50131-5 (if you are not averse to the activities of sci-hub) There is a 2022 update as follows: Bertling, M., Buatois, L.A., Knaust, D., Laing, B., Mángano, M.G., Meyer, N., Mikuláš, R., Minter, N.J., Neumann, C., Rindsberg, A.K. and Uchman, A., 2022. Names for trace fossils 2.0: theory and practice in ichnotaxonomy. *Lethaia*, *55*(3), pp.1-19. Official copy available at https://www.idunn.no/doi/pdf/10.18261/let.55.3.3 Re Markus D's comment above concerning stromatolites "produced by bacteria", these are not considered ichnotaxa per either Bertling, 2007 (where they were not mentioned) or Bertling et al., 2022 (where they are explicitly excluded, refer their Table 1 and p. 14). Following a practice used in ING (Index Nominum Genericorum) over the years, and no doubt elsewhere, in IRMNG I presently have these under Cyanobacteria (formerly "blue-green algae") and thus under the botanical Code, since the genus names and below are believed to represent the actual organisms that produced the stromatolitic structures, for an example see *Conophyton* V.P. Maslov, 1937 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1025396> . However just for confusion, my present IRMNG supra-generic classification follows a source (Raaben, M. E.; Sinha, A. K.; Sharma, M. (2001). Precambrian Stromatolites of India and Russia) that used zoological terminations for stromatolite families and orders, something that I have not revisited but might do at some point in the future... Although as above stromatolites are not considered ichnofossils, there are or may be other traces produced by bacteria, as well as by plants and possibly fungi, which render the wider group "ichnotaxa" illogical if placed just under animals (which I admit is the present practice in IRMNG). As per a previous email on a different thread, I now believe that there is a case either for promoting them to kingdom level paralle to Animalia, Plantae, etc., or even to a higher level parallel to "Biota" since in fact they are not themselves Biota, just classified under the zoological Code for convenience. Regards - Tony Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia https://about.me/TonyRees

…

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 21:42, Markus Döring ***@***.***> wrote: We have Ichnofossils names coming into the COL XR and need to decide where to best place these in the overall COL hierarchy. See discussion about Abeliella Mägdefrau, 1937 and how IRMNG places them under Animalia #980 <#980> Ichnofossil taxonomy now falls under the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: - https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/?frame=1 - https://code.iczn.org/chapter-4-criteria-of-availability/article-10-provisions-conferring-availability/?frame=1 - Ichnofossil names are normally binomial (ichnogenus and ichnospecies) and their naming follows the rules of priority as outlined therein. To learn more about the classification of ichnofossils, refer to the ICZN and the proposal to amend the code for trace fossils <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/trace-fossil> proposed by Bertling et al. (2006). Other ichnological classification systems that have been proposed include: toponomic (described in Simpson, 1975), reservoir ichnology <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/ichnology> (Knaust 2014), and diagenetic classification of trace fossils and their relationship to cement distribution in sedimentary rocks (e.g., Abdel-Fattah et al. 2011). As there are also trace fossils based on Bacteria, e.g. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite, a new root level group "Ichnofossils" might be best for COL? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_fossil - https://fossiilid.info/112 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/ichnofossils — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#982>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDXIXKLVWADAAARPEQK3ET2U72CTAVCNFSM6AAAAABZHZEXLCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSHEZDQMBRGE2TIMQ> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***> [image: mdoering]*mdoering* created an issue (CatalogueOfLife/data#982) <#982> We have Ichnofossils names coming into the COL XR and need to decide where to best place these in the overall COL hierarchy. See discussion about Abeliella Mägdefrau, 1937 and how IRMNG places them under Animalia #980 <#980> Ichnofossil taxonomy now falls under the provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: - https://code.iczn.org/validity-of-names-and-nomenclatural-acts/article-23-principle-of-priority/?frame=1 - https://code.iczn.org/chapter-4-criteria-of-availability/article-10-provisions-conferring-availability/?frame=1 - Ichnofossil names are normally binomial (ichnogenus and ichnospecies) and their naming follows the rules of priority as outlined therein. To learn more about the classification of ichnofossils, refer to the ICZN and the proposal to amend the code for trace fossils <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/trace-fossil> proposed by Bertling et al. (2006). Other ichnological classification systems that have been proposed include: toponomic (described in Simpson, 1975), reservoir ichnology <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/ichnology> (Knaust 2014), and diagenetic classification of trace fossils and their relationship to cement distribution in sedimentary rocks (e.g., Abdel-Fattah et al. 2011). As there are also trace fossils based on Bacteria, e.g. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite, a new root level group "Ichnofossils" might be best for COL? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_fossil - https://fossiilid.info/112 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/ichnofossils — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#982>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDXIXKLVWADAAARPEQK3ET2U72CTAVCNFSM6AAAAABZHZEXLCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSHEZDQMBRGE2TIMQ> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[dhobern]

Obviously, this is a messy area with several equally plausible choices we could make (separate pseudo-kingdom, under animals, split between kingdoms).

I assume this all matters for the COL paleo group. Do they have thoughts on how data would best be organised for their purposes? We should think of COL's primary use as a kind of ontology or hierarchical vocabulary. Is it more important to make it easy to group ichnofossils with other scientific names or instead to be able to slice them cleanly out?

On an associated front, does GBIF want to include ichnofossil specimen records in its data?

What sources do we expect to use for ichnofossil names? Will these all be coming from a single trusted source or provided piecemeal by different sources? If there are multiple, we need to consider how easy it will be to align them.

Do we have or do we need a new flag (or vocabulary term) so we can distinguish ichnofossils from other fossils?

[mdoering]

All good questions. We already get ichnofossil names from PBDB. And these show up in the COL XR often as duplicates as you can see in the Abeliella discussion. The root cause being some very different classifications into plants and animals which the merge currently considers as distinct names no matter what. I consider to change that if the authorship is given and matches exactly. It still leaves us with the decision where best to place them and not have them in various places.

[TonyRees]

Regarding treatment of trace fossils also known as ichnotaxa, (mostly, but not exclusively animal traces; nomenclature under ICZN, but not strictly biota but the traces made by them...) For present listing in IRMNG (probably incomplete), genus level and above, see At present these are treated as: 1. Biota 2. Animalia <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=2> (Kingdom) 3. Trace fossils † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=207> (Phylum) https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxlist&searchpar=0&vOnly=0&tRank=180&pid=207 (812 records) However this treatment is sub-optimal bearing in mind that they are not exclusively animal traces; in fact not Biota at all... One possible solution would be to move the present IRMNG "phylum" Trace fossils (presently under Kingdom Animalia) up to kingdom level and rename it "Unassigned (Trace fossils)", with children then at family and/or genus rank. However that way it would still live under "Biota" (our current top level name) which may still be incorrect. In that case they could maybe live alongside Biota, at a level above kingdom (presently un-named in IRMNG and WoRMS, but perhaps could be...) Another issue to consider is pseudofossils: non-current taxa under Animalia, Plantae or other, presently considered non-biotic (a taxonomic opinion) but whose names remain in botanical or zoological nomenclature for issues of homonomy etc. since they were originally named as biota. In fact with increasing knowledge they can sometimes be moved back into Animalia, Plantae etc. if the "pseudofossil" designation is reversed. We track these names in IRMNG but consider them "unaccepted", unless things change. At present in IRMNG these appear as follows (the "nomen nudum" designation is an artifact for recently entered names and is awaiting removal) : 1. Biota 2. Questionable / non-biota (fossil) † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=12> (Kingdom) 3. Pseudofossils † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11914597> (Phylum) Direct children (116) 1. Family Manicosiphoniaceae † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=105735> 2. Genus *Archaeoscillatoriopsis* J.W. Schopf, 1993 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11939346> (unaccepted > nomen nudum) 3. Genus *Archaeotrichion* J.W. Schopf, 1968 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11907090> (unaccepted > nomen nudum) 4. Genus *Birrimarnoldia* Hovasse & Couture, 1961 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1249969> (unaccepted > nomen nudum) 5. Genus *Cumulosphaera* A.-S. Edhorn, 1973 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1084145> (unaccepted > nomen nudum, pseudofossil) 6. Genus *Eoleptonema* J.W. Schopf in Awramik et al., 1983 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11907091> (unaccepted > nomen nudum) 7. ... 8. 1. Genus *Aenigmichnus* Hitchcock, 1865 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11914598> (pseudofossil) 2. Genus *Aenigmichus* Hitchcock, 1865 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1118785> (pseudofossil, also misspelling (of Aenigmichnus)) 3. Genus *Aequorfossa* Neviani, 1925 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11914599> (pseudofossil) 4. Genus *Ambarchaeooides* Qian, Chen & Chen, 1979 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1228952> (pseudofossil) 5. Genus *Ammosphaeroides* Cushman, 1910 <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1099059> (pseudofossil) (etc.) Again, the question arises as to where these should best be placed in the hierarchy. I guess they could be further divided into animal pseudofossils and plant / algal pseudofossils, but that would be going a bit far from a user's standpoint I would suggest. You will also see that in IRMNG we attempt to treat "Questionalble Biota" which may or may not be pseudofossils (insufficient information). At present, other than Pseudofossils these only comprise: 1. Family Microcodiaceae Maslov, 1956 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=105736> 2. Genus *Amanlisia* Lebesconte, 1891 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11914627> (uncertain > taxon inquirendum) 3. Genus *Isuasphaera* H.D. Pflug, 1978 † <https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1247804> (uncertain > taxon inquirendum) Probably if higher categories are to be adjusted to encompass ichnotaxa (Trace fossils), the above should be candidates for inclusion somewhere as well... More food for thought, Regards - Tony Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia https://about.me/TonyRees www.irmng.org

…

On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 02:02, Markus Döring ***@***.***> wrote: All good questions. We already get ichnofossil names from PBDB <https://paleobiodb.org/>. And these show up in the COL XR often as duplicates as you can see in the Abeliella <#980> discussion. The root cause being some very different classifications into plants and animals which the merge currently considers as distinct names no matter what. I consider to change that if the authorship is given and matches exactly. It still leaves us with the decision where best to place them and not have them in various places. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#982 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDXIXK6C7ROEF6KT7ETKXL2VLKA3AVCNFSM6AAAAABZHZEXLCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDONBQG43TAMBYGE> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***> [image: mdoering]*mdoering* left a comment (CatalogueOfLife/data#982) <#982 (comment)> All good questions. We already get ichnofossil names from PBDB <https://paleobiodb.org/>. And these show up in the COL XR often as duplicates as you can see in the Abeliella <#980> discussion. The root cause being some very different classifications into plants and animals which the merge currently considers as distinct names no matter what. I consider to change that if the authorship is given and matches exactly. It still leaves us with the decision where best to place them and not have them in various places. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#982 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDXIXK6C7ROEF6KT7ETKXL2VLKA3AVCNFSM6AAAAABZHZEXLCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDONBQG43TAMBYGE> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mdoering]

For COL I would indeed propose to keep the all non biotic fossil names under a single root taxon.
Something like an unranked Abiota taxon which then contains trace and pseudo fossils as kingdoms? Maybe Abiotic fossils is better to deliminate them from Viruses.

[TonyRees]

Just a possibly naive question, does CoL want unaccepted taxa that have no current accepted name (which would apply to pseudofossils)? Not trace fossils of course, this would include the normal mix of accepted taxa plus their known synonyms... By extension, nomina nuda that do not link to any currently accepted taxon would be a parallel situation elsewhere as well.

…

On Sat, 22 Mar 2025, 8:37 am Markus Döring, ***@***.***> wrote: For COL I would indeed propose to keep the all non biotic fossil names under a single root taxon. Something like an unranked *Abiota* taxon which then contains trace and pseudo fossils as kingdoms? Maybe *Abiotic fossils* is better to deliminate them from *Viruses*. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#982 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDXIXLJBKFDDAP3WGDVZX32VSBCJAVCNFSM6AAAAABZHZEXLCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDONBUGQ4TINBYGE> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***> [image: mdoering]*mdoering* left a comment (CatalogueOfLife/data#982) <#982 (comment)> For COL I would indeed propose to keep the all non biotic fossil names under a single root taxon. Something like an unranked *Abiota* taxon which then contains trace and pseudo fossils as kingdoms? Maybe *Abiotic fossils* is better to deliminate them from *Viruses*. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#982 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABDXIXLJBKFDDAP3WGDVZX32VSBCJAVCNFSM6AAAAABZHZEXLCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDONBUGQ4TINBYGE> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mdoering]

There is a debate, but I think we would want that. They are not dealt with properly at this stage though, but it might be a good idea to review the way we deal with them together with the pseudo fossil names

[tkarim]

Hi all... the Paleo Data Working Group had a good discussion on this topic with Dr. Nic Minter in March 2024. It might be good to loop someone like him into the discussion.