Advertisement

The History of Invertebrate Ichnology

  • Richard G. OsgoodJr.

Synopsis

Ichnology developed slowly, and only during the past two decades has it attained worldwide status as a scientific discipline. With a few notable exceptions, most trace fossils were originally interpreted as fossil algae or “fucoids.” Although Nathorst demonstrated the animal nature of “fucoids” in 1881, systematic studies of trace fossils were not initiated until Rudolf Richter’s work in the 1920s. Even then ichnological studies lagged until the 1950s, when Seilacher (1953) provided both methodology and a satisfactory working classification. The pace of research was accelerated by Hantzschel’s (1962, 1965) contributions in cataloging trace fossil genera and providing extensive bibliographic data. The developments of the last decade, mentioned only briefly herein, have been concerned mainly with continuous refinement of the discipline.

Keywords

Fossil Record Trace Fossil Body Fossil Corophium Volutator Fossil Alga 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abel, O. 1935. Vorzeitliche Lebensspuren. Jena, Gustav Fischer, 644 p.Google Scholar
  2. Ager, D. V. and P. Wallace. 1970. The distribution and Singification of fossils in the uppermost Jurassic rocks of the Boulonnais, northern France. In T. P. Crimes and J. C. Harper (eds.), Trace fossils. Geol. Jour., Spec. Issue 3:1–18.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, H. N. 1970. Index of generic names of fossil plants, 1820–1965. U.S. Geol. Surv., Bull. 1300, 354 p.Google Scholar
  4. Brady, L. F. 1939. Tracks in the Coconino Sandstone compared with those of small, living arthropods. Plateau, 12:32–34.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1947. Invertebrate tracks from the Coconino Sandstone of northern Arizona. Jour. Paleont., 21:466–472.Google Scholar
  6. Brongniart, A. 1823. Observations sur les fucoides. Soc. Hist. Natur. Paris, Mém., 1:301–320.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1828. Histoire des végétaux fossiles.Paris, 1:1–488.Google Scholar
  8. Caster, K. E. 1938. A restudy of the tracks of Paramphibius. Jour. Paleont., 12:3–60.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1957. Problematica. In H. S. Ladd(ed.), Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology, v. 2, Paleoecology. Geol. Soc. America, Mem. 67:1025–1032.Google Scholar
  10. Chamberlain, C. K., 1971. Morphology and ethology of trace fossils from the Ouachita Mountains, southeast Oklahoma. Jour. Paleont., 45:212–246.Google Scholar
  11. Crimes, T. P. and J. C. Harper (eds.). 1970. Trace fossils. Geol. Jour., Spec. Issue 3, 547 p.Google Scholar
  12. Dahmer, G. 1937. Lebensspuren aus dem Taunusquarzit und den Siegener Schichten (Unterdevon). Jahrb. Preuss. Geol. Lande—sanst. 1936, 57:523–539.Google Scholar
  13. Dawson, J. W. 1864. On the fossils of the genus Rusophycus. Canadian Natural., N. Ser., 1:363–367.Google Scholar
  14. Delgado, J. F. N. 1910. (Ouvrage posthume) Terrains Paléozoiques du Portugal. Étude sur les fossiles des schistes à Néréites de San Domingos et des schistes à Néréites et à Graptolites de Barrancos. Serv. Geol. Portugal, 56:1–68.Google Scholar
  15. Frey, R. W. 1971. Ichnology—the study of fossil and recent lebensspuren. In B. F. Perkins (ed.), Trace fossils, a field guide. Louisiana State Univ., School Geosci., Misc. Publ. 71–1:91–125.Google Scholar
  16. Fuchs, T. 1895. Studien über Fucoiden und Hieroglyphen. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.–naturw. Kl., Denkschr. 62:369–448.Google Scholar
  17. Gaudry, A. 1883. (Note on “A propos des Algues fossilesby Saporta”). Soc. Géol. France, Bull., Ser. 3:451–452.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, J. 1852. Natural history of New York. Palaeontology of New York, v. 2. Albany, C. van Benthuysen, 362 p.Google Scholar
  19. Häntzschel, W. 1939. Die Lebensspuren von Corophium volutator (Pallas) und ihre paläontologische Bedeutung. Senckenbergiana, 21:215–227.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1962. Trace fossils and problematica. In R. C. Moore (ed.), Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, Pt. W, Miscellanea. Lawrence, Kan., Geol. Soc. America and Univ. Kansas Press, p. W177—W245.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1965. Vestigia invertebratorum et Problematica. Fossilium Catalogus, 1: Animalia, pars 108, 142 p.Google Scholar
  22. Hitchcock, E. 1858. Ichnology of New England. A report of the sandstone of the Connecticut Valley especially its footprints. Boston, W. White, 220 p.Google Scholar
  23. Howell, B. F. 1943. Burrows of Skolithos and Planolites in the Cambrian Hardyston Sandstone at Reading, Pennsylvania. Publ. Wagner Free Inst. Sci., 3:3–33.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 1946. Silurian Monocraterion Clintonense burrows showing the aperture. Wagner Free Inst. Sci., Bull., 21:29–37.Google Scholar
  25. Hundt, R. 1931. Eine Monographie des Lebensspuren des Unteren Mitteldevons Thüringens. Leipzig, 68 p.Google Scholar
  26. James, J. F. 1884. The fueoids of the Cincinnati Group, Pt. 1. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., 7:124–132.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 1885. The fucoids of the Cincinnati Group, Pt. 2. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., 7:151–166.Google Scholar
  28. KrejciGraf, K. 1932. Definition der Begriffe Marken, Spuren, Fährten, Bauten, Hieroglyphen und Fucoiden. Senckenbergiana, 14:19–39.Google Scholar
  29. Lebesconte, P. 1883. Présentation à la société des oeuvres posthumes de Marie Rouault, suivies d’une note sur les Cruziana et Rhysophycus. Soc. Géol. France, Bull., Ser. 3, 11:466–472.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 1886. Constitution générale du massif breton comparée à celle du Finisterre. Soc. Géol. France, Bull, Ser. 3, 14:776–820.Google Scholar
  31. Lessertisseur, J. 1955. Traces fossiles d’activité animale et leur signification paléobiologique. Soc. Géol. France, Mém. 74, 150 p.Google Scholar
  32. Linck, O. 1942. Die Spur Isopodichnus. Senckenbergiana, 25:232–255.Google Scholar
  33. Logan, W. E. 1860. Remarks on the fauna of the Quebec group of rocks, and the primordial zone of Canada. Canadian Nat., 5:472–477.Google Scholar
  34. Mägdefrau, K. 1934. Über Phycodes circinatum Reinh. Richter aus dem thüringischen Ordovicium. Neues Jahrb. Mineral., Geol., Paläont., Beil., 72:259–282.Google Scholar
  35. Maillard, G. 1887. Considérations sur les fossiles décrits comme Algues. Soc. Paléont. Suisse, Mém. 14:1–40.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, S. A. 1880. Silurian ichnolites, with definitions of new genera and species. Note on the habit of some fossil annelids. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., 2:217–229.Google Scholar
  37. ———. and C. B. Dyer. 1878a. Contributions to Palaeontology, No. 1. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. Hist., Jour., 1:24–39.Google Scholar
  38. ———. and C. B. Dyer. 1878b. Contributions to Palaeontology, No. 2. Cincinnati, private printing, 11 p.Google Scholar
  39. Nathorst, A. G. 1873. Om nâgra förmodade växtfossilier. Öfversigt af Kgl. Vetensk. Akad. Förhandl. 1873, 9:25–52 (1874).Google Scholar
  40. ———. 1881. Om spâr af nagra evertebrerade djur M.M. och deras paleontologiska betydelse. (Mémoire sur quelques traces d’animaux sans vertebrés etc. et de leur portée paléontologique.) Kgl. Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., 18, 104 p.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 1886. Nouvelles observations sur les traces nimaux et autres phénomènes d’origine purement mécanique décrits comme “Algues fossiles.” Kgl. Svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., 21, 58 p.Google Scholar
  42. Osgood, R. G. 1970. Trace fossils of the Cincinnati area. Palaeontographica Amer., 6 (41): 281–444.Google Scholar
  43. Richter, R. 1927. Die fossilien Fährten und Bauten der Würmer, ein Überblick über ihre biologischen Grundformen und deren geologische Bedeutung. Paläont. Zeitschr., 9:193–240.Google Scholar
  44. ———. 1931. Tierwelt und Umwelt im Hunsrückschiefer zur Entstehung eins schwarzen Schlammsteins. Senckenbergiana, 13:299–324.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 1941. Marken und Spuren im Hunsrückschiefer. 3. Fahrten als Zeugnisse des Lebens auf dem Meeresgrunde. Senckenbergiana, 23:218–260.Google Scholar
  46. Saporta, G. de. 1881. L’évolution du règne végétal, Les Cryptogames. Paris, Masson, 238 p.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 1882. A propos des algues fossiles.Paris, Masson, 82 p.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 1884. Les organismes problématiques des anciennes mers. Paris, Masson, 100 p.Google Scholar
  49. Schäfer, W. 1972. Ecology and palaeoecology of marine environments. Edinburgh and Chicago, Oliver 8c Boyd and Univ. Chicago Press, 568 p.Google Scholar
  50. Seilacher, A. 1953. Über die Methoden der Palichnologie. 1. Studien zur Palichnologie. Neues Jahrb. Geol. Paläont., Abh., 96:421–452.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 1955. Spuren und Lebensweise der Trilobiten; Spuren und Fazies im Unterkambrium. In O. H. Schindewolf and A. Seilacher, Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Kambriums in der Salt Range (Pakistan). Akad. Wiss. u. Lit. Mainz, math.–naturw. Kl., Abh. 1955, 10:342–399.Google Scholar
  52. Seilacher, A. 1964. Biogenic sedimentary structures.In J. Imbrie and N. D. Newell (eds.), Approaches to paleoecology. New York, John Wiley, p. 296–316.Google Scholar
  53. Vialov, O. S. 1966. The traces of vital activity of organisms and their paleontological significance. Acad. Sci. Ukraine S.S.R., 1966:1–164. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  54. Zittel, K. A. 1879–1890. Handbuch der Paläontologie. Munich and Leipzig, 958 pGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard G. OsgoodJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeologyCollege of WoosterWoosterUSA

Personalised recommendations