Preservation of Traces

Part of the Springer Geology book series (SPRINGERGEOL)


Study on the preservation processes of modern traces is important as it enhances their chances to be fossilized in due course. It is the first step towards fossilization. Modes of preservation decide the resultant architecture of the trace fossils. Depositional environments, besides many post depositional physical and chemical processes, decide the mode of preservation of modern traces. Preservation potential of a structure in a given environmental setting decides its availability in rock record as trace fossil. Various aspects of preservation potential of the modern traces are addressed here. The preserved Kalna and Nabadweep traces have been identified ichnotaxonomically. Styles of preservation under episodic, steady and high energy conditions of deposition are also discussed.


Modern Trace Deep Tier Conservative Tracer Gyrolithes Skolithos 
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.


  1. Bromley RG (1990) Trace fossils: Biology and Taphonomy. Unwin Hyman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bromley RG (1994) The palaeoecology of bioerosion. In: Donovan SK (ed) The palaeobiology of trace fossils. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 134–154Google Scholar
  3. Buatois LA, Mángano MG (1995) The paleoenvironmental and paleoecological significance of the lacustrine Mermia ichnofacies: an archetypical subaqueous nonmarine trace fossil assemblage. Ichnos 4:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buatois LA, Mángano MG, Maples CG et al (1998) Allostratigraphic and sedimentologic application of trace fossils to the study of incised estuarine valleys: an example from the Virgilian Tonganoxie Sandstone Member of eastern Kansas. Bull Kansas Geol Surv 241:1–27Google Scholar
  5. Chakrabarti A, Baskaran M (1989) Biogenic faecal pellet mounds in Quaternary miliolites of Saurashtra, India. Palaeogeol Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 73:311–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chamberlain CK (1971) Biogenic mounds in the Dakoda Sandstone of northwestern New Mexico. J Palaeontol 45(4):641–644Google Scholar
  7. Curran HA (1976) A trace fossil brood structure of probable callianissid origin. J Palaeontol 50(2):249–259Google Scholar
  8. De C (2000) Neoichnological activities of endobenthic invertebrates in downdrift coastal Ganges delta complex, India: their significance in trace fossil interpretations and palaeoshoreline reconstructions. Ichnos 7:89–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De C (2002) Continental mayfly burrows within relict-ground in inter-tidal beach profile of Bay of Bengal coast: A new ichnological evidence of Holocene marine transgression. Curr Sci 83(1):64–67Google Scholar
  10. De C (2003) Ichnological evidences of Holocene marine transgression in the Bay of Bengal Coast, West Bengal, India. In: Proceedings of GEOSAS Seminar, New Delhi, pp 302–311Google Scholar
  11. De C (2005) Biophysical model of intertidal beach crab burrowing: application and significance. Ichnos 12:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hertweck G (1973) Der Golf Von Gaeta (Tyrrhenisches Meer). VI. Lebensspuren einger Bodenbewoohner and Jchnofaziesbereiche. Sencken marit 5:179–197Google Scholar
  13. Vladimír Š, Dušan S (2015) Sand spherules interpreted as crustacean feeding pellets from an Eocene shore environment (Western Carpathians—Slovakia). Palaeogeol Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 438:364–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Weimer RJ, Hoyt JH (1964) Burrows of Callianassa major Say, geologic indicators of littoral and shallow neritic environments. J Palaeontol 38:761–767Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Palaeontology DivisionGeological Survey of IndiaKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations