A History of Ideas in Ichnology - Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary Environments - page 7

FIGURE 2 Interpretation of trace fossils through time. (A) Legati's Pietra Alberina (Tree stone)
exemplifies the fact that chondritids have been compared to plants since the seventeenth century or
earlier. (B) William Buckland, pioneer of the study of fossil feces, owned a table made with sec-
tioned coprolites from Carboniferous deposits ( Duffin, 2009 ). (C) Fanciful representation of a
funnel-weaving spider, placed by Eberhard Werner Happel among vermes lapidum , or rock-boring
organisms ( Happel, 1707 , published posthumously).
These naturalists pioneered the study of ichnology and added many descrip-
tions of trace fossils to their natural histories. Their work demonstrates that ich-
nology has its roots firmly anchored in Renaissance times, although it existed as
disconnected ideas about traces.
5. SEVENTEENTH TO EIGHTEENTH CENTURY:
A PERIOD OF TRANSITION
For many years after Osgood's (1970, 1975) work, it was argued that ichnology
was born in the nineteenth century, Age of Fucoids—a not implausible sugges-
tion, given the difficulty to find ichnological studies from prior to the 1800s.
However, recent works not only highlight the Renaissance roots of ichnology
( Section 4 ; Fig. 2 A) but also evidence some ichnological observations dating
back to the 1700s (i.e., Duffin, 2009 ). As a consequence, one question might
arise: what historical phenomena connected the Age of Naturalists to the Age
of Fucoids?
By the late 1600s, the emphasis on reason in the intellectual life of Europe
started to become pervasive. The early Enlightment in Europe went hand in
hand with an expansion of scientific societies which, by the start of the eigh-
teenth century, had transformed the organization of scientific research
( Gohau, 1991 ). This aspect affected also the study of trace fossils, as evidenced
by the central role of the Royal Society of London in the study of coprolites.
Indeed, John Woodward, fellow of the Royal Society, provided one of the first
explanations for their origin by comparing Mesozoic specimens to “Iuli” or
cones of larch trees ( Woodward, 1729 ). However, he was not the only
researcher to describe coprolites. Indeed another fellow of the Royal Society,
Lhwyd (1760) , figured a spiral coprolite, and Mylius (1709) previously illus-
trated some Permian specimens. The botanical interpretation of coprolites