Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
president Mariscal Santa Cruz, who had sponsored his visit to South America
(
Seilacher, 2007
). The significance of his work resides in the definition of a taxon
that was subsequently reinterpreted as a trace fossil, gaining immense popularity
worldwide.
6.2 Zoophytes and other Popular Interpretations
Together with the dominant botanical hypothesis, the interpretation of trace
fossils followed three other themes, namely, as zoophytes (plant-like ani-
mals); as worm-like body fossils; and as true invertebrate burrows, tracks,
and trails.
The plant-like aspect of branched burrows suggested the zoophyte interpre-
tation, which appeared even before
Brongniart's (1823)
seminal paper. Indeed,
Webster (1814)
appears to have been the first to interpret
Thalassinoides
paradoxica
and
Ophiomorpha
as alcyonarian cnidarians. The “zoophyte” inter-
pretation was usually applied to such burrows as
Oldhamia
(
Forbes, 1848
). The
zoophyte interpretation had a particular success in eastern Europe. For instance,
Zar˛czny (1878)
described
Spongia sudolica
from the Cretaceous marls near Cra-
cow. As the etymology may suggest, the trace fossil was considered a sponge,
being later included in
Spongeliomorpha
(
Raciborski, 1890
). Alongside to the
description of several fucoids from Russia, Estonia, and Ukraine, Eichwald
(1860-1968) presented
Paleodictyon
(his
Cephalites maximus
) as a sponge.
A less conspicuous number of trace fossils were described as body fossils of anne-
lids. This is the case for
Nereites
MacLeay (1839)
and “
Nemertilites
”(now
Scolicia
)
strozzii
(
Savi and Meneghini, 1851
), both interpreted as marine worms.
In the same years, a minor part of scholars suggested the ichnological nature
of some trace fossils, but their morphological diversity was a particularly chal-
lenging subject. It is therefore not surprising that ichnological interpretations
often coexisted with other explanations. For instance,
Savi and Meneghini
(1851)
interpreted “
Nemertilites
” (now
Scolicia
)
strozzii
as a “giant marine
worm” and
Chondrites
as seaweed, and in the same work, they admitted the ich-
nological origin of “
Nemertilites meandrites
” (possibly
Scolicia
). Specifically,
they argued, “as it is impossible to see any animal remains, at least it is necessary
to recognize the action of an animal, that is, a physiological imprint (
impronta
fisiologica
)”. This term is strongly reminiscent of d'Orbigny's “
emprintes phy-
siologiques
”(
d'Orbigny, 1849
: 27-29). Another example is given by the paleo-
botanist Heer, who not only recognized several species of
Zoophycos
,
Chondrites
, and
Gyrophyllites
as fucoids, but also described
Wurmsteine
(
Helminthoiden
) as sediment-filled burrows of marine worms (
Heer, 1876/
1877
; Supplementary Material:
http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780444538130
)
.
Britain was a very fertile ground for the fucoid hypothesis (i.e.,
Buckland,
1836
), but Victorian geologists were also familiar with animal traces on modern
tidal flats. For instance, Charles Lyell devoted some space in his
Principles of
Geology
to explain burrowingmollusks (
Lyell, 1833
: 288). It should also be noted
Search WWH ::
Custom Search