A History of Ideas in Ichnology - Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary Environments - page 27

In the same period, an active group of researchers assembled in Warsaw.
Centered on Radwa´ski, Karaszewski, Orłowski, and Roniewicz, they focused
particularly on early Paleozoic and Jurassic units from the Holy Cross Moun-
tains. Notably, Radwa´ski and Roniewicz developed the ichnocoenosis concept
( H¨ntzschel, 1975 : W2). Radwa´ski pioneered the application of borings for
defining paleoshorelines, although he did not follow the parataxonomical sys-
tem in naming trace fossils ( H¨ntzschel, 1975 ). Among other Polish contribu-
tions may be noted those by Nowak, Birkenmajer, ´ l˛czka on ichnotaxonomy
and ethological analysis of flysch trace fossils ( H¨ntzschel, 1975 ).
As concerns the Russian academic scenario, the Modern Era saw many of
the main characters of the previous stage. For instance, Vassoievich (1953) sup-
ported the ichnological nature of “fucoids” by analyzing several traces from the
Caucasus and the Carpathians. Grossheim gave some correct interpretations but
withdrew his opinion ( Grossheim, 1946 ) about a mudcrack origin of Paleodic-
tyon and placed it among biogenics (Imprints of snail eggs or imprints of algae).
Similarly, he regarded Ubinia wassoevitschi as seaweed and interpreted some
star-shaped trace fossils ( Lorenzinia , Atollites) as imprints of ammonite shells
(Supplementary Material: http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780444538130 ) .
Within the middle to late twentieth century, ichnologists came to see Russia
and central Asia as a place of interest for field investigation. This period of
intense ichnological traveling was inaugurated between 1930 and 1960 by
Hecker and Vialov, who described many invertebrate and vertebrate ichnotaxa
from Russia, Ukraine, and central Asia ( H¨ntzschel, 1975 ). Vialov also pro-
posed a new classification of trace fossils ( H¨ntzschel, 1975 : W23-W24). How-
ever, his definition of trace fossils was broad, unfitting to the mainstream
opinion (i.e., Bertling et al., 2006 ; Knaust, 2012a). Nevertheless, Vialov's ideas
are still vivid in many Russian scientific institutions, partly because of his influ-
ential textbook ( Mikul´ˇ and Dronov, 2006; Vialov, 1966 ).
Between the late 1950s and 1970s, Romanian paleontology saw significant
achievements in the field of vertebrate ichnology, for which reason Brustur
(1997) distinguished a Stage of Vertebrate Footprints in Romanian Ichnology.
An important figure of this stage is the academician Gheorghe Murgeanu, who
promoted several sedimentological investigations, while Nicolae Panin gave a
great impulse to paleoichnological studies. In the same period, Miroslav Pli ˇ ka,
Ilja Pek, and Ivo Chlup ´ˇ contributed to Czech ichnology by ichnotaxonomical
proposals, descriptions of trace fossils in unusual substrates and settings, and
ethological interpretations (Supplementary Material: http://booksite.elsevier.
com/9780444538130 ) .
9.5 Global Ichnology
The fruitful advancements made at the European and North American schools
were accompanied by a global momentum guiding the development of ichnology
at a large scale. Nevertheless, mode and tempo of this expansion were slightly
different in Asia, South America, and Australia with respect to the other areas.