A History of Ideas in Ichnology - Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary Environments - page 32

Not only does the importance of historical awareness regard the question of
memory, but also analogs from history can serve as a guide or inspiration for
future insights. For instance, history reminds us of the cultural value of trace fos-
sils. Already in the seventeenth century, Bauhin included invertebrate trace fos-
sils in his tourist guide of Bad Boll, Germany ( Seilacher, 2007 ) and Jacinto Pedro
Gomes pioneered geoconservation of dinosaur tracksites in the nineteenth century
(Supplementary Material: http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780444538130 ) . Verte-
brate tracksites play amajor role in ichnological geotourism, although invertebrate
geosites are also under development, providing new economic activities and addi-
tional sources of income, especially in rural regions (i.e., the Ichnological Park of
Penha Garcia, Portugal; Neto de Carvalho et al., 2009 ).
As concerns scientific research, history shows us that almost every major
idea in ichnology has depended on neoichnological observations; it is a perva-
sive influence. As Gingras et al. (2011) argued, the models we have for animal/
sediment relations are largely based on neoichnological studies of the 1950s,
1960s, and 1970s. History warns us that for higher-resolution models, new
studies on modern environments are required.
10.4 Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Aspects in Ichnology
Owing to its nature, ichnology is a systemof knowledge with a very well-defined
nucleus (traditional ichnology) but with poorly defined borders. “Traditional
ichnology” is often based on a geological background, but it blurs in a vast gray
area sharedwith other disciplines. A typical example is given by recent traces, the
study of which is often referred to biology, archeology, or forensic science,
avoiding mention to ichnology ( Baucon et al., 2008; Bromley, 1996 : xi). This
tendency can be traced back to the nineteenth century (i.e., Wood, 1866 ), and
it is still influencing the study of traces. For instance, significant overlap exists
between neoichnology and tracking, a discipline practiced by hunting guides,
biologists, search-and-rescue teams, soldiers in war, and forensic investigators
( Cunningham, 2004; Liebenberg et al., 2010 ). According to Liebenberg et al.
(2010) , tracking involves each and every indication of an animal's presence. It typ-
ically includes not only traces (i.e., footprints, feces, burrows) but also other struc-
tures (i.e., eggs, auditory signs, etc.).
The present organization of scientific knowledge is a product of historical
phenomena, and the study of traces makes no exception. While earth sciences
had a prevalent role in the evolution of traditional ichnology, the development
of modern tracking has been guided by military, zoological, and forensic
specialties since the early nineteenth century. Despite of the commonality of
subject matters and internal logic, ichnology is poorly connected to tracking,
although recent cases of mutual recognition are recorded (i.e., Eiseman et al.,
2010 : ix; Lockley and Meyer, 2000 : 1).
This scenario fits a long-standing trend in science: the uncommunicative
piling-up of similar fields of research ( Campbell, 1969 ). Such clustering of