A History of Ideas in Ichnology - Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary Environments - page 33

specialties results in lack of communication (i.e., unshared knowledge between
ichnologists and biologists) and duplication of effort (i.e., ichnology and track-
ing embody their own separate terminology, nomenclature, and community).
Additionally, this phenomenon produces knowledge gaps between or at the
edges of disciplinary clusters. This is the case of root-related structures, which
fall in a land of convergence between body and trace fossils, therefore posing a
semantic problem in their categorization ( Gregory et al., 2004 ). Although
Sarjeant (1975) clearly recognized root systems as trace fossils, they still remain
an understudied field. Yet, the assessment of plant trace fossils is typically
limited to identifying such structures as “root traces” ( Gregory et al., 2004 ).
Besides the aforementioned semantic issues, the interplay of interpretative,
cultural, and historical factors explains the present state of plant ichnology.
In fact, plant trace fossils offer significant interpretative challenges, while most
of the active ichnologists have a prevailing zoological training ( Gregory et al.,
2004 ). Additionally, two distinct historical phenomena played a crucial role.
First, Nathorst's neoichnological experiments involved crustaceans, annelids,
and bivalves ( Cad ´ e and Goldring, 2007 ), thus suggesting animals as the main
actors in ichnology. Second, and of equal importance, the path between the
Period of Reaction and the Modern Era was mediated by the Senckenberg
Institute. Being a marine research center, it focused on marine invertebrates,
consolidating the leaning toward animal tracemakers.
10.5 Ichnology as a Historical Product
An important point, for our understanding of ichnological innovation, is that the
historical background plays a parallel role in respect to the scientific one.
Paraphrasing Spencer (1896) , ichnologists are the products of their societies,
and their actions would be impossible without the conditions built before their
lifetime. This question does not only involve catastrophic geopolitical events
(e.g., the French Revolution), but also relies on the whole social and cultural
scenario. For instance, success of an ichnological concept depends as much
on the idea itself as on its recognition by the scientific community. A clear
example comes from the roots of ichnology: the innovative ideas of Leonardo
da Vinci did not influence the course of ichnology because he compiled hand-
written manuscripts in mirror-image Italian, at a time when scientific commu-
nication rested on Latin treatises. It is therefore evident that the question of
language and scientific communication plays a crucial role. Dominant schools
of thought often coincide with the lingua franca of the moment: just coincidence
or factual interrelation?
Technology has been a driving force both in the field of scientific commu-
nica tion and in the design of analytic tools. For instance, the invention of
movable-type printing spreads the results of the Scientific Revolution and
allowed the establishment of periodical reports such as the Philosophical Trans-
actions of the Royal Society , one of the oldest scientific journals disseminating