Ichnotaxonomy: Finding Patterns in a Welter of Information - Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary Environments - page 42

Chapter 2
Ichnotaxonomy: Finding Patterns
in a Welter of Information
Andrew K. Rindsberg 1
Department of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of West Alabama, Livingston,
Alabama, USA
1 Corresponding author: e-mail: [e-mail]
1. INTRODUCTION
The chief purpose of ichnotaxonomy is to communicate information about bio-
genic structures, which is best done by naming them. As Frey (1973) and others
have pointed out, in the absence of names, it is difficult to discuss objects with
other people or to recognize previous descriptions as referring to the same
object. Names allow data retrieval in indexed and catalogued form.
Names also allow the classification of the objects that they describe. A sec-
ondary purpose of ichnotaxonomy is to classify biogenic structures in ways that
encourage clarity of thought about them. After many false starts and proposals
(described in detail by Lessertisseur, 1956 and H¨ntzschel, 1975 : W16-W24),
the several classifications of Seilacher (1953) provided the paradigm within
which ichnologists work today. In brief, he proposed that any biogenic structure
could be classified simultaneously in several ways: (1) toponomically, accord-
ing to its relationship with contrasting materials within the substrate; (2) biolog-
ically, according to its relationship to its maker; (3) ethologically, according to
its biological function; and (4) systematically, according to its morphology.
Although Seilacher drew on the previous work of others, no one had presented
these ideas so clearly before. These classifications have been modified and
extended since 1953 (e.g., by Frey and Seilacher, 1980; M¨ ller, 1962 ). All four
systems are used by ichnologists simultaneously, but only the systematic system
is called ichnotaxonomy in the strict sense of providing names within the stan-
dard Linnaean classification.
Good classifications reflect real relationships and therefore have predictive
power—which is generally a good sign that science is taking place rather than
mere fiddling. Many classifications have been proposed that failed this crucial
test, and most of them have not gained acceptance among scientists. For exam-
ple, Faul (1951) proposed a rigidly geometric classification of trackways