Ichnotaxonomy: Finding Patterns in a Welter of Information - Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary Environments - page 62

samples of microborings were of assuredly mixed Pleistocene and Holocene
age; should they delay the progress of science until more precise samples could
be collected? Accordingly, Bertling et al. (2006) left the ultimate decision to the
researchers most concerned with their material.
Another problem, pointed out chiefly by R. G. Bromley, was that there is no
material difference between an empty boring and a fossil one or between an aban-
doned burrow and a fossil burrow in an unconsolidated substrate. In this case, the
workshop ichnologists recommended for the sake of clarity that the Linnaean
names given to trace fossils be extended to modern examples but that the ban
on erecting new Linnaean names based on modern material be continued. In the
end, the ban exists to demand that scientists make every possible effort to identify
modern tracemakers rather than simply name the trace.
Which trace fossils should be named, and which should not? Not every jot and
tittle of life activity deserves a formal name. Recall that names are erected for the
purpose of communicationwith others. If the information represented by a fossil is
not worth communicating, then there is no reason to name it. For example, a short,
poorly preserved fragment of a horizontal burrowwith no distinctive features need
notbecalleda Planolites merely because this ichnogenus is described as including
simple horizontal burrows, and a non-descript vertical burrow need not be catego-
rized as Skolithos. Instead, the non-descript burrow can be called simply an inde-
terminate horizontal burrow. Bear in mind that an incomplete, apparently simple
burrow may be part of a branched system!
Open nomenclature can be used effectively to indicate uncertainty. Thus,
Planolites? tubularis indicates that the ichnogeneric assignment is uncertain,while
the ichnospecific assignment is clear; Planolites tubularis? indicates that only the
ichnospecific assignment is uncertain; and ?Planolites tubularis indicates that both
are uncertain. Other nuances can be expressed by the use of abbreviations and quo-
tation marks. “Cf.” (Latin confer ) means “compare”; hence, cf. Planolites means
that the assignment to Planolites is tentative because thematerial is inadequate for
a definitive determination. “Aff.” (Latin affinis, “related to”) is used to indicate that
the material is adequate but that it does not closely resemble the taxon in question,
for example, Planolites aff. P . tubularis refers to a well-preserved specimen that is
definitely Planolites and similar to P . tubularis but may belong to another ichno-
species, possibly an undescribed one. “ Planolites ” indicates that the author is
aware that the name is inappropriate but that no better name can serve under the
circumstances. The added terms (?, cf., aff., “”) are not considered to be parts of
a binominal name, butmodifiers of it. The use of opennomenclature is encouraged.
7.3 The Mechanics of Naming New Ichnospecies
and Ichnogenera
If the researcher has decided that the trace fossil material at hand is distinctive
enough for a name, but no previous name for the material is available, he or she
may give it a new specific name. The new ichnospecies must be proposed within