Hubbry Logo
Trace fossilTrace fossilMain
Open search
Trace fossil
Community hub
Trace fossil
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Trace fossil
Trace fossil
Trace fossil
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Chirotherium footprints in a Triassic sandstone
Look up ichnofossil in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Part of a series on
Paleontology
Fossils
Geology
Extinction
Evolution
History
Applications
Cultural impact
The trackway Protichnites from the Cambrian, Blackberry Hill, central Wisconsin

A trace fossil, also called an ichnofossil (/ˈɪknoʊˌfɒsɪl/; from Ancient Greek ἴχνος (íkhnos) 'trace, track'), is a fossil record of biological activity by lifeforms, but not the preserved remains of the organism itself.[1] Trace fossils contrast with body fossils, which are the fossilized remains of parts of organisms' bodies, usually altered by later chemical activity or by mineralization. The study of such trace fossils is ichnology - the work of ichnologists.[2]

Trace fossils may consist of physical impressions made on or in the substrate by an organism.[3] For example, burrows, borings (bioerosion), urolites (erosion caused by evacuation of liquid wastes), footprints, feeding marks, and root cavities may all be trace fossils.

The term in its broadest sense also includes the remains of other organic material produced by an organism; for example coprolites (fossilized droppings) or chemical markers (sedimentological structures produced by biological means; for example, the formation of stromatolites). However, most sedimentary structures (for example those produced by empty shells rolling along the sea floor) are not produced through the behaviour of an organism and thus are not considered trace fossils.

The study of traces – ichnology – divides into paleoichnology, or the study of trace fossils, and neoichnology, the study of modern traces. Ichnological science offers many challenges, as most traces reflect the behaviour – not the biological affinity – of their makers. Accordingly, researchers classify trace fossils into form genera based on their appearance and on the implied behaviour, or ethology, of their makers.

Occurrence

[edit]
Cross-section of mammoth footprints at The Mammoth Site, Hot Springs, South Dakota

Traces are better known in their fossilized form than in modern sediments.[4] This makes it difficult to interpret some fossils by comparing them with modern traces, even though they may be extant or even common.[4] The main difficulties in accessing extant burrows stem from finding them in consolidated sediment, and being able to access those formed in deeper water.

This coprolite shows distinct top and bottom jaw bite marks, possibly from a prehistoric gar fish. Discovery location: South Carolina, US; age: Miocene; dimensions: 144.6 mm × 63.41 mm (5.693 in × 2.496 in); weight: 558 g (1 lb 3.7 oz)

Trace fossils are best preserved in sandstones;[4] the grain size and depositional facies both contributing to the better preservation. They may also be found in shales and limestones.[4]

Classification

[edit]
Main article: Trace fossil classification

Trace fossils are generally difficult or impossible to assign to a specific maker. Only in very rare occasions are the makers found in association with their tracks. Further, entirely different organisms may produce identical tracks. Therefore, conventional taxonomy is not applicable, and a comprehensive form of taxonomy has been erected. At the highest level of the classification, five behavioral modes are recognized:[4]

  • Domichnia, dwelling structures reflecting the life position of the organism that created it.
  • Fodinichnia, three-dimensional structures left by animals which eat their way through sediment, such as deposit feeders;
  • Pascichnia, feeding traces left by grazers on the surface of a soft sediment or a mineral substrate;
  • Cubichnia, resting traces, in the form of an impression left by an organism on a soft sediment;
  • Repichnia, surface traces of creeping and crawling.

Fossils are further classified into form genera, a few of which are even subdivided to a "species" level. Classification is based on shape, form, and implied behavioural mode.

To keep body and trace fossils nomenclatorially separate, ichnospecies are erected for trace fossils. Ichnotaxa are classified somewhat differently in zoological nomenclature than taxa based on body fossils (see trace fossil classification for more information). Examples include:

Information provided by ichnofossils

[edit]
Mesolimulus walchi fossil and track, a rare example of tracks and the creature that made them fossilized together

Trace fossils are important paleoecological and paleoenvironmental indicators, because they are preserved in situ, or in the life position of the organism that made them.[5] Because identical fossils can be created by a range of different organisms, trace fossils can only reliably inform us of two things: the consistency of the sediment at the time of its deposition, and the energy level of the depositional environment.[6] Attempts to deduce such traits as whether a deposit is marine or non-marine have been made, but shown to be unreliable.[6]

Paleoecology

[edit]

Trace fossils provide us with indirect evidence of life in the past, such as the footprints, tracks, burrows, borings, and feces left behind by animals, rather than the preserved remains of the body of the actual animal itself. Unlike most other fossils, which are produced only after the death of the organism concerned, trace fossils provide us with a record of the activity of an organism during its lifetime. Unlike body fossils, which can be transported far away from where an individual organism lived, trace fossils record the type of environment an animal actually inhabited and thus can provide a more accurate palaeoecological sample than body fossils.[7]

Trace fossils are formed by organisms performing the functions of their everyday life, such as walking, crawling, burrowing, boring, or feeding. Tetrapod footprints, worm trails and the burrows made by clams and arthropods are all trace fossils.

Perhaps the most spectacular trace fossils are the huge, three-toed footprints produced by dinosaurs and related archosaurs. These imprints give scientists clues as to how these animals lived. Although the skeletons of dinosaurs can be reconstructed, only their fossilized footprints can determine exactly how they stood and walked. Such tracks can tell much about the gait of the animal which made them, what its stride was, and whether the front limbs touched the ground or not.

However, most trace fossils are rather less conspicuous, such as the trails made by segmented worms or nematodes. Some of these worm castings are the only fossil record we have of these soft-bodied creatures.[citation needed]

Palaeopathology

[edit]

Ichnofossils can preserve evidence of pathologies in extinct organisms, particularly in cases where there is a large sample size of a given track type and abnormalities can easily be diagnosed in individual trackways.[8]

Paleoenvironment

[edit]
Eubrontes, a dinosaur footprint in the Lower Jurassic Moenave Formation at the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm, southwestern Utah

Fossil footprints made by tetrapod vertebrates are difficult to identify to a particular species of animal, but they can provide valuable information such as the speed, weight, and behavior of the organism that made them. Such trace fossils are formed when amphibians, reptiles, mammals, or birds walked across soft (probably wet) mud or sand which later hardened sufficiently to retain the impressions before the next layer of sediment was deposited. Some fossils can even provide details of how wet the sand was when they were being produced, and hence allow estimation of paleo-wind directions.[9]

Assemblages of trace fossils occur at certain water depths,[4] and can also reflect the salinity and turbidity of the water column.

Stratigraphic correlation

[edit]

Some trace fossils can be used as local index fossils, to date the rocks in which they are found, such as the burrow Arenicolites franconicus which occurs only in a 4 cm (1+1⁄2 in) layer of the Triassic Muschelkalk epoch, throughout wide areas in southern Germany.[10]

The base of the Cambrian period is defined by the first appearance of the trace fossil Treptichnus pedum.[11]

Trace fossils have a further utility, as many appear before the organism thought to create them, extending their stratigraphic range.[12]

Ichnofacies

[edit]
Main article: Ichnofacies

Ichnofacies are assemblages of individual trace fossils that occur repeatedly in time and space.[13] Palaeontologist Adolf Seilacher pioneered the concept of ichnofacies, whereby geologists infer the state of a sedimentary system at its time of deposition by noting the fossils in association with one another.[4] The principal ichnofacies recognized in the literature are Skolithos, Cruziana, Zoophycos, Nereites, Glossifungites, Scoyenia, Trypanites, Teredolites, and Psilonichus.[13][14] These assemblages are not random. In fact, the assortment of fossils preserved are primarily constrained by the environmental conditions in which the trace-making organisms dwelt.[14] Water depth, salinity, hardness of the substrate, dissolved oxygen, and many other environmental conditions control which organisms can inhabit particular areas.[13] Therefore, by documenting and researching changes in ichnofacies, scientists can interpret changes in environment.[14] For example, ichnological studies have been utilized across mass extinction boundaries, such as the Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction, to aid in understanding environmental factors involved in mass extinction events.[15][16]

Inherent bias

[edit]
Diagram showing how dinosaur footprints are preserved in different deposits

Most trace fossils are known from marine deposits.[17] Essentially, there are two types of traces, either exogenic ones, which are made on the surface of the sediment (such as tracks) or endogenic ones, which are made within the layers of sediment (such as burrows).

Surface trails on sediment in shallow marine environments stand less chance of fossilization because they are subjected to wave and current action. Conditions in quiet, deep-water environments tend to be more favorable for preserving fine trace structures.

Most trace fossils are usually readily identified by reference to similar phenomena in modern environments. However, the structures made by organisms in recent sediment have only been studied in a limited range of environments, mostly in coastal areas, including tidal flats.[citation needed]

Evolution

[edit]
Climactichnites wilsoni, probably trails from a slug-like animal, from the Cambrian, Blackberry Hill, central Wisconsin. The ruler in the background is 45 cm (18 in) long.

The earliest complex trace fossils, not including microbial traces such as stromatolites, date to 2,000 to 1,800 million years ago. This is far too early for them to have an animal origin, and they are thought to have been formed by amoebae.[18] Putative "burrows" dating as far back as 1,100 million years may have been made by animals which fed on the undersides of microbial mats, which would have shielded them from a chemically unpleasant ocean;[19] however their uneven width and tapering ends make a biological origin so difficult to defend[20] that even the original author no longer believes they are authentic.[21]

The first evidence of burrowing which is widely accepted dates to the Ediacaran (Vendian) period, around 560 million years ago.[22] During this period the traces and burrows basically are horizontal on or just below the seafloor surface. Such traces must have been made by motile organisms with heads, which would probably have been bilateran animals.[23] The traces observed imply simple behaviour, and point to organisms feeding above the surface and burrowing for protection from predators.[24] Contrary to widely circulated opinion that Ediacaran burrows are only horizontal the vertical burrows Skolithos are also known.[25] The producers of burrows Skolithos declinatus from the Vendian (Ediacaran) beds in Russia with date 555.3 million years ago have not been identified; they might have been filter feeders subsisting on the nutrients from the suspension. The density of these burrows is up to 245 burrows/dm2.[26] Some Ediacaran trace fossils have been found directly associated with body fossils. Yorgia and Dickinsonia are often found at the end of long pathways of trace fossils matching their shape.[27] The feeding was performed in a mechanical way, supposedly the ventral side of body these organisms was covered with cilia.[28] The potential mollusc related Kimberella is associated with scratch marks, perhaps formed by a radula,[29] further traces from 555 million years ago appear to imply active crawling or burrowing activity.[30]

As the Cambrian got underway, new forms of trace fossil appeared, including vertical burrows (e.g. Diplocraterion) and traces normally attributed to arthropods.[31] These represent a "widening of the behavioural repertoire",[32] both in terms of abundance and complexity.[33]

Trace fossils are a particularly significant source of data from this period because they represent a data source that is not directly connected to the presence of easily fossilized hard parts, which are rare during the Cambrian. Whilst exact assignment of trace fossils to their makers is difficult, the trace fossil record seems to indicate that at the very least, large, bottom-dwelling, bilaterally symmetrical organisms were rapidly diversifying during the early Cambrian.[34]

Further, less rapid[verification needed] diversification occurred since,[verification needed] and many traces have been converged upon independently by unrelated groups of organisms.[4]

Trace fossils also provide our earliest evidence of animal life on land.[35] Evidence of the first animals that appear to have been fully terrestrial dates to the Cambro-Ordovician and is in the form of trackways.[36] Trackways from the Ordovician Tumblagooda sandstone allow the behaviour of other terrestrial organisms to be determined.[9] The trackway Protichnites represents traces from an amphibious or terrestrial arthropod going back to the Cambrian.[37]

Common ichnogenera

[edit]
Petroxestes borings in a hardground from the Upper Ordovician of southern Ohio
Rusophycus trace fossil from the Ordovician of southern Ohio. Scale bar is 10 mm.
Skolithos trace fossil. Scale bar is 10 mm.
Thalassinoides, burrows produced by crustaceans, from the Middle Jurassic, Makhtesh Qatan, southern Israel
Trypanites borings in an Upper Ordovician hardground from northern Kentucky. The borings are filled with diagenetic dolomite (yellowish). The boring on the far right cuts through a shell in the matrix.
Ophiomorpha and Thalassinoides trace fossils produced by crustaceans found at Camacho formation from the Late Miocene in Colonia Department, Uruguay
  • Anoigmaichnus is a bioclaustration. It occurs in the Ordovician bryozoans. Apertures of Anoigmaichnus are elevated above their hosts' growth surfaces, forming short chimney-like structures.
  • Arachnostega is the name given to the irregular, branching burrows in the sediment fill of shells. They are visible on the surface of steinkerns. Their traces are known from the Cambrian period onwards.[38]
  • Asteriacites is the name given to the five-rayed fossils found in rocks and they record the resting place of starfish on the sea floor. Asteriacites are found in European and American rocks, from the Ordovician period onwards, and are numerous in rocks from the Jurassic period of Germany.
  • Burrinjuckia is a bioclaustration. Burrinjuckia includes outgrowths of the brachiopod's secondary shell with a hollow interior in the mantle cavity of a brachiopod.
  • Chondrites (not to be confused with stony meteorites of the same name) are small branching burrows of the same diameter, which superficially resemble the roots of a plant. The most likely candidate for having constructed these burrows is a nematode (roundworm). Chondrites are found in marine sediments from the Cambrian period of the Paleozoic onwards. They are especially common in sediments which were deposited in reduced-oxygen environments.
  • Climactichnites is the name given to surface trails and burrows that consist of a series of chevron-shaped raised cross bars that are usually flanked on either side by a parallel ridge. They somewhat resemble tire tracks, and are larger (typically about 10 cm or 4 in wide) than most of the other trace fossils made by invertebrates. The trails were produced on sandy tidal flats during Cambrian time. While the identity of the animal is still conjectural, it may have been a large slug-like animal – its trails produced as it crawled over and processed the wet sand to obtain food.[39][40]
  • Cruziana are excavation trace marks made on the sea floor which have a two-lobed structure with a central groove. The lobes are covered with scratch marks made by the legs of the excavating organism, usually a trilobite or allied arthropod. Cruziana are most common in marine sediments formed during the Paleozoic era, particularly in rocks from the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. Over 30 ichnospecies of Cruziana have been identified. See also Isopodichnus.
  • Entobia is a boring produced by endolithic clionaid sponges consisting of galleries excavated in a carbonate substrate; often has swollen chambers with connecting canals.
  • Gastrochaenolites are clavate (club-shaped) borings also produced in calcareous hard substrates, usually by bivalves.
  • Oikobesalon is an unbranched, elongate burrow with single-entrance and circular cross-section produced by terebellid polychaetes. They are covered with thin lining which has a transverse ornamentation in the form of fusiform annulation.
  • Petroxestes is a shallow groove boring produced by mytilacean bivalves in carbonate hard substrates.
  • Planolites is a small, 1-5mm (0.039–0.197 in), unlined and rarely branched, elongate burrow with fill that differs from the host rock, and is found throughout the Ediacaran and the Phanerozoic.
  • Protichnites consists of two rows of tracks and a linear depression between the two rows. The tracks are believed to have been made by the walking appendages of arthropods. The linear depression is thought to be the result of a dragging tail. The structures bearing this name were typically made on the tidal flats of Paleozoic seas, but similar ones extend into the Cenozoic.
  • Rhizocorallium is a type of burrow, the inclination of which is typically within 10° of the bedding planes of the sediment. These burrows can be very large, over a meter long in sediments that show good preservation, e.g. Jurassic rocks of the Yorkshire Coast (eastern United Kingdom), but the width is usually only up to 2 centimetres (3⁄4 in), restricted by the size of the organisms producing it. It is thought that they represent fodinichnia as the animal (probably a nematode) scoured the sediment for food.
  • Rogerella is a small pouch-shaped boring with a slit-like aperture currently produced by acrothoracican barnacles.
  • Rusophycus are bilobed "resting traces" associated with trilobites and other arthropods such as horseshoe crabs.
  • Skolithos: One well-known occurrence of Cambrian trace fossils from this period is the famous 'Pipe Rock' of northwest Scotland. The 'pipes' that give the rock its name are closely packed straight tubes- which were presumably made by some kind of worm-like organism. The name given to this type of tube or burrow is Skolithos, which may be 30 cm (12 in) in length and between 2 and 4 cm (3⁄4 and 1+1⁄2 in) in diameter. Such traces are known worldwide from sands and sandstones deposited in shallow water environments, from the Cambrian period (542–488 Ma) onwards.
  • Thalassinoides are burrows which occur parallel to the bedding plane of the rock and are extremely abundant in rocks, worldwide, from the Jurassic period onwards. They are repeatedly branched, with a slight swelling present at the junctions of the tubes. The burrows are cylindrical and vary from 2 to 5 cm (3⁄4 to 2 in) in diameter. Thalassinoides sometimes contain scratch marks, droppings or the bodily remains of the crustaceans which made them.
  • Teichichnus has a distinctive form produced by the stacking of thin 'tongues' of sediment, atop one another. They are again believed to be fodinichnia, with the organism adopting the habit of retracing the same route through varying heights of the sediment, which would allow it to avoid going over the same area. These 'tongues' are often quite sinuous, reflecting perhaps a more nutrient-poor environment in which the feeding animals had to cover a greater area of sediment, in order to acquire sufficient nourishment.
  • Tremichnus is an embedment structure (i.e. bioclaustration) formed by an organism that inhibited growth of the crinoid host stereom.
  • Trypanites are elongated cylindrical borings in calcareous substrates such as shells, carbonate hardgrounds, and limestones. Usually produced by worms of various types and sipunculids.

Other notable trace fossils

[edit]

Less ambiguous than the above ichnogenera, are the traces left behind by invertebrates such as Hibbertopterus, a giant "sea scorpion" or eurypterid of the early Paleozoic era. This marine arthropod produced a spectacular track preserved in Scotland.[41]

Bioerosion through time has produced a magnificent record of borings, gnawings, scratchings and scrapings on hard substrates. These trace fossils are usually divided into macroborings[42] and microborings.[43][44] Bioerosion intensity and diversity is punctuated by two events. One is called the Ordovician Bioerosion Revolution (see Wilson & Palmer, 2006) and the other was in the Jurassic.[45] For a comprehensive bibliography of the bioerosion literature, please see the External links below.

The oldest types of tetrapod tail-and-footprints date back to the latter Devonian period. These vertebrate impressions have been found in Ireland, Scotland, Pennsylvania, and Australia. A sandstone slab containing the track of tetrapod, dated to 400 million years, is amongst the oldest evidence of a vertebrate walking on land.[46]

Important human trace fossils are the Laetoli (Tanzania) footprints, imprinted in volcanic ash 3.7 Ma (million years ago) – probably by an early Australopithecus.[47]

Confusion with other types of fossils

[edit]
Asteriacites (sea star trace fossil) from the Devonian of northeastern Ohio. It appears at first to be an external mold of the body, but the sediment piled between the rays shows that it is a burrow.

Trace fossils are not body casts. The Ediacara biota, for instance, primarily comprises the casts of organisms in sediment. Similarly, a footprint is not a simple replica of the sole of the foot, and the resting trace of a seastar has different details than an impression of a seastar.

Early paleobotanists misidentified a wide variety of structures they found on the bedding planes of sedimentary rocks as fucoids (Fucales, a kind of brown algae or seaweed). However, even during the earliest decades of the study of ichnology, some fossils were recognized as animal footprints and burrows. Studies in the 1880s by A. G. Nathorst and Joseph F. James comparing 'fucoids' to modern traces made it increasingly clear that most of the specimens identified as fossil fucoids were animal trails and burrows. True fossil fucoids are quite rare.

Pseudofossils, which are not true fossils, should also not be confused with ichnofossils, which are true indications of prehistoric life.

[edit]

History

[edit]

Charles Darwin's The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms[a] is an example of a very early work on ichnology, describing bioturbation and, in particular, the burrowing of earthworms.[48]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Trace fossil

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A trace fossil, also known as an ichnofossil, is a geological record of the biological activity of an ancient , preserved in , soil, or wood, but excluding the preserved remains of the organism's body itself. These fossils capture evidence of behaviors such as locomotion, feeding, dwelling, or resting, manifesting as tracks, trails, burrows, borings, root structures, or coprolites (fossilized feces). Unlike body fossils, trace fossils are typically formed in situ and provide direct snapshots of an organism's interaction with its environment, often revealing aspects of that skeletal remains cannot. The study of trace fossils, known as ichnology, examines these structures to interpret ancient ecosystems, including sediment disturbance (bioturbation), environmental conditions like salinity and oxygenation, and evolutionary patterns in animal behavior. Ichnology classifies trace fossils into ichnogenera and ichnospecies based on morphology rather than the identity of the tracemaker, allowing one organism to produce multiple trace types or multiple organisms to create similar ones. Notable examples include Cruziana (trilobite grazing trails from the era), Skolithos (vertical worm burrows in shallow marine settings), dinosaur trackways from the , and modern analogs like thalassinid shrimp burrows (Thalassinoides). Trace fossils are crucial for reconstructing depositional environments and biotic interactions, often preserving evidence where body fossils are scarce, such as in high-energy or acidic settings. They inform on coevolutionary dynamics, like insect-plant relationships through chew marks or nests, and help quantify via ichnofacies—assemblages of traces indicative of specific habitats. Emerging over 200 years ago with contributions from pioneers like George Frederic Matthew, ichnology has advanced through tools like the bioturbation index (BI scale, 0–6) to assess reworking intensity. Today, it integrates with fields like and , using modern observations of infaunal organisms (e.g., worms or bivalves) to refine interpretations of the record.

Definition and Basics

Definition

A trace fossil, also known as an ichnofossil, is a preserved indication of the life activity of an ancient , resulting from its interaction with a substrate to produce a discrete, three-dimensional structure, such as tracks, burrows, borings, or coprolites, but excluding the direct preservation of the organism's body. These structures record behaviors without the organism's remains and are typically found in sedimentary rocks where the original traces were filled, molded, or cast during fossilization. The term "ichnofossil" originates from the Greek word ichnos, meaning "track" or "," reflecting the historical emphasis on preserved trails and as key examples. Trace fossils are classified ethologically according to the behavior they represent, including locomotory traces (repichnia), such as footprints and trails produced during movement; feeding traces (fodinichnia), like burrows excavated for ; dwelling traces (domichnia), such as nests or burrows used for ; and resting traces (cubichnia), formed when an organism pauses on the substrate. Coprolites, fossilized fecal material, are also included as trace fossils since they evidence digestive processes and diet. Ichnology is the branch of dedicated to the study of trace fossils, focusing on their formation, preservation, and interpretation to reconstruct ancient ecosystems and behaviors. While distinct from body fossils, which preserve organism morphology, trace fossils uniquely reveal ecological interactions and locomotion patterns not evident in skeletal remains.

Distinction from Body Fossils

Trace fossils differ fundamentally from body fossils in that they preserve evidence of biological activity and behavior rather than the physical remains or morphology of organisms. Body fossils, such as bones, shells, or petrified wood, capture the anatomical structure of ancient life forms, providing insights into their physical form and taxonomy. In contrast, trace fossils, including footprints, burrows, trails, and borrows, record interactions between organisms and their environment, such as locomotion, feeding, or dwelling activities. This behavioral record is particularly valuable because it reveals dynamic aspects of life that morphology alone cannot convey. A key distinction lies in their relative abundance and preservation potential within sedimentary strata. Trace fossils are often far more common than body fossils in many geological successions, especially in fine-grained sediments where diagenetic processes favor the preservation of traces over delicate body parts. For instance, in environments like marine shelves or floodplains, traces may dominate the fossil record, appearing where body fossils are entirely absent due to rapid or dissolution. This prevalence stems from the fact that traces are formed and can be produced by a wide array of organisms without requiring the preservation of hard parts. Overlaps between the two categories arise in distinguishing true biogenic structures from pseudofossils, which are inorganic formations mimicking biological traces. Pseudofossils, such as dendritic patterns or growths, result from geological processes like or and lack any organic origin, whereas authentic trace fossils exhibit criteria like branching patterns consistent with biological behavior or indicating sequential activity. This differentiation is crucial in ichnology to avoid misinterpretation of the fossil record as abiogenic rather than biogenic. One major advantage of trace fossils is their ability to document soft-bodied organisms, which rarely form body fossils due to the lack of durable hard parts. Most trace fossils, such as worm burrows or arthropod tracks, are attributed to soft-bodied invertebrates, offering a window into otherwise invisible biodiversity and ecological roles in ancient ecosystems. Additionally, traces capture behaviors—like social interactions or environmental responses—not preserved in body fossils, enhancing our understanding of organismal lifestyles. In , trace fossils complement body fossils by indicating the presence of organisms in strata lacking preserved remains, aiding in and environmental reconstruction. While traces generally have longer temporal ranges and are facies-dependent, making them less ideal as precise index fossils, their nature allows them to signal biotic events or boundaries, such as the appearance of complex burrowing in the , even without body evidence. This utility is particularly pronounced in or deep-time records where soft-bodied life predominates.

Formation and Preservation

Processes of Trace Formation

Trace fossils form through the direct interaction of organisms with sedimentary substrates, where biological activities imprint three-dimensional structures that record rather than body morphology. These processes involve mechanical displacement, excavation, or surface modification of the medium by living agents, resulting in traces such as burrows, tracks, trails, and borings. The formation is governed by the organism's , the substrate's physical properties, and the immediate environmental conditions at the time of activity. Biological agents responsible for trace formation span a wide taxonomic range, including animals, , and . Animals, particularly invertebrates like arthropods and annelids, as well as vertebrates, produce traces through locomotion, feeding, and activities; for instance, arthropods create trackways and burrows via movement, while vertebrates leave footprints during traversal. contribute traces, such as rhizoliths, formed by root penetration and growth into sediments, altering through expansion and secretion. , including and , generate subtle traces like biofilms, mat scratches, and disruptions through collective surface activity or chemical dissolution. Traces are categorized ethologically based on the inferred behavior of the trace-maker, a system pioneered by Adolf Seilacher in 1953. Key classes include pascichnia (grazing traces), such as meandering surface trails formed by organisms scraping food from the substrate; fodinichnia (feeding traces), like branched burrows where is mined for nutrients; cubichnia (resting traces), shallow impressions left by brief settling; domichnia (dwelling traces), permanent shelters such as vertical tubes; and repichnia (locomotion traces), linear paths from crawling or walking. Later expansions added classes like agrichnia for farming structures where organisms cultivate food sources, and praedichnia for predation marks. Substrate interactions significantly influence trace morphology and formation, with distinctions between softground, firmground, and hardground conditions. In softgrounds, such as unconsolidated or , traces form through plastic deformation, yielding deep, irregular burrows and undertracks that propagate downward. Firmgrounds, like dewatered or compacted sediments, produce sharper, more defined traces through overprinting or shallow excavation, often seen in transitional ichnofacies. Hardgrounds involve via mechanical scraping or chemical dissolution, resulting in borings that penetrate lithified surfaces. A single organism often produces multiple interconnected traces, particularly evident in trackways that reveal patterns and enable estimates. Trackways consist of sequential footprints where pace length (distance between successive steps of the same foot) and stride length (distance between two consecutive prints of the same foot) indicate quadrupedal or bipedal progression; for example, shorter paces relative to stride suggest cautious movement, while longer ones imply faster . can be approximated using formulas that incorporate these measurements along with body size proxies, such as Alexander's 1976 equation relating stride length to hip height for dimensionless speed .

Taphonomic Factors

Taphonomic processes begin after the initial formation of traces through animal- interactions and determine whether these structures are preserved or destroyed prior to . Common pathways include infilling, where open burrows or tracks are filled with overlying or adjacent , often creating positive casts that mimic the original structure. Casting occurs when unconsolidated infill material hardens differently from the surrounding substrate, enhancing visibility upon exposure. can remove shallow traces or upper portions of burrows, particularly in high-energy environments, while compaction distorts deeper structures through sediment loading, though firm substrates may resist such deformation. Ultimately, transforms these -filled traces into durable rock, preserving them as part of the stratigraphic record. Several environmental factors influence the likelihood of trace preservation. Sediment type plays a critical role, with cohesive muds providing better support for traces than loose sands, which are prone to collapse or rapid reworking. Water depth affects exposure to currents and waves; shallow settings may promote of surface traces, whereas deeper, quieter waters favor infilling and . Bioturbation, the subsequent activity of organisms, often overwrites or destroys earlier traces by mixing sediments, reducing the of the preserved record—low bioturbation levels, as seen in early strata, thus enhance preservation potential. These factors collectively control ichnological , or the completeness of the biogenic record, and trace visibility, determined by contrasts in texture, color, or composition with the host rock. Diagenetic alterations further modify traces during burial. Hardening of burrow walls and infills occurs through cementation, where minerals precipitate to stabilize structures against later compaction. Mineralization processes, such as silicification, can replace organic linings or fill voids with silica, preserving fine details in otherwise perishable traces—for instance, chalcedonic linings in quartz-rich settings. These changes enhance but may obscure original morphologies if overprinted by multiple diagenetic phases. The degree of bioturbation and its impact on trace preservation is quantified using ichnofabric indices, which assess the extent of disturbance. The widely adopted scale by Droser and Bottjer ranges from 1 (no bioturbation, with all primary intact) to 6 (complete homogenization, where traces are unrecognizable due to intense reworking). Intermediate levels, such as index 2 (discrete, isolated traces covering less than 10% of the surface), indicate moderate preservation, while higher indices like 4 (overlapping traces covering 40-60%) reflect increasing overlap and loss of detail. This semiquantitative approach aids in evaluating taphonomic overprinting across strata.

Geological Occurrence

Spatial Distribution

Trace fossils exhibit a strong bias toward marine depositional environments, where they are most abundant in shallow-marine settings such as tidal flats, beaches, and subtidal zones that experience periodic oxygenation and sediment reworking conducive to preservation. In contrast, terrestrial occurrences are far less common, primarily confined to continental settings like fluvial channels, floodplains, and lake margins, where factors such as levels, sedimentation rates, and substrate stability control their distribution and abundance. Deep-sea environments host few trace fossils due to persistent low oxygen levels and fine-grained, stable sediments that limit bioturbation, while aerial or exposures rarely preserve traces owing to erosion and lack of cohesive substrates. Globally, trace fossils occur across all continents from strata featuring simple, unlined burrows in deposits of , , and Newfoundland, to modern coastal and inland sediments. Notable hotspots include successions worldwide, where the explosion of complex traces—such as arthropod trackways and vertical burrows—marks a dramatic increase in diversity and appears in rocks from (), ( and ), and (). This widespread distribution reflects the broad ecological success of trace-makers adapting to varied substrates over geological time. Lithologically, trace fossils are frequently preserved in sandstones and carbonates, where permeable, coarser-grained fabrics allow for infilling and cementation that enhance visibility and structural integrity. They are comparatively rare in shales, particularly black shales, because anoxic bottom waters during deposition suppress infaunal activity and bioturbation, resulting in laminated sediments devoid of burrows. Discoveries in the 2020s continue to expand the known spatial range of trace fossils, including trace-like body fossils of Palaeopascichnus in Arctic Norway's Digermulen Peninsula, revealing early metazoan activity in high-latitude settings previously underrepresented. Similarly, new assemblages of terrestrial traces from post-extinction recovery intervals in central China's Permian-Triassic boundary sections highlight previously undocumented continental interior distributions in non-marine .

Temporal Range

Trace fossils first appear in the geological record during the Period, with the oldest known examples consisting of simple horizontal trails and surface traces dated to approximately 565 million years ago (Ma) from the Mistaken Point Formation in Newfoundland. These early traces, such as Helminthoidichnites and Torrowangea, represent basic locomotion or grazing behaviors by small, soft-bodied metazoans and exhibit low ichnodiversity, typically limited to unbranched, shallow (less than 1 cm deep) structures with minimal bioturbation. By the late (around 550–541 Ma), slightly more varied traces emerge, including fan-like scratch marks associated with bilaterian animals like , but overall complexity remains low compared to later periods. A marked diversification of trace fossils occurs at the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary, aligning with the . In the Fortunian Stage (541–529 Ma), ichnodiversity surges to around 40 ichnogenera, featuring more complex horizontal and vertical burrows such as Rusophycus (resting traces) and Psammichnites (feeding trails), with penetration depths reaching up to 8 cm and bioturbation indices up to 3. By Stage 2 (529–521 Ma), vertical dwelling burrows like Skolithos become prominent, marking the onset of deeper sediment mixing (up to 100 cm), and ichnodiversity stabilizes around 43–55 ichnogenera through Stage 3 (521–514 Ma), incorporating deposit-feeding structures. This rapid increase reflects enhanced ecological structuring and behavioral innovation among early metazoans. Throughout the Eon, trace fossil assemblages evolve in tandem with major biological radiations. In the Era, vertical burrows dominate, exemplified by dense Skolithos ichnofacies in shallow-marine settings from the Cambrian to , indicating suspension-feeding communities in high-energy environments. The Mesozoic Era features abundant tetrapod trackways, particularly from dinosaurs, such as theropod and sauropod prints in sediments (e.g., 100–72 Ma formations), highlighting terrestrial locomotion and herd behaviors. In the Era, mammal traces proliferate, including complex burrows attributed to rodents and xenarthrans in paleosols (e.g., 23–5 Ma), reflecting burrowing adaptations in diverse terrestrial habitats. The trace fossil record shows notable gaps, particularly in the Eon, where traces are scarce before 565 Ma due to persistently low atmospheric and oceanic oxygen levels (often below 10% of present atmospheric levels), limiting metazoan activity and sediment interaction. Mass extinctions further disrupt ichnodiversity; for instance, the end-Permian event (252 Ma) drastically reduces burrow complexity and abundance in its immediate aftermath, with recovery delayed by millions of years as ecospace utilization rebounds slowly. Overall, ichnodiversity curves for trace fossils closely parallel those of body fossils across the , with explosive increases in the early , plateaus through the Paleozoic-Mesozoic, and continued diversification in the , underscoring shared evolutionary drivers.

Classification Systems

Ichnotaxonomy

Ichnotaxonomy is the formal system for classifying and naming trace fossils based primarily on their morphology, which reflects the of the trace-making organism rather than the identity of the producer itself. This approach treats traces as independent entities, distinct from body fossils, allowing for a hierarchical that facilitates communication and comparison across geological contexts. The classification follows a Linnaean-like , including ichnogenera (grouping similar traces) and ichnospecies (distinguishing variants within genera), with provisions for ichnofamilies and when justified by consistent morphological differences. Naming adheres to the (ICZN), adapted for ichnofossils, which requires the designation of type specimens—such as holotypes—to anchor each and ensure reproducibility. Parataxonomy is employed here, as the taxonomy of traces operates parallel to that of body fossils without direct links to specific producers, emphasizing behavioral and architectural features over biological affiliation. Challenges in ichnotaxonomy arise from intraspecific variation in trace production, where a single or can generate diverse forms depending on environmental conditions, and from preservational variants, such as the same trace appearing differently in soft versus firm substrates or as overtracks versus undertracks. These factors demand careful consideration of ethological and taphonomic contexts to avoid oversplitting or lumping ichnotaxa, with recommendations against using poorly preserved material as types. Historically, ichnotaxonomy evolved from 19th-century informal designations, often misinterpreting traces as plant remains like "fucoids," to structured systems post-1970s, driven by seminal works that emphasized behavioral interpretation and standardized nomenclature. Pioneers like Walter Häntzschel compiled early data into formal treatises in 1962 and 1975, while Adolf Seilacher and Ronald Frey advanced holistic, morphology-based frameworks in the 1970s, laying the groundwork for modern practice. For instance, binomial naming conventions, such as Cruziana furcifera, exemplify this hierarchy in application.

Hierarchical Naming

The hierarchical naming of trace fossils follows ichnotaxonomic principles, employing a structure analogous to biological but adapted to the behavioral and morphological attributes of traces rather than organisms. At the highest level, ichnofamilies group related ichnogenera based on shared architectural features, such as branching patterns or overall form, to facilitate broader classification amid the growing number of described traces. Ichnogenera represent the primary unit, defined by distinctive morphology, while ichnospecies denote variations within an ichnogenus, often distinguished by subtle differences in size, ornamentation, or branching. This binominal system, using Latin or Latinized names, assigns a name followed by a specific , as in Cruziana furcifera, ensuring standardized communication across studies. Key components of this nomenclature include the trace's form (e.g., cylindrical, branched, or furrow-like), orientation (vertical, horizontal, or oblique), and fill (sediment infill versus active backfilling), which serve as primary ichnotaxobases for differentiation. Substrate type acts as a modifier, leading to substrate-specific ichnospecies designations, such as softground versus firmground variants, to account for preservational influences without implying separate tracemakers. For instance, revisions in ichnotaxonomy often involve merging synonyms where traces previously split by substrate or minor form differences are recognized as preservational variants of the same ichnospecies. Illustrative examples highlight this hierarchy: the ichnogenus Arthrophycus encompasses segmented, horizontal worm-like trails with annulated surfaces, interpreted as feeding burrows (fodichnia), with ichnospecies like A. alleghaniensis defined by consistent branching and tapering. Similarly, Skolithos denotes simple, vertical burrows typically lined and unbranched, serving as a structure (domichnia), with S. linearis as a common ichnospecies varying in diameter but maintaining cylindrical form. Such naming has undergone refinements, such as synonymizing overlapping descriptions to reduce redundancy. Since the , digital databases like Fossilworks have supported standardized ichnotaxonomic naming by compiling global occurrence data, enabling cross-verification and reducing nomenclatural inconsistencies.

Insights into Ancient Life

Paleoecological Information

Trace fossils offer critical insights into the behaviors of ancient organisms, revealing aspects of their locomotion, feeding, and social interactions that body fossils often cannot preserve. By analyzing trackways, burrows, and other biogenic structures, paleoecologists reconstruct how extinct animals moved, foraged, and interacted within their communities. These traces document direct evidence of activity patterns, such as the pace and gait of terrestrial vertebrates or the burrowing habits of marine invertebrates, providing a window into the ethology of prehistoric ecosystems. Behavioral evidence from trace fossils includes estimates of locomotion speed derived from trackway analysis. A common method uses Alexander's formula: v=0.25g0.5SL1.67h−1.17v = 0.25 g^{0.5} SL^{1.67} h^{-1.17}, where SLSL is stride length, hh is hip height (often approximated as 4 times foot length), and gg is (9.81 m/s²), allowing researchers to infer gaits like walking, trotting, or running, though such estimates can overestimate speeds by 1.17 to 4.74 times on compliant substrates due to factors like non-steady locomotion. In dinosaur trackways, such metrics have shown variations in and speed, from slow ambles to rapid pursuits, highlighting adaptive locomotor strategies. Feeding strategies are similarly evident in grazing traces like meandering trails (e.g., Helminthopsis) that indicate deposit-feeding by worms probing sediments for , or spiral burrows (e.g., Circulichnis) suggesting systematic exploration for resources. Sociality is apparent in clustered or parallel trackways, such as those from sauropod herds, where overlapping paths suggest gregarious behavior and group migration patterns. Community dynamics are illuminated by traces showing interspecies interactions, including predator-prey relationships and . Borings in shells or escape structures in burrows provide evidence of predation pressure, as seen in terminal Cloudina fossils where drill holes indicate active hunting by early predators. Overlapping burrows, such as those where one trace truncates or avoids another, reflect competition for space or resources among infaunal organisms, demonstrating how benthic communities partitioned habitats to reduce conflict. Trace fossils are particularly valuable for documenting soft-bodied life forms that rarely fossilize as body parts. Burrows and trails attributed to annelids, such as simple sinuous traces like , or cnidarian-like holdfast impressions, reveal the presence and activities of these groups in ancient seafloors, extending the known diversity of early metazoans beyond mineralized remains. Quantitative from trace fossils emphasizes tiering levels, which describe vertical partitioning of burrowing activities into surface, shallow, and deep tiers, indicating niche separation within communities. For example, shallow-tier grazing traces coexist with deeper dwelling burrows in sediments, suggesting that organisms exploited different depths to avoid overlap and enhance resource access, thereby stabilizing structure. This tiering reflects evolutionary adaptations to substrate conditions and .

Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction

Trace fossils serve as key proxies for reconstructing ancient environmental conditions by recording the responses of organisms to physical and chemical parameters such as water energy, oxygen levels, and . In high-energy settings, such as shallow marine or intertidal zones, assemblages dominated by vertical burrows, like those of the Skolithos ichnofacies, indicate stable, shifting substrates where organisms construct deep, suspension-feeding structures to withstand wave action and currents. Conversely, low-energy environments, including deeper shelf or basin settings, feature horizontal, meandering traces such as those in the Cruziana or Zoophycos ichnofacies, reflecting grazing and deposit-feeding behaviors in calmer waters with soft, fine-grained sediments. Oxygenation levels are inferred from the and of trace assemblages, with sparse, shallow burrows signaling dysoxic conditions that limit infaunal activity, as seen in black shales where only simple, surface trails persist. In well-oxygenated settings, diverse, deep-tier burrows indicate thriving benthic communities capable of extensive reworking. fluctuations are revealed through trace diversity; low-diversity suites with robust, simple forms, such as in brackish estuaries, suggest stressed conditions, while higher diversity correlates with normal marine salinities. Substrate consistency provides insights into depositional hiatuses and erosion, with the Glossifungites ichnofacies—characterized by sharp-walled, unlined burrows like Diplocraterion and Lingulichnus—forming in firmgrounds that represent omission surfaces or ravinement zones following sea-level changes. Climate signals emerge from terrestrial root traces (rhizoliths), where dense, branching networks in paleosols denote humid conditions with established vegetation, contrasting with sparse or calcified roots in arid settings indicative of water-limited soils. Intertidal ichnofacies, such as Scoyenia, further track relative sea-level variations by marking transitions between subaerial exposure and marine inundation. Integration of trace fossils with sedimentological data enhances depositional models; for instance, fill matching overlying s reveals passive infilling during , while ichnofabrics—blends of traces and host —illuminate substrate modifications and regimes in mixed systems. This combined approach refines interpretations of coastal to deep-marine transitions, highlighting how trace makers interact with evolving substrates to preserve environmental dynamics.

Stratigraphic Applications

Trace fossils serve as valuable tools in , particularly through the use of index ichnospecies that exhibit restricted stratigraphic ranges, enabling the definition of key boundaries in the geological record. A prominent example is Treptichnus pedum, a complex, branching burrow system whose first appearance datum (FAD) marks the base of the Period and the Ediacaran- boundary, as ratified by the . This ichnospecies, characterized by its segmented, meandering trails, indicates the onset of more sophisticated bilaterian behaviors and is recognized globally in shallow-marine sediments, providing a reliable marker despite occasional identification challenges due to morphological variability. Ichnostratigraphy extends these biostratigraphic principles to across sedimentary basins, leveraging assemblages of trace fossils to establish relative chronostratigraphic frameworks where body fossils are scarce or absent. In Early Paleozoic successions, for instance, ichnotaxa such as Cruziana acacensis and Arthrophycus alleghaniensis facilitate interbasinal correlations, with the former restricted to the Stage in n settings and the latter appearing in the same stage across both and . Event beds, such as those associated with mass extinction recoveries or anoxic events, are often highlighted by distinctive trace horizons, like sudden increases in burrowing intensity or the appearance of opportunistic ichnogenera (e.g., Planolites), which aid in matching strata over wide areas, as demonstrated in correlations between the Parnaíba, Paraná, and Amazonas basins in . Bifungites, with its range from to Mississippian but peaks in the Eifelian–Givetian, serves as a recurrent marker for mid-Paleozoic intervals in these regions. In sequence stratigraphy, trace fossils provide insights into depositional dynamics by reflecting responses to changes in accommodation space, energy levels, and substrate conditions within systems tracts. During transgressive systems tracts (TSTs), high-energy flooding surfaces are commonly colonized by the Glossifungites ichnofacies, featuring firmground burrows such as Thalassinoides and Skolithos that exploit eroded substrates, as seen in the Viking Formation of , , where these traces demarcate ravinement surfaces and retrogradational parasequences. In contrast, regressive systems tracts (RSTs) and highstand systems tracts exhibit more diverse, softground assemblages of the Cruziana ichnofacies, including Planolites and Teichichnus, indicative of progradational shoreface environments with stable, muddy substrates, helping to delineate sequence boundaries and maximum flooding surfaces in settings. Despite these applications, ichnostratigraphy faces limitations, primarily due to the generally long stratigraphic ranges of many trace fossils, which reduce their precision as zonal markers compared to body fossils; for example, while index ichnospecies like Treptichnus pedum have short ranges, others such as Bifungites span tens of millions of years, complicating fine-scale resolution. To address this, post-2000 integrations with chemostratigraphy—using carbon and oxygen profiles alongside trace fossil data—have enhanced accuracy, particularly in Precambrian-Cambrian transitions, as in the southern where T. pedum occurrences are calibrated against δ¹³C excursions. Such multidisciplinary approaches mitigate biases from taphonomic overprinting and provincialism in ichnofaunas.

Ichnofacies and Assemblages

Conceptual Framework

The ichnofacies model conceptualizes recurrent assemblages of trace fossils as indicators of ancient environmental conditions, providing a framework for interpreting the behavioral responses of organisms to their substrates and habitats. Introduced by Adolf Seilacher in 1967, this paradigm posits that certain groupings of biogenic structures recur across geological time and space due to consistent ecological controls, rather than taxonomic affinity of the tracemakers. These assemblages function as models, distilling ichnological patterns to infer depositional settings without relying solely on body fossils. At its core, an ichnofacies represents a biofacies governed by key environmental parameters, including hydrodynamic , substrate consistency, and oxygenation. High-energy settings typically favor simple, vertical burrows adapted to shifting sands, while soft, muddy substrates under low-oxygen conditions promote horizontal traces or shallow infaunal dwellings. Oxygenation levels further modulate trace complexity, with well-oxygenated environments supporting diverse, tiered structures compared to dysoxic zones where traces are sparse and opportunistic. This interplay allows ichnofacies to serve as proxies for paleoenvironmental reconstructions, such as shelf gradients or basin margins. Over geological time, ichnofacies exhibit evolutionary shifts in dominance, particularly between and post- eras, reflecting changes in marine infaunal ecosystems. In the , the Skolithos ichnofacies often dominated shallow-marine settings with abundant simple vertical tubes like Skolithos, linked to suspension-feeding annelids or early sipunculans in high-energy sands. Post-Paleozoic assemblages, however, show a transition to more complex, branched dwellings such as Ophiomorpha, produced by callianassid shrimps, indicating a rise in deposit-feeding crustaceans and reduced prevalence of Skolithos-dominated piperock. These changes underscore broader biotic innovations, including the , where predation pressures drove deeper burrowing and architectural complexity. The Seilacherian model faced criticisms for its initial emphasis on bathymetry as the primary control, potentially oversimplifying multifactorial influences like substrate type and leading to misinterpretations in non-marine or transitional settings. In response, 1990s revisions by researchers including James A. MacEachern and S. George Pemberton expanded the framework to include substrate-controlled ichnofacies, recognizing traces formed on firmgrounds (Glossifungites), woodgrounds (Teredolites), and hardgrounds (Trypanites). These modifications highlight colonization of omission surfaces during sea-level fluctuations, enhancing the model's utility in while addressing earlier limitations in accounting for lithified or consolidated substrates.

Key Ichnofacies Models

Ichnofacies models represent recurrent assemblages of trace fossils that characterize specific depositional environments, providing a framework for interpreting ancient ecosystems based on behavioral patterns preserved in the rock record. Originally formalized by Seilacher in , these models emphasize the interplay between substrate consistency, energy levels, oxygenation, and organism-substrate interactions, with archetypal marine examples including the Skolithos, Cruziana, Zoophycos, and Nereites ichnofacies. Continental extensions, such as the Mermia and Coprinisphaera ichnofacies, have been developed more recently to address nonmarine settings. These models facilitate paleoenvironmental reconstructions by linking trace fossil distributions to sedimentary , enabling inferences about depth, sedimentation rates, and ecological tiering— the vertical stratification of burrowing activities within the . The Skolithos ichnofacies typifies high-energy, shallow-marine environments like sandy shorefaces and tidal flats, where vertical burrows dominate due to suspension-feeding and rapid substrate shifts. Characteristic traces include upright, cylindrical burrows such as Skolithos and Ophiomorpha, reflecting low diversity but high abundance in well-oxygenated, shifting sands; tiering is shallow, with organisms exploiting firm substrates for stability. This assemblage indicates littoral zones subject to wave or tidal reworking, with modern analogs in intertidal beaches where polychaetes and crustaceans produce similar vertical dwellings. In contrast, the Cruziana ichnofacies occurs in moderate-energy, subtidal to intertidal settings such as offshore shelves and estuaries, featuring horizontal traces that exploit stable, silty substrates for deposit feeding. Dominant ichnotaxa include or scratch traces like Cruziana and Rusophycus, alongside burrows such as Thalassinoides, with moderate to high diversity and deeper tiering that records complex and dwelling behaviors. These assemblages signal protected, low-to-moderate wave-base environments, aiding in mapping ancient coastlines through correlations with shelf gradients. The Zoophycos ichnofacies characterizes deeper, quieter waters below storm wave base, often in oxygen-stressed, fine-grained sediments of the outer shelf to . It is marked by low-diversity, deep-tiering spreiten structures like Zoophycos and Chondrites, which reflect specialized deposit-feeding strategies in low-energy, potentially dysoxic conditions with slow . This model highlights adaptations to marginal marine habitats, with applications in reconstructing bathymetric profiles across continental margins. Deeper still, the Nereites ichnofacies dominates abyssal plains and systems, where meandering, graphoglyptid traces indicate well-oxygenated, fine-grained substrates with episodic . Key components include spiral and winding burrows such as Nereites, Helminthopsis, and , showing high diversity in shallow tiers but sparse deep penetration, suited to opportunistic recolonization after flows. It serves as an indicator for deep-sea fan deposits, with modern analogs in hemipelagic oozes where infaunal worms create persistent networks. For nonmarine realms, the Mermia ichnofacies applies to low-energy lacustrine and fluvial settings, dominated by horizontal, sinuous traces in soft, anoxic muds. Representative traces include Mermia and Helminthopsis, with moderate diversity emphasizing grazing and meandering behaviors in stable, subaqueous substrates; it contrasts with marine models by lacking vertical dwellings due to periodic anoxia. This assemblage aids in delineating basins and river floodplains. Terrestrial expansions include the Coprinisphaera ichnofacies, proposed for in arid to semi-arid continental interiors, featuring insect-generated structures in well-drained . Dominant traces are spherical chambers like Coprinisphaera ( brood balls) and meniscate burrows from or , with low to moderate diversity and tiering confined to horizons, indicating warm, vegetated landscapes with herbivore activity. Post-2010 refinements have integrated this model into broader continental frameworks, enhancing paleogeographic reconstructions of ancient ecosystems and zones through correlations with paleosol maturity.
IchnofaciesIndicative EnvironmentDominant TracesKey Characteristics
SkolithosHigh-energy shoreface, tidal flatsSkolithos, Ophiomorpha (vertical burrows)Low diversity, high abundance, shallow tiering in shifting sands
CruzianaModerate-energy shelves, estuariesCruziana, Thalassinoides (horizontal traces)Moderate-high diversity, deeper tiering, stable substrates
ZoophycosOxygen-stressed slope, below wave baseZoophycos, Chondrites (spreiten)Low diversity, deep tiering, slow sedimentation
NereitesDeep-sea turbidites, abyssal plainsNereites, Paleodictyon (meandering)High diversity, shallow tiering, episodic deposition
MermiaLacustrine, fluvial mudsMermia, Helminthopsis (sinuous)Moderate diversity, horizontal grazing, anoxic-tolerant
CoprinisphaeraPaleosols in arid interiorsCoprinisphaera, termite burrowsLow-moderate diversity, soil-bound tiering, herbivore-linked

Biases and Challenges

Preservation Biases

Trace fossils are subject to various taphonomic biases that systematically distort the preserved record, primarily through differential preservation influenced by substrate conditions, sediment dynamics, and . Shallow-tier traces, such as simple horizontal burrows or surface trails, exhibit preferential preservation compared to deeper structures because they are less susceptible to compaction, , or infilling during burial, particularly in firm substrates like early muds where initial firmness limited penetration and destruction. In contrast, deeper traces are often obliterated by ongoing sedimentation or physical reworking, resulting in an overrepresentation of surficial to shallow activities in the ichnological record. Overwriting by later bioturbators further exacerbates these taphonomic biases, as subsequent burrowing organisms disrupt and homogenize earlier traces, favoring the preservation of the most recent or dominant tracemaker activities over a complete stratigraphic sequence of behaviors. For instance, in mixed-layer sediments, new traces commonly overprint prior formations, erasing evidence of earlier, less intense bioturbation and creating a biased snapshot of at specific temporal points. This process is particularly pronounced in high-energy marine environments where repeated events lead to hierarchical overprinting, obscuring the full diversity of ancient benthic communities. Taxonomic biases in the trace fossil record arise from the underrepresentation of traces produced by small-bodied or soft-substrate dwellers, as these structures are more prone to collapse, erosion, or invisibility during fossilization. Meiobenthic traces, those made by microscopic organisms, are systematically underrepresented due to their diminutive size and fragility, which make them difficult to detect and preserve amid coarser sedimentary fabrics. Similarly, traces in soft, unconsolidated substrates often fail to maintain morphology, leading to poor preservation of activities by soft-bodied that lack the to imprint lasting forms. Size-dependent visibility compounds this issue, with larger traces from megafaunal tracemakers dominating outcrops while smaller ones are overlooked or destroyed by , skewing perceptions of ancient toward larger taxa. Temporal biases manifest through "Lagerstätten" effects, where exceptional preservation in rare sites artificially inflates local ichnodiversity, as seen in the where trace fossils associated with non-biomineralized carcasses are shielded and preserved under anoxic conditions that inhibit decay and bioturbation. Conversely, gaps appear during low-diversity intervals, such as parts of the or anoxic events, where unfavorable conditions like rapid or oxygen depletion suppress trace formation and preservation, creating apparent absences in the record that do not reflect true ecological sparsity. To mitigate these preservation biases, ichnologists employ statistical sampling techniques to quantify and correct for uneven representation in diversity assessments, using metrics like ichnodiversity indices derived from systematic field surveys to normalize data across sites and intervals. Additionally, since the , 3D imaging methods such as computed (CT) scans have revolutionized the detection of hidden traces within cores or matrices, enabling non-destructive visualization of obscured structures like vertical burrows that would otherwise remain undetected. These approaches, including micro-CT for high-resolution reconstructions, help reconstruct complete ichnofabrics and reduce visibility-related underrepresentation.

Interpretive Limitations

One major interpretive limitation in ichnology arises from producer uncertainty, where multiple taxa can generate morphologically similar traces due to convergent behaviors or anatomical adaptations. For instance, simple horizontal burrows may be produced by diverse such as polychaetes, arthropods, or even vertebrates, complicating direct attribution to a specific . This convergence obscures phylogenetic links and hinders precise reconstructions of ancient . Behavioral ambiguity further challenges interpretations, as the same trace morphology can represent different activities, such as distinguishing feeding structures (fodichnia or pascichnia) from escape burrows (fugichnia) formed during sudden environmental stress like influx. Without contextual like associated body fossils or substrate conditions, ethological assignments remain tentative, potentially leading to erroneous inferences about ancient ecological dynamics. For example, branched networks like Chondrites are often interpreted as feeding traces, but could alternatively reflect refuge construction or irrigation in response to oxygenation gradients. Anthropogenic influences and pseudofossils exacerbate these issues by introducing non-biogenic mimics that resemble true traces. Modern human activities, such as machinery tracks or agricultural furrows, can preserve in sediments and be mistaken for ancient ichnofossils in outcrop studies, while inorganic features like mud cracks (desiccation polygons) or synaeresis cracks often simulate burrow networks, as seen in cases where polygonal patterns are confused with Thalassinoides-like structures. These pseudofossils arise from physical processes like shrinkage or loading, lacking biological indicators such as scratch marks or linings, yet their differentiation requires careful sedimentological analysis to avoid misidentification. Advances in neoichnology and experimental ichnology address these limitations by providing modern analogs and controlled tests to validate interpretations. Neoichnology observes extant organisms producing traces in natural settings, revealing how factors like substrate consistency influence morphology and helping resolve producer ambiguities—for example, documenting how different arthropods create convergent patterns. Experimental approaches, involving lab simulations of ancient conditions, further refine behavioral distinctions, such as replicating escape versus feeding responses under varying flows, thereby enhancing the reliability of paleoecological inferences.

Evolutionary Significance

Behavioral Evolution

Trace fossils from the era, particularly the period (approximately 635–538 Ma), are characterized by their simplicity, consisting primarily of unlined, horizontal trails such as Helminthoidichnites, Helminthopsis, Archaeonassa, and Gordia, which rarely exceed a few centimeters in depth and show no branching or vertical penetration. These structures, often preserved on grounds, indicate early in bilaterian animals through basic locomotion patterns like or sliding, representing the initial colonization of seafloors by mobile metazoans without complex sediment reworking. Such traces reflect a pre-infaunal lifestyle, where organisms grazed on surface mats rather than exploiting subsurface resources, marking the onset of animal-sediment interactions. The Cambrian substrate revolution, beginning around 541 Ma, transformed these simple patterns into more structured behaviors, exemplified by the appearance of vertical burrows like Skolithos, Treptichnus, and Diplocraterion in shallow marine settings by Stage 2 (approximately 529 Ma). This shift signaled widespread infaunalization, as animals began penetrating and mixing sediments to depths of up to 10–20 cm, creating a that homogenized the seafloor and disrupted microbial mats. Vertical burrowing behaviors, such as suspension feeding and dwelling, expanded ecospace utilization, with ichnodiversity surging from fewer than 10 ichnogenera in the to over 30 by the mid-, reflecting adaptive responses to newly available niches. Throughout the eon, trace-making behaviors evolved toward greater complexity, with notable innovations in the period (419–359 Ma) including trackways such as Ichthyichnus and Trackway A, which preserve digit impressions and alternating patterns from early limbed vertebrates in marginal marine environments. These traces demonstrate coordinated limb use for propulsion, likely in subaqueous or semi-terrestrial contexts, highlighting the transition from fin-based to limb-driven locomotion. By the Cretaceous period (145–66 Ma), social behaviors emerged in insect traces, as evidenced by amber-preserved nests and galleries of (Formicidae) and (Isoptera), including worker-soldier caste systems in species like Krishnatermes yoddha and polymorphic ant assemblages showing aggregation and combat. These structures indicate , with partitioned chambers for brood care and foraging tunnels, representing advanced cooperative behaviors that enhanced colony survival. Key drivers of this behavioral evolution included rising oceanic oxygenation levels, which facilitated deeper burrowing by enabling aerobic respiration in infaunal tiers, as seen in the correlation between Ediacaran-Cambrian trace depth increases and expanded oxic zones. The metazoan radiation during the further propelled diversification, with bilaterian innovations in musculature and nervous systems allowing for programmed actions like branching and tiering. Behavioral complexity is quantified through indices such as ichnodisparity (measuring architectural variety) and tiering depth (vertical stratification), which rose from shallow, unbranched forms in the (complexity index ~1–2) to multi-tiered, branched systems in the (index >5), underscoring progressive ecological engineering.

Role in Broader Evolutionary Narratives

Trace fossils play a pivotal role in elucidating major evolutionary transitions, particularly the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary, where they document the initial diversification of bilaterian behaviors prior to the appearance of diverse body fossils. Horizontal traces like Helminthopsis and simple vertical burrows in strata indicate early metazoan substrate interactions around 565–550 Ma, marking a shift from microbial mats to animal-mediated ecosystems, which preceded the of body fossils by millions of years. This suggests an ecological turnover driven by increasing oxygen levels and environmental changes, providing a behavioral prelude to the rapid metazoan radiation. Recent 3D analyses (as of 2025) have uncovered more complex trace fossils, suggesting earlier diversification of metazoan behaviors around 545 Ma, further bridging the Ediacaran-Cambrian transition. In the aftermath of the end-Permian mass extinction, trace fossils reveal staggered recovery patterns in marine ecosystems, with initial dominance of simple, shallow-tier burrows reflecting opportunistic recolonization by disaster taxa, followed by increased complexity and depth penetration by the . Ichnoassemblages from and elsewhere show that bioturbation levels remained low for up to 5 million years post-extinction, highlighting prolonged ecological stress before full recovery to pre-extinction diversity around 10 million years later. This record underscores how trace fossils capture the selective of basic feeding and dwelling behaviors, informing the tempo of macroevolutionary rebound after the most severe biotic crisis. Trace fossils also illuminate ghost lineages, extending the known history of clades like early euarthropods beyond body fossil records. For instance, arthropod-like traces such as Cruziana and Rusophycus appear in the early (ca. 530 Ma), predating definitive body fossils and implying a stem-lineage origin in the , thus filling phylogenetic gaps estimated at 10–15 million years. This extends ghost lineages for and other bilaterians, refining evolutionary trees by anchoring behavioral evidence to inferred ancestral forms. Macroevolutionary trends in ichnodiversity closely mirror patterns in body fossil biodiversity, with exponential increases during the and reflecting innovations in animal-substrate interactions. Global ichnodiversity rose from fewer than 10 ichnogenera in the to over 100 by the mid-Paleozoic, paralleling metazoan diversification and ecosystem engineering, while mass extinctions exhibit selectivity favoring simple, opportunistic traces over complex ones. Post-2010s integrations of trace fossil first appearances with analyses have aligned behavioral origins with estimates, such as calibrating bilaterian roots at 550–600 Ma using traces alongside genomic data from diverse metazoans. These interdisciplinary approaches reconcile discrepancies between fossil and molecular timelines, enhancing precision in dating deep divergences without relying solely on body fossils.

Notable Trace Fossils

Common Ichnogenera

Chondrites is one of the most widespread and recognizable ichnogenera, characterized by complex, three-dimensional networks of branching burrows that form dendritic or root-like patterns with subvertical shafts connecting to the -water interface. These burrows typically exhibit smooth walls and a fill matching the surrounding , with branches diverging at acute angles (30°–78°) and diameters ranging from 1 to 3 mm; in cross-section, they appear as crowded, non-overlapping tunnels. Produced by deposit-feeding worms or similar infaunal organisms engaging in chemosymbiotic feeding, often in low-oxygen environments, Chondrites is commonly found in deep-marine mudstones and chalks across a broad stratigraphic range from the to the Recent. Recent studies have refined its ethological interpretation, emphasizing chemosymbiotic exploitation of sulfide-rich microenvironments in anoxic settings. Diplocraterion comprises vertical U-shaped burrows with characteristic spreiten—fan-like, layered structures between the parallel or slightly divergent arms—formed through active reworking of as the producer adjusted its position relative to the substrate surface. In cross-section, the burrows show paired openings at the top, with arms 5–20 mm apart and total depths up to 30 cm; the spreiten consist of successive, inclined laminae indicating upward or downward migration. Attributed to suspension-feeding annelids such as maldanid polychaetes, which pump water through the tubes for filter feeding, Diplocraterion is prevalent in shallow-marine, high-energy sands and tidal flats, particularly in the Skolithos ichnofacies. Updates in the , informed by 3D permeability modeling, have clarified its role in enhancing substrate heterogeneity, with 2024 analyses confirming its persistence in marginal marine shales as evidence of firmground . Thalassinoides forms extensive, interconnected boxwork systems of horizontal, cylindrical burrows with Y- or T-shaped branches, unlined and smooth-walled, often enlarged at junctions to form shafts up to 5 cm in diameter. Cross-sections reveal polygonal networks parallel to bedding, with vertical connections facilitating access; the morphology reflects domiciles or feeding structures maintained over time. Produced by decapod crustaceans like thalassinid shrimps, which construct these for and deposit feeding, Thalassinoides exhibits global ubiquity in carbonates and chalks, from shelf to basin settings at depths of 50–300 m. A 2024 study revisited Thalassinoides paradoxicus from its type locality based on high-resolution imaging, underscoring its utility in paleoenvironmental reconstructions.

Iconic Examples

One of the most celebrated trace fossils in is the footprint trail from , dating to approximately 3.66 million years ago and attributed to . These bipedal tracks, preserved in , provide the earliest direct of habitual upright walking in hominins, revealing a compliant with heel-strike and toe-off mechanics distinct from modern humans. Their discovery in 1978 revolutionized understandings of early human locomotion and locomotor diversity in hominins. In terrestrial ecosystems, the trackways of the Tyrants Aisle site in the Wapiti Formation, , , offer profound insights into social dynamics and paleoenvironments from the stage (about 72 million years ago). The site preserves over 100 hadrosaurid and theropod tracks across floodplain layers, indicating group movements, predator-prey interactions, and seasonal migrations in a river-dominated with diverse megaherbivores. These assemblages highlight competitive structures among large herbivores and the ecological roles of tyrannosaurids in North American floodplains. Trace fossils from the in , , exemplify (Series 3, Stage 5; ~508 million years ago) behaviors of soft-bodied metazoans, often co-occurring with non-biomineralized carapaces and body fossils. Burrows and trails, such as those associated with arthropod , document deposit-feeding, grazing, and escape responses in dysoxic marine settings, illuminating the demecology of early bilaterians before widespread skeletonization. This exceptional preservation underscores the rapid diversification of complex behaviors during the . In the of (Upper to Lower ; ~152-147 million years ago), networks of clavate and vermiform borings represent trace fossils formed by mycorrhizal roots during ification. These bioerosional structures indicate substrate colonization and nutrient cycling in post-Jurassic karst environments. These traces complement the site's fame for soft-part preservation, demonstrating ecological interactions in altered marine ecosystems. The ichnogenus Zoophycos stands as one of the earliest known complex trace fossils, with specimens from the Lower Cambrian (~520 million years ago) in the Wood Canyon Formation of southeastern . This spreite system, formed by deposit-feeding organisms, features helical coils and marginal tubes that reworked for food, marking an evolutionary milestone in sophisticated infaunal tiering and nutrient extraction shortly after the . Recent discoveries of trace fossils published in 2024 further expand knowledge of polar distributions, with theropod tracks from the Wonthaggi Formation in southeastern (then near the ) indicating large carnivores thrived in high-latitude settings with months of darkness. These footprints, including those of megaraptorids and allosauroids, reveal year-round residency and adaptations to polar ecosystems, challenging prior assumptions of seasonal migration for non-avian dinosaurs in Gondwanan high latitudes.

Historical Development

Early Recognition

Trace fossils, the preserved evidence of ancient biological activity such as tracks, burrows, and trails, were recognized and interpreted in various ways long before the advent of modern . In ancient Roman literature, fossilized remains were often viewed through a mythological lens, though specific mentions of tracks are rare and typically conflated with body fossils. Similarly, in medieval , certain fossilized footprints were attributed to entities in local , reflecting a blend of fear and wonder toward geological oddities. Indigenous peoples in the Americas also encountered trace fossils, incorporating them into oral traditions and cultural practices. Native American communities across interpreted fossil tracks and burrows as spiritual artifacts or remnants of ancestral beings, often using them to craft jewelry, effigies, and ceremonial objects, as evidenced by archaeological finds in regions like the and Southwest. These interpretations emphasized connections to the natural and supernatural worlds, viewing such impressions as signs from the past rather than scientific specimens. During the , made early ichnological observations, recognizing fossil burrows in sedimentary rocks as traces of ancient worms rather than mythical or plant origins, linking them to modern analogs and challenging prevailing views. The marked a pivotal shift toward systematic study, beginning with discoveries in the Connecticut River Valley and contributions from pioneers like George Frederic Matthew, who described trace fossils in detail. In 1802, a teenager named Pliny Moody unearthed the first known tracks in South Hadley, Massachusetts, describing them as giant bird footprints, which sparked local interest but no immediate scientific analysis. By the 1830s, additional track sites across the valley revealed thousands of impressions from dinosaurs, prompting Edward Hitchcock to investigate. In his 1836 report to the Massachusetts legislature, titled Ichnology of , Hitchcock cataloged over 20 track types from these sandstones, initially classifying many as avian footprints while noting their unusual size and form, though he later expanded this in his 1858 book to include 119 ichnospecies from 38 localities. Concurrent with vertebrate track studies, invertebrate traces like burrows were widely misinterpreted as plant fossils known as "fucoids," resembling seaweed impressions. From the 1820s to the 1880s, an era dubbed the "Age of Fucoids," geologists such as Adolphe Brongniart promoted this botanical view, leading to the description of numerous burrows—such as those later identified as Chondrites—as fossil algae in formations worldwide, including and strata. This misclassification persisted until Swedish paleontologist Alfred Nathorst's 1881 work demonstrated through comparisons to modern traces that most "fucoids" were animal burrows and trails, laying groundwork for trace fossil recognition as behavioral evidence.

Modern Ichnology

Modern ichnology emerged as a distinct in the , building on foundational concepts in to integrate trace fossils into environmental and behavioral interpretations. Johannes Walther's 1894 formulation of the law of correlation provided an essential framework for linking sedimentary successions to lateral environmental changes, enabling ichnologists to contextualize trace fossils within depositional settings. This actualistic approach emphasized that vertical sequences reflect lateral shifts in environments, a principle that underpins the use of traces as indicators of paleoenvironments. Adolf Seilacher advanced this further in the and by developing the ichnofacies model, which classifies recurrent assemblages of trace fossils based on bathymetric and substrate conditions, transforming ichnology into a predictive tool for . Seilacher's work, including key publications in 1953 and 1967, established trace fossils as reliable proxies for community structure and environmental stress, influencing global research paradigms. Key milestones in the mid-to-late solidified ichnology's methodological rigor. In 1961, the (ICZN) included provisions to accommodate ichnotaxa, allowing formal naming of trace fossils without conflicting with body fossil taxonomy and promoting standardized classification. This was complemented by the rise of neoichnology in the 1980s, where experimental studies of modern organisms producing traces in controlled or natural settings validated ancient interpretations and quantified bioturbation rates. Pioneering experiments by Ronald W. Frey and others documented behaviors in marine substrates, revealing how environmental factors like oxygenation and influence trace morphology. Technological innovations since the 2000s have revolutionized trace fossil analysis through non-destructive 3D imaging. , utilizing structure-from-motion algorithms on digital photographs, enables high-resolution surface models of tracksites and , facilitating quantitative and virtual preservation. Similarly, computed (CT) scanning provides internal views of complex structures, allowing reconstruction of networks and substrate interactions without physical sectioning; applications include detailed ethological analyses of traces and tracks. These methods, increasingly accessible via , enhance accuracy in ichnotaxonomy and paleoecological modeling. Institutional developments have fostered international collaboration and knowledge dissemination. The journal Ichnos, launched in 1989 as the official outlet of the International Ichnological Association, publishes peer-reviewed research on trace fossils, spanning , , and applications in . Since the 1990s, global conferences such as the International Ichnofabric Workshop (initiated 1991) and quadrennial International Congresses on Ichnology (Ichnia, since 2004) have convened researchers to share advances, with earlier symposia like the 1996 Bioerosion Workshop marking the field's maturation. These platforms, alongside newsletters and specialized sessions at geological congresses, have expanded ichnology's interdisciplinary reach into fields like and climate reconstruction.

References

  1. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/trace-fossils.htm
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/ichnology
  3. https://www.int-res.com/articles/ab2008/2/b002p255.pdf
  4. https://ichnology.ku.edu/poi/poi.html
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/trace-fossil
  6. http://sepmstrata.org/Terminology.aspx?id=trace%20fossils
  7. https://www.etymonline.com/word/ichnolite
  8. https://www.uky.edu/KGS/fossils/fossil-trace-behavior-recorded.php
  9. https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-mines-petroleum-and-exploration/geological-survey-of-western-australia/pseudofossils
  10. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.002011
  11. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/books/book/1149/chapter/10573470/Trace-Fossils-in-Biostratrigraphy
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259971402_Continental_Ichnology_Fundamental_Processes_and_Controls_on_Trace_Fossil_Distribution
  13. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2d65/432041bd31a98c3fed3a95450255a010222d.pdf
  14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09853111.2015.1065306
  15. https://geo.libretexts.org/Courses/SUNY_Potsdam/Sedimentary_Geology%253A_Rocks_Environments_and_Stratigraphy/09%253A_Fossils/9.06%253A_Trace_Fossils
  16. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/lessons/tracks/interpreting_tracks.html
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667115300914
  18. https://trilobyte.ucr.edu/sites/default/files/2020-07/jensen_et_2005.pdf
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444529497501327
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284256782_Taphonomy_of_Trace_Fossils
  21. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/jsedres/article/56/4/558/113776/A-semiquantitative-field-classification-of
  22. http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/119_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr119_33.pdf
  23. https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2013/480-review-trace-fossils
  24. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234073319_Actualistic_Studies_of_the_Spatial_and_Temporal_Distribution_of_Terrestrial_and_Aquatic_Organism_Traces_in_Continental_Environments_to_Differentiate_Lacustrine_from_Fluvial_Eolian_and_Marine_Deposits_
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3861885/
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256334524_Precambrian-Cambrian_Trace_Fossils_from_Eastern_Yunnan_Implications_for_Cambrian_Explosion
  27. https://doc.rero.ch/record/16639/files/PAL_E2389.pdf
  28. https://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Oct/qn0801000683.PDF
  29. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10347-025-00705-5
  30. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gj.4657
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4027402/
  32. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aao6691
  33. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1523087113
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018225004365
  35. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/paleontology-of-dinosaur-trackway-national-natural-landmark.htm
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950117223000237
  37. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22695-x
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825219305690
  39. https://doc.rero.ch/record/13951/files/PAL_E937.pdf
  40. http://www.asgp.pl/sites/default/files/volumes/88_2_091_110_Rindsberg.pdf
  41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263486190_History_of_Ichnology_The_Origins_of_Trace_Fossil_Taxonomy_and_the_Contributions_of_Joseph_F_James_and_Walter_H_Hantzschel
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219304031
  43. https://fossilworks.org/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7333897/
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12187409/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7254686/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068318300733
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003101829900005X
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9944729/
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982224015690
  51. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04311-8
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444538130000046
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031018289900199
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018206001210
  55. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/book/1090/chapter/10548676/the-glossifungites-ichnofaciesmodern-examples-from
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0341816218304181
  57. https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/gsl.sp.2004.228.01.03
  58. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/treptichnus-pedum-and-the-ediacarancambrian-boundary-significance-and-caveats/5451F64EB05668E21737853BA48D0BEF
  59. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301478120
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950117223000262
  61. https://thesedimentaryrecord.scholasticahq.com/article/30039-the-precambrian-cambrian-transition-in-the-southern-great-basin-usa/attachment/76200.pdf
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/ichnofacies
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018208005828
  64. https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Current/1999/buatois/buatois11.html
  65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3514911
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4378421/
  67. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-paleontology/article/ichnofacies-and-bathymetry-a-passive-relationship/C6AB491CB99E00E9010533F3A8C7C989
  68. https://archives.datapages.com/data/sepm_sp/sc52/The_Ichnofacies_Paradigm.pdf
  69. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02875316
  70. https://ichnology.ku.edu/poi/poi/models.html
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282752946_The_Ichnofacies_Paradigm
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233903677_Insect_Trace_Fossil_Associations_in_Paleosols_The_Coprinisphaera_Ichnofacies
  73. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/14/9/246
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12309666/
  75. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/pala.12732
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018209005483
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3119880/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6366168/
  79. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0103
  80. https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/science/G371A/article.htm
  81. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338552740_Exploring_computed_tomography_in_ichnological_analysis_of_cores_from_modern_marine_sediments
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301926817300189
  83. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pala.12686
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259752755_Interpreting_ecology_and_behaviour_from_the_vertebrate_fossil_track_record
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012825219300662
  86. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-47226-1_12
  87. http://www.sjvgeology.org/geology/trace_fossils.html
  88. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2016.1202684
  89. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10420940.2023.2222223
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5953921/
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018224003705
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018296001423
  93. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08623
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216000889
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018202006776
  96. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx9449
  97. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/06/250627021857.htm
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018205003196
  99. https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.1144/GSL.SP.2004.228.01.18
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8300500/
  101. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201600120
  102. https://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app67/app009652021.pdf
  103. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-63665-w
  104. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024PPP...63411913K/abstract
  105. https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/footprints/laetoli-footprint-trails
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8809565/
  107. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025Faci...71...15K/abstract
  108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393567095_Bioerosion_of_the_upper_Jurassic_lithographic_limestone_of_Solnhofen_Germany_by_mycorrhizal_roots_during_the_Cenozoic_karstification
  109. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/mesozoic/jurassic/solnhofen.html
  110. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/oldest-zoophycos-and-implications-for-early-cambrian-deposit-feeding/F4C1D4A4AC44ADF36D12F952EBBEFFF4
  111. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1057266
  112. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/fossils/pre-1492-ad-fossils-native-people.htm
  113. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/palaios/article/25/6/361/146148/LEONARDO-DA-VINCI-THE-FOUNDING-FATHER-OF-ICHNOLOGY
  114. https://scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/connecticutvalleyhistory.html
  115. http://www.sjvgeology.org/geology/trace_fossils_history.html
  116. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-pdf/84/3/979/3433650/i0016-7606-84-3-979.pdf
  117. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10420940.2015.1126586
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444538130000010
  119. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1980.tb00632.x
  120. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316515978_Close-range_photogrammetry_for_3-D_ichnology_The_basics_of_photogrammetric_ichnology
  121. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.00345/full
  122. https://www.ichnologicalassociation.org/publications
  123. https://www.ichnologicalassociation.org/meetings
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.