Activity

  • Jack Kallmeyer posted a new specimen. 7 years, 8 months ago

    7 years, 8 months ago
    7 years, 8 months ago

    Jack Kallmeyer has contributed specimen mFeM 50077 to myFOSSIL!

    • Hi, @jkallmeyer I have done some research on how other collections include trace fossil data and it seems like we will include Kingdom Animalia > Phylum Ichnofossil > include ichnogenus and species in the genus and species boxes — and if you want to include trace maker information it can be put in the field notes section.

      Does that seem reasonable?

      Thanks,
      Jen

      • That sounds right although I did not include the actual trace fossil taxonomy which I probably do not know. I included the taxonomy of the possible trace maker. Poor form… but my original purpose wasn’t to do a proper museum label but rather to show people what a trace fossil from a given critter looked like.

        • That’s why I’m around, to help with figuring out the correct information! I would think this would be Diplichnites (generic assignment) – very common for arthropod trackways.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplichnites
          https://www.trilobites.info/trace.htm
          http://ichnology.ku.edu/invertebrate_traces/tfimages/diplichnites.html

          Hope this is helpful. Trace fossils are a secret passion of mine.

          • I go by Osgood’s work wherein he discusses Cincinnatian arthropod trackways under different genera stating, “there is considerable doubt as to the true affinities of the commonly mentioned genera of supposed trilobite tracks… Diplichnites” (p352, 355). So each of the trackways I have submitted would have different ichnogenera and none would be Diplichnites. Has some worker since Osgood thrown all of this out?

            • I don’t have access to Osgood’s book at this moment. I was taught that it’s bad form to name the track after the tracemaker because many different animals can make similar tracks.

              If you want to follow Osgood, that is fine just include the year of the publication in the notes so someone else can follow in your steps. As you currently have it, they are not ichnotaxa but regular taxa – which is what I was working to correct this morning.

    • Osgood doesn’t necessarily name them to specific trace maker but the names vary based upon their morphology. I think there are at least three versions all possibly attributed to Isotelus. The terms Osgood uses at least have an ichnospecies name while I am not aware of the same with Diplichnites.

      • There are many species of Diplichnites, let me know what Osgood refers to the species as when you get a chance to reference the volume.