Activity

  • William Biesele posted a new specimen. 1 year ago

    1 year ago
    1 year ago

    William Biesele has contributed specimen mFeM 58310 to myFOSSIL!

    • Great example of a Repichnia/locomotion trace! @sadie-mills, we should have a way to denote the ichnotaxonomy of trace fossils here! (Perhaps a drop-down bar like “genus/ichnogenus” and “species/ichnospecies”?) That would be more informative than just inputting the ichnogenus Kouphichnium in the traditional genus category.

      • @i-edwards great suggestion! @jbauer we should revisit how to document trace fossils in the eMuseum.

      • Hi, @i-edwards – excellent suggestion. I did some searching on iDigBio to see how other institutions include trace fossil taxonomy into their databases. It looks like may make it a Phylum – Ichnofossils then include the generic assignment. What are your thoughts on this?

        We can easily change the language to be Genus/Ichnogenus to be more inclusive for these very different types of fossils. I really appreciate the suggestion, I’ve been thinking about how to do this for a while – it can really get overcomplicated quickly!

    • Hi, @william-biesele – Instead of including the tracemaker taxonomy we will just include Kingdom Animalia > Phylum Ichnofossils
      and leave the other fields blank, this is how other museums are seemingly doing it so we should follow suit! Then we can include information on the potential trace maker in the Field Notes section. Thank you for already filling in information on where the specimen is housed! Let me know if any of that was confusing! Talk to you soon, Jen

      • Thank you, @sadie-mills and @jbauer for your comments! Unfortunately, classifying ichnossils simply can be so difficult because of the different system it uses! It emphasizes ethology over bauplan because rarely do we exactly know what the producer is (one of the founding principles of ichnology). I think that Kingdon Animalia > Phylum Ichnofossils would work just fine, although as an ichnology student I would appreciate more information such as on the ichnofacies and sedimentary petrology (for example, this specimen has a sandstone lithology). If we wanted to add more technical information, I would recommend having an intermediate page in the New Specimen system that gives the option to select for either the “body fossil” or “ichnofossil” taxonomy, which would provide a separate and equally detailed information sheet for trace fossils. On the other hand, who would bother about ichnofacies but an ichnologist like me! 🙂 Just some ideas.

        • Hi, @i-edwards – I have taken a few ichnology courses and appreciate your sentiment but the issue is with the underlying structure of the data – which is a global standard. We can add fields as we like but I’m not sure a separate standard exists for ichnotaxa. I can chat with some colleagues about it at GSA.

          We *do* have a Field Notes section where you can absolutely include information on the ichnofacies and sedimentary petrology or outcrop details and this *will* be attached to your specimen occurrence data.

          • Hello @jbauer, thank you for the clarification! It is unfortunate that such an interesting field lacks a comprehensive yet simple specimen classification yet, although perhaps that complexity is what makes it so interesting!