Author:
Pirrone Cecilia A.,Buatois Luis A.,Bromley Richard G.
Abstract
Bioerosion trace fossils in bones are defined as biogenic structures that cut or destroy hard bone tissue as the result of mechanical and/or chemical processes. Under the premise that their paleoecological potential can completely be realized only through correct taxonomic assignment, this work focuses on the methodology for naming these biogenic structures. Thus, we propose the following ichnotaxobases in order to assist in naming trace fossils in bones: general morphology, bioglyphs, filling, branching, pattern of occurrence, and site of emplacement. The most common general morphologies are: pits and holes (borings); chambers; trails; tubes; channels (canals); grooves; striae; and furrows. The main types of bioglyphs are grooves and scratches, which may display different arrangements, such as parallel and opposing, or arcuate paired. The nature of the fill may help recognition of the origin, composition, and relationship with the surrounding sediment, as well as processes of destruction or consumption of bony tissue. The structure and layout of the filling, such as meniscate backfill or pelleted filling, offer information about the bioeroding processes. Branching structures on cortical bone are present in canals and furrows. Where the trace penetrates spongy bone, branching structures are forming tunnels that may connect internal chambers. The common patterns of occurrence are individual, paired, grouped, overlapping, lined, and arcuate. The site of emplacement may be in cortical bone, spongy bone, articular surfaces, internal bone microstructures, and external bone anatomical structures. The use of substrate as an ichnotaxobase is problematic, but as biological substrate, bone itself is a valuable source of information for paleoecologic and ethologic inferences. Given the paleontological importance of bioerosion trace fossils in bones, we underscore interactions between ichnology and other sciences, such as forensic entomology, archaeology, paleoecology, and taphonomy.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference65 articles.
1. Why do crystallinity values fail to predict the extent of diagenetic alteration of bone mineral?
2. Mammalian tooth marks on the bones of dinosaurs and other Late Cretaceous vertebrates
3. Ichnology of the Rhenodanubian Flysch (Lower Cretaceous–Eocene) in Austria and Germany;Uchman;Beringeria,1999
4. The Recent boring Gastrochaenolites ornatus Kelly and Bromley, 1984, in a Chalk cobble from Cromer, England;Donovan;Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum,2011
5. Paleobiology of the Crustacean Trace FossilSpongeliomorpha ibericain the Miocene of Southeastern Spain
Cited by
85 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Ichnological records associated with dermestid beetles in dinosaur bones from Lala's Place (Maastrichtian), Ramos Arizpe, Coahuila, Mexico, and their taphonomic implications;Journal of South American Earth Sciences;2024-11
2. Bioerosion trace fossils on dinosaur bones from the Lago Colhué Huapi Formation, Upper Cretaceous of Central Patagonia, Argentina;Revista Brasileira de Paleontologia;2024-08-15
3. Tooth marks of the Great White Shark from a Pliocene outcrop of the Northern Apennines (Castell'Arquato, Italy);CARNETS GEOL;2024
4. A reinterpretation of taphonomy and palaeoecology of the early Carnian Santacruzodon Assemblage Zone type-locality from the Santa Maria Supersequence, Brazil;Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology;2024-04
5. First fossil record of a Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) in northeast of Brazil: Taxonomy, ichnology, and taphonomic history;Journal of South American Earth Sciences;2024-04