Trace fossil nomenclature and the Planolites-Palaeophycus dilemma

Because of fundamental differences between trace fossils and body fossils, ichnologic nomenclature is beset with difficulties. Foremost is inconsistent treatment by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (lack of sanction for post-1930 names, confusion over the rule of priority) and inadequate curation of type specimens. However, ichnologists have contributed their own problems via inadequate diagnoses and descriptions, misconceptions of ichnologic and taxonomic principles, proliferation of names and failure to engage in true monographic revisions. All these difficulties are illustrated in a thorough reevaluation of the ichnogenera Planolites Nicholson and Palaeophycus Hall. Contrary to a popular but ill-founded scheme in which these ichnogenera are differentiated simply on the presence or absence of branches, Planolites is an unlined burrow infilled with sediments having textural and fabricational characters unlike those of the host rock, whereas Palaeophycus is a lined burrow filled with sediments typically identical to those of the surrounding matrix. Planolites represents active backfilling of sediment in an ephemeral burrow constructed by a mobile deposit feeder and Palaeophycus represents passive sedimentation within an open dwelling burrow constructed by a predaceous or suspension-feeding animal. In addition to ichnological nomenclature and ethology, the ramifications are important in paleoecology, sedimentology and diagenetic studies. Currently recognized ichnospecies of Planolites include P. montanus Richter, P. beverleyensis (Billings) and P. annularis Walcott. Those of Palaeophycus include P. heberti (Saporta), P. tubularis Hall, P. striatus Hall, P. sulcatus (Miller and Dyer) and P. alternatus n. ichnosp.