Still More New Papers

["Jerry D. Harris" <jharris@dixie.edu>]

People keep this up, and I'm gonna need more filing cabinets...!

First, this paper from a book I didn't know existed 'til I got the paper, 
and I'm working on finding a copy of the book:

Unwin, D.M., Lü, J., and Deeming, D.C. 2006. Were all pterosaurs 
ovirparous?; pp. 141-167 in Lü, J., Kobayashi, Y., Huang, D., and Lee, Y.-N. 
(eds.), Papers from the 2005 Heyuan International Dinosaur Symposium. 
Geological Publishing House, Beijing.



Then, a bunch from the newest ish of _Ichnos_ -- in a bizarre reversal of 
the usual trend, this one is dated in print as 2007, but is actually 2006 
since it's out NOW:

Lucas, S.G. 2006. Tetrapod footprint biostratigraphy and biochronology. 
Ichnos 14(1-2):5-38. doi: 10.1080/10420940601006792.

ABSTRACT: Tetrapod footprints have a fossil record in rocks of 
Devonian-Neogene age. Three principal factors limit their use in 
biostratigraphy and biochronology (palichnostratigraphy): invalid ichnotaxa 
based on extramorphological variants, slow apparent evolutionary turnover 
rates and facies restrictions. The ichnotaxonomy of tetrapod footprints has 
generally been oversplit, largely due to a failure to appreciate 
extramorphological variation. Thus, many tetrapod footprint ichnogenera and 
most ichnospecies are useless phantom taxa that confound biostratigraphic 
correlation and biochronological subdivision. Tracks rarely allow 
identification of a genus or species known from the body fossil record. 
Indeed, almost all tetrapod footprint ichnogenera are equivalent to a family 
or a higher taxon (order, superorder, etc.) based on body fossils. This 
means that ichnogenera necessarily have much longer temporal ranges and 
therefore slower apparent evolutionary turnover rates than do body fossil 
genera. Because of this, footprints cannot provide as refined a subdivision 
of geological time as do body fossils. The tetrapod footprint record is much 
more facies controlled than the tetrapod body fossil record. The relatively 
narrow facies window for track preservation, and the fact that tracks are 
almost never transported, redeposited or reworked, limits the facies that 
can be correlated with any track-based biostratigraphy.
    A Devonian-Neogene global biochronology based on tetrapod footprints 
generally resolves geologic time about 20 to 50 percent as well as does the 
tetrapod body fossil record. The following globally recognizable time 
intervals can be based on the track record: (1) Late Devonian; (2) 
Mississippian; (3) Early-Middle Pennsylvanian; (4) Late Pennsylvanian; (5) 
Early Permian; (6) Late Permian; (7) Early-Middle Triassic; (8) late Middle 
Triassic; (9) Late Triassic; (10) Early Jurassic; (11) Middle-Late Jurassic; 
(12) Early Cretaceous; (13) Late Cretaceous; (14) Paleogene; (15) Neogene. 
Tetrapod footprints are most valuable in establishing biostratigraphic datum 
points, and this is their primary value to understanding the stratigraphic 
(temporal) dimension of tetrapod evolution.


Lockley, M.G. 2006. A tale of two ichnologies: the different goals and 
potentials of invertebrate and vertebrate (tetrapod) ichnotaxonomy and how 
they relate to ichnofacies analysis. Ichnos 14(1-2):39-57. doi: 
10.1080/10420940601006818.

ABSTRACT: Invertebrate and vertebrate (tetrapod) ichnology have evolved as 
separate disciplines, largely due to differences in the morphology and 
behavior of the tracemakers and the practical impossibility of treating them 
as uniform subjects of analysis. Thus, invertebrate ichnotaxa reflect 
behavior to a much greater degree than they reflect tracemaker morphology. 
The situation is essentially reversed in the case of vertebrates, where 
morphology, especially of the foot, plays an important primary role in 
ichnotaxonomy (and a secondary role in trackmaker identification), whereas 
behavior is of much lesser importance and in many cases can compromise 
consistent and effective ichnotaxonomy. Inherent differences in 
morphological and behavioral complexity also have significant implications 
for our concept of the different potentials of vertebrate and invertebrate 
ichnotaxonomy and ichnofacies analysis-as shown in distinctions made between 
biotaxonichnofacies and ethoichnofacies, respectively.
Vertebrate tracks not only inform us about morphology, but in the most 
general sense also have made huge contributions to our understanding of 
vertebrate behavior that have only limited supra-morphological relevance to 
ichnotaxonomy or ichnofacies analysis. These contributions have done much to 
settle and/or stimulate debate about the posture, speed, abundance, 
spatio-temporal distributions and social behavior of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, 
birds and other vertebrates, and so have had a dynamic impact on thinking in 
the field of vertebrate paleontology and even biostratigraphy. Nonetheless, 
this influence may affect ichnotaxonomy as in the case of trackway evidence 
of posture that proved important in differentiating the wide- and 
narrow-gauge trackways Brontopodus and Parabrontopodus. By contrast, the 
impact of invertebrate ichnology on our understanding of invertebrate 
behavior is complexly interwoven with an ichnotaxonomy that has a much less 
obvious relationship to tracemaker morphology. Thus, the use of invertebrate 
traces to decipher the evolution of fossil behavior has proved an ambiguous 
and subtle pursuit that does not readily demonstrate parallels with the 
evolution of easily identified taxonomic groups.
    Because vertebrates (especially tetrapods) are inherently complex 
organisms, in comparisons with invertebrates, their traces play a less 
ambiguous and more significant role in helping us understand major phases in 
vertebrate evolution. In many cases they have pointed to interpretations of 
vertebrate paleobiology that were not confirmed by other lines of evidence 
until generations later (e.g., polar dinosaur migrations). When vertebrate 
tracks are used for palichnostratigraphy or as evidence to support faunal 
turnover and extinction events, ichnotaxonomy assumes a significant role in 
applied biostratigraphy. Such biostratigraphic utility is far more ambiguous 
and much less significant in the case of invertebrate ichnology.
    Despite these inherent differences, in the field of ichnofacies 
analysis, invertebrate and vertebrate ichnology come together as integrated 
components of facies analysis, and potentially have great synergistic 
utility in paleoecological and paleoenvironmental analysis. Nevertheless 
vertebrate (tetrapod) ichnofacies nomenclature, and terrestrial ichnofacies 
analysis in general, is not yet well-established and is currently generating 
disparate schools of thought. It is argued that tetrapod ichnofacies are 
inherently more diverse and differentiated than invertebrate ichnofacies.



Nicosia, U., Petti, F.M., Perugini, G., D'Orazi Porchetti, S., Sacchi, E., 
Conti, M.A., and Mariotti, N. 2006. Dinosaur tracks as paleogeographic 
constraints: new scenarios for the Cretaceous geography of the Periadriatic 
region. Ichnos 14(1-2):69-90. doi: 10.1080/10420940601006859.

ABSTRACT: A really unexpected finding of sauropod and theropod footprints in 
southern Latium raises to four the number of the trampled levels recognized 
in central and southern Italy. After the recent findings in Latest Jurassic 
and Early, mid and Late Cretaceous carbonate platform deposits of the 
Periadriatic region, dinosaur footprints seem to provide very important 
paleogeographic constraints for reconstructing the geodynamic history of the 
Mediterranean area. The presence of a varied ichnoassociation makes 
acceptance of the current paleogeographic models concerning the relative and 
absolute position of the Laziale-Abruzzese-Campano and of Apulian-Dinaric 
domains during the Late Cretaceous more and more problematic. Dinosaur 
footprints, combined with other paleontological data, demonstrate that these 
areas were never completely pulled apart by deep seaways, while frequent or 
continuous links between them, and to southern and northern mainlands, 
probably persisted. These data also allowed us to improve our understanding 
of the timing of the Mesozoic plate motion in this segment of the Western 
Tethys.



Hunt, A.P., and Lucas, S.G. 2006. Tetrapod ichnofacies: a new paradigm. 
Ichnos 14(1-2):59-68. doi: 10.1080/10420940601006826.

ABSTRACT: We recognize three fundamental terms in ichnology: (1) 
ichnoassemblage, which is an assemblage of ichnofossils conceptually 
equivalent to an assemblage of body fossils; (2) ichnocoenosis, which is a 
trace fossil assemblage produced by a biological community that can be 
characterized by morphological criteria; and (3) ichnofacies, which refers 
to recurrent ichnocoenoses that represent a significant portion of 
Phanerozoic time. There are two different kinds of ichnofacies, 
ethoichnofacies (mostly invertebrate ichnofacies) and biotaxonichnofacies 
(mostly tetrapod ichnofacies). Nonmarine invertebrate ichnologists now 
recognize five archetypal ichnofacies (Mermia, Skolithos, Scoyenia, 
Coprinisphaera, Psilonichnus) to which we add the Octopodichnus ichnofacies. 
We propose a coherent and consistent classification and nomenclature for 
tetrapod ichnofacies. We name five archetypal vertebrate ichnofacies for 
nonmarine environments: Chelichnus, Grallator, Brontopodus, Batrachichnus 
and Characichnos ichnofacies.


Valdiserri, D., and Avanzini, M. 2006. A tetrapod ichnoassociation from the 
Middle Triassic (Anisian, Pelsonian) of northern Italy. Ichnos 
14(1-2):105-116. doi: 10.1080/10420940601010703.

ABSTRACT: A new Middle Triassic ichnofauna recovered nearby the town of 
Tisens (Bozen) in the Adige Valley (Trentino, Northern Italy) is described. 
A relatively large ichnoassociation, in which various ichnogenera can be 
recognized, comes from the basal inter-supratidal layers of a mixed 
carbonate siliciclastic unit of Pelsonian (Middle Anisian) age. Most of the 
isolated footprints and trackways pertain to lizard-like reptiles referable 
to Rhyncosauroides and, subordinately, to archosaurian reptiles. In 
particular, the ichnogenera Rotodactylus, Synaptichnium and Chirotherium 
have been recognized. Many tracks are at present unidentified; among them a 
lizard-like morphotype (morphotype A). The site also yelded numerous fossil 
plant horizons and some scattered vertebrate remains referable to 
Placodontidae (cf. Placodus gigas). The site shows the continuity in the 
Pelsonian of the "chirothere ichnofauna" and the dominance of 
Rhynchosauroides in carbonate, tidal flat environments.


Whyte, M.A., Romano, M., and Elvidge, D.J. 2006. Reconstruction of Middle 
Jurassic dinosaur-dominated communities from the vertebrate ichnofauna of 
the Cleveland basin of Yorkshire, UK. Ichnos 14(1-2):117-129. doi: 
10.1080/10420940601010802.

ABSTRACT: Globally, skeletal remains of dinosaurs are particularly rare 
throughout much of the Middle Jurassic. Thus, other sources of evidence, and 
most importantly ichnofaunas, are important indicators of the contemporary 
terrestrial vertebrate communities. The outcrops of the Ravenscar Group 
(Aalenian-Bajocian) within the Cleveland Basin of Yorkshire, UK, which have 
recently been recognised as a megatracksite of global significance, provide 
one such major source of ichnofaunal information of this age. A 
comprehensive database on the variety and occurrence of dinosaur and other 
vertebrate traces within the Ravenscar Group has been built from a long-term 
and detailed study of the sequence. Thirty different and distinct 
morphotypes of vertebrate traces have been recognised and are being analysed 
and further differentiated morphometrically. Some of the morphotypes 
represent behavioural, preservational and perhaps ontogenetic variants of 
other morphotypes, but nevertheless the range of quadrupedal and bipedal 
prints allows an overall fauna of sauropod, stegosaurian, ornithopod and 
theropod dinosaurs along with crocodiles, pond turtles and fish to be 
reconstructed. The distribution and abundance of prints and print types 
within the succession shows evidence of environmental control on the 
behaviour and distribution of the vertebrates. Case studies highlight both 
the advantages and disadvantages of this type of data in reconstructing 
palaeocommunities.



Lockley, M., Mitchell, L., and Odier, G.P. 2006. Small theropod track 
assemblages from Middle Jurassic eolianites of eastern Utah: paleoecological 
insights from dune ichnofacies in a transgressive sequence. Ichnos 
14(1-2):131-142. doi: 10.1080/10420940601010901.

ABSTRACT: New discoveries show that very small theropod tracks (cf. 
Wildeichnus) are abundant in the upper part of the Moab Member, recently 
assigned to the Curtis Formation (formerly considered part of the Entrada 
Formation) in the Mid-?Late Jurassic of eastern Utah. The tracks represent a 
distinct small-theropod ichnofacies associated with eolian dune deposits 
that is easily differentiated from the water-lain beds of the overlying 
Megalosauripus-Therangospodus ichnofacies, which comprises the 
single-surface Moab megatracksite. Pterosaur track assemblages, representing 
the Pteriachnus ichnofacies, are found a few meters above the megatracksite 
surface in the upper tongue of the Summerville Formation.
    The small theropod ichnofacies is reminiscent of other early Mesozoic 
dune facies ichnofaunas from the Wingate and Navajo formations (Late 
Triassic and Early Jurassic) where small theropod tracks occur in 
association with other small tetrapod footprints. All such examples 
evidently represent a recurrent dune facies ecosystem dominated by 
diminutive vertebrates. Because the small theropod ichnofacies is one of 
three ichnofacies found in a thin stratigraphic sequence (<20 m) that 
contains no body fossils, it is clear that vertebrate tracks play an 
important role in providing insight into the paleoecology of units 
previously considered devoid of any useful fossil evidence. The three 
successive ichnofacies represent a transgressive transition from sand dunes, 
through sandy shoreline to shallow marine environments, each with its quite 
distinct vertebrate fauna.



Avanzini, M., García-Ramos, J.C., Lires, J., Piñuela, L., and Lockley, M.G. 
2006. Crocodylomorph tracks from the Late Jurassic of Asturias (Spain). 
Ichnos 14(1-2):143-153. doi: 10.1080/10420940601010943.

ABSTRACT: Some small and medium-sized crocodylomorph footprints are 
described from the Late Jurassic (Kimmeridgian) coastal and deltaic units of 
the northern Spain (Asturias). There are at least four footprint 
morphotypes. Three of them, with well preserved trackways, are included in 
the ichnogenus Crocodylopodus (Crocodylopodus isp. and Crocodylopodus 
meijidei); the fourth one, documented by some isolated large footprints, is 
referable to the ichnogenus Hatcherichnus. This ichnoassociation confirms 
the presence of small crocodilians in palaeoenvironments apparently 
dominated by dinosaurs. The presence of Hatcherichnus seems to confirm the 
affinity between the Iberian and North American ichnofaunas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry D. Harris
Director of Paleontology
Dixie State College
Science Building
225 South 700 East
St. George, UT  84770   USA
Phone: (435) 652-7758
Fax: (435) 656-4022
E-mail: jharris@dixie.edu
and     dinogami@gmail.com
http://cactus.dixie.edu/jharris/

"Trying to estimate the divergence times
of fungal, algal or prokaryotic groups on
the basis of a partial reptilian fossil and
protein sequences from mice and humans
is like trying to decipher Demotic Egyptian with
the help of an odometer and the Oxford
English Dictionary."
              -- D. Graur & W. Martin (_Trends
                  in Genetics_ 20[2], 2004)