Comments on the draft proposal to amend the Code with respect to trace fossils

Abstract

Bertling et al. (2003) have proposed various changes to a new edition of the Code which were commented on by Tubbs (2003). His comments show that major arguments obviously have not been put in a way fully comprehensible for the non-ichnologist. Among other things, he states it is not the case that the Code draws a distinction between fossilized tracks and other "works" such as galls, coprolites and nests (para. 7). This necessitates two replies: In a separate note, Genise et al. (2004) explain why some kinds of galls and cocoons must not be considered traces or trace fossils, respectively. This should prohibit apodictic declarations such as names based on fossilized galls, cocoons, etc. are ichnotaxa (Tubbs 2003, para. 2, original italics). And in this paper, we address other arguments raised by Tubbs that need further consideration.