{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028904324445440287, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002464709836432893, 'mean_word_length': 5.174273858921162, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Review of: “New Interpretations of Complex Trace Fossils”

New Interpretations of Complex Trace Fossils (CTF) is big and beautiful. As a thematic volume of Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, its yellow cover will be no stranger to most readers of this review. The typeface and layout are pleasing to the eye; reproduction of the many figures, including numerous photographs, is good; and overall it is a most satisfactory contribution to the literature of ichnology. The one blemish in production is the back cover, on which the ink has smudged by my thumb supporting the book as I read it (but perhaps only a reviewer would read such a volume from cover to cover). A foreword and 17 papers are contained in its almost 350 pages packed with hard data. The editor himself has written a worthy introductory chapter (“Paleobiology of complex trace fossils”). Miller examines the potential of complex trace fossils to provide biological information, behavioral, functional and physiological. The pursuit of such data is aided by the division of traces into “deliberate” (and complex) and “incidental” (and simple, such as a footprint), a rule-of-thumb derived from the examination of burrows that obviously falls down when applied to other ichnofossils (Oichnus simplex is very deliberate, but certainly not complex). Miller ably demonstrates his view that a trace fossil is part of an extended phenotype of the producing organism, thus becoming part of its biological uniqueness. I would suggest that the biology of the producer has been more important hitherto in continental ichnology, yet over half the papers in CTF focus on marine paleoenvironments. The introduction is followed by three papers that examine broad issues. Turner (“Trace fossils and extended organisms: a physiological perspective”) is not an ichnologist, but a physiologist examining how structures constructed by organisms, such as termite nests, act as morphological extensions to support physiological adaptations. This paper is fascinating, but how far the ideas can be applied to the fossil record is, at best, uncertain. The starting point should logically be the fossil nests of social insects, but could similar concepts effectively be applied to complex marine traces where the identity of the producer remains, at best, uncertain? Molly Miller (“Styles of behavioral complexity recorded by selected trace fossils”) recognizes four styles of complex behavior recorded by trace fossils; intricate “programmed” behavior (e.g., Zoophycos), multiple single behaviors such as compound trace fossils, construction of connected complex and simple structures, and multiple specimens of a trace fossil arranged to form a distinctive larger structure. Although this paper repeats some of what was said by William Miller (see above), the author nevertheless has her own ideas on the questions that need asking in order to tease the behavior of the producer out of the morphology of the trace fossil. However, this contribution does not travel far along the road to the answers. Computer modeling of the behavior of invertebrates constructing burrows and trails is currently something of a ‘flavor of the month’ (Hayes, 2003). Plotnick (“Ecological and L-system based simulations of trace fossils”) notes that “. . . progress in the numeric modeling and description of invertebrate trace fossil formation and distribution has noticeably lagged behind that of body fossils.” If this is true, is it a problem for ichnology? Clearly, some of Plotnick’s deductions, such as the morphology of Paleodictyon being a consequence of growth rather than behavior, deserve to be thoroughly evaluated. However, the simple predetermined rules for some simulations suggest that a sheet of graph paper and a pencil could be as efficacious for such studies. To get into the mind of a producer, I would favor observing modern traces being produced in the deep sea using a research submersible, but in the realm of cost effectiveness the computer modeler wins hands down. Out of 17 papers and a foreword, three are devoted to Zoophycos, and for the first time it has been forcibly emphasized to me how many morphologies, indicating contrasting ethologies, have been lumped into this ichnogenus, one that hitherto I had assumed to be clearly delimited. Olivero (“Early Jurassic to Late Cretaceous evolution of Zoophycos in the French Subalpine Basin [southeastern France]”) examines the evolution of