[Taxacom] Zoological genus names - pseudofossils

[Tony Rees]

Dear all,

If anyone is interested, I have now added the list of pseudofossil genera
as given by  Häntzschel, 1975
(Häntzschel, W. (1975). Miscellanea Supplement 1. Trace fossils and
Problematica, second edition. In Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology,
Part W )

to the relevant place (currently a "phylum" in Animalia, however I may need
to reconsider this as a subset are plants) in the IRMNG hierarchy, see here
for the list:

http://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11914597

There are a couple more (Genus Radiarites Ghare, 1982 and  Repentella
Müller, 1968) that I already had, not in the Häntzschel list, plus one of
Häntzschel's cited genera, Aspidella Billings, 1872, is presently
considered an Ediacaran body fossil (Cnidaria incertae sedis) so has been
placed there (reference is Gehling, J. G.; Narbonne, G. M.; Anderson, M. M.
(2000). The first named Ediacaran body fossil, Aspidella terranovica.
*Palaeontology.* 43(3): 427-456).

If anyone has any further suggested additions or alterations I will be glad
to hear them (I have not yet done an exhaustive check for any other names
missing at the generic level).

Regards - Tony


On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 12:57, Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz> wrote:

>
>
> I was slightly confused, but have sorted myself out.  Part W Miscellanea
> was published in 1962 and has a chapt on Trace Fossils. What Tony gave a
> link to was Part W Miscellanea *SUPPLEMENT 1*, published in 1975, which is
> entirely a revised and expanded work on Trace Fossils by Hantzschel, and
> without the chapters on Worms and Conodonts present in the original W
> volume.
>
> So there are two different W volumes, when perhaps the extra volume should
> have been assigned a succeeding letter of the alphabet, or had a clearer
> indication of content by its title. IMHO.
>
> Geoff
>
> On Mon, December 9, 2019 7:34 pm, Tony Rees via Taxacom wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As part of the quality control for the Interim Register of Marine and
> > Nonmarine Genera (IRMNG) I am interested in noting published genus names
> > that have since been proposed to be pseudofossils, so that I can remove
> > them from categories where they would otherwise appear to be accepted
> > names
> > within legitimate higher taxa. I note the following statement from a
> > chapter on "Pseudo-Traces" within the 2007 book "Trace Fossil Analysis":
> >
> > "The last edition of the *Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology*, part W,
> > lists 245 ichnogenera and no less than 76 “genera” of pseudofossils
> > (not
> > counting synonyms)"
> >
> > If anyone can send me either a scan or a transcription of the cited list
> I
> > would greatly appreciate it... (I will be interested in synonyms as well
> > as
> > valid names). Otherwise I would be pleased to know if there are other
> > lists
> > of names currently regarded as pseudofossils in existence so I can check
> > off the names therein against my own list.
> >
> > Thanks in advance - Tony
> >
>
>
> --
> Geoffrey B. Read, Ph.D.
> Wellington, NEW ZEALAND
> gread at actrix.gen.nz
>
>