Ichnofacies: a mixture of taphofacies and biofacies
Article first published online: 9 OCT 2007
Volume 24, Issue 2, pages 153–163, April 1991
How to Cite
BROMLEY, R. G. and ASGAARD, U. (1991), Ichnofacies: a mixture of taphofacies and biofacies. Lethaia, 24: 153–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.1991.tb01463.x
- Issue published online: 9 OCT 2007
- Article first published online: 9 OCT 2007
- received 12th June, 1990; revised typescript accepted 6th November, 1990.
The environmental significance of individual ichnofacies has become a point of debate, and the Scoyenia ichnofacies is not clearly defined. Removal of the marine/non-marine boundary from ichnofacies definitions, as well as the bathymetry control, would render the Scoyenia ichnofacies unnecessary and would consolidate the definitions of the remaining ichnofacies. The constitution of the remainder is far from uniform. In some, the characteristic features are influenced by taphonomic bias more than by ecological factors, and thus these ichnofacies are in effect taphofacies (Skolithos, Cruziana and, especially, Zoophycos and Nereites). Others, on the other hand, have a primarily ecological definition and function as biofacies (Glossifungites, Trypanites, Teredolites and Psilonichnus), taphonomic bias playing a relatively minor role. Opportunistic occurrences of Skolithos in storm deposits do not fall within the Skolithos ichnofacies sensu stricto, and may be regarded as a separate Arenicolites ichnofacies, having an ecological character. □Trace fossils, ichnofacies, salinity.