CONICET | Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos

Contributions to this special issue ofICHNOSwere presented at the First International Congress on Ichnology, ICHNIA 2004, held at Trelew, Argentina during April 2004. The Congress began with quite simple questions with no easy answers: What are we doing here? What should be the aim of the congress? What is an ichnologist? What is ichnology? Many of us were just there to begin to answer those questions. Is it possible that we are still discussing what a trace fossil is? What items should be included within the ichnological world? Regardless, there is no more powerful object in nature than a trace fossil: a sign in a rock from the ancient past that reflects how animals behaved. And we ichnologists are the ones who have to interpret those Rosetta Stones. Rocks showing us dinosaurs walking, feeding and nesting, insects performing the complex architecture of their nests, organisms producing polygonal nets in the deep seas of the past, mammals building amazing helical burrows, and a long list of other marvels. By 2004, ichnology looked like a young science that was out of focus. The edges of the science were not precise; there were still items that we were discussing whether they belonged to ichnology or otherwise. And yet, what we wanted was that when a clear image does appear, it reveals a unique and fantastic One Ichnology. It is a young science because those who founded the modern ichnology were there at Trelew, and those who, later, proposed basic principles were also there . . . together with a new generation of ichnologists from the most diverse countries and regions such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, Europe, and the Americas. Those studying trace fossils of the most diverse producers were there. Those studying the most different aspects of trace fossils were there. It was for the first time that people working on invertebrate and vertebrate ichnology shared a common meeting. Also, it was for the first time that many people usually attending more specific workshops and meetings were united. However, if those who attended to show their work on dinoichnology had returned to their countries thinking only of dinoichnology, Ichnia would have failed. If those who came to talk about bioerosion did not attend other sessions, Ichnia would have failed. In sum, if those who attended the congress had not become interested in the work of their neighbors, Ichnia would have failed. The spirit of Ichnia was that everybody could envisage the world within the other ichnodisciplines. To construct bridges that join forever isolated worlds. Being the First International Congress, Ichnia was conceived as a meeting where to understand each other. Where to meet, maybe for the first time, those e-mail friends from remote countries: this is me . . . . this is what I do. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. generation of ichnologists from the most diverse countries and regions such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, Europe, and the Americas. Those studying trace fossils of the most diverse producers were there. Those studying the most different aspects of trace fossils were there. It was for the first time that people working on invertebrate and vertebrate ichnology shared a common meeting. Also, it was for the first time that many people usually attending more specific workshops and meetings were united. However, if those who attended to show their work on dinoichnology had returned to their countries thinking only of dinoichnology, Ichnia would have failed. If those who came to talk about bioerosion did not attend other sessions, Ichnia would have failed. In sum, if those who attended the congress had not become interested in the work of their neighbors, Ichnia would have failed. The spirit of Ichnia was that everybody could envisage the world within the other ichnodisciplines. To construct bridges that join forever isolated worlds. Being the First International Congress, Ichnia was conceived as a meeting where to understand each other. Where to meet, maybe for the first time, those e-mail friends from remote countries: this is me . . . . this is what I do. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. of us were just there to begin to answer those questions. Is it possible that we are still discussing what a trace fossil is? What items should be included within the ichnological world? Regardless, there is no more powerful object in nature than a trace fossil: a sign in a rock from the ancient past that reflects how animals behaved. And we ichnologists are the ones who have to interpret those Rosetta Stones. Rocks showing us dinosaurs walking, feeding and nesting, insects performing the complex architecture of their nests, organisms producing polygonal nets in the deep seas of the past, mammals building amazing helical burrows, and a long list of other marvels. By 2004, ichnology looked like a young science that was out of focus. The edges of the science were not precise; there were still items that we were discussing whether they belonged to ichnology or otherwise. And yet, what we wanted was that when a clear image does appear, it reveals a unique and fantastic One Ichnology. It is a young science because those who founded the modern ichnology were there at Trelew, and those who, later, proposed basic principles were also there . . . together with a new generation of ichnologists from the most diverse countries and regions such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, Europe, and the Americas. Those studying trace fossils of the most diverse producers were there. Those studying the most different aspects of trace fossils were there. It was for the first time that people working on invertebrate and vertebrate ichnology shared a common meeting. Also, it was for the first time that many people usually attending more specific workshops and meetings were united. However, if those who attended to show their work on dinoichnology had returned to their countries thinking only of dinoichnology, Ichnia would have failed. If those who came to talk about bioerosion did not attend other sessions, Ichnia would have failed. In sum, if those who attended the congress had not become interested in the work of their neighbors, Ichnia would have failed. The spirit of Ichnia was that everybody could envisage the world within the other ichnodisciplines. To construct bridges that join forever isolated worlds. Being the First International Congress, Ichnia was conceived as a meeting where to understand each other. Where to meet, maybe for the first time, those e-mail friends from remote countries: this is me . . . . this is what I do. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. generation of ichnologists from the most diverse countries and regions such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, Europe, and the Americas. Those studying trace fossils of the most diverse producers were there. Those studying the most different aspects of trace fossils were there. It was for the first time that people working on invertebrate and vertebrate ichnology shared a common meeting. Also, it was for the first time that many people usually attending more specific workshops and meetings were united. However, if those who attended to show their work on dinoichnology had returned to their countries thinking only of dinoichnology, Ichnia would have failed. If those who came to talk about bioerosion did not attend other sessions, Ichnia would have failed. In sum, if those who attended the congress had not become interested in the work of their neighbors, Ichnia would have failed. The spirit of Ichnia was that everybody could envisage the world within the other ichnodisciplines. To construct bridges that join forever isolated worlds. Being the First International Congress, Ichnia was conceived as a meeting where to understand each other. Where to meet, maybe for the first time, those e-mail friends from remote countries: this is me . . . . this is what I do. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. is ichnology? Many of us were just there to begin to answer those questions. Is it possible that we are still discussing what a trace fossil is? What items should be included within the ichnological world? Regardless, there is no more powerful object in nature than a trace fossil: a sign in a rock from the ancient past that reflects how animals behaved. And we ichnologists are the ones who have to interpret those Rosetta Stones. Rocks showing us dinosaurs walking, feeding and nesting, insects performing the complex architecture of their nests, organisms producing polygonal nets in the deep seas of the past, mammals building amazing helical burrows, and a long list of other marvels. By 2004, ichnology looked like a young science that was out of focus. The edges of the science were not precise; there were still items that we were discussing whether they belonged to ichnology or otherwise. And yet, what we wanted was that when a clear image does appear, it reveals a unique and fantastic One Ichnology. It is a young science because those who founded the modern ichnology were there at Trelew, and those who, later, proposed basic principles were also there . . . together with a new generation of ichnologists from the most diverse countries and regions such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, Europe, and the Americas. Those studying trace fossils of the most diverse producers were there. Those studying the most different aspects of trace fossils were there. It was for the first time that people working on invertebrate and vertebrate ichnology shared a common meeting. Also, it was for the first time that many people usually attending more specific workshops and meetings were united. However, if those who attended to show their work on dinoichnology had returned to their countries thinking only of dinoichnology, Ichnia would have failed. If those who came to talk about bioerosion did not attend other sessions, Ichnia would have failed. In sum, if those who attended the congress had not become interested in the work of their neighbors, Ichnia would have failed. The spirit of Ichnia was that everybody could envisage the world within the other ichnodisciplines. To construct bridges that join forever isolated worlds. Being the First International Congress, Ichnia was conceived as a meeting where to understand each other. Where to meet, maybe for the first time, those e-mail friends from remote countries: this is me . . . . this is what I do. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. generation of ichnologists from the most diverse countries and regions such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, Europe, and the Americas. Those studying trace fossils of the most diverse producers were there. Those studying the most different aspects of trace fossils were there. It was for the first time that people working on invertebrate and vertebrate ichnology shared a common meeting. Also, it was for the first time that many people usually attending more specific workshops and meetings were united. However, if those who attended to show their work on dinoichnology had returned to their countries thinking only of dinoichnology, Ichnia would have failed. If those who came to talk about bioerosion did not attend other sessions, Ichnia would have failed. In sum, if those who attended the congress had not become interested in the work of their neighbors, Ichnia would have failed. The spirit of Ichnia was that everybody could envisage the world within the other ichnodisciplines. To construct bridges that join forever isolated worlds. Being the First International Congress, Ichnia was conceived as a meeting where to understand each other. Where to meet, maybe for the first time, those e-mail friends from remote countries: this is me . . . . this is what I do. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. . . . together with a new generation of ichnologists from the most diverse countries and regions such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, India, New Zealand, Europe, and the Americas. Those studying trace fossils of the most diverse producers were there. Those studying the most different aspects of trace fossils were there. It was for the first time that people working on invertebrate and vertebrate ichnology shared a common meeting. Also, it was for the first time that many people usually attending more specific workshops and meetings were united. However, if those who attended to show their work on dinoichnology had returned to their countries thinking only of dinoichnology, Ichnia would have failed. If those who came to talk about bioerosion did not attend other sessions, Ichnia would have failed. In sum, if those who attended the congress had not become interested in the work of their neighbors, Ichnia would have failed. The spirit of Ichnia was that everybody could envisage the world within the other ichnodisciplines. To construct bridges that join forever isolated worlds. Being the First International Congress, Ichnia was conceived as a meeting where to understand each other. Where to meet, maybe for the first time, those e-mail friends from remote countries: this is me . . . . this is what I do. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. . . . this is what I do. In recent years we have been increasingly hearing a concept: One Ichnology ! What does it mean? What does it hide behind? Let me tell you: we lack an ichnotaxonomy governed by the same principles, we lack a single ichnofacies model, we lack a universal definition of what a trace fossil is . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking. . . . . . . and up to Ichnia we lacked a single meeting at which to discuss all the things that we were lacking.

enviar mensaje