Tooth marks, gnaw marks, claw-marks, bite marks, scratch marks, etc: terminology in ichnology

IF 0.8 4区 地球科学 Q4 PALEONTOLOGY
J. Zonneveld, A. Fiorillo, S. Hasiotis, M. Gingras
{"title":"Tooth marks, gnaw marks, claw-marks, bite marks, scratch marks, etc: terminology in ichnology","authors":"J. Zonneveld, A. Fiorillo, S. Hasiotis, M. Gingras","doi":"10.1080/10420940.2022.2058937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Phrases incorporating the modifier ‘mark’ (e.g., bite mark, tooth mark, gnaw mark, etc.) have recently come under attack. These phrases are wide-spread in their usage, and are, in fact, appropriate to the original definition of the word mark. Phrases such as bite mark and tooth mark are de rigueur as interpretive terms in the larger scientific community and in the archaeological, anthropological, pathological forensic and biological literature and are consistent with the original definition of the word mark. Longstanding convention in the ichnological literature as well as these diverse other disciplines underscores that usage of the word ‘mark’ as a modifier in ichnological analyses is both appropriate and useful for inter-disciplinary communication. Neither the words ‘mark’ nor ‘trace’ are clear terms on their own and become well-defined only when a modifying term is associated (e.g., bite mark or bite trace; trace fossil; ripple mark, fault trace, trace element, gnaw mark, etc.).","PeriodicalId":51057,"journal":{"name":"Ichnos-An International Journal for Plant and Animal Traces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ichnos-An International Journal for Plant and Animal Traces","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10420940.2022.2058937","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PALEONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Abstract Phrases incorporating the modifier ‘mark’ (e.g., bite mark, tooth mark, gnaw mark, etc.) have recently come under attack. These phrases are wide-spread in their usage, and are, in fact, appropriate to the original definition of the word mark. Phrases such as bite mark and tooth mark are de rigueur as interpretive terms in the larger scientific community and in the archaeological, anthropological, pathological forensic and biological literature and are consistent with the original definition of the word mark. Longstanding convention in the ichnological literature as well as these diverse other disciplines underscores that usage of the word ‘mark’ as a modifier in ichnological analyses is both appropriate and useful for inter-disciplinary communication. Neither the words ‘mark’ nor ‘trace’ are clear terms on their own and become well-defined only when a modifying term is associated (e.g., bite mark or bite trace; trace fossil; ripple mark, fault trace, trace element, gnaw mark, etc.).
牙痕、咬痕、爪痕、咬痕、抓痕等:技术术语
含有“标记”修饰语的短语(例如,咬痕、牙痕、咬痕等)最近受到了攻击。这些短语被广泛使用,事实上,它们适合于“标记”一词的原始定义。诸如咬痕和牙痕之类的短语在更大的科学界以及考古学、人类学、病理学法医和生物学文献中作为解释性术语是必要的,它们与“标记”一词的原始定义是一致的。在技术文献中以及这些不同的其他学科中,长期以来的惯例强调,在技术分析中使用“标记”一词作为修饰语,对于跨学科交流既合适又有用。“标记”和“痕迹”这两个词本身都不是明确的术语,只有当与一个修饰术语相关联时(例如,咬痕或咬痕;跟踪化石;波纹痕、故障痕、微量元素、咬痕等)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The foremost aim of Ichnos is to promote excellence in ichnologic research. Primary emphases center upon the ethologic and ecologic significance of tracemaking organisms; organism-substrate interrelationships; and the role of biogenic processes in environmental reconstruction, sediment dynamics, sequence or event stratigraphy, biogeochemistry, and sedimentary diagenesis. Each contribution rests upon a firm taxonomic foundation, although papers dealing solely with systematics and nomenclature may have less priority than those dealing with conceptual and interpretive aspects of ichnology. Contributions from biologists and geologists are equally welcome. The format for Ichnos is designed to accommodate several types of manuscripts, including Research Articles (comprehensive articles dealing with original, fundamental research in ichnology), and Short Communications (short, succinct papers treating certain aspects of the history of ichnology, book reviews, news and notes, or invited comments dealing with current or contentious issues). The large page size and two-column format lend flexibility to the design of tables and illustrations. Thorough but timely reviews and rapid publication of manuscripts are integral parts of the process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信