Trace fossils from the Maastrichtian chalk of the Isle of Rügen, north-east Germany
Keywords:
Bioerosion, bioturbation, burrow, boring, Cretaceous, ichnology
Abstract
The lower Maastrichtian chalk of the Isle of Rügen was deposited in a pelagic setting in the aphotic zone. Its rich fossil content has attracted research attention for centuries, whereas its ichnological characteristics remain poorly understood, even though horizons with intense bioturbation and occurrences of trace fossils in flint are common. The enhanced colour contrast of smooth chalk faces reveals repeated phases of benthic colonisation; larger burrows are commonly subject to silicification, while flint nodules also can preserve burrows in chalk. A total of 37 ichnogenera, including 47 ichnospecies of bioturbation and bioerosion trace fossils have been recognised; these are here briefly described, in addition to indeterminate material. Many ichnotaxa are recorded for the first time from the Rügen chalk. Bioerosion is restricted mainly to local hardgrounds in the form of biogenic components (such as shells and belemnite guards).
References
Baucon, A., Bednarz, M., Dufour, S., Felletti, F., Malgesini, G., Neto de Carvalho, C., Niklas, K.J., Wehrmann, A., Batstone, R., Bernardini, F., Briguglio, A., Cabella, R., Cavalazzi, B., Ferretti, A., Zanzerl, H. & McIlroy, D., 2020. Ethology of the trace fossil Chondrites: form, function and environment. Earth-Science Reviews 202: 102989. DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belaústegui, Z., Muñiz, F., Mángano, M.G., Buatois, L.A., Domènech, R. & Martinell, J., 2016. Lepeichnus giberti igen. nov. isp. nov. from the upper Miocene of Lepe (Huelva, SW Spain): evidence for its origin and development with proposal of a new concept, ichnogeny. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 452: 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertling, M., Buatois, L.A., Knaust, D., Laing, B., Mángano, M.G., Meyer, N., Mikuláš, R., Minter, N.J., Neumann, C., Rindsberg, A.K., Uchman, A. & Wisshak, M., 2022. Names for trace fossils 2.0: theory and practice in ichnotaxonomy. Lethaia 55: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bieńkowski-Wasiluk, M., Uchman, A., Jurkowska, A. & Świerczewska-Gładysz, E., 2015. The trace fossil Lepidenteron lewesiensis: a taphonomic window on diversity of Late Cretaceous fishes. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 89: 795–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blinkenberg, K.H., Lauridsen, B.W., Knaust, D. & Stemmerik, L., 2020. New ichnofabrics of the Cenomanian-Danian Chalk Group. Journal of Sedimentary Research 90: 701–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boussaha, M., Thibault, N., Anderskouv, K., Moreau, J. & Stemmerik, L., 2017. Controls on upper Campanian-Maastrichtian chalk deposition in the eastern Danish Basin. Sedimentology 64: 1998–2030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breton, G., 2006. Paramoudras … and other concretions around a burrow. Bulletin d’Information des Géologues du Basin de Paris 43: 18–43.Google Scholar
Brett, C.E., 1985. Tremichnus: a new ichnogenus of circular-parabolic pits in fossil echinoderms. Journal of Paleontology 59: 625–635.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1970. Borings as trace fossils and Entobia cretacea Portlock, as an example, Trace fossils. In: Crimes, T.P. & Harper, J.C. (eds): Geological Journal, Special Issue 3, Seel House Press (Liverpool): 49–90.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1975a. Trace fossils at omission surfaces. In: Frey, R.W. (ed.): The study of trace fossils. A synthesis of principles, problems and procedures in ichnology. Springer Verlag (New York): 399–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1975b. Comparative analysis of fossil and recent echinoid bioerosion. Palaeontology 18: 725–739.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1981. Concepts in ichnology illustrated by small round holes in shells. Acta Geológica Hispánica 16: 55–64.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & d’Alessandro, A., 1983. Bioerosion in the Pleistocene of southern Italy: ichnogenera Caulostrepsis and Maeandropolydora . Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 89: 283–309.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & d’Alessandro, A., 1984. The ichnogenus Entobia from the Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene of southern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 90: 227–296.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Ekdale, A.A., 1984. Trace fossil preservation in flint in the European chalk. Journal of Paleontology 58: 298–311.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Martinell, J., 1991. Centrichnus, new ichnogenus for centrically patterned attachment scars on skeletal substrates. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 38: 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Surlyk, F., 1973. Borings produced by brachiopod pedicles, fossil and recent. Lethaia 6: 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Schulz, M.-G. & Peake, N.B., 1975. Paramoudras: giant flints, long burrows and the early diagenesis of chalks. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Biologiske Skrifter 20: 1–31, pls 1-5.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Ekdale, A.A. & Richter, B., 1999a. New Taenidium (trace fossil) in the Upper Cretaceous chalk of northwestern Europe. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 46: 47–51.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Ekdale, A.A. & Asgaard, U., 1999b. Zoophycos in the Upper Cretaceous chalk of Denmark and Sweden. Greifswalder geowissenschaftliche Beiträge 6: 133–142.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Wisshak, M., Glaub, I. & Botquelen, A., 2007. Ichnotaxonomic review of dendriniform borings attributed to foraminiferans: Semidendrina igen. nov. In: Miller, W. (ed.): Trace fossils: concepts, problems, prospects. Elsevier (Amsterdam): 518–530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brongniart, A.T., 1823. Observations sur les fucoides, et sur quelques autres plantes marines fossiles. Mémoires de Société d’Histoire naturelle de Paris 1: 301–320.Google Scholar
Brongniart, A.T., 1828, Histoire des végétaux fossiles ou recherches botaniques et géologiques sur les végétaux renfermés dans les diverses couches du globe, Volume 1. G. Dufour & E. d’Ocagne (Paris), xii + 299 pp., pls 1-90.Google Scholar
Buchholz, A., 2010. Seltene und weitere ausgewählte Feuersteinfunde aus der Rügener Schreibkreide und aus dem Geschiebe. Der Geschiebesammler 43: 47–70.Google Scholar
Cadée, G.C. & Wolf, P. de, 2013, Belichnus traces produced on shells of the bivalve Lutraria lutraria by gulls. Ichnos 20: 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, C.R.I., 1983. The influence of diagenesis on some index properties of chalk in England. Géotechnique 33: 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., 2018. A new ichnogenus for Teredolites longissimus Kelly and Bromley. Swiss Journal of Palaeontology 137: 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K. & Jagt, J.W.M., 2013. Rogerella isp. infesting the pore pairs of Hemipneustes striatoradiatus (Leske) (Echinoidea: Upper Cretaceous, Belgium). Ichnos 20: 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., Jagt, J.W.M. & Nieuwenhuis, E., 2016. Site selectivity of the boring Rogerella isp. infesting Cardiaster granulosus (Goldfuss) (Echinoidea) in the type Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous, Belgium). Geological Journal 51: 789–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., Jagt, J.W.M. & Dols, P.P.M.A., 2010. Ichnology of Late Cretaceous echinoids from the Maastrichtian type area (The Netherlands, Belgium) – 2. A pentagonal attachment scar on Echinocorys gr. conoidea (Goldfuss). Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum 36: 51–53.Google Scholar
Ekdale, A.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1983. Trace fossils and ichnofabric in the Kjølby Gaard Marl, uppermost Cretaceous, Denmark. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 31: 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekdale, A.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1984a. Comparative ichnology of shelf-sea and deep-sea chalk. Journal of Paleontology 58: 322–332.Google Scholar
Ekdale, A.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1984b. Cretaceous chalk ichnofacies in northern Europe. Geobios, Mémoire Special 8: 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekdale, A.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1991, Analysis of composite ichnofabrics: an example in uppermost Cretaceous chalk of Denmark. Palaios 6: 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.N. & McIlroy, D., 2016. Palaeobiology of Schaubcylindrichnus heberti comb. nov. from the Lower Jurassic of Northeast England. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 449: 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenzel, P., Herrig, E., Nestler, H. & Reich, M., 1998. Die Rügener Schreibkreide. In: Reich, M. (ed.): Die Kreide Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. Exkursionsführer zur Geländetagung der DUGW Subkommission für Kreidestratigraphie. (Greifswald): 7–29.Google Scholar
Fu, S., 1991. Funktion, Verhalten und Einteilung fucoider und lophocteniider Lebensspuren. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 135: 1–79.Google Scholar
Frey, R.W. & Howard, J.D., 1981. Conichnus and Schaubcylindrichnus: redefined trace fossils from the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior. Journal of Paleontology 55: 800–804.Google Scholar
Gehrmann, A., 2018. The multi-stage structural development of the Upper Weichselian Jasmund Glacitectonic Complex (Rügen, NE Germany). Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universität Greifswald. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn: Google Scholar
Gibert, J.M.de, Domènech, R. & Martinell, J., 2007. Bioerosion in shell beds from the Pliocene Roussillon Basin, France: implications for the (macro)bioerosion ichnofacies model. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 52: 783–798.Google Scholar
Glaub, I., 1994. Mikrobohrspuren in ausgewählten Ablagerungsräumen des europäischen Jura und der Unterkreide (Klassifikation und Palökologie). Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 174: 1–324.Google Scholar
Gripp, K., 1967. Polydora biforans n. sp., ein in Belemniten-Rostren bohrender Wurm der Kreidezeit. Meyniana 17: 9–10.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1839. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreide-Versteinerungen, I. Abtheilung: Phytolithen und Polyparien. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde 1839: 252–296, pls 4, 5.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1840. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreide-Versteinerungen, II. Abtheilung: Radiarien und Annulaten. Nebst Nachträgen zur ersten Abtheilung. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde 1840: 631–672, pl. 9.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1842. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreide-Versteinerungen, III. Abtheilung: Mollusken. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 1842: 528–575, pl. 9.Google Scholar
Herrig, E., 1966. Ostracoden aus der Weißen Schreibkreide (Unter-Maastricht) der Insel Rügen. Paläontologische Abhandlungen, Reihe A: Paläozoologie 2: 693–1024.Google Scholar
Herrig, E., 2004. Kreide auf Rügen. In: Katzung, G. (ed.): Geologie von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schweizerbart (Stuttgart): 186–197.Google Scholar
Hillmer, G. & Schulz, M.-G., 1973. Ableitung der Biologie und Ökologie eines Polychaeten der Oberkreide durch Analyse des Bohrganges Ramosulcichnus biforans (Gripp) nov. ichnogen. Mitteilungen aus dem Geologisch-Paläontologischen Institut der Universität Hamburg 42: 5–24.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K., 1996. Die mikro-endolithischen Spurenfossilien der borealen Oberkreide Nordwest-Europas und ihre Faziesbeziehungen. Geologisches Jahrbuch A 136: 1–151.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K. & Vogel, K., 1992. Endolithische Spurenfossilien in der Schreibkreide (Maastricht) von Rügen (Norddeutschland). Zeitschrift für geologische Wissenschaften 20: 51–65.Google Scholar
Hübscher, C., Al Hseinat, M., Schneider, M. & Betzler, C., 2019. Evolution of contourite systems in the late Cretaceous Chalk Sea along the Tornquist Zone. Sedimentology 66: 1341–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, K. & Yoshizawa, K., 2016. Star-shaped trace fossil and Phymatoderma from Neogene deep-sea deposits in central Japan: probable echiuran feeding and fecal traces. Journal of Paleontology 90: 1169–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 2019. Met visschubben bekleed – het sporenfossiel Lepidenteron lewesiensis uit het Luiks-Limburgse Krijt. Gea 51: 15–18.Google Scholar
Jurkowska, A. & Uchman, A., 2013. The trace fossil Lepidenteron lewesiensis (Mantell, 1822) from the Upper Cretacous of southern Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica 63: 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, S.R. & Bromley, R.G., 1984. Ichnological nomenclature of clavate borings. Palaeontology 27: 793–807.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W.J., 1967. Burrows and surface traces from the Lower Chalk of southern England. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology 15: 125–167.Google Scholar
Kikuchi, K., Kotake, N. & Furukawa, N., 2016. Mechanism and process of construction of tubes of the trace fossil Schaubcylindrichnus coronus Frey and Howard, 1981. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 443: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2008. Balanoglossites Mägdefrau, 1932 from the Middle Triassic of Germany: part of a complex trace fossil probably produced by burrowing and boring polychaetes. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 82: 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2010. Meiobenthic trace fossils comprising a miniature ichnofabric from Late Permian carbonates of the Oman Mountains. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 286: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2013. The ichnogenus Rhizocorallium: classification, trace makers, palaeoenvironments and evolution. Earth-Science Reviews 126: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2017. Atlas of trace fossils in well core: appearance, taxonomy and interpretation. Springer (Dordrecht): xv + 200 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2019. The enigmatic trace fossil Tisoa de Serres, 1840. Earth-Science Reviews 188: 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2020. Sulcolithos variabilis igen. et isp. nov.: grooves on firm and hardbedding surfaces. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 94: 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2021a. Ichnofabric. In: Alderton, D. & Elias, S.A. (eds): Encyclopedia of geology. 2nd ed. Academic Press (United Kingdom): 520–531.Google Scholar
Knaust, D., 2021b. Balanoglossites-burrowed firmgrounds – the most common ichnofabric on earth? Earth-Science Reviews 220: 103747. DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2021c. The paradoxical ichnotaxonomy of Thalassinoides paradoxicus: a name of different meanings. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 95: 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2021d. Rosselichnidae ifam. nov.: burrows with concentric, spiral or eccentric lamination. Papers in Palaeontology 7: 1847–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2022. Thomas Webster’s Tulip Alcyonium (Lamellaecylindrica, trace fossil) in the Upper Greensand Formation (Albian) of the Isle of Wight. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 133: 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2024. The trace fossil Thalassinoides paradoxicus Kennedy, 1967 revisited from its type locality (Albian-Cenomanian chalk, SE England). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 634: 111913. DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2023.111913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., Dorador, J. & Rodríguez-Tovar, F.J., 2020. Burrowed matrix powering dual porosity systems – A case study from the Maastrichtian chalk of the Gullfaks Field, Norwegian North Sea. Marine and Petroleum Geology 113: 104158. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2019.104158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., Dronov, A.V. & Toom, U., 2023. Two almost-forgotten Trypanites ichnospecies names for the most common Palaeozoic macroboring. Papers in Palaeontology 9: e1491. DOI: 10.1002/spp2.1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kölliker, A. von, 1860. Über das ausgebreitete Vorkommen von pflanzlichen Parasiten in den Hartgebilden niederer Thiere. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 10: 215–232.Google Scholar
Kosegarten, (G) L.T., 1794. Rhapsodieen. Zweiter Band, Leipzig (Graeffsche Buchhandlung): xii + 360 pp.Google Scholar
Kutscher, M., 1972. Fossile Lebensspuren in der weißen Schreibkreide (Unter-Maastricht) der Insel Rügen. Der Aufschluss 23: 27–34.Google Scholar
Leymerie, M.A., 1842. Suite du mémoìre sur Ie terrain Crétacé du Département de l’Aube. Mémoires de la Société géologique de France, 5 (pt. 1), 1–34, pls 1–13.Google Scholar
Li, R.-H., 1993. Trace fossils and ichnofacies of Middle Ordovician Gongwusu Formation, Zhuozishan, Inner Mongolia. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica 32: 88–104, pls 1–4.Google Scholar
Löwemark, L. & Nara, M., 2010. Morphology, ethology and taxonomy of the ichnogenus Schaubcylindrichnus: notes for clarification. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 297: 184–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, H.B. & Stemmerik, L., 2010. Diagenesis of flint and porcellanite in the Maastrichtian chalk at Stevns Klint, Denmark. Journal of Sedimentary Research 80: 578–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mägdefrau, K., 1932. Über einige Bohrgänge aus dem Unteren Muschelkalk von Jena. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 14: 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mägdefrau, K., 1937. Lebensspuren fossiler “Bohr”-Organismen. Beiträge zur naturkundlichen Forschung in Südwestdeutschland 2: 54–67, pls 4–6.Google Scholar
Mantell, A.G., 1822. Fossils of the South Downs: or, Illustrations of the geology of Sussex. Lupton Relfe (London): 327 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J., 1851. Palaeontological notes. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2) 8: 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestler, H., 1960. Ein Bohrschwamm aus der weißen Schreibkreide (Unt. Maastricht) der Insel Rügen. Geologie 9: 650–655.Google Scholar
Nestler, H., 1965. Die Rekonstruktion des Lebensraums der Rügener Schreibkreide-Fauna (Unter-Maastricht) mit Hilfe der Paläoökologie und Paläobiologie. Geologie 14 (Beiheft 49): 1–147.Google Scholar
Nestler, H., 2002. Die Fossilien der Rügener Schreibkreide. Neue Brehm-Bücherei 486, Militzke (Magdeburg): 1–160.Google Scholar
Neumann, C., Wisshak, M., Aberhan, M., Girod, P., Rösner, T. & Bromley, R.G., 2015. Centrichnus eccentricus revisited: a new view on anomiid bivalve bioerosion. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 60: 539–549.Google Scholar
Neumann, C., Wisshak, M. & Bromley, R.G., 2008. Boring a mobile domicile: an alternative to the conchiculous life habit. In: Wisshak, M. & Tapanila, L. (eds): Current developments in bioerosion. Springer (Berlin, Heidelberg): 307–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nygaard, E., 1983. Bathichnus and its significance in the trace fossil association of Upper Cretaceous chalk, Mors, Denmark. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse 1982: 107–137, pls 1–3.Google Scholar
Øhlenschlæger, A., Milan, J., Nielsen, A.T. & Thibault, N., 2022. The mobile domicile boring Trypanites mobilis revisited – new observations and implications for ecosystem recovery following the Cretaceous-Palaeogene mass extinction. Lethaia 55: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivero, D., 2007. Zoophycos and the role of type specimens in ichnotaxonomy. In: Miller, W. (ed.): Trace fossils: concepts, problems, prospects. Elsevier (Amsterdam): 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pemberton, S.G. & Frey, R.W., 1982. Trace fossil nomenclature and the Planolites-Palaeophycus dilemma. Journal of Paleontology 56: 843–881.Google Scholar
Pether, J., 1995. Belichnus new ichnogenus, a ballistic trace on mollusc shells from the Holocene of the Benguela region, South Africa. Journal of Paleontology 69: 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portlock, J.E., 1843. Report on the geology of the County of Londonderry, and of parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh. Milliken (Dublin): xxxi + 784 pp.Google Scholar
Quenstedt, F.A., 1849. Petrefaktenkunde Deutschlands – Die Cephalopoden (text volume and atlas). Ludwig Friedrich Fues (Tübingen/Leipzig): 580 pp.Google Scholar
Reich, M. & Frenzel, P., 2002. Die Fauna und Flora der Rügener Schreibkreide (Maastrichtium, Ostsee). Archiv für Geschiebekunde 3: 73–284.Google Scholar
Reich, M., Herrig, E., Frenzel, P. & Kutscher, M., 2018. Die Rügener Schreibkreide – Lebewelt und Ablagerungsverhältnisse eines pelagischen oberkretazischen Sedimentationsraumes. Zitteliana 92: 17–32.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. & Lee, D., 2008. Brachiopod pedicle traces: recognition of three separate types of trace and redefinition of Podichnus centrifugalis Bromley & Surlyk, 1973. Fossils & Strata 54: 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, C., 1855. On the discovery of parasitic borings in fossil fish scales. Transactions of the Microscopic Society of London, New Series 3: 7–12.Google Scholar
Saporta, G. de, 1872. Paléontologie française ou Description des fossiles de la France, 2 série. Vegetaux. Plantes Jurassiques, 1, G. Masson (Paris), 506 pp.Google Scholar
Savrda, C.E., 2007. Taphonomy of trace fossils. In: Miller, W. (ed.): Trace fossils: concepts, problems, prospects. Elsevier (Amsterdam): 92–109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savrda, C.E., 2012. Chalk and related deep-marine carbonates. In: Bromley, R.G. & Knaust, D. (eds): Trace fossils as indicators of sedimentary environments [Developments in Sedimentology 64]. Elsevier (Amsterdam): 777–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlembach, M. Microfacies of the Maastrichtian chalk on Jasmund (Rügen, NE-Germany). Unpubl. MSc Thesis. Universität Greifswald, 54 pp,Google Scholar
Schlotheim, E. F. von, 1822. Nachträge zur Petrefactenkunde, 1. Abtheilung. Becker (Gotha), pp. 100, pls 1–21.Google Scholar
Schmid, E.E., 1876. Der Muschelkalk des östlichen Thüringen. Fromann (Jena), pp. 20.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K., 1996. Die makroskopischen Ichnofossilien der Rügener Schreibkreide (oberes Unter-Maastrichtium). Unpubl. MSc Thesis. Universität Greifswald Google Scholar
Schnick, H., 1992. Zum Vorkommen der Bohrspur Hyellomorpha microdendritica Vogel, Golubic & Brett im oberen Obermaastricht Mittelpolens. Zeitschrift für geologische Wissenschaften 20: 109–124.Google Scholar
Schnick, H.H., 2017. Exceptional preservation of the endolithic trace fossil Dendrina belemniticola Mägdefrau, 1937 in the Upper Maastrichtian greensand of Nasiłów (central Poland). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 56: 233–241.Google Scholar
Seidel, E., Meschede, M. & Obst, K., 2018. The Wiek Fault System east of Rügen Island: origin, tectonic phases and its relationship to the Trans-European Suture Zone, Mesozoic resource potential in the southern Permian Basin. In: Kilhams, B., Kukla, P.A., Mazur, S., McKie, T., Mijnlieff, H.F. & Van Ojik, K. (eds): Geological Society, London, Special Publications, vol. 469, pp. 59–182.Google Scholar
Šimo, V. & Tomašovych, A., 2013. Trace-fossil assemblages with a new ichnogenus in “spotted” (Fleckenmergel--Fleckenkalk) deposits: a signature of oxygen-limited benthic communities. Geologica Carpathica 64: 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinich, G., 1965. Die artikulaten Brachiopoden der Rügener Schreibkreide. Paläontologische Abhandlungen, Reihe A: Paläozoologie 2: 1–220.Google Scholar
Steinich, G., 1967. Sedimentstrukturen der Rügener Schreibkreide. Geologie 16: 570–585.Google Scholar
Steinich, G., 1972. Endogene Tektonik in den Unter-Maastricht-Vorkommen auf Jasmund (Rügen). Geologie 20 (Beiheft 71/72): 1–207.Google Scholar
Suhr, P., 1988. Taxonomie und Ichnologie fossiler Wohnrohren terebelloider Würmer. Freiberger Forschungshefte C419: 81–87.Google Scholar
Surlyk, F., Dons, T., Clausen, C.K. & Highham, J., 2003. Upper Cretaceous. In: Evans, D., Graham, C., Armour, A. & Bathurst, P. (eds): The Millenium atlas. Petroleum geology of the central and northern North Sea. The Geological Society (London): 213–233.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., Wilson, M.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1999. A new ichnogenus for etchings made by cheilostome bryozoans into calcareous substrates. Palaeontology 42(4): 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.D., Wilson, M.A. & Bromley, R.G., 2013. Finichnus, a new name for the ichnogenus Leptichnus Taylor, Wilson and Bromley 1999, preoccupied by Leptichnus Simroth, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Palaeontology 56: 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torell, O., 1870. Petrificata suecana formationis cambricae. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift 6 (Afdelningen 2, 8): 1–14.Google Scholar
Uchman, A., 1999. lchnology of the Rhenodanubian Flysch (Lower Cretaceous-Eocene) in Austria and Germany. Beringeria 25: 67–173.Google Scholar
Uchman, A. & Gaździcki, A., 2010. Phymatoderma melvillensis isp. nov. and other trace fossils from the Cape Melville Formation (Lower Miocene) of King George Island, Antarctica. Polish Polar Research 31: 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1965. Ober parasitische Polychaeten in Kreide-Austern sowie einige andere in Muschelschalen bohrende Würmer. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 39: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1971. Fremdskulpturen an Steinkernen von Polychaeten-Bohrgängen aus der Maastrichter Tuffkreide. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 45: 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1972. Über Talpina ramosa v. Hagenow 1840, ein wahrscheinlich zu den Phoronidea gehöriger Bohrorganismus aus der Oberen Kreide, nebst Bemerkungen zu den übrigen bisher beschriebenen kretazischen “Talpina”-Arten. In: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften II, mathematisch-physikalische Klasse. vol. 7, pp. 93–126, pls 1–5.Google Scholar
Webster, T., 1814. On some new varieties of fossil Alcyonia . Transactions of the Geological Society of London 2: 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisshak, M., 2017. Taming an ichnotaxonomical Pandora’s box: revision of dendritic and rosetted microborings (ichnofamily: Dendrinidae). European Journal of Taxonomy 390: 1–99.Google Scholar
Wisshak, M. & Neumann, C., 2006. Asymbiotic association of a boring polychaete and an echinoid from the Late Cretaceous of Germany. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51: 589–597.Google Scholar
Wisshak, M., Neumann, C., Knaust, D. & Reich, M., 2017a. Rediscovery of type material of the bioerosional trace fossil Talpina von Hagenow, 1840 and its ichnotaxonomical implications. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 91: 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisshak, M., Titschack, J., Kahl, W.-A. & Girod, P., 2017b. Classical and new bioerosion trace fossils in Cretaceous belemnite guards characterised via micro-CT. Fossil Record 20: 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisshak, M., Kroh, A., Bertling, M., Knaust, D., Nielsen, J.K., Jagt, J.W.M., Neumann, C. & Nielsen, K.S.S., 2015. In defence of an iconic ichnogenus – Oichnus Bromley, 1981. Annales Societatis Geologorum Poloniae 85: 445–451.Google Scholar
Woodward, S., 1830. A synoptic table of British organic remains. Longman & John Stacy (London): xiii + 50 pp.Google Scholar
Zhang, L.-J., Shi, G.R. & Gong, Y.-M., 2015. An ethological interpretation of Zoophycos based on Permian records from South China and southeastern Australia. Palaios 30: 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonneveld, J.-P. & Gringas, M.K., 2014. Sedilichnus, Oichnus, Fossichnus, and Tremichnus: ‘Small round holes in shells’ revisited. Journal of Paleontology 88: 895–905.
Belaústegui, Z., Muñiz, F., Mángano, M.G., Buatois, L.A., Domènech, R. & Martinell, J., 2016. Lepeichnus giberti igen. nov. isp. nov. from the upper Miocene of Lepe (Huelva, SW Spain): evidence for its origin and development with proposal of a new concept, ichnogeny. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 452: 80–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertling, M., Buatois, L.A., Knaust, D., Laing, B., Mángano, M.G., Meyer, N., Mikuláš, R., Minter, N.J., Neumann, C., Rindsberg, A.K., Uchman, A. & Wisshak, M., 2022. Names for trace fossils 2.0: theory and practice in ichnotaxonomy. Lethaia 55: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bieńkowski-Wasiluk, M., Uchman, A., Jurkowska, A. & Świerczewska-Gładysz, E., 2015. The trace fossil Lepidenteron lewesiensis: a taphonomic window on diversity of Late Cretaceous fishes. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 89: 795–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blinkenberg, K.H., Lauridsen, B.W., Knaust, D. & Stemmerik, L., 2020. New ichnofabrics of the Cenomanian-Danian Chalk Group. Journal of Sedimentary Research 90: 701–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boussaha, M., Thibault, N., Anderskouv, K., Moreau, J. & Stemmerik, L., 2017. Controls on upper Campanian-Maastrichtian chalk deposition in the eastern Danish Basin. Sedimentology 64: 1998–2030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breton, G., 2006. Paramoudras … and other concretions around a burrow. Bulletin d’Information des Géologues du Basin de Paris 43: 18–43.Google Scholar
Brett, C.E., 1985. Tremichnus: a new ichnogenus of circular-parabolic pits in fossil echinoderms. Journal of Paleontology 59: 625–635.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1970. Borings as trace fossils and Entobia cretacea Portlock, as an example, Trace fossils. In: Crimes, T.P. & Harper, J.C. (eds): Geological Journal, Special Issue 3, Seel House Press (Liverpool): 49–90.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1975a. Trace fossils at omission surfaces. In: Frey, R.W. (ed.): The study of trace fossils. A synthesis of principles, problems and procedures in ichnology. Springer Verlag (New York): 399–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1975b. Comparative analysis of fossil and recent echinoid bioerosion. Palaeontology 18: 725–739.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., 1981. Concepts in ichnology illustrated by small round holes in shells. Acta Geológica Hispánica 16: 55–64.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & d’Alessandro, A., 1983. Bioerosion in the Pleistocene of southern Italy: ichnogenera Caulostrepsis and Maeandropolydora . Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 89: 283–309.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & d’Alessandro, A., 1984. The ichnogenus Entobia from the Miocene, Pliocene and Pleistocene of southern Italy. Rivista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 90: 227–296.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Ekdale, A.A., 1984. Trace fossil preservation in flint in the European chalk. Journal of Paleontology 58: 298–311.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Martinell, J., 1991. Centrichnus, new ichnogenus for centrically patterned attachment scars on skeletal substrates. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 38: 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G. & Surlyk, F., 1973. Borings produced by brachiopod pedicles, fossil and recent. Lethaia 6: 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Schulz, M.-G. & Peake, N.B., 1975. Paramoudras: giant flints, long burrows and the early diagenesis of chalks. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Biologiske Skrifter 20: 1–31, pls 1-5.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Ekdale, A.A. & Richter, B., 1999a. New Taenidium (trace fossil) in the Upper Cretaceous chalk of northwestern Europe. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 46: 47–51.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Ekdale, A.A. & Asgaard, U., 1999b. Zoophycos in the Upper Cretaceous chalk of Denmark and Sweden. Greifswalder geowissenschaftliche Beiträge 6: 133–142.Google Scholar
Bromley, R.G., Wisshak, M., Glaub, I. & Botquelen, A., 2007. Ichnotaxonomic review of dendriniform borings attributed to foraminiferans: Semidendrina igen. nov. In: Miller, W. (ed.): Trace fossils: concepts, problems, prospects. Elsevier (Amsterdam): 518–530 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brongniart, A.T., 1823. Observations sur les fucoides, et sur quelques autres plantes marines fossiles. Mémoires de Société d’Histoire naturelle de Paris 1: 301–320.Google Scholar
Brongniart, A.T., 1828, Histoire des végétaux fossiles ou recherches botaniques et géologiques sur les végétaux renfermés dans les diverses couches du globe, Volume 1. G. Dufour & E. d’Ocagne (Paris), xii + 299 pp., pls 1-90.Google Scholar
Buchholz, A., 2010. Seltene und weitere ausgewählte Feuersteinfunde aus der Rügener Schreibkreide und aus dem Geschiebe. Der Geschiebesammler 43: 47–70.Google Scholar
Cadée, G.C. & Wolf, P. de, 2013, Belichnus traces produced on shells of the bivalve Lutraria lutraria by gulls. Ichnos 20: 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, C.R.I., 1983. The influence of diagenesis on some index properties of chalk in England. Géotechnique 33: 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., 2018. A new ichnogenus for Teredolites longissimus Kelly and Bromley. Swiss Journal of Palaeontology 137: 95–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K. & Jagt, J.W.M., 2013. Rogerella isp. infesting the pore pairs of Hemipneustes striatoradiatus (Leske) (Echinoidea: Upper Cretaceous, Belgium). Ichnos 20: 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., Jagt, J.W.M. & Nieuwenhuis, E., 2016. Site selectivity of the boring Rogerella isp. infesting Cardiaster granulosus (Goldfuss) (Echinoidea) in the type Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous, Belgium). Geological Journal 51: 789–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.K., Jagt, J.W.M. & Dols, P.P.M.A., 2010. Ichnology of Late Cretaceous echinoids from the Maastrichtian type area (The Netherlands, Belgium) – 2. A pentagonal attachment scar on Echinocorys gr. conoidea (Goldfuss). Bulletin of the Mizunami Fossil Museum 36: 51–53.Google Scholar
Ekdale, A.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1983. Trace fossils and ichnofabric in the Kjølby Gaard Marl, uppermost Cretaceous, Denmark. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark 31: 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekdale, A.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1984a. Comparative ichnology of shelf-sea and deep-sea chalk. Journal of Paleontology 58: 322–332.Google Scholar
Ekdale, A.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1984b. Cretaceous chalk ichnofacies in northern Europe. Geobios, Mémoire Special 8: 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekdale, A.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1991, Analysis of composite ichnofabrics: an example in uppermost Cretaceous chalk of Denmark. Palaios 6: 232–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.N. & McIlroy, D., 2016. Palaeobiology of Schaubcylindrichnus heberti comb. nov. from the Lower Jurassic of Northeast England. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 449: 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenzel, P., Herrig, E., Nestler, H. & Reich, M., 1998. Die Rügener Schreibkreide. In: Reich, M. (ed.): Die Kreide Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns. Exkursionsführer zur Geländetagung der DUGW Subkommission für Kreidestratigraphie. (Greifswald): 7–29.Google Scholar
Fu, S., 1991. Funktion, Verhalten und Einteilung fucoider und lophocteniider Lebensspuren. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 135: 1–79.Google Scholar
Frey, R.W. & Howard, J.D., 1981. Conichnus and Schaubcylindrichnus: redefined trace fossils from the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior. Journal of Paleontology 55: 800–804.Google Scholar
Gehrmann, A., 2018. The multi-stage structural development of the Upper Weichselian Jasmund Glacitectonic Complex (Rügen, NE Germany). Unpublished PhD Thesis, Universität Greifswald. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn: Google Scholar
Gibert, J.M.de, Domènech, R. & Martinell, J., 2007. Bioerosion in shell beds from the Pliocene Roussillon Basin, France: implications for the (macro)bioerosion ichnofacies model. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 52: 783–798.Google Scholar
Glaub, I., 1994. Mikrobohrspuren in ausgewählten Ablagerungsräumen des europäischen Jura und der Unterkreide (Klassifikation und Palökologie). Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 174: 1–324.Google Scholar
Gripp, K., 1967. Polydora biforans n. sp., ein in Belemniten-Rostren bohrender Wurm der Kreidezeit. Meyniana 17: 9–10.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1839. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreide-Versteinerungen, I. Abtheilung: Phytolithen und Polyparien. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde 1839: 252–296, pls 4, 5.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1840. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreide-Versteinerungen, II. Abtheilung: Radiarien und Annulaten. Nebst Nachträgen zur ersten Abtheilung. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde 1840: 631–672, pl. 9.Google Scholar
Hagenow, F. von, 1842. Monographie der Rügen’schen Kreide-Versteinerungen, III. Abtheilung: Mollusken. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde 1842: 528–575, pl. 9.Google Scholar
Herrig, E., 1966. Ostracoden aus der Weißen Schreibkreide (Unter-Maastricht) der Insel Rügen. Paläontologische Abhandlungen, Reihe A: Paläozoologie 2: 693–1024.Google Scholar
Herrig, E., 2004. Kreide auf Rügen. In: Katzung, G. (ed.): Geologie von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schweizerbart (Stuttgart): 186–197.Google Scholar
Hillmer, G. & Schulz, M.-G., 1973. Ableitung der Biologie und Ökologie eines Polychaeten der Oberkreide durch Analyse des Bohrganges Ramosulcichnus biforans (Gripp) nov. ichnogen. Mitteilungen aus dem Geologisch-Paläontologischen Institut der Universität Hamburg 42: 5–24.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K., 1996. Die mikro-endolithischen Spurenfossilien der borealen Oberkreide Nordwest-Europas und ihre Faziesbeziehungen. Geologisches Jahrbuch A 136: 1–151.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K. & Vogel, K., 1992. Endolithische Spurenfossilien in der Schreibkreide (Maastricht) von Rügen (Norddeutschland). Zeitschrift für geologische Wissenschaften 20: 51–65.Google Scholar
Hübscher, C., Al Hseinat, M., Schneider, M. & Betzler, C., 2019. Evolution of contourite systems in the late Cretaceous Chalk Sea along the Tornquist Zone. Sedimentology 66: 1341–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izumi, K. & Yoshizawa, K., 2016. Star-shaped trace fossil and Phymatoderma from Neogene deep-sea deposits in central Japan: probable echiuran feeding and fecal traces. Journal of Paleontology 90: 1169–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagt, J.W.M., 2019. Met visschubben bekleed – het sporenfossiel Lepidenteron lewesiensis uit het Luiks-Limburgse Krijt. Gea 51: 15–18.Google Scholar
Jurkowska, A. & Uchman, A., 2013. The trace fossil Lepidenteron lewesiensis (Mantell, 1822) from the Upper Cretacous of southern Poland. Acta Geologica Polonica 63: 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, S.R. & Bromley, R.G., 1984. Ichnological nomenclature of clavate borings. Palaeontology 27: 793–807.Google Scholar
Kennedy, W.J., 1967. Burrows and surface traces from the Lower Chalk of southern England. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology 15: 125–167.Google Scholar
Kikuchi, K., Kotake, N. & Furukawa, N., 2016. Mechanism and process of construction of tubes of the trace fossil Schaubcylindrichnus coronus Frey and Howard, 1981. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 443: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2008. Balanoglossites Mägdefrau, 1932 from the Middle Triassic of Germany: part of a complex trace fossil probably produced by burrowing and boring polychaetes. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 82: 347–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2010. Meiobenthic trace fossils comprising a miniature ichnofabric from Late Permian carbonates of the Oman Mountains. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 286: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2013. The ichnogenus Rhizocorallium: classification, trace makers, palaeoenvironments and evolution. Earth-Science Reviews 126: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2017. Atlas of trace fossils in well core: appearance, taxonomy and interpretation. Springer (Dordrecht): xv + 200 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2019. The enigmatic trace fossil Tisoa de Serres, 1840. Earth-Science Reviews 188: 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2020. Sulcolithos variabilis igen. et isp. nov.: grooves on firm and hardbedding surfaces. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 94: 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2021a. Ichnofabric. In: Alderton, D. & Elias, S.A. (eds): Encyclopedia of geology. 2nd ed. Academic Press (United Kingdom): 520–531.Google Scholar
Knaust, D., 2021b. Balanoglossites-burrowed firmgrounds – the most common ichnofabric on earth? Earth-Science Reviews 220: 103747. DOI: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2021c. The paradoxical ichnotaxonomy of Thalassinoides paradoxicus: a name of different meanings. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 95: 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2021d. Rosselichnidae ifam. nov.: burrows with concentric, spiral or eccentric lamination. Papers in Palaeontology 7: 1847–1875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2022. Thomas Webster’s Tulip Alcyonium (Lamellaecylindrica, trace fossil) in the Upper Greensand Formation (Albian) of the Isle of Wight. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 133: 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., 2024. The trace fossil Thalassinoides paradoxicus Kennedy, 1967 revisited from its type locality (Albian-Cenomanian chalk, SE England). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 634: 111913. DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2023.111913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., Dorador, J. & Rodríguez-Tovar, F.J., 2020. Burrowed matrix powering dual porosity systems – A case study from the Maastrichtian chalk of the Gullfaks Field, Norwegian North Sea. Marine and Petroleum Geology 113: 104158. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2019.104158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knaust, D., Dronov, A.V. & Toom, U., 2023. Two almost-forgotten Trypanites ichnospecies names for the most common Palaeozoic macroboring. Papers in Palaeontology 9: e1491. DOI: 10.1002/spp2.1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kölliker, A. von, 1860. Über das ausgebreitete Vorkommen von pflanzlichen Parasiten in den Hartgebilden niederer Thiere. Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Zoologie 10: 215–232.Google Scholar
Kosegarten, (G) L.T., 1794. Rhapsodieen. Zweiter Band, Leipzig (Graeffsche Buchhandlung): xii + 360 pp.Google Scholar
Kutscher, M., 1972. Fossile Lebensspuren in der weißen Schreibkreide (Unter-Maastricht) der Insel Rügen. Der Aufschluss 23: 27–34.Google Scholar
Leymerie, M.A., 1842. Suite du mémoìre sur Ie terrain Crétacé du Département de l’Aube. Mémoires de la Société géologique de France, 5 (pt. 1), 1–34, pls 1–13.Google Scholar
Li, R.-H., 1993. Trace fossils and ichnofacies of Middle Ordovician Gongwusu Formation, Zhuozishan, Inner Mongolia. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica 32: 88–104, pls 1–4.Google Scholar
Löwemark, L. & Nara, M., 2010. Morphology, ethology and taxonomy of the ichnogenus Schaubcylindrichnus: notes for clarification. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 297: 184–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, H.B. & Stemmerik, L., 2010. Diagenesis of flint and porcellanite in the Maastrichtian chalk at Stevns Klint, Denmark. Journal of Sedimentary Research 80: 578–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mägdefrau, K., 1932. Über einige Bohrgänge aus dem Unteren Muschelkalk von Jena. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 14: 150–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mägdefrau, K., 1937. Lebensspuren fossiler “Bohr”-Organismen. Beiträge zur naturkundlichen Forschung in Südwestdeutschland 2: 54–67, pls 4–6.Google Scholar
Mantell, A.G., 1822. Fossils of the South Downs: or, Illustrations of the geology of Sussex. Lupton Relfe (London): 327 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, J., 1851. Palaeontological notes. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2) 8: 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestler, H., 1960. Ein Bohrschwamm aus der weißen Schreibkreide (Unt. Maastricht) der Insel Rügen. Geologie 9: 650–655.Google Scholar
Nestler, H., 1965. Die Rekonstruktion des Lebensraums der Rügener Schreibkreide-Fauna (Unter-Maastricht) mit Hilfe der Paläoökologie und Paläobiologie. Geologie 14 (Beiheft 49): 1–147.Google Scholar
Nestler, H., 2002. Die Fossilien der Rügener Schreibkreide. Neue Brehm-Bücherei 486, Militzke (Magdeburg): 1–160.Google Scholar
Neumann, C., Wisshak, M., Aberhan, M., Girod, P., Rösner, T. & Bromley, R.G., 2015. Centrichnus eccentricus revisited: a new view on anomiid bivalve bioerosion. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 60: 539–549.Google Scholar
Neumann, C., Wisshak, M. & Bromley, R.G., 2008. Boring a mobile domicile: an alternative to the conchiculous life habit. In: Wisshak, M. & Tapanila, L. (eds): Current developments in bioerosion. Springer (Berlin, Heidelberg): 307–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nygaard, E., 1983. Bathichnus and its significance in the trace fossil association of Upper Cretaceous chalk, Mors, Denmark. Danmarks Geologiske Undersøgelse 1982: 107–137, pls 1–3.Google Scholar
Øhlenschlæger, A., Milan, J., Nielsen, A.T. & Thibault, N., 2022. The mobile domicile boring Trypanites mobilis revisited – new observations and implications for ecosystem recovery following the Cretaceous-Palaeogene mass extinction. Lethaia 55: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivero, D., 2007. Zoophycos and the role of type specimens in ichnotaxonomy. In: Miller, W. (ed.): Trace fossils: concepts, problems, prospects. Elsevier (Amsterdam): 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pemberton, S.G. & Frey, R.W., 1982. Trace fossil nomenclature and the Planolites-Palaeophycus dilemma. Journal of Paleontology 56: 843–881.Google Scholar
Pether, J., 1995. Belichnus new ichnogenus, a ballistic trace on mollusc shells from the Holocene of the Benguela region, South Africa. Journal of Paleontology 69: 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portlock, J.E., 1843. Report on the geology of the County of Londonderry, and of parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh. Milliken (Dublin): xxxi + 784 pp.Google Scholar
Quenstedt, F.A., 1849. Petrefaktenkunde Deutschlands – Die Cephalopoden (text volume and atlas). Ludwig Friedrich Fues (Tübingen/Leipzig): 580 pp.Google Scholar
Reich, M. & Frenzel, P., 2002. Die Fauna und Flora der Rügener Schreibkreide (Maastrichtium, Ostsee). Archiv für Geschiebekunde 3: 73–284.Google Scholar
Reich, M., Herrig, E., Frenzel, P. & Kutscher, M., 2018. Die Rügener Schreibkreide – Lebewelt und Ablagerungsverhältnisse eines pelagischen oberkretazischen Sedimentationsraumes. Zitteliana 92: 17–32.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. & Lee, D., 2008. Brachiopod pedicle traces: recognition of three separate types of trace and redefinition of Podichnus centrifugalis Bromley & Surlyk, 1973. Fossils & Strata 54: 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, C., 1855. On the discovery of parasitic borings in fossil fish scales. Transactions of the Microscopic Society of London, New Series 3: 7–12.Google Scholar
Saporta, G. de, 1872. Paléontologie française ou Description des fossiles de la France, 2 série. Vegetaux. Plantes Jurassiques, 1, G. Masson (Paris), 506 pp.Google Scholar
Savrda, C.E., 2007. Taphonomy of trace fossils. In: Miller, W. (ed.): Trace fossils: concepts, problems, prospects. Elsevier (Amsterdam): 92–109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savrda, C.E., 2012. Chalk and related deep-marine carbonates. In: Bromley, R.G. & Knaust, D. (eds): Trace fossils as indicators of sedimentary environments [Developments in Sedimentology 64]. Elsevier (Amsterdam): 777–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlembach, M. Microfacies of the Maastrichtian chalk on Jasmund (Rügen, NE-Germany). Unpubl. MSc Thesis. Universität Greifswald, 54 pp,Google Scholar
Schlotheim, E. F. von, 1822. Nachträge zur Petrefactenkunde, 1. Abtheilung. Becker (Gotha), pp. 100, pls 1–21.Google Scholar
Schmid, E.E., 1876. Der Muschelkalk des östlichen Thüringen. Fromann (Jena), pp. 20.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K., 1996. Die makroskopischen Ichnofossilien der Rügener Schreibkreide (oberes Unter-Maastrichtium). Unpubl. MSc Thesis. Universität Greifswald Google Scholar
Schnick, H., 1992. Zum Vorkommen der Bohrspur Hyellomorpha microdendritica Vogel, Golubic & Brett im oberen Obermaastricht Mittelpolens. Zeitschrift für geologische Wissenschaften 20: 109–124.Google Scholar
Schnick, H.H., 2017. Exceptional preservation of the endolithic trace fossil Dendrina belemniticola Mägdefrau, 1937 in the Upper Maastrichtian greensand of Nasiłów (central Poland). Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 56: 233–241.Google Scholar
Seidel, E., Meschede, M. & Obst, K., 2018. The Wiek Fault System east of Rügen Island: origin, tectonic phases and its relationship to the Trans-European Suture Zone, Mesozoic resource potential in the southern Permian Basin. In: Kilhams, B., Kukla, P.A., Mazur, S., McKie, T., Mijnlieff, H.F. & Van Ojik, K. (eds): Geological Society, London, Special Publications, vol. 469, pp. 59–182.Google Scholar
Šimo, V. & Tomašovych, A., 2013. Trace-fossil assemblages with a new ichnogenus in “spotted” (Fleckenmergel--Fleckenkalk) deposits: a signature of oxygen-limited benthic communities. Geologica Carpathica 64: 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinich, G., 1965. Die artikulaten Brachiopoden der Rügener Schreibkreide. Paläontologische Abhandlungen, Reihe A: Paläozoologie 2: 1–220.Google Scholar
Steinich, G., 1967. Sedimentstrukturen der Rügener Schreibkreide. Geologie 16: 570–585.Google Scholar
Steinich, G., 1972. Endogene Tektonik in den Unter-Maastricht-Vorkommen auf Jasmund (Rügen). Geologie 20 (Beiheft 71/72): 1–207.Google Scholar
Suhr, P., 1988. Taxonomie und Ichnologie fossiler Wohnrohren terebelloider Würmer. Freiberger Forschungshefte C419: 81–87.Google Scholar
Surlyk, F., Dons, T., Clausen, C.K. & Highham, J., 2003. Upper Cretaceous. In: Evans, D., Graham, C., Armour, A. & Bathurst, P. (eds): The Millenium atlas. Petroleum geology of the central and northern North Sea. The Geological Society (London): 213–233.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.D., Wilson, M.A. & Bromley, R.G., 1999. A new ichnogenus for etchings made by cheilostome bryozoans into calcareous substrates. Palaeontology 42(4): 595–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.D., Wilson, M.A. & Bromley, R.G., 2013. Finichnus, a new name for the ichnogenus Leptichnus Taylor, Wilson and Bromley 1999, preoccupied by Leptichnus Simroth, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Palaeontology 56: 456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torell, O., 1870. Petrificata suecana formationis cambricae. Lunds Universitets Årsskrift 6 (Afdelningen 2, 8): 1–14.Google Scholar
Uchman, A., 1999. lchnology of the Rhenodanubian Flysch (Lower Cretaceous-Eocene) in Austria and Germany. Beringeria 25: 67–173.Google Scholar
Uchman, A. & Gaździcki, A., 2010. Phymatoderma melvillensis isp. nov. and other trace fossils from the Cape Melville Formation (Lower Miocene) of King George Island, Antarctica. Polish Polar Research 31: 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1965. Ober parasitische Polychaeten in Kreide-Austern sowie einige andere in Muschelschalen bohrende Würmer. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 39: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1971. Fremdskulpturen an Steinkernen von Polychaeten-Bohrgängen aus der Maastrichter Tuffkreide. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 45: 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigt, E., 1972. Über Talpina ramosa v. Hagenow 1840, ein wahrscheinlich zu den Phoronidea gehöriger Bohrorganismus aus der Oberen Kreide, nebst Bemerkungen zu den übrigen bisher beschriebenen kretazischen “Talpina”-Arten. In: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften II, mathematisch-physikalische Klasse. vol. 7, pp. 93–126, pls 1–5.Google Scholar
Webster, T., 1814. On some new varieties of fossil Alcyonia . Transactions of the Geological Society of London 2: 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisshak, M., 2017. Taming an ichnotaxonomical Pandora’s box: revision of dendritic and rosetted microborings (ichnofamily: Dendrinidae). European Journal of Taxonomy 390: 1–99.Google Scholar
Wisshak, M. & Neumann, C., 2006. Asymbiotic association of a boring polychaete and an echinoid from the Late Cretaceous of Germany. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51: 589–597.Google Scholar
Wisshak, M., Neumann, C., Knaust, D. & Reich, M., 2017a. Rediscovery of type material of the bioerosional trace fossil Talpina von Hagenow, 1840 and its ichnotaxonomical implications. Paläontologische Zeitschrift 91: 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisshak, M., Titschack, J., Kahl, W.-A. & Girod, P., 2017b. Classical and new bioerosion trace fossils in Cretaceous belemnite guards characterised via micro-CT. Fossil Record 20: 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisshak, M., Kroh, A., Bertling, M., Knaust, D., Nielsen, J.K., Jagt, J.W.M., Neumann, C. & Nielsen, K.S.S., 2015. In defence of an iconic ichnogenus – Oichnus Bromley, 1981. Annales Societatis Geologorum Poloniae 85: 445–451.Google Scholar
Woodward, S., 1830. A synoptic table of British organic remains. Longman & John Stacy (London): xiii + 50 pp.Google Scholar
Zhang, L.-J., Shi, G.R. & Gong, Y.-M., 2015. An ethological interpretation of Zoophycos based on Permian records from South China and southeastern Australia. Palaios 30: 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zonneveld, J.-P. & Gringas, M.K., 2014. Sedilichnus, Oichnus, Fossichnus, and Tremichnus: ‘Small round holes in shells’ revisited. Journal of Paleontology 88: 895–905.
Published
2024-05-13
How to Cite
Knaust , D., & Schnick , H. (2024). Trace fossils from the Maastrichtian chalk of the Isle of Rügen, north-east Germany. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences, 103. https://doi.org/10.1017/njg.2024.6
Issue
Section
Geoperspective
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to Netherlands Journal of Geosciences retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Netherlands
Journal of Geosciences Foundation. Read the journal's full Copyright- and Licensing Policy.
