| Basic info | Taxonomic history | Classification | Included Taxa |
| Morphology | Ecology and taphonomy | External Literature Search | Age range and collections |
Harpichnus
Discussion
Although Harpichnus is likely produced by moulting of arthropods (and not by moving asterozoans), the scattered arc- to hook-shaped imprints of the resulting trace fossil are consistent with the diagnosis of Biformitidae and therefore are included in it.
Taxonomy
Harpichnus was named by Vallon et al. (2015).
It was assigned to Biformitidae by Knaust and Neumann (2016).
It was assigned to Biformitidae by Knaust and Neumann (2016).
Synonymy list
| Year | Name and author |
|---|---|
| 2015 | Harpichnus Vallon et al. |
| 2016 | Harpichnus Knaust and Neumann |
Is something missing? Join the Paleobiology Database and enter the data
|
|
If no rank is listed, the taxon is considered an unranked clade in modern classifications. Ranks may be repeated or presented in the wrong order because authors working on different parts of the classification may disagree about how to rank taxa.
G. †Harpichnus Vallon et al. 2015
show all | hide all
Diagnosis
| Reference | Diagnosis | |
|---|---|---|
| D. Knaust and C. Neumann 2016 | Surface imprints parallel to the bedding plane. Imprints are slightly to sharply bent, more or less hook- to crescent-shaped and developed as negative epirelief (furrow) with adjacent corresponding positive epirelief (ridge), similar in shape, but not as distinct as the furrow. The ridge may be on the convex or the concave side of the furrow, rarely on both sides. Usually the single elements, consisting of furrow and ridge each, occur together as irregular clusters, in which the single furrow-ridge elements are scattered. |
Measurements
No measurements are available
No ecological data are available
Collections
No collection or age range data are available