Skip to main content
Log in

Epistemic enhancement, pastism, and fossil anomalies in paleontology and ichnology

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents explication on how paleontologists reconstruct the past using fossils when good modern analogues are not available. I call these pastist methods to differentiate them from presentist methods in which such analogues are available. I do so by presenting two fossil cases: the problematica and graphoglyptids. I describe a forgotten heuristic, “analogue chaining,” that involves jumping from fossil anomaly to fossil anomaly using one to make sense of the other in successive fashion, using the relations between fossils to guide reconstruction. I relate this to the philosophy of historical sciences in four ways. First, that methods like analogue chaining have a “linearity” meaning that there are limited ways in which to learn about specimens using analogues. Second, that they are intrinsically difficult to notice, i.e. invisible. Third, that linearity and invisibility put pressure on some accounts of optimism about historical sciences. Fourth, our cases provide novel forms of optimism based on epistemic enhancement: the phenomena that some questions regarding an event are better answered millions of years after its occurrence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Also see Turner 2007; Morthekai 2019; Finkelman 2019; Currie 2019.

  2. This term was inspired by Rahman 1982.

  3. Discussing the uses and influences of analogue chaining between Sarle and Seilacher is quite tricky. This is because multiple-to-one analogue models and analogue chaining can themselves be blended together and become hard to identify. My aim here is to describe the paradigmatic cases to help scaffold better historical analyses of the intervening periods whilst adding complexity of philosophical importance.

  4. My first recollection of this term is from the cited GSA Talk presented by Buatois and Mángano in 2016.

  5. Both Currie 2018 and Wylie 2019 have stated the importance of this.

References

  • Bonnin T (2019) Evidential reasoning in historical sciences: applying toulmin schemes to the case of archezoa. Biol Philos 34(30):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Buatois L, Mángano G (2011) Ichnology: organism-substrate interactions in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buatois L, Mángano G (2016) Congruence of diversity trajectories between body fossils and trace fossils. Geol Soc Am Abstracts Programs. https://doi.org/10.1130/abs/2016AM-286852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang H (2004) Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cleland CE (2001) Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology 29(11):987–990

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Currie A (2015) Marsupial lions and methodological omnivory: function, success and reconstruction in paleobiology. Biol Phil 30(2)

  • Currie A (2018) Rock, bone, and ruin: An Optimist’s Guide to the Historical Sciences. MIT Press, Massachusetts

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Currie A (2019) Epistemic optimism, speculation, and the historical sciences. Philos Theory Pract Biol 11(7)

  • Danks D, Ippoliti E (eds) (2018B) Building theories: heuristics and hypotheses in sciences. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Darden L (2006) Reasoning in biological discoveries: essays on mechanisms, interfield relations, and anomaly resolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davies NS, Shillito AP (2021) True substrates: the exceptional resolution and unexceptional preservation of deep time snapshots on bedding surfaces. Sedimentology 68(7):3307–3356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson G (2016) Show me the bone: reconstructing prehistoric monsters in nineteenth-century britain and america. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dresow M (2023) Uniformitarianism re-examined, or the present is the key to the past, except when it isn’t (and even then it kind of is). Perspect Sci 31(4):405–436

  • de Saporta G (1884) Les Organismes Problématiques des Anciennes Mers. G. Masson, Éditeur, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelman L (2019) Betting & hierarchy in paleontology. Philos Theory Pract Biol 11:9

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey RW, Seilacher A (1980) Uniformity in marine ichnology. Lethaia 13(3):183–207

  • Fuchs T (1895) Studien über fucoiden und hieroglyphen. Kaiserlich-Königliche Hof-und Staatsdruckerei, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré HR (1970) The principles of scientific thinking. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock E (1858) Ichnology of New England: a report on the sandstone of the connecticut valley especially its fossil footmarks, made to the government of the commonwealth of massachusetts. William White, Printer to the State, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh S, Schassburger A, Plotnick RE (2019) The modern and fossil record of farming behavior. Paleobiology 45(3):395–404. https://doi.org/10.1017/pab.2019.25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lü J, Unwin DM, Jin X, Liu Y, Ji Q (2010) Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Procee R Biolog Sci 277(1680):383–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manger PR, Hall LS, Pettigrew JD (1998) The development of the external features of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus). Philos Trans R Soc London Series B 1372:1115–1125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manias C (2018) Reconstructing an incomparable organism: the chalicothere in nineteenth and early-twentieth century palaeontology. Hist Philos Life Sci 40(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massalongo A (1855) Zoophycos, novum genus plantarum fossilium. Typis Antonellianis, Veronae

    Google Scholar 

  • Meli DB (2001) Blood, monsters, and necessity in malpighi’s de polypo cordis. Med Hist 45(4):511–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mirza A (2022) Of chimeras, harmony, and kintsugi: towards a historicist epistemology of paleontological reconstruction, theory-change, and exploring heuristics. Perspect Sci 30(4):657–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morthekai P (2019) Philosophies for the palaeosciences-a review. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad 85(1):95–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathorst AG (1881) Om Spar af Några Evertebrerade Djur M. M. Och Deras Paleontologiska Betydelse. PA Norstedt & Söner, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Page MD (2021) The role of historical science in methodological actualism. Philos Sci 88(3):461–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiroz LI, Buatois LA, Koji Seike M, Mángano G, Jaramillo C, Sellers AJ (2019) The search for an elusive worm in the tropics, the past as a key to the present, and reverse uniformitarianism. Sci Rep 9:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman F (1982) Islam and modernity: transformation of an intellectual tradition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Rickert H (1986) The limits of concept formation in natural science: a logical introduction to the historical sciences (abridged edition). In: Gary O (ed) And T. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rona PA, Seilacher A, de Vargas C, Gooday AJ, Bernhard JM, Bowser S, Vetriani C, Wirsen CO, Mullineaux L, Robert Sherrell J, Grassle F, Low S, Lutz RA (2009) Paleodictyon nodosum: a living fossil on the deep-sea floor. Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanograph 56(19–20):1700–1712

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Sarle CJ (1906a) Arthrophycus and daedalus of burrow origin. In: proceedings of the rochester academy of sciences 4: 203–210

  • Sarle CJ (1906b) Preliminary note on the nature of Taonurus. In: proceedings of the rochester academy of sciences 4: 211–214

  • Schäfer W (1972) Ecology and palaeoecology of marine environments. In: Craig GY (ed) Trans Irmgard Oertel. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Seilacher A (1962) Paleontological studies on turbidite sedimentation and erosion. J Geol 70(2):227–234

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Seilacher A (1977b) Evolution of trace fossil communities. Dev Palaeontol Stratigraph 5:359–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seilacher A (1977a) Pattern analysis of Paleodictyon and related trace fossils. In: Peter Crimes (ed.) Trace Fossils 2.Geological Journal Special Issues

  • Seward AC (1909) II.—notes on fossil plants from the witteberg series of cape colony. Geol Mag 6(11):482–485

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Torell O (1869) Petrifica suecana formationis cambricae. Lunds Univ Årsskift 6:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner D (2007) Making prehistory: historical science and the scientific realism debate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Udden JA (1898) Fucoids or coprolites. J Geol 6(2):193–198

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Vialov OS (1964) Network structures similar to those made by tadpoles. J Sediment Res 34(3):664–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie A (1985) The reaction against analogy. Adv Archeol Method Theory 8:63–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie A (2019) Rock, bone, and ruin: a trace-centric appreciation. Philos Theory Pract Biol 11

  • Zhang L-J, Zhao Z (2016) Complex behavioural patterns and ethological analysis of the trace fossil Zoophycos: evidence from the Lower Devonian of South China. Lethaia 49(2):275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Gabriela Mángano and Luis Buatois for more than I can list. This includes invaluable conversations about the past and future of ichnology, direct access to fascinating fossils, and the opportunity to interact with ichnology as a historian and philosopher. I also thank Maximiliano Paz, Romaine Gungeon, Anthony Shillito, Andrei Ichaso Demianiuk, Kai Zou, Debora Mical Campetella, Kaitlin Lindblad, Jack Milligan and Federico Daniel Wenger for their rich perspectives on ichnology and interdisciplinary research. I thank Evan Arnet, Sander Gliboff, David Polly, Jutta Schickore, and Nick Zautra for critically useful comments on various topics in this paper. I am also grateful to Jose Carlos García-Ramos and Laura Piñuela at the Museum of the Jurassic in Asturias, Spain and Jessica Utrup at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, USA for access to their incredible fossil-collections. Lastly, I thank two reviewers of Biology & Philosophy for very insightful and encouraging comments on the latest versions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Mirza.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mirza, A. Epistemic enhancement, pastism, and fossil anomalies in paleontology and ichnology. Biol Philos 39, 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09937-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-023-09937-7

Keywords

Navigation