The epistemic architecture of palaeontological reasoning: trace fossil studies as an example

Palaeontology is commonly approached through material evidence such as field observations, stratigraphic context and comparative morphology, yet the reasoning that connects these lines of evidences to interpretations often remains implicit. We argue that formulating an explicit epistemic architecture for palaeontological reasoning can enhance testability, repeatability, logical soundness and the universality of interpretations. Ichnology is particularly suitable for such an approach because one organism could produce different traces while similar trace morphologies may arise from diverse organisms or even abiogenic processes. Attribution therefore requires a principled and logically rigorous framework. We outline six criteria that can structure palaeontological and ichnological reasoning: clarity, necessity and sufficiency, completeness, boundedness and normalization, convergence, consistency and robustness. These criteria provide a conceptual scaffold that allows competing interpretations to be evaluated as testable hypotheses. To put these principles into operation, we examine representative ichnological cases and reassess the soundness of reasoning and methodologies. The discussions address key questions such as whether current criteria are adequate to infer a bilaterian origin for burrows, how scale influences the measurement of bioturbation and heterogeneity, especially from tracemakers’ perspective, how universal scaling laws could be established to link trace morphological, biological and environmental signals, and how reasoning concerning ichnotaxonomy, ethology and tracemaker affinity can be strengthened. Through integration of explicit logical criteria with disciplined reasoning, palaeontology and ichnology can advance toward greater theoretical precision and interpretive rigor.