Previous studies of traces on foraminiferal tests have shown that a surprising variety can be observed in modern and fossil marine environments (e.g., Sliter 1971; Arnold et al. 1985; Hallock and Talge 1994). These observations led Nielsen (1998) to suggest that the majority of the traces may be interpreted as evidence of predation of the foraminiferans by several unknown predators, including benthic as well as planktonic. Further studies have shown this pattern to be a global phenomenon in many recent and fossil marine environments (Nielsen 1999; Nielsen et al. 2002). A few of the observed traces may be host-species specific, being related to certain foraminiferans; for example the trace Dipatulichnus rotundus occurs only on the planktonic Orbulina universa (Nielsen and Nielsen 2001). However, detailed analyses of bioerosion traces and the relationship of these to modern faunas are needed before any conclusions can be drawn as to the trophic level of the foraminiferans as well as the identities of the tracemakers; this presents at least two major problems. The first problem is that, although foraminiferans are numerous and present in all marine environments, they are extremely small and difficult to observe in their natural habitat. The second problem is that very few modern studies of bioerosion traces employ ichnotaxonomy. In part, this may be due to the fact that it is not advisable, according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999), to assign names on the basis of unfossilized material (see Nielsen and Nielsen 2001 for discussion). Until a satisfactory solution to this problem is found, we are restricted to naming and describing fossil traces. In our opinion, a name must be given to a new trace, regardless of the age of the trace. In particular, bioerosion traces on the foraminiferal test seem to be well suited for naming, since a majority of foraminiferal tests may be considered to become fossilized upon the death of the organism. Even though ichnotaxonomy may seem foreign to many researchers outside the ichnological community, the naming of bioerosion traces would certainly increase our present knowledge and ease communication and exchange of results between different working groups, whether these be geologists or biologists.

This study has two major objectives. First, we define new ichnotaxa. Second, we would like to stress the potential usefulness of these ichnotaxa in the context of palaeoenvironmental studies. One of the ichnotaxa, Fossichnus solus igen. et isp. nov., is considered to be related only to benthic foraminiferans. It has been found only in Holocene temperate to arctic marine environments and in Pleistocene sediments on the Greek island of Rhodes in the Aegean Sea. The distribution seems to depend on environmental parameters.