Seems to be an arthopod trace.

I did not follow Siddhartha's suggestion. These is not a track but a burrow with "meniscate-backward" fillings. Similar burrows are done in todays marine environments by echinoids. There is an ichnogenus for them, but currently I have no access to my library. I will add the name soon.

This papers might be helpful:

Bromley & Asgaard 1975 Sediment structures produced by a spatangoid echinoid: a problem of Preservation. Bul. geol. Soc. Denmark 24: 261-281.

Bernardi et al. 2010 Echinoid burrow Bichordites monastiriensis from the Oligocene of NE Italy. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 55: 479-486.

de Gibert & Goldring 2008 Spatangoid-produced ichnofabrics (Bateig Limestone, Miocene, Spain) and the preservation of spatangoid trace fossils. Palaeo3 270: 299-310.

Best regards

Johannes

I do agree with Johannes that it looks like the burrows produced by echinoids, but the problem is its age. There were not spatangoids in the Jurassic!

Dear Beatriz,

Scolicia is a burrow, originated usually from Spatangoids*. The oldest occurrence of true Scolicia is from the Tithonian**, predating the oldest spatangoid body fossils to the Jurassic.  So the traces shown here could maybe also ascribed to Spatangoids or similar irregular echinoids with a comparable life style, which occur since the early Jurassic.

*Fu, S. & Werner, F. 2000 Distribution, ecology and taphonomy of the organsim trace, Scolicia, in northeast Atlantic deep-sea sediments. Palaeo3 156: 289-300.

**Tchoumatchenco, P. & Uchman, A., 2001. The oldest deep-sea Ophiomorpha and Scolicia and associated trace fossils from the Upper Jurassic–Lower Cretaceous deep-water turbidite deposits of SW Bulgaria. Palaeo3 169: 85–99.

Best regards

Johannes

Dear Christian,

I didn't know if I completely understand you statement correctly. Scolicia occurs often parallel to bedding planes (see Fu & Werner 2000, cited above). Also the generally orientation of such spatangoid burrows are parallel or subparallel to bedding planes (see Bromley & Asgaard 1975 (Fig. 28), cited above) and generally not perpendicular to bedding planes. At the pictures above we can see a nice section through the meniscate fillings.

The impressions we can see are, in my opinion, no resting traces, but a sign of movement of the backfilling organsim up to the sediment surface. The impression we can see is the planar view into the meniscate "watchglass" of the upgoing burrow. For me there is not a hint for an arthropod crawling trace like Cruciana, which looks really different in a horizontal cross section. Same for the idea of an  arthropod resting trace.

Sorry for that, but I disagree with your opinion.

Best regards

Johannes

edit: unfortunately, Christian Nyhuis has removed his complete posting, argumenting "pro-arthropod" crawling trace.

Are these features preserved on bedding planes? or are they oblique to bedding?

Dear keith 

is preserved in Micrite limestone 

I would like to know their orientation, and the nature of the surface (bedding  or joint on which they are preserved.  They are reminiscent of Beaconichnus (Type 1C)as illustrated in Treatise W

In seeing the photos im not convinced this is a bioturbation. Not sure, but i think its also may be a chevron mark.  A sedimentary structure originated by a clast movin on a slightly consolidated mud. The point of impact of the clast seem to be preserved in one of the photos.

Dear keith

thank you for your answer , the surface of the beds is a ripple marks

Dear Enrique Bernárdez

I don't think that it is a chevron mark. It is like a sprite

The bilobate burrow in the lower foto would be named Cruziana, had it been found in the Paleozoic and not in the Callovian. But there are similar forms known also from the Triassic, a kind of homeomorphy. See: Seilacher, A. 2007. Trace fossil analysis. Springer, there p.34. Kindest regards.

Dear Johannes Kalbe 

That you for your answer. The informations was very beneficial for me , I think that maybe it could be an echinoid socilia but I can't found echinoides on this banc. We have an ammonites level what make me confused.

I partly agree with Beat Keller, it seems to be Cruziana of Paleozoic age.

Dear Mr. Sissakian,

unfortunately, Callovian stage (like it is written in the starting Question) does not belong to the paleozoic era.

And, you have to take in account, the we see a horizontal section throug the burrow and not an imprint of the burrow as an undertrack. Cruziana isp. doesn't show such an inner burrow organisation in sections, unfortunately.

Dear Mahboubi,

there are different meniscate backfill burrows (not only by echinoids, this is only one suggestion), and you may have a detailed check of literature. These articles might be relevant:

Chiplonkar GW (1972) A new trace fossil from the Upper Cretaceous of South India. Curr Sci 41(20):747.

D’Alessandro A, Bromley RG (1987) Meniscate trace fossils and the Muensteria-Taenidium problem. Palaeontology 30:743–763.

Frey RW, Pemberton SG, Fagerstrom JA (1984) Morphological, ethological and environmental significance of the ichnogenera Scoyenia and Ancorichnus. J  Paleontol 58:511–528..

Reading Seilacher`s classic "Trace fossil analysis" would be recommended.

Best regards

Johannes

The depressions at the end of each trace look like eroded body fossils, so I would focus on looking at what's left of them to find out the trace makers' identities.  The random orientation of the tracks suggest these are surface traces rather than burrows (my first thought was clam or lingula, but I think that's wrong).  These remind me of some Solnhofen fossils that show a horseshow crab or similar that died in its tracks following landing in anoxic or otherwise lethal water.  Here is an example:  https://www.pinterest.com/pin/540220917777859597/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/540220917777859597/

Unfortunately no

Its Rhizocorrluim with sprite and most probably indicating Escaping ichnofacies types .

 CRUZOAND. Result of Trilobite activity  and of Ordoivian agee but this one of Callovian age .

Its Rhizocorrluim with sprite and most probably indicating Escaping ichnofacies types .

 CRUZOANA,Result of Trilobite activity  and of Ordoivcian agee but this one of Callovian age .

Dear all,

what do you think about marks created by rolling ammonidea?

Similar traces where found in the quarries of Solnhofen in a micritic limestone.......

best regards

Andreas

http://www.solnhofen-fossilienatlas.de/fossil.php?fossilid=1671

Yes They are Sprite within Zoophycus Trace fossils. in indicating escaping behavior  of the fossil from scavengers . Its well identified from Germany Jurassic  carbonates .

Kind Regards

Dear All,

The traces in the pictures belong to the ichnogenus Protovirgularia, a locomotory trace attributed to cleft footed clams. They are fairly common in the Jurassic rocks of Kachchh and Rajasthan, India.