Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a272d7221e46612b

Jump to content

// Workers AI · dad joke modeWhat did Erytholus say? "I'm red-dy to work".

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Erytholus
Temporal range: Middle Cambrian
Crack-out specimen of Erytholus globosus from the Middle Cambrian, Moodlatana Formation, of the Flinders ranges, South Australia
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: incertae sedis
Genus: Erytholus
Retallack 2011
Species
  • Erytholus globosus
Specimen of Eryhtolus globosus in sandstone slab cut vertical to bedding
Sketches of specimens of Erytholus globosus from the Middle Cambrian, Moodlatana Formation of the Flinders Ranges, South Australia

Erytholus is a form genus for problematic alleged fossils of Cambrian age in South Australia. It has been of special interest because of its morphological similarity with the Ediacaran fossil Ventogyrus, and may have been a late surviving vendobiont. It could be a slime mold.[1] Other authors have doubted whether it represents a fossil[2]

Description

[edit]

Erytholus was claimed by its describer, Gregory Retallack, to be a globose, chambered fossil, with associated vertical tubular structures. Retallack considered its preservation in sandstone is similar to the Ediacaran type preservation of the vendobiont Ventogyrus. It is found at depths of 20–30 centimetres (7.9–11.8 in) within paleosols. Its affinities are uncertain, although it bears a general resemblance to truffles.[1] In a rebuttal published in 2011, four other authors contested the idea that Erytholus was a fossil at all, stating that it was likely merely a "broken section of a poorly sorted ferruginous, muddy sandstone with deformed laminae".[2]

References

[edit]
  1. 1 2 Retallack, G.J. (2011). "Problematic megafossils in Cambrian paleosols of South Australia". Palaeontology. 54 (6): 1223–1242. Bibcode:2011Palgy..54.1223R. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2011.01099.x. S2CID 130692406.
  2. 1 2 Jago, James B.; Gehling, James G.; Paterson, John R.; Brock, Glenn A. (July 2012). "Comments on Retallack, G. J. 2011: Problematic megafossils in Cambrian Palaeosols of South Australia". Palaeontology. 55 (4): 913–917. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2012.01173.x. ISSN 0031-0239.