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: a272d3b7ba7f6c75

Jump to content

Talk:Protonympha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by 108.18.192.138 in topic Denoting Retallack's claims as questionable?

Denoting Retallack's claims as questionable?

[edit]

Why are Gregory Retallack's claims still given merit? There is no evidence of hyphae or fungal affinity for these fossils, making his "Ediacaran Lichen" hypothesis highly dubious, at best. 74.96.143.21 (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Because this article is created by Retallack. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
That... sounds like a conflict of interest on G.J. Retallack's part. While I moreso agree that this organism was probably an animal, based upon J. J. Sepkoski's interpretation, I will agree with Retallack that the organism was a late-surviving Petalonam.
The Ediacaran-type preservation is sound and makes sense, but I do not understand where the "rhizoid" claim came from. 108.18.192.138 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply