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: a2729851df8fd96e

Jump to content

Talk:Rutgersella

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 74.96.143.21 in topic Retallack's claim and further scepticism

Retallack's claim and further scepticism

[edit]

"The fossils are pyritized; some internal chambers are filled with chalcedony, so that they are preserved along with basal rhizines. According to Retallack, these observations suggest affinities with lichens, and perhaps the fungal phylum Glomeromycota.[1]"

Though it could be interpreted that this organism had "rhizines," many animals are capable of thalloid or rhizoid structures (e.g. Anthozoa, Bryozoa, and some Porifera), and few lichens grow in with seemingly determinate or even superficial bilateral or glide symmetry. This organism could have been an aberrant form of sea anemone, or possibly an unusual sponge. Perhaps even a member of the proarticulata, as Retallack himself suggests, but just not whatever his... lichen or glomeromycete interpretation of the Proarticulata seems to be. Cheers, and sorry for the edits to other articles. As firmly as I stand on the idea of post-Ediacaran/Vendian-biota-type organisms surviving, the frequent lack of further citation or exploration of other ideas aside from that of Retallack's must be addressed, and with the cholesterol tracing experiment performed by Bobrovskiy et. al. upon Dickinsonia, perhaps more experimentation along those lines should be undertaken to at least spark more vigourous, realistic debate and insight into the nature of these life forms. 74.96.143.21 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  1. Cite error: The named reference Retallack2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).