Talk:Rutgersella
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)