Testing the protozoan hypothesis for Ediacaran fossils: a developmental analysis of Palaeopascichnus
Testing the protozoan hypothesis for Ediacaran fossils: a developmental analysis of Palaeopascichnus
The hypothesis that the Ediacara biota were giant protozoans is tested by considering the external morphology, internal organization, suggested fossil representatives and molecular phylogeny of the xenophyophores. From this analysis, we find no case to support a direct relationship. Rather, the xenophyophores are here regarded as a group of recently evolved Foraminifera and are hence unlikely to have a record from the Ediacaran Period. Further from the growth dynamics of Foraminifera, they are also unlikely to be related to the Palaeopascichnus organism. We also find significant distinctions in the growth dynamics of Palaeopascichnus and organisms usually referred to the Ediacara biota, such as Charnia and Dickinsonia. Developmental analysis of the Palaeopascichnus– central to the xenophyophore hypothesis – reveals unusual, protozoan features, including evidence for chaotic repair structures, for mergence of coeval forms, as well as complex bifurcations. These observations suggest that Palaeopascichnus is a body fossil of an unidentified protozoan but is unrepresentative of Ediacaran body construction, in general.
Palaeopascichnus, Ediacara biota, Protozoa, zenophyophores, development, evolution
1157-1175
Antcliffe, Jonathan B.
48c5b039-a207-4def-b46d-14eeea81fb83
Gooday, Andrew J.
d9331d67-d518-4cfb-baed-9df3333b05b9
Brasier, Martin D.
498f07a3-256c-4abc-815c-23ea995430bf
September 2011
Antcliffe, Jonathan B.
48c5b039-a207-4def-b46d-14eeea81fb83
Gooday, Andrew J.
d9331d67-d518-4cfb-baed-9df3333b05b9
Brasier, Martin D.
498f07a3-256c-4abc-815c-23ea995430bf
Antcliffe, Jonathan B., Gooday, Andrew J. and Brasier, Martin D.
(2011)
Testing the protozoan hypothesis for Ediacaran fossils: a developmental analysis of Palaeopascichnus.
Palaeontology, 54 (5), .
(doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2011.01058.x).
Abstract
The hypothesis that the Ediacara biota were giant protozoans is tested by considering the external morphology, internal organization, suggested fossil representatives and molecular phylogeny of the xenophyophores. From this analysis, we find no case to support a direct relationship. Rather, the xenophyophores are here regarded as a group of recently evolved Foraminifera and are hence unlikely to have a record from the Ediacaran Period. Further from the growth dynamics of Foraminifera, they are also unlikely to be related to the Palaeopascichnus organism. We also find significant distinctions in the growth dynamics of Palaeopascichnus and organisms usually referred to the Ediacara biota, such as Charnia and Dickinsonia. Developmental analysis of the Palaeopascichnus– central to the xenophyophore hypothesis – reveals unusual, protozoan features, including evidence for chaotic repair structures, for mergence of coeval forms, as well as complex bifurcations. These observations suggest that Palaeopascichnus is a body fossil of an unidentified protozoan but is unrepresentative of Ediacaran body construction, in general.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: September 2011
Keywords:
Palaeopascichnus, Ediacara biota, Protozoa, zenophyophores, development, evolution
Organisations:
Marine Biogeochemistry
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 197517
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/197517
ISSN: 0031-0239
PURE UUID: 332cef76-2e61-4fe7-ac6d-718fee15622c
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 23 Sep 2011 14:20
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 04:11
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Jonathan B. Antcliffe
Author:
Andrew J. Gooday
Author:
Martin D. Brasier
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics