This article was published early last year, but this is the first I've seen it, and the links in the right hand margin include a gold mine of paleontology reported just this past week.
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/ediacaran-fungi-09298.html
Informal abstract:
The 635-million-year-old pyritized fungus-like microfossils found in the Ediacaran-period Doushantuo Formation in China provide direct fossil evidence for the colonization of land by fungi.
Excerpts show how far-reaching the themes are beyond even this much.
"They may have played a role in catalyzing atmospheric oxygenation and biospheric evolution in the aftermath of the catastrophic ‘snowball Earth’ event."
...
“At that time, ocean surfaces were frozen to a depth of more than a kilometer and it was an incredibly harsh environment for virtually any living organism, except for some microscopic life that managed to thrive.”
“Scientists have long wondered how life ever returned to normalcy and how the biosphere was able to grow larger and more complex than ever before.”
...
“The question used to be: ‘Were there fungi in the terrestrial realm before the rise of terrestrial plants?’,” said Professor Shuhai Xiao, also from the Virginia Tech.
“And I think our study suggests yes. Our fungus-like fossil is 240 million years older than the previous record. This is, thus far, the oldest record of terrestrial fungi.”
There are a goodly number of illustrations, and the original technical article had many more.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-20975-1
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer -- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
The 635-million-year-old pyritized fungus-like microfossils found in the Ediacaran-period Doushantuo Formation in China provide direct fossil evidence for the colonization of land by fungi.Wait a sec… EDIACARIAN??? On LAND?? SERIOUSLY??
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
The 635-million-year-old pyritized fungus-like microfossils found in the Ediacaran-period Doushantuo Formation in China provide direct fossil evidence for the colonization of land by fungi.Wait a sec… EDIACARIAN??? On LAND?? SERIOUSLY??
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
The 635-million-year-old pyritized fungus-like microfossils found in the Ediacaran-period Doushantuo Formation in China provide direct fossil evidence for the colonization of land by fungi.Wait a sec… EDIACARIAN??? On LAND?? SERIOUSLY??
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:14:18 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
The 635-million-year-old pyritized fungus-like microfossils found in the Ediacaran-period Doushantuo Formation in China provide direct fossil evidence for the colonization of land by fungi.
Wait a sec… EDIACARIAN??? On LAND?? SERIOUSLY??You might be amused by this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.12017
Retallack is highly controversial in his views of the Ediacaran biota,
although his other work on paleosols is
much more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 4:46:18 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:14:18 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
The 635-million-year-old pyritized fungus-like microfossils found in the Ediacaran-period Doushantuo Formation in China provide direct fossil evidence for the colonization of land by fungi.
Wait a sec… EDIACARIAN??? On LAND?? SERIOUSLY??You might be amused by this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.12017A claim that Dickinsonia and Spriggina are lichens!!!?? Their shapes, with the long central
grooves (?) and the very distinct head-like features of Spriggina, are utterly unlike
any kind of lichen I have ever seen. More importantly, there is no mechanism that would
explain such well-organized specimens, given the nature of the bond between fungi and
algae (or cyanobacteria) in a lichen.
Some fossils of Dickinsonia also had striking differences between the two ends.
I remember us discussing the nature of the "bud" at one end of Dickinsonia in the second picture of the following webpage:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/how-fat-uncovered-dickinsonia-earths-first-animal/8oha25o23
Later I found another webpage with two more examples of similar structures at one end.
Retallack is highly controversial in his views of the Ediacaran biota,That's bending over backwards: I'm surprised Nature even bothered to talk about this "controversy." I suppose it's because of the "interdisciplinary" features
of Retallack's "evidence" that are far remote from biology: "the rock’s red colour and weathering pattern"
arguing for a terrestrial environment.
although his other work on paleosols isThanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
much more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up. It turns out to be basic to the whole
subject matter of geology, and a source of information about lots of features
of earth climate, atmospheric composition, etc.
Peter Nyikos
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 4:46:18 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:14:18 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 12:22:22 PM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
The 635-million-year-old pyritized fungus-like microfossils found in the Ediacaran-period Doushantuo Formation in China provide direct fossil evidence for the colonization of land by fungi.
Wait a sec… EDIACARIAN??? On LAND?? SERIOUSLY??You might be amused by this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2012.12017A claim that Dickinsonia and Spriggina are lichens!!!?? Their shapes, with the long central
grooves (?) and the very distinct head-like features of Spriggina, are utterly unlike
any kind of lichen I have ever seen. More importantly, there is no mechanism that would
explain such well-organized specimens, given the nature of the bond between fungi and
algae (or cyanobacteria) in a lichen.
Some fossils of Dickinsonia also had striking differences between the two ends.
I remember us discussing the nature of the "bud" at one end of Dickinsonia in the second picture of the following webpage:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/how-fat-uncovered-dickinsonia-earths-first-animal/8oha25o23
Later I found another webpage with two more examples of similar structures at one end.
Retallack is highly controversial in his views of the Ediacaran biota,That's bending over backwards: I'm surprised Nature even bothered to talk about this "controversy." I suppose it's because of the "interdisciplinary" features
of Retallack's "evidence" that are far remote from biology: "the rock’s red colour and weathering pattern"
arguing for a terrestrial environment.
although his other work on paleosols isThanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
much more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up. It turns out to be basic to the whole
subject matter of geology, and a source of information about lots of features
of earth climate, atmospheric composition, etc.
Peter Nyikos
although his other work on paleosols isThanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
much more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up.
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:tossing out some more carbon dioxide. Are they also saying they’d generate soils? If that’s the case, would soils actually remove some of that carbon dioxide? I’m not quite sure how all this works…
By the way, I’m kinda new at this. Are they saying that these ancient fungi would have been able to grow on top of the ice an ingest some of the oxygen out of the atmosphere? I assume that would help speed our recovery from a snowball Earth byalthough his other work on paleosols isThanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
much more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up.
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up.
By the way, I’m kinda new at this. Are they saying that these ancient fungi would have been able to grow on top of the ice an ingest some of the oxygen out of the atmosphere?
I assume that would help speed our recovery from a snowball Earth by tossing out some more carbon dioxide. Are they also saying they’d generate soils?
If that’s the case, would soils actually remove some of that carbon dioxide? I’m not quite sure how all this works…
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:tossing out some more carbon dioxide. Are they also saying they’d generate soils? If that’s the case, would soils actually remove some of that carbon dioxide? I’m not quite sure how all this works…
By the way, I’m kinda new at this. Are they saying that these ancient fungi would have been able to grow on top of the ice an ingest some of the oxygen out of the atmosphere? I assume that would help speed our recovery from a snowball Earth byalthough his other work on paleosols isThanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
much more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up.
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:54:49 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:until
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > although his other work on paleosols is
> > much more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...
> Thanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them
actuallyyour > use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up.
By the way, I’m kinda new at this. Are they saying that these ancient
fungi would have been able to grow on top of the ice an ingest some of the
oxygen out of the atmosphere? I assume that would help speed our recovery
from a snowball Earth by tossing out some more carbon dioxide. Are they
also saying they’d generate soils? If that’s the case, would soils
-----------------------------remove some of that carbon dioxide? I’m not quite sure how all this works…
Wikipedia is actually quite good on paleontology subjects, with very
up-to-date references. As you can see from Peter's replies, articles in the
popular press are sometimes pretty good and unfortunately sometimes truly
awful. Hype and missing the main point is very common. It's always better
to struggle through the primary sources if you can. "Unpaywall" is a very
helpful addon for most browsers that saves a lot of Googling if the primary
is paywalled.
Best to
read the paper cited by Peter's original post:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-20975-1
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:54:49 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:tossing out some more carbon dioxide. Are they also saying they’d generate soils? If that’s the case, would soils actually remove some of that carbon dioxide? I’m not quite sure how all this works…
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> although his other work on paleosols is
By the way, I’m kinda new at this. Are they saying that these ancient fungi would have been able to grow on top of the ice an ingest some of the oxygen out of the atmosphere? I assume that would help speed our recovery from a snowball Earth bymuch more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...Thanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up.
Not on the surface, in cavities created by water dissolution in cracks left in laminated limestone after the ice melted and relieved the pressure. Best to
read the paper cited by Peter's original post:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-20975-1
On 6/17/22 3:49 PM, erik simpson wrote:tossing out some more carbon dioxide. Are they also saying they’d generate soils? If that’s the case, would soils actually remove some of that carbon dioxide? I’m not quite sure how all this works…
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:54:49 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> although his other work on paleosols is
By the way, I’m kinda new at this. Are they saying that these ancient fungi would have been able to grow on top of the ice an ingest some of the oxygen out of the atmosphere? I assume that would help speed our recovery from a snowball Earth bymuch more respected. Lots of strange stuff comes out of Oregon...Thanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up.
Not on the surface, in cavities created by water dissolution in cracks left in laminated limestone after the ice melted and relieved the pressure. Best to
read the paper cited by Peter's original post:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-20975-1You know, there are different latitudes on earth in the present
and those different latitudes can have different climates.
A 'snowball Earth' (ice covering the oceans at the equator and
ice covering all land masses where they exist) is an outrageous
claim.
However let's backtrack here. Is that a correct definition of
'snowball Earth'? Does 'snowball Earth' only mean only mean
ice and glaciers covering all known land masses?
Now if a lot of the continental land masses aggregated to high
latitudes during this time period then a lot of geology associated
with land will appear to have geology related to ice. Furthermore,
a lot of continental land may have less geologic overturn then
deep sea rocks far underneath the photic zone in oceans.
And there are other things too of that nature. Consider 'Pangea'
or the idea that at certain times in geologic history there was
one 'continent'. But what is a 'continent'? Well, it is a land
mass that is arbitrarily set as having equal to or more land
area than Australia.
Well, in our time Greenland is less than one third the land
area of Australia and Europe is generally separated from
Asia by the Urals, which is a relatively low mountain chain.
Consider Cimmeria during the time of the most recent Pangea.
Was it a chain of islands? Was it connected to Pangea? Did
it have a land area equal or greater to the present Australia?
Where an 'island' ends and a 'continent' begins is pretty
arbitrary and based upon current geography.
So was there really ice covering the oceans on the equator
during some time periods similar to the ice covering much of
the arctic ocean during the winter in the present? Was there
only ice on most of the continents that ended up being situated
at high latitudes during some of these time periods?
Is 'snowball Earth' a phrase that fails to distinguish land
from ocean? Does the phrase seem to imply that the Earth would
not have had about 30 percent land and 70 percent ocean during
these periods?
What does it mean? Is it an unverified bandwagon that has
little evidence to support it if it means arctic ocean like
ice covering the equatorial oceans extending to the poles
during all times of the year? Ice sheets can build up over
land at higher latitudes and this can change the albedo of
the Earth and ice can freeze on top of the oceans, but is
there any evidence that the Earth had a greater percentage
of land during the 'snowball Earth' periods?
To me there also appears to be more than one 'snowball
Earth'. There are hypothetical early ones having to
do with lesser solar output and more carbon dioxide
versus oxygen prior to the Cryogenian, and then there
is the world's climate during the Cryogenian itself.
'Snowball Earth'. What does it mean? Evidence for,
evidence against?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannotia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
On 6/17/22 3:49 PM, erik simpson wrote:tossing out some more carbon dioxide. Are they also saying they’d generate soils? If that’s the case, would soils actually remove some of that carbon dioxide? I’m not quite sure how all this works…
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:54:49 PM UTC-7, thesigh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 9:39:27 AM UTC-6, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>> Thanks for mentioning paleosols. I knew next to nothing about them until your
use of this unfamiliar word made me look it up.By the way, I’m kinda new at this. Are they saying that these ancient fungi would have been able to grow on top of the ice an ingest some of the oxygen out of the atmosphere? I assume that would help speed our recovery from a snowball Earth by
Not on the surface, in cavities created by water dissolution in cracks left in laminated limestone after the ice melted and relieved the pressure. Best to
read the paper cited by Peter's original post:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-20975-1
You know, there are different latitudes on earth in the present
and those different latitudes can have different climates.
A 'snowball Earth' (ice covering the oceans at the equator and
ice covering all land masses where they exist) is an outrageous
claim.
However let's backtrack here. Is that a correct definition of
'snowball Earth'? Does 'snowball Earth' only mean only mean
ice and glaciers covering all known land masses?
Now if a lot of the continental land masses aggregated to high
latitudes during this time period then a lot of geology associated
with land will appear to have geology related to ice. Furthermore,
a lot of continental land may have less geologic overturn then
deep sea rocks far underneath the photic zone in oceans.
And there are other things too of that nature. Consider 'Pangea'
or the idea that at certain times in geologic history there was
one 'continent'. But what is a 'continent'? Well, it is a land
mass that is arbitrarily set as having equal to or more land
area than Australia.
Well, in our time Greenland is less than one third the land
area of Australia and Europe is generally separated from
Asia by the Urals, which is a relatively low mountain chain.
Consider Cimmeria during the time of the most recent Pangea.
Was it a chain of islands?
Was it connected to Pangea? Did
it have a land area equal or greater to the present Australia?
Where an 'island' ends and a 'continent' begins is pretty
arbitrary and based upon current geography.
So was there really ice covering the oceans on the equator
during some time periods similar to the ice covering much of
the arctic ocean during the winter in the present? Was there
only ice on most of the continents that ended up being situated
at high latitudes during some of these time periods?
Is 'snowball Earth' a phrase that fails to distinguish land
from ocean?
Does the phrase seem to imply that the Earth would
not have had about 30 percent land and 70 percent ocean during
these periods?
What does it mean? Is it an unverified bandwagon that has
little evidence to support it if it means arctic ocean like
ice covering the equatorial oceans extending to the poles
during all times of the year? Ice sheets can build up over
land at higher latitudes and this can change the albedo of
the Earth and ice can freeze on top of the oceans, but is
there any evidence that the Earth had a greater percentage
of land during the 'snowball Earth' periods?
To me there also appears to be more than one 'snowball
Earth'. There are hypothetical early ones having to
do with lesser solar output and more carbon dioxide
versus oxygen prior to the Cryogenian,
and then there
is the world's climate during the Cryogenian itself.
'Snowball Earth'. What does it mean? Evidence for,
evidence against?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannotia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:30:40 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,868 |
| Posted today: | 1 |