Scholarlink

<p>The soft-bodied macrofossils of the Ediacaran Period have been variously described as confusing, enigmatic, bizarre, and “a Rorschach test for paleontologists.” This is because they exemplify several of the problems with “problematica,” or fossils that resist robust taxonomic placement. In this paper I explore the history of this paleontological conundrum, focusing on the period after 1946. During this interval members of the “Ediacaran fauna” were classified as everything from primitive animals to microbial colonies to marine fungi. Then, from the scrum of conflicting interpretations, a new consensus began to emerge— that most Ediacaran macrofossils probably represent the remains of animals. Abandoning narrative, I explore this recent development by characterizing three strategies that have been used to constrain phylogenetic hypotheses in the absence of agreement about anatomical interpretation. I conclude by comparing the Ediacaran enigma to another of paleontology’s most famous mysteries: the “weird wonders” of the Burgess Shale.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Ediacaran enigma: uncertainty and underdetermination in precambrian paleontology

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月24日

查看全文
  • Max Dresow

摘要

The soft-bodied macrofossils of the Ediacaran Period have been variously described as confusing, enigmatic, bizarre, and “a Rorschach test for paleontologists.” This is because they exemplify several of the problems with “problematica,” or fossils that resist robust taxonomic placement. In this paper I explore the history of this paleontological conundrum, focusing on the period after 1946. During this interval members of the “Ediacaran fauna” were classified as everything from primitive animals to microbial colonies to marine fungi. Then, from the scrum of conflicting interpretations, a new consensus began to emerge— that most Ediacaran macrofossils probably represent the remains of animals. Abandoning narrative, I explore this recent development by characterizing three strategies that have been used to constrain phylogenetic hypotheses in the absence of agreement about anatomical interpretation. I conclude by comparing the Ediacaran enigma to another of paleontology’s most famous mysteries: the “weird wonders” of the Burgess Shale.