![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Ediacaran biota is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2012. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can we do something about the timeline? It's kind of ugly-looking, like the fonts are badly pixelated... Adam Cuerden talk 12:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Did some more editing. I've changed "sandbars in the mouths of a delta's distributaries" to "sandbars in a river delta". This is certainly simpler, but it's not quite as specific. change it back if you think this removes too much information.
Also, there's a citation needed tag in there. Can you get that? Adam Cuerden talk 03:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I've tried to clarify the underside/upperside preservation. in "What is preserved?" I think this is right: "The rate of cementation of the overlying substrate, relative to the rate of decomposition of the organism, determines whether the top or bottom surface of an organism is preserved. Most disc-shaped fossils decomposed before the overlying sediment was cemented, and the ash or sand slumped in to fill the void, leaving a cast of the underside of the organism." Adam Cuerden talk 03:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)°
Lastly, should
" Mark McMenamin goes one step further, and claims that Ediacarans could not be animals because they did not possess an embryonic stage." read " Mark McMenamin goes one step further, and claims that Ediacarans could not be animals because, as far as is known, they did not possess an embryonic stage.
Template talk:Ediacaran biota timeline
Insted of putting Aboriginal language we might have to put Kuyani language, well we wouldnt say water is from a european language would we! Reference is http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0405&L=australian-linguistics-l&D=1&P=264 Enlil Ninlil 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Why to whom in "The Ediacaran biota had soft bodies and no skeletons, making their abundant preservation surprising.[to whom?]"?
The Fossilisation section below describes this in more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.25.244 ( talk) 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to flag up the a recent paper which could benefit the article. Verisimilus T 11:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: "earliest known complex multicellular organisms." - Nobody really knows. I've seen no evidence that confirms nor denies multicellular status. There is/was a biologist who claims that they may be giant single cells, but I don't remember the name. Large plants (several cm) or parts of plants composed of a single cell do exist now. The majority presumption is that they are multicellular, but may be merely current-life bias. -- Tablizer ( talk) 01:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: see about Gromia sphaerica, a single-celled organism leaving eye-visible trails on the sea floor:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/24/2427811.htm
(-- 76.89.189.214 ( talk) 07:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC))
I find it surprising that the article cites Grazhdankin's paper "Patterns of distribution in the Ediacaran biotas: facies versus biogeography and evolution" (Paleobiology, Spring 2004) several times but does not mention what seems to be the paper's main theme: irrespective of time or location, there is a strong correlation between the paleo-environment and the genera found, and nothing else seems to make a difference. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead says 580-542MYA but the body does not spell out the date range, so there's no ref. This will do: Brasier, M., and Antcliffe, J. (20 August 2004).
"Decoding the Ediacaran Enigma". Science. 305 (5687).
doi:
10.1126/science.1102673. Retrieved 2008-07-18. {{
cite journal}}
: Text "pages-1115-1117" ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) --
Philcha (
talk)
10:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The Origin section states "It took almost 4 billion years from the formation of the Earth for the Ediacaran fossils to first appear, 655 million years ago." This appears to contradict the lead. Syzygos ( talk) 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Might be useful -- Philcha ( talk) 13:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Embryos debunked. Precambrian fossils, once thought to be embryos, reinterpreted as... something else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.100 ( talk • contribs)
I was just reading this article, and this seemed strange to me: "Their strange form and apparent disconnectedness from later organisms have led some to consider them a "failed experiment" in multicellular life, with later multicellular life independently re-evolving from unrelated single-celled organisms."
I checked the source page, and it only said some lineages were failed experiments, and that some Ediacarans looked like they shared some characteristics with later lineages. It didn't say a single thing about later multicellular life "re-evolving" from unrelated single celled-organisms.
I'm new to wikipedia editing and am not specialized in this topic, so I don't really know protocol or how this should be rectified. I sincerely doubt the factuality of the above quote, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.250.200 ( talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Reffrences:
Society, London, 149, 607-613.
Aleksey ( Alnagov ( talk) 10:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm the main author of the Dutch-language article about the Ediacara biota, and while reading this article I noticed something that appeared strange to me. You call the middle assemblage of the biota the Ediacara type, and then you give as reference Erwin 2008 (ref. 87). But he doesn't call it the assemblage Ediacara-type, he and several author authors name that assemblage the White Sea-assemblage. [1] [2] And in the figure accompanying the text, the Ediacara SSF and the Miache-type biota are mentioned as well, which are not referred to in the text. Something I find not very clear. Wenkbrauwalbatros ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ediacara-assemblage versus White Sea-assemblage
The Russian and other scientists usually use term "Ediacara-type biota" (Ediacara-assemblage) – is a community on well-developed microbial mat in shallow, sunlit environments between wave zone and storm wave zone. It is more correct from the historical point of view, because the first rich assemblage of this type has been found in Ediacara Hills, Australia. For example see: Grazhdankin, Dima (2004). " Patterns of distribution in the Ediacaran biotas: facies versus biogeography and evolution". Palæobiology 30 (2): 203–221.
"Ediacaran biota", "Ediacara biota" and "Ediacara-type biota" have different meanings.
Ediacaran biota (Vendian biota) it is all organisms of the Ediacaran (Vendian) period: bacteria, protista, algae, animals, fungi and others. And Ediacaran biota includes the Ediacara biota and Ediacara-type biota.
Ediacara biota it is = "vendobionta" (the not in Adolph Seilacher meaning as Kingdom or Order/Suborder of Rhizaria) – all organisms what preserved as casts and moulds: Dickinsonia, Kimberella, Rangea, Tribrachidium, Spriggina, Pambikalbae, Charnia, Nemiana, Palaeophragmodictia, Ediacaria, Pteridinium, Onega, Yorgia, Palaeopascichnus, Fractofusus, Vendoconularia,… In typical volume the Ediacara biota consist of Ediacara-type biota (assemblage), Avalon-type biota and Nama-type biota, but not of Ediacaran (not Ediacar"a") shally fossils (Cloudina, Namacalathus), Miaohe biota and Pertatataka assemblage of giant acantomorph acritarchs (Doushantuo fossil embryos).
Else one meanings of Ediacara biota - modern and extinct biota(s) of the Ediacara Hills, Australia.
Such a not pretty mess :-)) Aleksey ( Alnagov ( talk) 20:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
They would be around for +100 million years and would represent Earth's first large organisms, found in all continants ESCEPT for South America and Antarctica. Ancestors for trilobites, worms, jelly-fish and sea urchins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.220.22 ( talk) 03:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it mentioned in the article, but aren't Ediacaran fauna diploblasts, which develop from two-layered gastrula, as opposed to triploblasts, which develop from three-layered gastrula? -- Michael C. Price talk 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is inconsistent in whether it refers to "Ediacara biota" or "Ediacaran biota". Also, I think rephrasing the first sentence to show that it is simply a descriptive term (and not a binomial, for example) would make it potentially less confusing, e.g:
The biota of the Ediacaran period ( /ˌiːdiˈækərən/; formerly "Vendian", ca. 635-542 Ma) consisted of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped, mostly sessile organisms.
At the very least the pronunciation should not be spliced in between the bold title, and words in bold should not be linked. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As this is written in British English ('mould', 'behaviour' etc, I have replaced all instances (apart from proper nouns) of 'geologic' with 'geological'. We don't say 'geologic' in British English. 86.133.54.214 ( talk) 10:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't this have a taxobox? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
12/12/12 Ediacaran life on land Gregory J. Retallack
Periglacial involutions and modest geochemical differentiation of the palaeosols are evidence of a dry, cold temperate Ediacaran palaeoclimate in South Australia. This new interpretation of some Ediacaran fossils as large sessile organisms of cool, dry soils, is compatible with observations that Ediacaran fossils were similar in appearance and preservation to lichens and other microbial colonies of biological soil crusts, rather than marine animals, or protists.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11777.html
184.153.187.119 ( talk) 17:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The Retallack paper cited here is controversial to say the least. Retallack has a history of interpreting just about any palaeoenvironment he looks at as terrestrial, and considers most of these early impressions, not as animals, but usually fungi or lichen. His interpretations are completely dismissed by all experts in this geological period, as neither the fossil preservation, nor the sedimentology support the terrestrial interpretation. I will edit the text to reflect this; leaving Retallack's interpretation as a possible controversy. Rolf Schmidt ( talk) 05:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Edicararan as the first animal able to move and the sources currently relevant to this article? Sources: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/2/123.abstract http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/17/our-earliest-example-of-an-animal-moving-on-its-own/ -- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The section entitled 'Change in environmental conditions' says "While it is difficult to infer the effect of changing planetary conditions on organisms, communities and ecosystems, great changes were happening... The breakup of the supercontinents,[etc.] could all have played a part." Played a part in what? The general context implies either the rise of the Ediacaran biota, or its demise with the rise of the Cambrian biota. But I'm not sure. (And for the record, I'm always skeptical of arguments for change because of the breakup or fusion of continents--it seems like that is way too gradual a process to have any effect. But that would be original research on my part...) Mcswell ( talk) 17:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Each fact is referenced, and they appear to be reliable sources. Most of the sources seem to be from scientific journals. They also appear to be neutral sources. The article is neutral and doesn't push any particular viewpoint, and only presents information relevant to the topic. Chadlarson ( talk) 13:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The third sentence in the lead paragraph states"
The Ediacaran biota radiated in an event called the Avalon explosion, 575 million years ago,[1][2] after the Earth had thawed from the Cryogenian period's extensive glaciation.
If you go to the wiki link on the Avalon explosion, it states: "he original analysis has been the subject of dispute in the literature." with 3 references. This implies that there is not consensus for the existence of the Avalon explosion. Should the wording on this page be softened to reflect that?
Something like: "The Ediacaran biota may have radiated in an event 575 million years ago,[1][2] named the Avalon explosion by Virginia Tech paleontologists, after the Earth had thawed from the Cryogenian period's extensive glaciation. Bgovern ( talk) 06:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I greatly appreciated the magnificent photo of the Yorgia's from the White Sea area, thank you Aleksey Nagovitsyn (User:Alnagov) for adding this excellent picture clearly showing the placozoan feeding pattern of these animals. It is a picture that should really close the discussion on the feeding habits of these very basic animals. However, I did see another trace fossil in the lower right corner which looks very much like a Rusophycus trace fossil which is one of the earliest Cambrian anthropod trace fossils. I wonder whether this had been identified by anyone as such? If correct it would also push back the first appearence of this trace fossil by some 10-20 million years! I have also tried to also include this photo into the Dickinsonia article, but failed. Don't know what went wrong, perhaps somebody else is able to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Aleksey for responding! One more question on this magnificent picture: the Yorgia that left the chain of trace platforms seems to be missing a part on it's top (north if it was a map) side. This looks like a predator has take a bite out of it. I suppose it has been checked in detail, has there been any consensus on what caused that? It is also shown in the marks, so if something like that had happened, it clearly survived the attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
So, I've been looking at this article and I am kind of concerned about a few things:
That said, I see that there are many recent sources. Is someone still maintaining the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 23:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
despite the reservations provided in the article, it still gives undue weight to proposal that the Ediacaran biota Are lichen. 73.158.212.95 ( talk) 23:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the following comment from the caption of the top image on the article page to here: It is important to note that this representation is inaccurate; the
Cyclomedusa-like organism is interpreted in this image as a jellyfish, a belief which is no longer accepted today.
The caption does say that the image represents the biota of the period as it was understood in 1980. A more up-to-date image would be great, but I don't think the quoted comment belongs in the caption of this image. Discussion of how scientists' understanding of the life forms of the biota have changed belongs in the body of the article.
Donald Albury
13:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Ediacaran biota is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2012. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can we do something about the timeline? It's kind of ugly-looking, like the fonts are badly pixelated... Adam Cuerden talk 12:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Did some more editing. I've changed "sandbars in the mouths of a delta's distributaries" to "sandbars in a river delta". This is certainly simpler, but it's not quite as specific. change it back if you think this removes too much information.
Also, there's a citation needed tag in there. Can you get that? Adam Cuerden talk 03:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I've tried to clarify the underside/upperside preservation. in "What is preserved?" I think this is right: "The rate of cementation of the overlying substrate, relative to the rate of decomposition of the organism, determines whether the top or bottom surface of an organism is preserved. Most disc-shaped fossils decomposed before the overlying sediment was cemented, and the ash or sand slumped in to fill the void, leaving a cast of the underside of the organism." Adam Cuerden talk 03:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)°
Lastly, should
" Mark McMenamin goes one step further, and claims that Ediacarans could not be animals because they did not possess an embryonic stage." read " Mark McMenamin goes one step further, and claims that Ediacarans could not be animals because, as far as is known, they did not possess an embryonic stage.
Template talk:Ediacaran biota timeline
Insted of putting Aboriginal language we might have to put Kuyani language, well we wouldnt say water is from a european language would we! Reference is http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0405&L=australian-linguistics-l&D=1&P=264 Enlil Ninlil 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Why to whom in "The Ediacaran biota had soft bodies and no skeletons, making their abundant preservation surprising.[to whom?]"?
The Fossilisation section below describes this in more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.25.244 ( talk) 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to flag up the a recent paper which could benefit the article. Verisimilus T 11:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: "earliest known complex multicellular organisms." - Nobody really knows. I've seen no evidence that confirms nor denies multicellular status. There is/was a biologist who claims that they may be giant single cells, but I don't remember the name. Large plants (several cm) or parts of plants composed of a single cell do exist now. The majority presumption is that they are multicellular, but may be merely current-life bias. -- Tablizer ( talk) 01:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: see about Gromia sphaerica, a single-celled organism leaving eye-visible trails on the sea floor:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/24/2427811.htm
(-- 76.89.189.214 ( talk) 07:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC))
I find it surprising that the article cites Grazhdankin's paper "Patterns of distribution in the Ediacaran biotas: facies versus biogeography and evolution" (Paleobiology, Spring 2004) several times but does not mention what seems to be the paper's main theme: irrespective of time or location, there is a strong correlation between the paleo-environment and the genera found, and nothing else seems to make a difference. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead says 580-542MYA but the body does not spell out the date range, so there's no ref. This will do: Brasier, M., and Antcliffe, J. (20 August 2004).
"Decoding the Ediacaran Enigma". Science. 305 (5687).
doi:
10.1126/science.1102673. Retrieved 2008-07-18. {{
cite journal}}
: Text "pages-1115-1117" ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) --
Philcha (
talk)
10:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The Origin section states "It took almost 4 billion years from the formation of the Earth for the Ediacaran fossils to first appear, 655 million years ago." This appears to contradict the lead. Syzygos ( talk) 02:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Might be useful -- Philcha ( talk) 13:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Embryos debunked. Precambrian fossils, once thought to be embryos, reinterpreted as... something else — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.244.100 ( talk • contribs)
I was just reading this article, and this seemed strange to me: "Their strange form and apparent disconnectedness from later organisms have led some to consider them a "failed experiment" in multicellular life, with later multicellular life independently re-evolving from unrelated single-celled organisms."
I checked the source page, and it only said some lineages were failed experiments, and that some Ediacarans looked like they shared some characteristics with later lineages. It didn't say a single thing about later multicellular life "re-evolving" from unrelated single celled-organisms.
I'm new to wikipedia editing and am not specialized in this topic, so I don't really know protocol or how this should be rectified. I sincerely doubt the factuality of the above quote, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.250.200 ( talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Reffrences:
Society, London, 149, 607-613.
Aleksey ( Alnagov ( talk) 10:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC))
I'm the main author of the Dutch-language article about the Ediacara biota, and while reading this article I noticed something that appeared strange to me. You call the middle assemblage of the biota the Ediacara type, and then you give as reference Erwin 2008 (ref. 87). But he doesn't call it the assemblage Ediacara-type, he and several author authors name that assemblage the White Sea-assemblage. [1] [2] And in the figure accompanying the text, the Ediacara SSF and the Miache-type biota are mentioned as well, which are not referred to in the text. Something I find not very clear. Wenkbrauwalbatros ( talk) 15:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ediacara-assemblage versus White Sea-assemblage
The Russian and other scientists usually use term "Ediacara-type biota" (Ediacara-assemblage) – is a community on well-developed microbial mat in shallow, sunlit environments between wave zone and storm wave zone. It is more correct from the historical point of view, because the first rich assemblage of this type has been found in Ediacara Hills, Australia. For example see: Grazhdankin, Dima (2004). " Patterns of distribution in the Ediacaran biotas: facies versus biogeography and evolution". Palæobiology 30 (2): 203–221.
"Ediacaran biota", "Ediacara biota" and "Ediacara-type biota" have different meanings.
Ediacaran biota (Vendian biota) it is all organisms of the Ediacaran (Vendian) period: bacteria, protista, algae, animals, fungi and others. And Ediacaran biota includes the Ediacara biota and Ediacara-type biota.
Ediacara biota it is = "vendobionta" (the not in Adolph Seilacher meaning as Kingdom or Order/Suborder of Rhizaria) – all organisms what preserved as casts and moulds: Dickinsonia, Kimberella, Rangea, Tribrachidium, Spriggina, Pambikalbae, Charnia, Nemiana, Palaeophragmodictia, Ediacaria, Pteridinium, Onega, Yorgia, Palaeopascichnus, Fractofusus, Vendoconularia,… In typical volume the Ediacara biota consist of Ediacara-type biota (assemblage), Avalon-type biota and Nama-type biota, but not of Ediacaran (not Ediacar"a") shally fossils (Cloudina, Namacalathus), Miaohe biota and Pertatataka assemblage of giant acantomorph acritarchs (Doushantuo fossil embryos).
Else one meanings of Ediacara biota - modern and extinct biota(s) of the Ediacara Hills, Australia.
Such a not pretty mess :-)) Aleksey ( Alnagov ( talk) 20:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
They would be around for +100 million years and would represent Earth's first large organisms, found in all continants ESCEPT for South America and Antarctica. Ancestors for trilobites, worms, jelly-fish and sea urchins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.220.22 ( talk) 03:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it mentioned in the article, but aren't Ediacaran fauna diploblasts, which develop from two-layered gastrula, as opposed to triploblasts, which develop from three-layered gastrula? -- Michael C. Price talk 21:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The article is inconsistent in whether it refers to "Ediacara biota" or "Ediacaran biota". Also, I think rephrasing the first sentence to show that it is simply a descriptive term (and not a binomial, for example) would make it potentially less confusing, e.g:
The biota of the Ediacaran period ( /ˌiːdiˈækərən/; formerly "Vendian", ca. 635-542 Ma) consisted of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped, mostly sessile organisms.
At the very least the pronunciation should not be spliced in between the bold title, and words in bold should not be linked. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 05:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
As this is written in British English ('mould', 'behaviour' etc, I have replaced all instances (apart from proper nouns) of 'geologic' with 'geological'. We don't say 'geologic' in British English. 86.133.54.214 ( talk) 10:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't this have a taxobox? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
12/12/12 Ediacaran life on land Gregory J. Retallack
Periglacial involutions and modest geochemical differentiation of the palaeosols are evidence of a dry, cold temperate Ediacaran palaeoclimate in South Australia. This new interpretation of some Ediacaran fossils as large sessile organisms of cool, dry soils, is compatible with observations that Ediacaran fossils were similar in appearance and preservation to lichens and other microbial colonies of biological soil crusts, rather than marine animals, or protists.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11777.html
184.153.187.119 ( talk) 17:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The Retallack paper cited here is controversial to say the least. Retallack has a history of interpreting just about any palaeoenvironment he looks at as terrestrial, and considers most of these early impressions, not as animals, but usually fungi or lichen. His interpretations are completely dismissed by all experts in this geological period, as neither the fossil preservation, nor the sedimentology support the terrestrial interpretation. I will edit the text to reflect this; leaving Retallack's interpretation as a possible controversy. Rolf Schmidt ( talk) 05:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Edicararan as the first animal able to move and the sources currently relevant to this article? Sources: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/2/123.abstract http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/17/our-earliest-example-of-an-animal-moving-on-its-own/ -- CuriousMind01 ( talk) 12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The section entitled 'Change in environmental conditions' says "While it is difficult to infer the effect of changing planetary conditions on organisms, communities and ecosystems, great changes were happening... The breakup of the supercontinents,[etc.] could all have played a part." Played a part in what? The general context implies either the rise of the Ediacaran biota, or its demise with the rise of the Cambrian biota. But I'm not sure. (And for the record, I'm always skeptical of arguments for change because of the breakup or fusion of continents--it seems like that is way too gradual a process to have any effect. But that would be original research on my part...) Mcswell ( talk) 17:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Each fact is referenced, and they appear to be reliable sources. Most of the sources seem to be from scientific journals. They also appear to be neutral sources. The article is neutral and doesn't push any particular viewpoint, and only presents information relevant to the topic. Chadlarson ( talk) 13:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The third sentence in the lead paragraph states"
The Ediacaran biota radiated in an event called the Avalon explosion, 575 million years ago,[1][2] after the Earth had thawed from the Cryogenian period's extensive glaciation.
If you go to the wiki link on the Avalon explosion, it states: "he original analysis has been the subject of dispute in the literature." with 3 references. This implies that there is not consensus for the existence of the Avalon explosion. Should the wording on this page be softened to reflect that?
Something like: "The Ediacaran biota may have radiated in an event 575 million years ago,[1][2] named the Avalon explosion by Virginia Tech paleontologists, after the Earth had thawed from the Cryogenian period's extensive glaciation. Bgovern ( talk) 06:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I greatly appreciated the magnificent photo of the Yorgia's from the White Sea area, thank you Aleksey Nagovitsyn (User:Alnagov) for adding this excellent picture clearly showing the placozoan feeding pattern of these animals. It is a picture that should really close the discussion on the feeding habits of these very basic animals. However, I did see another trace fossil in the lower right corner which looks very much like a Rusophycus trace fossil which is one of the earliest Cambrian anthropod trace fossils. I wonder whether this had been identified by anyone as such? If correct it would also push back the first appearence of this trace fossil by some 10-20 million years! I have also tried to also include this photo into the Dickinsonia article, but failed. Don't know what went wrong, perhaps somebody else is able to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Aleksey for responding! One more question on this magnificent picture: the Yorgia that left the chain of trace platforms seems to be missing a part on it's top (north if it was a map) side. This looks like a predator has take a bite out of it. I suppose it has been checked in detail, has there been any consensus on what caused that? It is also shown in the marks, so if something like that had happened, it clearly survived the attack.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
So, I've been looking at this article and I am kind of concerned about a few things:
That said, I see that there are many recent sources. Is someone still maintaining the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 23:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
despite the reservations provided in the article, it still gives undue weight to proposal that the Ediacaran biota Are lichen. 73.158.212.95 ( talk) 23:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the following comment from the caption of the top image on the article page to here: It is important to note that this representation is inaccurate; the
Cyclomedusa-like organism is interpreted in this image as a jellyfish, a belief which is no longer accepted today.
The caption does say that the image represents the biota of the period as it was understood in 1980. A more up-to-date image would be great, but I don't think the quoted comment belongs in the caption of this image. Discussion of how scientists' understanding of the life forms of the biota have changed belongs in the body of the article.
Donald Albury
13:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)