Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
    • Journal home
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Geological Society home
  • Content
    • Online First
    • Issue in progress
    • All issues
    • Thematic Collections
    • Supplementary publications
    • Open Access
  • Subscribe
    • GSL fellows
    • Institutions
    • Corporate
    • Other member types
  • Info
    • Authors
    • Librarians
    • Readers
    • GSL Fellows access
    • Other member type access
    • Press office
    • Accessibility
    • Help
    • Metrics
  • Alert sign up
    • eTOC alerts
    • Online First alerts
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
    • GSL blog
  • Submit
  • Geological Society of London Publications
    • Engineering Geology Special Publications
    • Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis
    • Journal of Micropalaeontology
    • Journal of the Geological Society
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Memoirs
    • Petroleum Geology Conference Series
    • Petroleum Geoscience
    • Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society
    • Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
    • Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
    • Scottish Journal of Geology
    • Special Publications
    • Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of London

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the Geological Society
  • Geological Society of London Publications
    • Engineering Geology Special Publications
    • Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis
    • Journal of Micropalaeontology
    • Journal of the Geological Society
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Memoirs
    • Petroleum Geology Conference Series
    • Petroleum Geoscience
    • Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society
    • Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
    • Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
    • Scottish Journal of Geology
    • Special Publications
    • Transactions of the Edinburgh Geological Society
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow
    • Transactions of the Geological Society of London
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow gsl on Twitter
  • Visit gsl on Facebook
  • Visit gsl on Youtube
  • Visit gsl on Linkedin
Journal of the Geological Society

Advanced search

  • Home
    • Journal home
    • Lyell Collection home
    • Geological Society home
  • Content
    • Online First
    • Issue in progress
    • All issues
    • Thematic Collections
    • Supplementary publications
    • Open Access
  • Subscribe
    • GSL fellows
    • Institutions
    • Corporate
    • Other member types
  • Info
    • Authors
    • Librarians
    • Readers
    • GSL Fellows access
    • Other member type access
    • Press office
    • Accessibility
    • Help
    • Metrics
  • Alert sign up
    • eTOC alerts
    • Online First alerts
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
    • GSL blog
  • Submit

The Weng'an Biota (Doushantuo Formation): an Ediacaran window on soft-bodied and multicellular microorganisms

John A. Cunningham, View ORCID ProfileKelly Vargas, Zongjun Yin, View ORCID ProfileStefan Bengtson and View ORCID ProfilePhilip C. J. Donoghue
Journal of the Geological Society, 174, 793-802, 3 May 2017, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2016-142
John A. Cunningham
1School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK
2Department of Palaeobiology and Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, Swedish Museum of Natural History, 10405 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: John.Cunningham@bristol.ac.uk
Kelly Vargas
1School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kelly Vargas
Zongjun Yin
3State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefan Bengtson
2Department of Palaeobiology and Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, Swedish Museum of Natural History, 10405 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stefan Bengtson
Philip C. J. Donoghue
1School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Philip C. J. Donoghue
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The Weng'an Biota is a fossil Konservat-Lagerstätte in South China that is c. 570 – 609 myr old and provides an unparalleled snapshot of marine life during the interval in which molecular clocks estimate that animal clades were diversifying. It yields fossils that are three-dimensionally preserved in calcium phosphate with cellular and sometimes subcellular fidelity. The biota includes candidates for the oldest animals in the fossil record, including embryonic, larval and adult forms. We argue that, although the Weng'an Biota includes forms that could be animals, none can currently be assigned to this group with confidence. Nonetheless, the biota offers a rare and valuable window on the evolution of multicellular and soft-bodied organisms in the prelude to the Cambrian radiation.

The origin and evolutionary assembly of animal body plans comprises one of the most formative episodes in the history of life. Animals are ecosystem engineers and their appearance fundamentally changed our planet's ecology (Butterfield 2011a). Despite the importance of this evolutionary episode, many aspects of the timing and nature of the event remain poorly constrained. Molecular-clock analyses estimate that animals originated by the Cryogenian and diversified through the Ediacaran (Peterson & Butterfield 2005; Erwin et al. 2011; dos Reis et al. 2015), but fossil evidence of animals from before the Cambrian is controversial (Erwin et al. 2011; dos Reis et al. 2015; Cunningham et al. 2017). The Weng'an Biota is one of the few Lagerstätten from the critical interval in which early animals are expected according to molecular-clock studies. In this Ediacaran fossil assemblage, organisms are phosphatized in cellular and even subcellular detail, providing a rare glimpse of soft-bodied and multicellular life at this time. Early research appeared to fulfil expectations of the presence of metazoans with reports of embryonic (Xiao et al. 1998), larval (Chen et al. 2000, 2002) and adult (Xiao et al. 2000; Chen et al. 2002, 2004; Yin et al. 2015) animals from the Weng'an deposit. However, subsequent analyses have cast doubt on this view, and there is currently much disagreement over these interpretations (Bailey et al. 2007a; Huldtgren et al. 2011; Bengtson et al. 2012; L. Chen et al. 2014, Xiao et al. 2014a). Here, we review the stratigraphic position, geological age and environmental setting of the deposit, and present an overview of the biota and an assessment of the phylogenetic affinities of the various taxa.

Stratigraphy and age

The Weng'an Biota occurs within the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation (551 – 635 Ma, Condon et al. 2005) of south China (Fig. 1). In addition to the phosphatized microfossils from Weng'an, this formation has yielded silicified microfossils (Yin et al. 2004) and macrofossils that are preserved as 2D carbonaceous compressions including macro-algae (Xiao et al. 2002) and the putative ctenophore Eoandromeda (Tang et al. 2008, 2011). The Weng'an Biota itself is known from localities in Weng'an County, Guizhou Province. The Doushantuo Formation overlies the Marinoan glacial tillites of the Cryogenian Nantuo Formation that can be dated to 635 Ma (Condon et al. 2005). It is overlain by the Ediacaran Dengying Formation, which contains fossils of the classical Ediacara macrobiota (Sun 1986; Xiao et al. 2005; Z. Chen et al. 2014). The base of the Dengying Formation can be dated to 551 Ma (Condon et al. 2005). In Weng'an, the Doushantuo Formation is composed of five units that have been described in detail by Xiao et al. (2014b) and Yin et al. (2015). The Weng'an Biota occurs mainly in Unit 4, the Upper Phosphorite Member, but also in Unit 5. Unit 4 is divided into 4A, a black phosphorite, and 4B, a grey dolomitic phosphorite (Dornbos et al. 2006; Xiao et al. 2014a,b; Yin et al. 2015).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

The location and geological setting of the Weng'an Biota. (a) Map of China showing the location of Weng'an. (b) Geological map of the Weng'an area. (c) Stratigraphic column of the Beidoushan section in the Weng'an area indicating Units 1 – 4 of the Doushantuo Formation, the occurrence of the Weng'an Biota and the radiometric age constraints discussed in the text. Modified from Yin et al. (2015).

The age of the biota has been debated (Budd 2008; Erwin & Valentine 2013; Xiao et al. 2014a; Yin et al. 2015), with arguments focusing on the correlation of two karstic surfaces, one at the top of Unit 3 and the other within Unit 5 (for detailed discussion of Doushantuo correlation see Zhu et al. (2007), Zhu et al. (2013) and Yang et al. (2015)). If the lower surface is correlated to the c. 582 Ma Gaskiers glaciation (Condon et al. 2005) then the biota would be younger than 582 Ma. However, the lower surface may be older (Yin et al. 2015) and, if the upper karstic surface correlates to the Gaskiers glaciation (Xiao et al. 2014a), then the biota would be older than 582 Ma. Direct radiometric dates for Unit 4 at Weng'an have been inconclusive, giving Pb–Pb isochron ages of 572 ± 36 Ma for Unit 4A (Y. Chen et al. 2009) and 599 ± 4 Ma for Unit 4B (Barfod et al. 2002). However, a recent U–Pb date of 609 ± 5 Ma from a tuff immediately above Unit 4 at Zhancunping, in Hubei Province (Zhou et al. 2017), suggests that the Weng'an biota is probably older than 609 ± 5 Ma and probably older than the Gaskiers glaciation, which cannot be related to the karst surface at the top of Unit 3 if this date is correct. Acritarchs identical to those containing embryo-like fossils are found just above an ash band dated to 632.5 ± 0.5 Ma in Doushantuo sections from the Yangtze Gorges (Yin et al. 2007), suggesting that these organisms could have existed at this time. In summary, the biota is probably older than the classical but enigmatic Ediacaran biota and considerably predates the rich animal fossil record of the Cambrian. Putative animals from the assemblage are therefore candidates for the oldest animals in the fossil record.

Depositional environment, preservation and reworking

The Weng'an Biota is interpreted as having been deposited in an outer-shelf environment on a SE-facing passive margin (Jiang et al. 2011). Abundant wave ripples and cross-bedding features indicate deposition above fair-weather wave base (Xiao & Knoll 1999). The fossils were probably deposited in oxic conditions (Shields et al. 2004), although phosphatization may have occurred in anoxic sediments (Muscente et al. 2014; Schiffbauer et al. 2014). The soft-bodied organisms of the biota are three-dimensionally preserved in calcium phosphate and can be preserved at a subcellular level (Hagadorn et al. 2006; Huldtgren et al. 2011). However, even the best-preserved specimens are a complex amalgam of cements, making it challenging to determine which aspects represent preserved biology (Xiao et al. 2000; Bengtson 2003; Bengtson & Budd 2004; Cunningham et al. 2012a; Schiffbauer et al. 2012). The preservation of Weng'an fossils is discussed in Box 1. The fossils occur either as, or within, phosphatic grains that have been abraded and rounded, indicating transport from other parts of the basin after initial preservation (Xiao et al. 2007b). In unit 4A, a c. 5 m thick black phosphorite, the fossils occur in reworked phosphatic clasts. As a result, they cannot be released by acetic acid maceration and have generally been studied in petrographic thin sections (e.g. Chen et al. 2004; L. Chen et al. 2014; see Box 2 for a comparison of 2D and 3D analytical techniques). In unit 4B, a c. 10 m thick grey dolomitic phosphorite, the microfossils are abundant and in places are so concentrated that the layers resemble oolites. This is a grainstone composed largely of microfossils that have been phosphatized before being reworked, transported and winnowed (Xiao & Knoll 1999; Xiao et al. 2007b). The fossils can be extracted by dissolution of the carbonate constituents of rock samples in weak acetic acid and manual sorting of the resulting residues. Specimens can then be studied using scanning electron microscopy (e.g. Xiao et al. 1998) or tomographic techniques (e.g. Hagadorn et al. 2006) and can be re-embedded in resin and sectioned for further petrographic and geochemical analyses (reviewed by Cunningham et al. 2014).

Box 1: Preservation of Weng'an fossils

The Weng'an organisms, like all exceptionally preserved soft-bodied remains, were subjected to both post-mortem decay and later diagenetic and geological processes (Donoghue & Purnell 2009). These processes alter the morphology of the fossils in ways that can be unpredictable. Palaeontologists must take these factors into account rather than simply comparing the fossils with extant or freshly dead modern organisms. This is particularly true given the simple nature of the biological structures relevant to the interpretation of the Weng'an Biota. In the case of decay, carefully designed experiments can help constrain which features can feasibly be preserved, elucidate likely preservation pathways, and identify biases introduced by the decay process (Sansom 2014). Experiments have shown that animal embryos have a relatively high preservation potential, particularly when enclosed in a fertilization envelope, whereas primary larvae have an extremely low likelihood of being preserved (Raff et al. 2006; Gostling et al. 2008, 2009). In addition, these experiments have identified the likely mechanism for Doushantuo-type preservation: 3D replication of cells by robust bacterial pseudomorphs followed by phosphate mineralization (Raff et al. 2008). The diagenetic and subsequent geological processes that the fossil is subjected to can introduce artefacts (e.g. through crystal nucleation and growth) that have no connection to the original anatomy. These processes are difficult to simulate experimentally because of the timescales involved. An alternative approach is to characterize the mineral phases that preserve biological anatomy v. geological artefacts. This has been carried out in fossils where there is agreement regarding affinity and anatomy, and has allowed textural and chemical criteria to be established and then applied to more contentious Weng'an material (Cunningham et al. 2012a, 2014). In particular, geological artefacts tend to have larger, euhedral crystals with a preferred orientation, higher X-ray attenuation and characteristic void-filling textures. Geological artifacts typically also have high relative abundances of P, Ca and F, and low abundances of C and S. Failure to consider these processes and/or the 3D nature of the specimens can lead to misinterpretations of the fossils as discussed in Box 2.

Box 2: 2D versus 3D analysis

The Weng'an fossils have been subjected to a wide range of analytical techniques. These include scanning electron microscopy (which provides very high resolution images of the exterior of the specimen), analysis of petrographic thin sections (which affords a single cross-section but destroys the remainder of the fossil) and tomographic approaches (which allow the specimen to be imaged in three dimensions). Analyses of specimens in petrographic sections have yielded important insights, including features that have not been identified using other techniques, such as the cell clusters preserved within ‘Megaclonophycus’-stage embryoids (L. Chen et al. 2014). However, the 2D nature of the data can make it difficult to make inferences regarding the 3D anatomy of the fossil and caution must be exercised. Reports of gastrulae (Chen et al. 2000, 2002), cnidarian larvae (Chen et al. 2000, 2002) and adult bilaterians (Chen et al. 2004) probably result from misinterpretations of deformed cysts, which are abundant in the deposit, that have been studied only in two dimensions (Xiao et al. 2000; Bengtson 2003; Bengtson & Budd 2004; Bengtson et al. 2012).

Overview of the Weng'an Biota

Algae

A variety of algal taxa have been reported from Weng'an (Zhao 1986; Zhang 1989; Zhang & Yuan 1992; Xiao et al. 1998, 2004; Xiao 2004). Some simpler forms, such as Archaeophycus (Fig. 2j), show interesting similarities to extant bangialean red algae (Xiao et al. 1998), although other affinities cannot be ruled out (Xiao et al. 2014a). More complex forms such as Thallophyca and Paramecia share characters with floridophyte red algae including pseudoparenchymous construction, differentiated thalli and possible reproductive structures (Xiao et al. 2004). However, the putative algae have received relatively little attention because of the focus on the search for animals. Many specimens lack the overall form of a photosynthetic organism. For example, the blades typical of various seaweeds have not been recovered and it is hard to envisage how cells positioned centrally within globular masses would have functioned in a photosynthetic organism (Fig. 3a and b). Algae may have been used as a wastebasket taxon for assorted irregular forms and rejected animal candidates. These fossils merit further study and there is a prospect that they may include developmental stages of other organisms including the embryo-like fossils, especially given their typically larger size.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Scanning electron microscope images of fossils from the Weng'an biota. (a–f) Tianzhushania specimens at various stages of division from a single cell (a) to many hundreds of cells (f) Swedish Museum of Natural History (SMNH) X 6449–SMNH X 6454. (g) Helicoforamina SMNH X 6455. (h) Spiralicellula (from Tang et al. 2008). (i) Caveasphaera SMNH X 6456. (j) Archaeophycus, a putative red alga SMNH X 6457. (k) Mengeosphaera, an acritarch SMNH X 6458. (l) Eocyathispongia, a putative sponge, Nanjing Institute of Palaeontology and Geology (NIGPAS) 161760 (from Yin et al. 2015). Scale bar: (a) 320 µm, (b) 265 µm, (c) 265 µm, (d) 200 µm, (e) 245 µm, (f) 280 µm, (g) 395 µm, (h) 380 µm, (i) 250 µm, (j) 255 µm, (k) 130 µm, (l) 415 µm.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Synchrotron radiation X-ray tomographic microscopy (SRXTM; a–h) and light microscopy (i–k) images of Weng'an fossils. (a, b) a possible alga SMNH X 6459, comparable with Paramecia. (c, d) a peanut-shaped fossil SMNH X 6460. (e, f) Sinocyclocyclicus SMNH X 5322. (g, h) Ramitubus SMNH X 5326. (i–k) Light microscopy images of putative algae from Weng'an. Scale bar: (a, b) 270 µm, (c, d) 280 µm, (e, f) 180 µm, (g, h) 175 µm, (i, j) 140 µm, (k) 115 µm.

Acritarchs

The acritarchs (Fig. 2k) from Weng'an have been reviewed comprehensively by Xiao et al. (2014b) and form part of the Doushantuo–Pertatataka microbiota (Zhou et al. 2001, 2007; Liu et al. 2014). The phylogenetic affinities of acritarchs are unknown and they probably represent a polyphyletic assortment of eukaryotes (Huntley et al. 2006). Some Doushantuo acritarchs contain embryo-like fossils (Yin et al. 2007), leading to the suggestion that other Ediacaran acritarchs might be resting cysts of these organisms (Cohen et al. 2009). The interpretation of the Doushantuo–Pertatataka acritarchs is therefore at least partially linked to that of the embryo-like fossils, although they may well represent a polyphyletic assemblage. The affinities of taxa should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Embryo-like fossils

Weng'an fossils that have been interpreted as the embryos of early animals (Xiao et al. 1998) have been the focus of most attention and debate (Fig. 2a–f). They have been interpreted as metazoans (Xiao et al. 1998) including bilaterians (Chen & Chi 2005; J. Chen et al. 2006, 2009a,b; Yin et al. 2013), as stem-group metazoans (Hagadorn et al. 2006; Schiffbauer et al. 2012; L. Chen et al. 2014) or as members of non-metazoan clades (Bailey et al. 2007a,b; Butterfield 2011b; Huldtgren et al. 2011, 2012; L. Chen et al. 2014; Zhang & Pratt 2014). We consider the various claims below.

Giant sulphur bacteria?

Bailey et al. (2007a,b) proposed an interesting hypothesis that the embryo-like fossils might be giant sulphur bacteria similar to the living Thiomargarita. These bacteria can be similar in size and shape to the embryo-like fossils from Weng'an and are capable of undergoing at least a few rounds of palintomic division. However, subsequent analyses have shown that these bacteria cannot account for key morphological aspects of the fossils such as the presence of ornamented envelopes, outer acritarch vesicles, and probable lipid vesicles and nuclei (Donoghue 2007; Xiao et al. 2007b; Huldtgren et al. 2011; Cunningham et al. 2012b). Moreover, evidence from experimental taphonomy showed that Thiomargarita cells are not replicated by biofilm-forming bacteria, meaning that they do not form the stable bacterial pseudomorphs that are thought to be the precursor to exceptional phosphatization (Cunningham et al. 2012b; see Box 1).

Bilaterians or eumetazoans?

Reports of embryonic bilaterians do not withstand scrutiny. Some are based on identifications of cell geometries argued to be unique to bilaterians. These include specimens purported to preserve endodermal cords (J. Chen et al. 2009b), polar lobes (J. Chen et al. 2006, 2009a; Yin et al. 2013), embryonic polarity (J. Chen et al. 2009a,b) and duet cleavage (J. Chen et al. 2009a). In each case, the specimens can be alternatively interpreted as examples of embryo-like fossils that have undergone taphonomic and diagenetic processes (Huldtgren et al. 2011; Cunningham et al. 2012a). Specimens interpreted as possible bilaterian or cnidarian gastrulae and larvae (Chen et al. 2000, 2002; Chen & Chi 2005) are more probably deformed cysts filled with phosphatic cements (Xiao et al. 2000). The presence of meroblastic embryos (Yin et al. 2016) would represent the long sought-after confirmation of the presence of animal embryos. A possible alternative interpretation of these specimens, which are associated with a large population known to undergo asynchronous division (Hagadorn et al. 2006), is that they have undergone unequal division. It is currently difficult to test between these possible interpretations.

Total group animals?

The embryo-like fossils probably represent one taxon dividing from a single cell to thousands of cells (Fig. 2a–f). This taxon has been named either Tianzhushania or Megasphaera according to different taxonomic interpretations (Yin et al. 2004; Xiao et al. 2014b). Tianzhushania is preferred here (see Box 3). These specimens were interpreted as animal embryos by Xiao et al. (1998) based on the similar size and the presence of palintomic cell division, Y-shaped junctions between cells and an ornate enclosing envelope. More recently, these have been considered as stem, rather than crown, animals because later stages lack evidence for epithelial organization, which is characteristic of modern embryos (Hagadorn et al. 2006). However, the placement of these fossils in the animal total-group has also been questioned (Bailey et al. 2007a; Butterfield 2011b; Huldtgren et al. 2011; L. Chen et al. 2014; Zhang & Pratt 2014).

Box 3: Taxonomy of the embryo-like fossils

The embryo-like fossils have been described under various genus and species names that are now considered to be different developmental stages or taphonomic variants of a single taxon (Huldtgren et al. 2011; Cunningham et al. 2012a; L. Chen et al. 2014; Xiao et al. 2014a,b). The names Megasphaera (single-celled specimens), Parapandorina (multiple polyhedral cells) and Megaclonophycus (large numbers of usually spheroidal cells) are now widely considered to be synonyms (e.g. Huldtgren et al. 2011; Cunningham et al. 2012a; Xiao et al. 2014a,b). However, because of different taxonomic interpretations, different researchers have referred to this taxon as either Megasphaera (e.g. L. Chen et al. 2014; Xiao et al. 2014a,b) or Tianzhushania (e.g. Yin et al. 2004; Huldtgren et al. 2011; Cunningham et al. 2012a). The genus Tianzhushania and its type species T. spinosa were described in 1978 for acanthomorphic acritarchs with cylindrical processes that were known from thin sections (Yin & Li 1978). Yin et al. (2001) subsequently described T. tuberifera based on specimens with both cylindrical processes and sculptured ornament. Megasphaera, with the type species M. inornata, was described in 1986 for smooth envelopes (Chen & Liu 1986) and later expanded by Xiao & Knoll (2000) to accommodate specimens with sculptured envelopes (M. ornata). Yin et al. (2004) showed that M. ornata specimens, when viewed in thin sections, could be surrounded by an outer wall identical to that of Tianzhushania. They therefore argued that T. tuberifera, which had been studied in thin sections, was the same species as M. ornata, which had mainly been studied in specimens isolated from acid residues. Yin et al. (2004) proposed Tianzhushania ornata as the valid name for this taxon. As the various embryo-like stages can be found inside these specimens, Huldtgren et al. (2011) argued that Tianzhushania is the senior synonym of Megasphaera, Parapandorina and Megaclonophycus. Xiao et al. (2014) noted that the diagnosis of Tianzhushania had never been formally emended to include specimens with sculptured envelopes. They therefore proposed to retain Megasphaera for smooth or sculptured specimens that lack processes and Tianzhushania for specimens that have smooth envelopes and processes. The new genus Yinitianzhushania (basionym T. tuberifera) was erected to accommodate those specimens that have sculptured envelopes and cylindrical processes. However, this classification differentiates Megasphaera from the other genera based on the absence of tubular processes, which probably results from taphonomic loss rather than a biological difference. We also find it unsatisfactory to place specimens from acid residues into Yinitianzhushania if they have a sculptured envelope and Tianzhushania if they do not. This would result in a specimen with a sculptured envelope and tubular processes being placed in one genus (Yinitianzhushania) if it had lost only its processes and another (Tianzhushania) if it had also lost its sculptured envelope. It is therefore preferable to place all of these taxa in a single genus, Tianzhushania, which we consider to be the senior synonym of Yinitianzhushania, as well as of Megasphaera, Parapandorina and Megaclonophycus, despite the fact that the diagnosis of Tianzhushania has not yet been formally revised to include specimens with sculptured envelopes.

None of the characters that have been used to justify an animal interpretation are exclusive to animals (see Fig. 4). Features such as palintomic cleavage, Y-shaped cell junctions and an ornate envelope are found in non-animal groups (Huldtgren et al. 2011, 2012). They are therefore consistent with an animal interpretation, but they are not diagnostic characters. They are insufficient, either in isolation or in combination, to justify an animal affinity.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Schematic representation of eukaryote phylogeny, modified after Rensing (2016), showing the distribution of characters relevant to the interpretation of the embryo-like fossil Tianzhushania. Here multicellularity includes both aggregative multicellularity (e.g. slime moulds) and clonal multicellularity (animals, plants, fungi, various algae), as well as both facultative (e.g. choanoflagellates) and obligate multicellularity.

It has also been suggested that Tianzhushania exhibits characters gained in the animal stem lineage. L. Chen et al. (2014) described discrete clusters of cells (‘matryoshkas’) within embryo-like fossils with hundreds of cells. They interpreted these as reproductive propagules and presented them as evidence for spatial cell differentiation, germ–soma separation and apoptosis. Based on these characters, along with functional cell adhesion, obligate multicellularity and the potential lack of a rigid cell wall, L. Chen et al. (2014) argued that Tianzhushania might be a stem-animal that had gained some, but not all, of the characters that are present in animals, but not choanoflagellates. The occurrence of dividing cells within the embryo-like fossils is merely an expectation of the existing observation that they exhibit asynchronous cell division (Hagadorn et al. 2006). Nevertheless, the interpretation of differentiation and germ–soma separation requires that the clusters are part of the embryo-like organism rather than an exogenous parasite. L. Chen et al. (2014) suggested that there is a developmental continuation from the typical cells of these specimens and the clusters, which rules out an exogenous origin. However, there is a discontinuity between monads, dyads and tetrads, which show evidence for palintomy, and larger ‘matryoshka’ clusters, which do not (Tang 2015; Cunningham et al. 2016). Although there must be a switch from palintomy at some point (Chen et al. 2017), the lack of intermediates weakens the evidence for an endogenous origin (Tang 2015; Cunningham et al. 2016).

The argument for apoptosis is that, because the enclosing envelope imposes a constant volume throughout ontogeny, the only way to create the space required for the putative reproductive structures to grow is for other cells to die off. However, the volume of Tianzhushania may well not be constrained in this way, given that early stages often do not occupy the full envelope, and putative later stages provide evidence for distension and then rupture of the envelope (Liu et al. 2009; Huldtgren et al. 2011). The evidence for differentiation, germ–soma separation and programmed cell death is therefore unconvincing. Moreover, there is also uncertainty regarding the other proposed animal characters. There is no evidence that the walls of Tianzhushania are any less rigid than those of non-animal groups such as non-metazoan holozoans (Marshall & Berbee 2011), amoebozoans (Olive 1975), ciliates (Park et al. 2005) or volvocalean algae (Hallmann 2006), which also have Y-shaped cell junctions. Nor is there evidence that cell adhesion is different from that seen in groups such as non-metazoan holozoans (volvocalean algae achieve adhesion through cytoplasmic bridges, which are absent in the fossils).

To summarize, Tianzhushania does not exhibit characters that are sufficient to identify it as an animal. Evidence for the presence of characters gained in the animal stem lineage is equivocal. There is therefore no justification for an interpretation of Tianzhushania as an animal, although a stem-animal affinity cannot be definitively rejected on the basis of current data (Huldtgren et al. 2011, 2012). Above all, the available evidence does not yet allow these fossils to be used to substantiate hypotheses on the timing of animal diversification.

Other possibilities

A number of alternative interpretations have been proposed, yet the affinities of these organisms remain uncertain. Comparisons with non-metazoan holozoans (Huldtgren et al. 2011), algae (Butterfield 2011b; L. Chen et al. 2014; Zhang & Pratt 2014) or ciliates are plausible but as yet unsubstantiated and require further investigation. The primary factor that has hindered interpretation of these fossils is poor understanding of the later stages of the organisms’ ontogeny. A number of candidates have been proposed, but none are widely accepted. Xiao et al. (2007a) suggested that helically coiled specimens (Fig. 2g), now named Helicoforamina, might be later stages, perhaps representing a coiled vermiform animal. However, this taxon is enigmatic and has also been argued to be an embryo of the ctenophore-like fossil Eoandromeda, which has eight spiral arms (Tang et al. 2008, 2011), or a single-celled stage of Spiralicellula (Fig. 2h), a form that resembles Tianzhushania, but differs in having coiled cells (Huldtgren et al. 2011). Peanut-shaped specimens with hundreds of thousands of cells (Fig. 3c and d) have also been interpreted as later developmental stages (Huldtgren et al. 2011). These have single cells and clusters of cells that are isolated from the main mass of cells and have been argued to be reproductive propagules. L. Chen et al. (2014) have also described specimens with putative reproductive propagules. If Tianzhushania does reproduce via propagules, then this indicates a lifecycle incompatible with at least crown animals. However, in both cases the interpretation as propagules has proven contentious (Xiao et al. 2012; Tang 2015) with a key issue being the incomplete knowledge of the lifecycle of Tianzhushania.

Sponge-like fossils

Structures from the Weng'an Biota have been interpreted as siliceous sponge spicules (Li et al. 1998). However, these have been shown by subsequent analysis not to be composed of silica and to lack convincing sponge characters (Zhang et al. 1998; Antcliffe et al. 2014; Muscente et al. 2015). More recently, Eocyathispongia (Fig. 3c) has been described as a possible sponge from Weng'an (Yin et al. 2015). This is known from a single specimen that is preserved at a cellular level. Eocyathispongia is considered to be one of the strongest candidates for a Precambrian sponge. However, although it could be a sponge, it has no convincing sponge apomorphies such as pores or spicules, just a generalized sponge gestalt. More detailed characterization of the anatomy of Eocyathispongia is required. For example, high-resolution tomography might reveal evidence for the presence or absence of sponge characters and help to constrain the affinity of this enigmatic organism.

Tubular microfossils

A group of tubular microfossils assigned to the genera Sinocyclocyclicus (Fig. 3e and f), Ramitubus (Fig. 3g and h), Crassitubus and Quadratitubus have been interpreted as cnidarian-like eumetazoans from the Weng'an Biota (Xiao et al. 2000; Chen et al. 2002; Liu et al. 2008). These genera have regularly spaced cross walls and have been compared with tabulate corals. In a coral-like body plan, the spaces between the cross walls represent the former living positions of the polyp and would be expected to be empty or filled with diagenetic cements. However, the fossils preserve biological structures in these spaces, which is incompatible with a cnidarian interpretation (Cunningham et al. 2015). There is no evidence to support a placement of these tubular fossils within eumetazoans or animals.

Vernanimalcula

Vernanimalcula has been described from thin sections as a miniature, adult bilaterian from the Weng'an Biota (Chen et al. 2004; Petryshyn et al. 2013). It is purported to preserve bilaterian characters such as a mouth, gut, anus and paired coelomic cavities. However, all of the putative bilaterian characters can be alternatively interpreted as artefacts resulting from abiological diagenetic apatite cements, which are ubiquitous in the deposit (Bengtson 2003; Bengtson & Budd 2004; Bengtson et al. 2012; Cunningham et al. 2012a). Moreover, 3D analyses show that Weng'an fossils such as acritarchs and fertilization envelopes that clearly lack bilateral symmetry can exhibit Vernanimalcula-like morphology when sectioned in particular orientations (Bengtson et al. 2012). There is no evidential basis for interpreting Vernanimalcula either as a bilaterian or as an animal of any kind.

Summary and prospects

Research into the Weng'an Biota is currently in a transitional phase. Early research involved many attempts to demonstrate the long-expected presence of animals, including bilaterians, in the Ediacaran. This has been followed by a spell of critical analysis of these claims that has shown that none of these fossils can so far be confidently identified as stem- or crown-group metazoans. The research is now entering a phase where more targeted analysis of the palaeobiology of each taxon is helping to constrain wide-ranging hypotheses of affinity more rigorously. Many fossils are known only from a few specimens and have received limited attention. One such example is the enigmatic fossil Caveasphaera (Fig. 2i), which has been tentatively compared with cnidarian embryos (Xiao & Knoll 2000) but requires further investigation. Such taxa betray a cryptic diversity that has been overlooked because of the focus on Tianzhushania.

The Ediacaran was a critical interval in the history of life (Butterfield 2007) and the Weng'an Biota offers a unique glimpse of microscopic, multicellular and soft-bodied organisms at this time. It can provide important insights into Ediacaran biology and the evolution of multicellular organisms at this time, possibly including animal-type multicellularity. Future work constraining the diversity, affinity and ontogeny of the Weng'an organisms is necessary before this potential is fully realized.

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Dornbos and an anonymous referee for constructive comments that helped improve the paper. Data statement: There are no data associated with this paper.

Funding

This work was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NE/J018325/1, NE/F00348X/1, NE/P013678/1), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41672013), the Science Without Borders Program (CNPq, Brazil), the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF53), the Swedish Research Council (2010-3929, 2013-4290), the Leverhulme Trust and the Royal Society (Wolfson Merit Award and Newton Advanced Fellowship).

  • © 2017 The Author(s)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

References

  1. ↵
    1. Antcliffe, J.B.,
    2. Callow, R.H.T. &
    3. Brasier, M.D.
    2014. Giving the early fossil record of sponges a squeeze. Biological Reviews, 89, 972–1004, https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12090
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Bailey, J.V.,
    2. Joye, S.B.,
    3. Kalanetra, K.M.,
    4. Flood, B.E. &
    5. Corsetti, F.A.
    2007a. Evidence of giant sulphur bacteria in Neoproterozoic phosphorites. Nature, 445, 198–201, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05457
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Bailey, J.V.,
    2. Joye, S.B.,
    3. Kalanetra, K.M.,
    4. Flood, B.E. &
    5. Corsetti, F.A.
    2007b. Undressing and redressing Ediacaran embryos – Reply. Nature, 446, E10–E11, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05754
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Barfod, G.H.,
    2. Albarède, F.,
    3. Knoll, A.H.,
    4. Xiao, S.H.,
    5. Telouk, P.,
    6. Frei, R. &
    7. Baker, J.
    2002. New Lu–Hf and Pb–Pb age constraints on the earliest animal fossils. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 201, 203–212, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(02)00687-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Bengtson, S.
    2003. Tracing metazoan roots in the fossil record. In: Legakis, A., Sfenthourakis, S., Polymeni, R. & Thessalou-Legaki, M. (eds) The New Panorama of Animal Evolution. Proceedings of the 18th International Congress of Zoology. Pensoft, Sofia, 289–300.
  6. ↵
    1. Bengtson, S. &
    2. Budd, G.
    2004. Comment on “Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to 55 million years before the Cambrian”. Science, 306, 1291a, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1101338
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Bengtson, S.,
    2. Cunningham, J.A.,
    3. Yin, C. &
    4. Donoghue, P.C.J.
    2012. A merciful death for the “earliest bilaterian”, Vernanimalcula. Evolution & Development, 14, 421–427, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2012.00562.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Budd, G.E.
    2008. The earliest fossil record of the animals and its significance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 363, 1425–1434, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2232
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Butterfield, N.J.
    2007. Macroevolution and macroecology through deep time. Palaeontology, 50, 41–55, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00613.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    1. Butterfield, N.J.
    2011a. Animals and the invention of the Phanerozoic Earth system. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26, 81–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Tree.2010.11.012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Butterfield, N.J.
    2011b. Terminal developments in Ediacaran embryology. Science, 334, 1655–1656, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216125
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Chen, J. &
    2. Chi, H.
    2005. Precambrian phosphatized embryos and larvae from the Doushantuo Formation and their affinities, Guizhou (SW China). Chinese Science Bulletin, 50, 2193–2200, https://doi.org/10.1360/982004-727
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  13. ↵
    1. Chen, J.,
    2. Oliveri, P. et al.
    2000. Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo formation of China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97, 4457–4462, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.9.4457
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Chen, J.,
    2. Oliveri, P.,
    3. Gao, F.,
    4. Dornbos, S.Q.,
    5. Li, C.,
    6. Bottjer, D.J. &
    7. Davidson, E.H.
    2002. Precambrian animal life: Probable developmental and adult cnidarian forms from southwest China. Developmental Biology, 248, 182–196, https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.2002.0714
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Chen, J.,
    2. Bottjer, D.J. et al.
    2004. Small bilaterian fossils from 40 to 55 million years before the Cambrian. Science, 305, 218–222, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1099213
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Chen, J.,
    2. Bottjer, D.J. et al.
    2006. Phosphatized polar lobe-forming embryos from the Precambrian of southwest China. Science, 312, 1644–1646, https://doi.org/312/5780/1644[pii]10.1126/science.1125964
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Chen, J.,
    2. Bottjer, D.J. et al.
    2009a. Phase contrast synchrotron X-ray microtomography of Ediacaran (Doushantuo) metazoan microfossils: Phylogenetic diversity and evolutionary implications. Precambrian Research, 173, 191–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2009.04.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Chen, J.,
    2. Bottjer, D.J. et al.
    2009b. Complex embryos displaying bilaterian characters from Precambrian Doushantuo phosphate deposits, Weng'an, Guizhou, China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106, 19056–19060, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904805106
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Chen, L.,
    2. Xiao, S.,
    3. Pang, K.,
    4. Zhou, C. &
    5. Yuan, X.
    2014. Cell differentiation and germ–soma separation in Ediacaran animal embryo-like fossils. Nature, 516, 238–241, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13766
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Chen, L.,
    2. Xiao, S.,
    3. Pang, K.,
    4. Zhou, C. &
    5. Yuan, X.
    2017. Are the new Ediacaran Doushantuo embryo-like fossils early metazoans? Reply. Palaeoworld, 25, 132–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palwor.2015.06.005
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Chen, M. &
    2. Liu, K.
    1986. The geological significance of newly discovered microfossils from the Upper Sinian (Doushantuo Age) phosphorites. Scientia Geologica Sinica, 46–55.
  22. ↵
    1. Chen, Y.,
    2. Jiang, S.,
    3. Ling, H. &
    4. Yang, J.
    2009. Pb–Pb dating of black shales from the Lower Cambrian and Neoproterozoic strata, South China. Chemie der Erde, 69, 183–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemer.2008.12.005
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Chen, Z.,
    2. Zhou, C.,
    3. Xiao, S.,
    4. Wang, W.,
    5. Guan, C.,
    6. Hua, H. &
    7. Yuan, X.
    2014. New Ediacara fossils preserved in marine limestone and their ecological implications. Scientific Reports, 4, 4180, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04180
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Cohen, P.A.,
    2. Knoll, A.H. &
    3. Kodner, R.B.
    2009. Large spinose microfossils in Ediacaran rocks as resting stages of early animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106, 6519–6524, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0902322106
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Condon, D.,
    2. Zhu, M.,
    3. Bowring, S.,
    4. Wang, W.,
    5. Yang, A. &
    6. Jin, Y.
    2005. U–Pb ages from the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Formation, China. Science, 308, 95–98, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107765
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Cunningham, J.A.,
    2. Thomas, C.-W. et al.
    2012a. Distinguishing geology from biology in the Ediacaran Doushantuo biota relaxes constraints on the timing of the origins of bilaterians. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 1737, 2369–2376, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2280
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Cunningham, J.A.,
    2. Thomas, C.-W. et al.
    2012b. Experimental taphonomy of giant sulphur bacteria: implications for the interpretation of the embryo-like Ediacaran Doushantuo fossils. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 1734, 1857–1864, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2064
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Cunningham, J.A.,
    2. Donoghue, P.C.J. &
    3. Bengtson, S.
    2014. Distinguishing biology from geology in soft-tissue preservation. In: Laflamme, M., Schiffbauer, J.D. & Darroch, S.A.F. (eds) Reading and Writing of the Fossil Record: Preservational Pathways to Exceptional Fossilization. Paleontological Society Papers, 20, 275–287.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Cunningham, J.A.,
    2. Vargas, K. et al.
    2015. Critical appraisal of tubular putative metazoans from the Ediacaran Weng'an Dushantuo biota. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 282, 20151169, https://doi.org/0.1098/rspb.2015.1169
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Cunningham, J.A.,
    2. Vargas, K.,
    3. Marone, F.,
    4. Bengtson, S. &
    5. Donoghue, P.C.J.
    2016. A multicellular organism with embedded cell clusters from the Ediacaran Weng'an biota (Doushantuo Formation, South China). Evolution & Development, 18, 308–316, https://doi.org/10.1111/ede.12210
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Cunningham, J.A.,
    2. Liu, A.G.,
    3. Bengtson, S. &
    4. Donoghue, P.C.J.
    2017. The origin of animals: Can molecular clocks and the fossil record be reconciled? BioEssays, 39, 201600120, https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201600120
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Donoghue, P.C.J.
    2007. Palaeontology: embryonic identity crisis. Nature, 445, 155–156, https://doi.org/nature05520[pii]10.1038/nature05520
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  33. ↵
    1. Donoghue, P.C.J. &
    2. Purnell, M.A.
    2009. Distinguishing heat from light in debate over controversial fossils. BioEssays, 31, 178–189, https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.200800128
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    1. Dornbos, S.Q.,
    2. Bottjer, D.J.,
    3. Chen, J.,
    4. Gao, F.,
    5. Oliveri, P. &
    6. Li, C.
    2006. Environmental controls on the taphonomy of phosphatized animals and animal embryos from the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo formation, Southwest China. Palaios, 21, 3–14, https://doi.org/10.2110/palo.2004.p04-37
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. ↵
    1. dos Reis, M.,
    2. Thawornwattana, Y.,
    3. Angelis, K.,
    4. Telford, M.J.,
    5. Donoghue, P.C.J. &
    6. Yang, Z.
    2015. Uncertainty in the timing of origin of animals and the limits of precision in molecular timescales. Current Biology, 25, 2939–2950, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.066
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Erwin, D.H. &
    2. Valentine, J.W.
    2013. The Cambrian explosion: the construction of animal biodiversity, Roberts & Company, Colorado.
  37. ↵
    1. Erwin, D.H.,
    2. Laflamme, M.,
    3. Tweedt, S.M.,
    4. Sperling, E.A.,
    5. Pisani, D. &
    6. Peterson, K.J.
    2011. The Cambrian conundrum: early divergence and later ecological success in the early history of animals. Science, 334, 1091–1097, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1206375
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. Gostling, N.J.,
    2. Thomas, C.W. et al.
    2008. Deciphering the fossil record of early bilaterian embryonic development in light of experimental taphonomy. Evolution & Development, 10, 339–349, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2008.00242.x
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Gostling, N.J.,
    2. Dong, X.P. &
    3. Donoghue, P.C.J.
    2009. Ontogeny and taphonomy: an experimental taphonomy study of the development of the brine shrimp Artemia salina. Palaeontology, 52, 169–186, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00834.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  40. ↵
    1. Hagadorn, J.W.,
    2. Xiao, S. et al.
    2006. Cellular and subcellular structure of Neoproterozoic animal embryos. Science, 314, 291–294, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133129
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Hallmann, A.
    2006. Morphogenesis in the family Volvocaceae: Different tactics for turning an embryo right-side out. Protist, 157, 445–461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2006.05.010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Huldtgren, T.,
    2. Cunningham, J.A.,
    3. Yin, C.,
    4. Stampanoni, M.,
    5. Marone, F.,
    6. Donoghue, P.C.J. &
    7. Bengtson, S.
    2011. Fossilized nuclei and germination structures identify Ediacaran ‘animal embryos’ as encysting protists. Science, 334, 1696–1699, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1209537
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Huldtgren, T.,
    2. Cunningham, J.A.,
    3. Yin, C.Y.,
    4. Stampanoni, M.,
    5. Marone, F.,
    6. Donoghue, P.C.J. &
    7. Bengtson, S.
    2012. Response to Comment on “Fossilized nuclei and germination structures identify Ediacaran ‘animal embryos’ as encysting protists”. Science, 335, 1169, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219076
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Huntley, J.W.,
    2. Xiao, S. &
    3. Kowalewski, M.
    2006. 1.3 Billion years of acritarch history: An empirical morphospace approach. Precambrian Research, 144, 52–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  45. ↵
    1. Jiang, G.,
    2. Shi, X.,
    3. Zhang, S.,
    4. Wang, Y. &
    5. Xiao, S.
    2011. Stratigraphy and paleogeography of the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation (ca. 635–551 Ma) in South China. Gondwana Research, 19, 831–849, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2011.01.006
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    1. Li, C.,
    2. Chen, J. &
    3. Hua, T.
    1998. Precambrian sponges with cellular structures. Science, 279, 879–882, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5352.879
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Liu, P.,
    2. Xiao, S.,
    3. Yin, C.,
    4. Zhou, C.,
    5. Gao, L. &
    6. Tang, F.
    2008. Systematic description and phylogenetic affinity of tubular microfossils from the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation at Weng'an, South China. Palaeontology, 51, 339–366, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2008.00762.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  48. ↵
    1. Liu, P.,
    2. Yin, C.,
    3. Chen, S.,
    4. Tang, F. &
    5. Gao, L.
    2009. New data of phosphatized globular fossils from Weng'an biota in the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation and the problem concerning their affinity. Acta Geoscientica Sinica, 30, 457–464.
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Liu, P.,
    2. Xiao, S.,
    3. Yin, C.,
    4. Chen, S.,
    5. Zhou, C. &
    6. Li, M.
    2014. Ediacaran acanthorphic acritarchs and other microfossils from chert nodules of the upper Doushantuo Formation in the Yangtze Gorges area, south China. Paleontology Memoir, 72, 1–139, https://doi.org/10.1666/13-009
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Marshall, W.L. &
    2. Berbee, M.L.
    2011. Facing unknowns: living cultures (Pirum gemmata gen. nov., sp nov., and Abeoforma whisleri, gen. nov., sp nov.) from invertebrate digestive tracts represent an undescribed clade within the unicellular opisthokont lineage Ichthyosporea (Mesomycetozoea). Protist, 162, 33–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2010.06.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. ↵
    1. Muscente, A.D.,
    2. Hawkins, A.D. &
    3. Xiao, S.
    2014. Fossil preservation through phosphatization and silicification in the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation (South China): a comparative synthesis. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2014.10.013
  52. ↵
    1. Muscente, A.D.,
    2. Michel, F.M.,
    3. Dale, J.G. &
    4. Xiao, S.
    2015. Assessing the veracity of Precambrian ‘sponge’ fossils using in situ nanoscale analytical techniques. Precambrian Research, 263, 142–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2015.03.010
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. ↵
    1. Olive, L.S.
    1975. The Mycetozoans. Academic Press, New York.
  54. ↵
    1. Park, K.H.,
    2. Park, J.K.,
    3. Lee, J. &
    4. Choi, K.S.
    2005. Use of molecular markers for species identification of Korean Perkinsus sp. isolated from Manila clams Ruditapes philippinarum. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 66, 255–263.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Peterson, K.J. &
    2. Butterfield, N.J.
    2005. Origin of the Eumetazoa: testing ecological predictions of molecular clocks against the Proterozoic fossil record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 9547–9552, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503660102
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Petryshyn, V.A.,
    2. Bottjer, D.J.,
    3. Chen, J. &
    4. Gao, F.
    2013. Petrographic analysis of new specimens of the putative microfossil Vernanimalcula guizhouena (Doushantuo Formation, South China). Precambrian Research, 225, 58–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2011.08.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  57. ↵
    1. Raff, E.C.,
    2. Villinski, J.T.,
    3. Turner, F.R.,
    4. Donoghue, P.C.J. &
    5. Raff, R.A.
    2006. Experimental taphonomy shows the feasibility of fossil embryos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103, 5846–5851, https://doi.org/10.1073/Pnas.0601536103
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Raff, E.C.,
    2. Schollaert, K.L. et al.
    2008. Embryo fossilization is a biological process mediated by microbial biofilms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105, 19360–19365, https://doi.org/10.1073/Pnas.0810106105
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    1. Rensing, S.A.
    2016. (Why) does evolution favour embryogenesis? Trends in Plant Science, 21, 562–573, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.02.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Sansom, R.S.
    2014. Experimental decay of soft tissues. In: Laflamme, M., Schiffbauer, J.D. & Darroch, S.A.F. (eds) Reading and Writing of the Fossil Record: Preservational Pathways to Exceptional Fossilization. Paleontological Society Papers, 20, 259–274.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Schiffbauer, J.D.,
    2. Xiao, S.,
    3. Sen Sharma, K. &
    4. Wang, G.
    2012. The origin of intracellular structures in Ediacaran metazoan embryos. Geology, 40, 223–226, https://doi.org/10.1130/G32546.1
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Schiffbauer, J.D.,
    2. Wallace, A.F.,
    3. Broce, J. &
    4. Xiao, S.
    2014. Exceptional fossil conservation through phosphatization. In: Laflamme, M., Schiffbauer, J.D. & Darroch, S.A.F. (eds) Reading and Writing of the Fossil Record: Preservational Pathways to Exceptional Fossilization. Paleontological Society Papers, 20, 59–82.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Shields, G.,
    2. Kimura, H.,
    3. Yang, J. &
    4. Gammon, P.
    2004. Sulphur isotopic evolution of Neoproterozoic–Cambrian seawater: new francolite-bound sulphate δ34S data and a critical appraisal of the existing record. Chemical Geology, 204, 163–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2003.12.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  64. ↵
    1. Sun, W.
    1986. Late Precambrian pennatulids (sea pens) from the eastern Yangtze Gorge, China: Paracharnia gen. nov. Precambrian Research, 31, 361–375, https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9268(86)90040-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  65. ↵
    1. Tang, B.L.
    2015. Are the new Ediacaran Doushantuo Megasphaera-like acritarchs early metazoans? Palaeoworld, 25, 128–131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palwor.2015.06.005
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Tang, F.,
    2. Yin, C.,
    3. Bengtson, S.,
    4. Liu, P.,
    5. Wang, Z. &
    6. Gao, L.
    2008. Octoradiate spiral organisms in the Ediacaran of South China. Acta Geologica Sinica, English Edition, 82, 27–34, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6724.2008.tb00321.x
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Tang, F.,
    2. Bengtson, S.,
    3. Wang, Y.,
    4. Wang, X. &
    5. Yin, C.
    2011. Eoandromeda and the origin of Ctenophora. Evolution & Development, 13, 408–414, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1525-142x.2011.00499.X
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.
    2004. New multicellular algal fossils and acritarchs in Doushantuo chert nodules (Neoproterozoic; Yangtze Gorges, south China). Journal of Paleontology, 78, 393–401, https://doi.org/10.1666/0022-3360(2004)078<0393:NMAFAA>2.0.CO;2
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  69. ↵
    1. Xiao, S. &
    2. Knoll, A.H.
    1999. Fossil preservation in the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo phosphorite Lagerstatte, South China. Lethaia, 32, 219–240, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1999.tb00541.x
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  70. ↵
    1. Xiao, S. &
    2. Knoll, A.H.
    2000. Phosphatized animal embryos from the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Formation at Weng'an, Guizhou, South China. Journal of Paleontology, 74, 767–788, https://doi.org/10.1666/0022-3360(2000)074<0767:PAEFTN<2.0.CO;2
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Zhang, Y. &
    3. Knoll, A.H.
    1998. Three-dimensional preservation of algae and animal embryos in a Neoproterozoic phosphorite. Nature, 391, 553–558, https://doi.org/10.1038/35318
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  72. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Yuan, X. &
    3. Knoll, A.H.
    2000. Eumetazoan fossils in terminal Proterozoic phosphorites? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97, 13684–13689, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.250491697
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Yuan, X.,
    3. Steiner, M. &
    4. Knoll, A.H.
    2002. Macroscopic carbonaceous compressions in a terminal Proterozoic shale: a systematic reassessment of the Miaohe biota, south China. Journal of Paleontology, 76, 347–376, https://doi.org/10.1666/0022-3360(2002)076<0347:MCCIAT>2.0.CO;2
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Knoll, A.H.,
    3. Yuan, X. &
    4. Pueschel, C.M.
    2004. Phosphatized multicellular algae in the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Formation, China, and the early evolution of florideophyte red algae. American Journal of Botany, 91, 214–227, https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.91.2.214
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Shen, B.,
    3. Zhou, C.,
    4. Xie, G. &
    5. Yuan, X.
    2005. A uniquely preserved Ediacaran fossil with direct evidence for a quilted bodyplan. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 10227–10232, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0502176102
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Hagadorn, J.W.,
    3. Zhou, C. &
    4. Yuan, X.
    2007a. Rare helical spheroidal fossils from the Doushantuo Lagerstatte: Ediacaran animal embryos come of age? Geology, 35, 115–118, https://doi.org/10.1130/G23277A.1
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Zhou, C. &
    3. Yuan, X.
    2007b. Undressing and redressing Ediacaran embryos. Nature, 446, E9–E10, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05753
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Knoll, A.H.,
    3. Schiffbauer, J.D.,
    4. Zhou, C. &
    5. Yuan, X.
    2012. Comment on “Fossilized nuclei and germination structures identify Ediacaran ‘animal embryos’ as encysting protists”. Science, 335, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218814
  79. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Muscente, A.D. et al.
    2014a. The Weng'an biota and the Ediacaran radiation of multicellular eukaryotes. National Science Review, 1, 498–520, https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwu061
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  80. ↵
    1. Xiao, S.,
    2. Zhou, C.,
    3. Liu, P.J.,
    4. Wang, D. &
    5. Yuan, X.
    2014b. Phosphatized acanthomorphic acritarchs and related microfossils from the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation at Weng'an (South China) and their implications for biostratigraphic correlation. Journal of Paleontology, 88, 1–67, https://doi.org/10.1666/12-157R
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. ↵
    1. Yang, A.,
    2. Zhu, M.,
    3. Zhang, J.,
    4. Zhao, F. &
    5. Lü, M.
    2015. Sequence stratigraphic subdivision and correlation of the Ediacaran (Sinian) Doushantuo Formation of Yangtze Plate, South China. Journal of Palaeogeography, 17, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.7605/gdlxb.2015.01.001
    OpenUrl
  82. ↵
    1. Yin, C.,
    2. Gao, L. &
    3. Xing, Y.
    2001. Discovery of Tianzhushania in Doushantuo phosphorites, in Weng'an, Guizhou Province. Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, 40, 497–504.
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. Yin, C.,
    2. Bengtson, S. &
    3. Yue, Z.
    2004. Silicified and phosphatized Tianzhushania, spheroidal microfossils of possible animal origin from the Neoproterozoic of South China. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 49, 1–12.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  84. ↵
    1. Yin, L. &
    2. Li, Z.
    1978. Precambrian microfloras of southwest China with reference to their stratigraphic significance. Memoirs of the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Academia Sinica, 10, 41–108.
    OpenUrl
  85. ↵
    1. Yin, L.,
    2. Zhu, M.,
    3. Knoll, A.H.,
    4. Yuan, X.,
    5. Zhang, J. &
    6. Hu, J.
    2007. Doushantuo embryos preserved inside diapause egg cysts. Nature, 446, 661–663, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05682
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  86. ↵
    1. Yin, Z.,
    2. Zhu, M.,
    3. Tafforeau, P.,
    4. Chen, J.,
    5. Liu, P. &
    6. Li, G.
    2013. Early embryogenesis of potential bilaterian animals with polar lobe formation from the Ediacaran Weng'an Biota, South China. Precambrian Research, 225, 44–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2011.08.011
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  87. ↵
    1. Yin, Z.,
    2. Zhu, M.,
    3. Davidson, E.H.,
    4. Bottjer, D.J.,
    5. Zhao, F. &
    6. Tafforeau, P.
    2015. Sponge grade body fossil with cellular resolution dating 60 Myr before the Cambrian. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112, E1453–E1460, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414577112
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. ↵
    1. Yin, Z.,
    2. Zhu, M.,
    3. Bottjer, D.J.,
    4. Zhao, F. &
    5. Tafforeau, P.
    2016. Meroblastic cleavage identifies some Ediacaran Doushantuo (China) embryo-like fossils as metazoans. Geology, G38262.1, https://doi.org/10.1130/G38262.1
  89. ↵
    1. Zhang, X. &
    2. Pratt, B.R.
    2014. Possible algal origin and life cycle of Ediacaran Doushantuo microfossils with dextral spiral structure. Journal of Paleontology, 88, 92–98, https://doi.org/10.1666/13-014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. ↵
    1. Zhang, Y.
    1989. Multicellular thallophytes with differentiated tissues from Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks of South China. Lethaia, 22, 113–132, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1989.tb01674.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  91. ↵
    1. Zhang, Y. &
    2. Yuan, X.
    1992. New data on multicellular thallophytes and fragments of cellular tissues from Late Proterozoic phosphate rocks, South China. Lethaia, 25, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3931.1992.tb01788.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  92. ↵
    1. Zhang, Y.,
    2. Yuan, X. &
    3. Yin, L.
    1998. Interpreting late Precambrian microfossils. Science, 282, 1783, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5395.1783a
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. ↵
    1. Zhao, D.
    1986. The discovery of phosphatic red algae in the Sinian Doushantuo Formation. Acta Sedimentologica Sinica, 4, 126–127.
    OpenUrl
  94. ↵
    1. Zhou, C.,
    2. Brasier, M.D. &
    3. Xue, Y.
    2001. Three-dimensional phosphatic preservation of giant acritarchs from the Terminal Proterozoic Doushantuo Formation in Guizhou and Hubei provinces, south China. Palaeontology, 44, 1157–1178, https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4983.00219
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  95. ↵
    1. Zhou, C.,
    2. Xie, G.,
    3. McFadden, K.,
    4. Xiao, S. &
    5. Yuan, X.
    2007. The diversification and extinction of Doushantuo–Pertatataka acritarchs in South China: causes and biostratigraphic significance. Geological Journal, 42, 229–262, https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.1062
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  96. ↵
    1. Zhou, C.,
    2. Li, X.,
    3. Xiao, S.,
    4. Lan, Z.,
    5. Ouyang, Q.,
    6. Guan, C. &
    7. Chen, Z.
    2017. A new SIMS zircon U–Pb date from the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation: age constraint on the Weng'an biota. Geological Magazine, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756816001175
  97. ↵
    1. Zhu, M.,
    2. Zhang, J. &
    3. Yang, A.
    2007. Integrated Ediacaran (Sinian) chronostratigraphy of South China. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 254, 7–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.03.025
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  98. ↵
    1. Zhu, M.,
    2. Lu, M. et al.
    2013. Carbon isotope chemostratigraphy and sedimentary facies evolution of the Ediacaran Doushantuo Formation in western Hubei, South China. Precambrian Research, 225, 7–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2011.07.019
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the Geological Society: 174 (5)
Journal of the Geological Society
Volume 174, Issue 5
September 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation tools

The Weng'an Biota (Doushantuo Formation): an Ediacaran window on soft-bodied and multicellular microorganisms

John A. Cunningham, Kelly Vargas, Zongjun Yin, Stefan Bengtson and Philip C. J. Donoghue
Journal of the Geological Society, 174, 793-802, 3 May 2017, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2016-142
John A. Cunningham
1School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK
2Department of Palaeobiology and Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, Swedish Museum of Natural History, 10405 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: John.Cunningham@bristol.ac.uk
Kelly Vargas
1School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kelly Vargas
Zongjun Yin
3State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stefan Bengtson
2Department of Palaeobiology and Nordic Center for Earth Evolution, Swedish Museum of Natural History, 10405 Stockholm, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Stefan Bengtson
Philip C. J. Donoghue
1School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Philip C. J. Donoghue

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions
View PDF
Share

The Weng'an Biota (Doushantuo Formation): an Ediacaran window on soft-bodied and multicellular microorganisms

John A. Cunningham, Kelly Vargas, Zongjun Yin, Stefan Bengtson and Philip C. J. Donoghue
Journal of the Geological Society, 174, 793-802, 3 May 2017, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2016-142
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Email to

Thank you for sharing this Journal of the Geological Society article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Weng'an Biota (Doushantuo Formation): an Ediacaran window on soft-bodied and multicellular microorganisms
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the Geological Society
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of the Geological Society.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Download PPT
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Stratigraphy and age
    • Depositional environment, preservation and reworking
    • Overview of the Weng'an Biota
    • Summary and prospects
    • Acknowledgements
    • Funding
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Similar Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Nonesuch Formation Lagerstätte: a rare window into freshwater life one billion years ago
  • The Shibantan Lagerstätte: insights into the Proterozoic–Phanerozoic transition
  • The Herefordshire Lagerstätte: fleshing out Silurian marine life
Show more: Review focus
  • Most read
  • Most cited
Loading
  • Sketch-based interface and modelling of stratigraphy and structure in three dimensions
  • The Nonesuch Formation Lagerstätte: a rare window into freshwater life one billion years ago
  • Geological Society of London Scientific Statement: what the geological record tells us about our present and future climate
  • Terrestrial stratigraphical division in the Quaternary and its correlation
  • The nature and origins of decametre-scale porosity in Ordovician carbonate rocks, Halahatang oilfield, Tarim Basin, China
More...

Journal of the Geological Society

  • About the journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Submit a manuscript
  • Author information
  • Supplementary Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Pay per view
  • Alerts & RSS
  • Copyright & Permissions
  • Activate Online Subscription
  • Feedback
  • Help

Lyell Collection

  • About the Lyell Collection
  • Lyell Collection homepage
  • Collections
  • Open Access Collection
  • Open Access Policy
  • Lyell Collection access help
  • Recommend to your Library
  • Lyell Collection Sponsors
  • MARC records
  • Digital preservation
  • Developing countries
  • Geofacets
  • Manage your account
  • Cookies

The Geological Society

  • About the Society
  • Join the Society
  • Benefits for Members
  • Online Bookshop
  • Publishing policies
  • Awards, Grants & Bursaries
  • Education & Careers
  • Events
  • Geoscientist Online
  • Library & Information Services
  • Policy & Media
  • Society blog
  • Contact the Society

Published by The Geological Society of London, registered charity number 210161

Print ISSN 
0016-7649
Online ISSN 
2041-479X

Copyright © 2021 Geological Society of London