Reply to the comment by Retallack et al. (2023) on “Stinging News: ‘Dickinsonia’ discovered in the Upper Vindhyan of India not worth the buzz”
Reply to the comment by Retallack et al. (2023) on “Stinging News: ‘Dickinsonia’ discovered in the Upper Vindhyan of India not worth the buzz”
复制标题
回复 Retallack 等人的评论。
DOI:
10.1016/j.gr.2023.02.016
复制
发表时间:
2023
影响因子:
6.1
通讯作者:
Meert, Joseph
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Kwafo, Samuel;Singha, Ananya;Pandit, Manoj;Meert, Joseph
We are delighted to learn that Retallack et al.(2023) agree with our conclusion regarding the remains of an Apis dorsata nest which they mistakenly identified as the Ediacaran fossil Dickonsonia tenuis (Meert et al., 2023, Retallack et al., 2021, Retallack et al., 2023). The mea culpa by Retallack et al.(2023) is admirable. The classification of Ediacaran fossils based exclusively on morphology, especially when they cannot be directly sampled, requires caution. A recent submission by Pandey et al.(2023) offers additional support for our earlier conclusion that the purported fossil is of recent origin.Retallack et al.(2023) dismissed our arguments about the positioning of the ‘fossil’noting that Dickinsonia fossils sometimes can curve, bend or cross-cut bedding planes (Gehling et al., 2005, Evans et al., 2015; Runnegar, 2022). We accept this observation; however, those arguments are moot in this case because the ‘fossil’is positioned on a recent fracture plane where a large piece of rock was detached from the roof. To the best of our knowledge, there is no case of Dickinsonia fossils forming along a Neozoic tilted fracture plane. Pandey et al.(2023) later confirmed our observations regarding the positioning of the fossil.