Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:44:18.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problematica, trace fossils, and tubes within the Ediacara Member (South Australia): redefining the ediacaran trace fossil record one tube at a time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Aaron Sappenfield ,
Mary L. Droser  and
James G. Gehling
Aaron Sappenfield
Affiliation:
1University of California, Riverside, Department of Earth Sciences, 900 University Ave., Riverside, 92521, USA
Mary L. Droser
Affiliation:
1University of California, Riverside, Department of Earth Sciences, 900 University Ave., Riverside, 92521, USA
James G. Gehling
Affiliation:
2South Australia Museum, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia 5000
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ediacaran trace fossils are becoming an increasingly less common component of the total Precambrian fossil record as structures previously interpreted as trace fossils are reinterpreted as body fossils by utilizing qualitative criteria. Two morphotypes, Form E and Form F of Glaessner (1969), interpreted as trace fossils from the Ediacara Member of the Rawnsley Quartzite in South Australia are shown here to be body fossils of a single, previously unidentified tubular constructional morphology formally described herein as Somatohelix sinuosus n. gen. n. sp. S. sinuosus is 2-7 mm wide and 3-14 cm long and is preserved as sinusoidal casts and molds on the base of beds. Well-preserved examples of this fossil preserve distinct body fossil traits such as folding, current alignment, and potential attachment to holdfasts. Nearly 200 specimens of this fossil have been documented from reconstructed bedding surfaces within the Ediacara Member. When viewed in isolated hand sample, many of these specimens resemble ichnofossils. However, the ability to view large quantities of reassembled and successive bedding surfaces within specific outcrops of the Ediacara Member provides a new perspective, revealing that isolated specimens of rectilinear grooves on bed bases are not trace fossils but are poorly preserved specimens of S. sinuosus. Variation in the quality and style of preservation of S. sinuosus on a single surface and the few distinct characteristics preserved within this relatively indistinct fossil also provides the necessary data required to define a taphonomic gradient for this fossil. Armed with this information, structures which have been problematic in the past can now be confidently identified as S. sinuosus based on morphological criteria. This suggests that the original organism that produced this fossil was a widespread and abundant component of the Ediacaran ecosystem.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 256 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bengtson, S. and Zhao, Y.. 1992. Predatorial Borings in Late Precambrian Mineralized Exoskeletons. Science, 257:367–369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Budd, G. E. and Jensen, S.. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla. Biological Reviews, 75:253–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, P. A., Bradley, A., Knoll, A. H., Grotzinger, J. P., Jensen, S., Abelson, J., Hand, K., Love, G., Metz, J., McLoughlin, N., Meister, P., Shepard, R., Tice, M., and Wilson, J. P.. 2009. Tubular Compression Fossils from the Ediacaran Nama Group, Namibia. Journal of Paleontology, 83:110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droser, M. L., Gehling, J. G., and Jensen, S.. 2005. Ediacaran trace fossils: true and false, p. 125–138. In Briggs, D. E. G. (ed.), Evolving Form and Function: Fossils and Development. Peabody Museum of Natural History, New Haven.Google Scholar
Droser, M. L., Gehling, J. G., and Jensen, S.. 2006. Assemblage palaeoecology of the Ediacara biota: The unabridged edition?. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 232:131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droser, M. L. and Gehling, J. G.. 2008. Synchronous Aggregate Growth in an Abundant New Ediacaran Tubular Organism. Science, 319:1660–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehling, J. G. 1999. Microbial Mats in Terminal Proterozoic Siliciclastics: Ediacaran Death Masks. Palaios, 14:40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehling, J. G. 2000. Environmental interpretation and a sequence stratigraphic framework for the terminal Proterozoic Ediacara Member within the Rawnsley Quartzite, South Australia. Precambrian Research, 100:65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehling, J. G. 2007. Fleshing out the Ediacaran Period, p. 425–428. In Vickers-Rich, P. and Komarower, P. (eds.), The Rise and Fall of the Ediacaran Biota. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 286.Google Scholar
Gehling, J. G. and Droser, M. L.. 2009. Textured organic surfaces associated with the Ediacara biota in South Australia. Earth-Science Reviews, 96:196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germs, G. J. B. 1972. New shelly fossils from Nama Group, South West Africa. American Journal of Science, 272:752–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaessner, M. F. 1969. Trace fossils from the Precambrian and basal Cambrian. Lethaia, 2:369–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnilovskaya, M. B. 1971. The oldest aquatic plants of the Vendian of the Russian Platform. Paleontological Journal, 3:101–107.Google Scholar
Hua, H., Pratt, B. R., and Zhang, Y. L.. 2003. Borings in Cloudina Shells: Complex Predator-Prey Dynamics in the Terminal Neoproterozoic. Palaios, 18:454–459.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R., Ford, C., and Gehling, J. G.. 1983. The Ediacara member of the Rawnsley quartzite: The context of the Ediacara assemblage (Late Precambrian, Flinders Ranges). Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 30:101–119.Google Scholar
Jensen, S. 2003. The Proterozoic and Earliest Cambrian Trace Fossil Record; Patterns, Problems and Perspectives. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 43:219–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, S., Droser, M. L., and Gehling, J. G.. 2006. A Critical Look at the Ediacaran Trace Fossil Record, p. 115–157. In Xiao, S. and Kaufman, A. J. (eds.), Neoproterozoic Geobiology and Paleobiology. Springer, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preiss, W. V. 1990. A stratigraphic and tectonic overview of the Adelaide Geosyncline, South Australia. p. 1–33. In Jago, J. B. and Moore, P. S. (eds.), The Evolution of a Late Precambrian-Early Palaeozoic Rift Complex: the Adelaide Geosyncline. Geological Society of Australia Special Publication 16.Google Scholar
Preiss, W. V. 2000. The Adelaide Geosyncline of South Australia and its significance in Neoproterozoic continental reconstruction. Precambrian Research, 100:21–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasband, W. S. 1997-2008. ImageJ. U. S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A., Grazhdankin, D., and Legouta, A.. 2003. Ediacaran biota: The dawn of animal life in the shadow of giant protists. Paleontological Research, 7:43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprigg, R. 1952. Sedimentation in the Adelaide geosyncline and the formation of the continental terrace. p. 153–159. In Glaessner, M. F. and Rudd, E. A. (eds.), Sir Douglas Mawson Anniversary Volume. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.Google Scholar
Tacker, R. C., Martin, A. J., Weaver, P. G. and Lawyer, D. R.. 2010. Trace fossils versus body fossils: Oldhamia recta revisited. Precambrian Research, 178:43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1994. Late Precambrian bilaterians: grades and clades. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 91:6751–6757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed