Does this fossil have a name and is there a journal article on it?

[Torstoshan]

There is a website that describes a controversial fossil found in 2003: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2003/11/10/984724.htm

 

Since it doesn't have a name at the time of publishing, I'm finding it difficult to find more information on it.

[Fossildude19]

LINK 1

 

LINK 2

 

LINK 3

[doushantuo]

some of you may find this enlightening:

i1540-7063-043-01-0114.pdf

 

outtake:

The links provided by Tim(fossildude) are links to articles describing Cambrian fauna,and not Ediacaran .

edit: the Morrowie seems to be Lower Cambrian,though.

Torstoshan, have you tried to contact James Gehling about this fossil,or anyone else(Australian or otherwise) involved in IGCP 493?

I think Nesonectris is controversially discussed,but the resemblance isn't overpowering

Haikouella and Yunannozoon(below, to the right) were indeed decribed in 2003* in the articles Tim linked to ,but,again,the resemblance isn't great.

Then again,Ediacaran taphonomy is a funny old business

Dzik did a good piece on Yunannozoon in the free access publication Acta Paleontologica Polonica that is probably in several libraries here

 

 

 

[Fossildude19]

@doushantuo

Oops! I shouldn't google late at night.  

The OP is correct - very little information about the find, it's name, and any associated papers that I could find.

I think Ben's idea of contacting James Gehling is probably your best bet, @Torstoshan .

[piranha]

An Ediacaran specialist from North America replied:

 

Yes, it is a Spriggina, but preserved with the third vane below, seldom seen in most specimens with only two vanes.

I have been waiting for them to publish it to point this out.  They must be getting push back already, but it is not from me.

[Torstoshan]

@piranha When you say 'it's a spriggina' I suppose you mean that that's what you think it is. I contacted someone from the South Australian Museum and he said

 

"We have more than 10 specimens of reasonable quality. Unlike other Ediacarans, like Spriggina, they have dorsal crest and simple oblique body divisions. The presence of a notochord will always be debatable!

 

Many palaeontologist (including those who do not wok on Ediacara fossils) do not believe Ediacaran organisms are animals related to Cambrian clades of animals. The main reason is the difference in preservation compared with better known Cambrian Lagerstatten fossils. However, it is, in my opinion absolutely certain that the Ediacara Biot includes the stem groups of extant phylla. The task is to convince palaeontologists, whose careers have been made by working on Cambrian Lagerstatte, that there were Ediacaran ancestors in the known fossil record." 

[piranha]

9 hours ago, Torstoshan said:

@piranha When you say 'it's a spriggina' I suppose you mean that that's what you think it is...

 

 

Please read more carefully.  This is the evaluation of an Ediacaran specialist from North America.  Apparently, many other Ediacaran specialists are also not persuaded that specimen is a vertebrate.  Why have 15 years elapsed without a formal description?...

[Torstoshan]

Apologies for the misunderstanding, Nonetheless I don't think it is accurate to state it is a spriggina given the features suggesting it is not. Too answer your question it depends what is meant by a 'formal description'. Does a formal description require the presence of a notocord to be confirmed/disproved? Surely inspite of the lack of certainty surrounding the notocord, the fossil could still have been published in a journal.

[piranha]

As it was already pointed out in the previous response, it has not been published in a peer reviewed journal.  Additionally, the specialist did provide a diagnostic feature for the ID of Spriggina.  Unfortunately for the alleged 'vertebrate', it is 15 years later and all we have is a hyperbolic 'news' article and a friendly response from the South Australian Museum that proves absolutely nothing.

[Torstoshan]

piranha I should point out when I say 'surely it could have been published' I mean to ask why hasn't it been published in over 15 years? Also the person who responded was the Senior Research Scientist who has 10 other specimens with him. I would like to think he is an authority on the subject. 

 

Could you also provide a link to the ID of Spriggna by this specialist?

Edited August 3, 2018 by Torstoshan

[piranha]

11 hours ago, Torstoshan said:

piranha I should point out when I say 'surely it could have been published' I mean to ask why hasn't it been published in over 15 years? Also the person who responded was the Senior Research Scientist who has 10 other specimens with him. I would like to think he is an authority on the subject. Could you also provide a link to the ID of Spriggna by this specialist?

 

 

There is no link, I corresponded with a specialist who is familiar with the specimen.  Unfortunately, the response you received does not provide any additional details about the specimen in question.  We can all agree the "presence of a notochord will always be debatable".  The remainder of the response is about trying to persuade Cambrian workers to have more of an 'Ediacaran mindset'.  It all sounds very nice, but in the final analysis, there is nothing new to report.  If there was actually something "new" it certainly would have been published by now in a peer reviewed journal.  Or perhaps it will be published at a future date, but until that happens we are back where we started, with a sensational 'news' article, and plenty of skeptics that say otherwise.  I did however, find a contemporaneous link published at the time this was initially reported 15 years ago.  The only difference is this specialist thought it was Kimberella.  LINK