Talk:Dickinsonia

Taxobox

The {{missing taxobox}} template on the article page is problematic. It is not even clear that Dickinsonia is an animal, and any further classification would be contentious. I don't see any real point in providing a taxobox for this genus. -- Donald Albury 14:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We could place it in Family Dickinsonidae, which currently includes also Yorgia and Marywadea.--Mr Fink 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Few of the Ediacaran biota have any taxoboxes, and they don't have any agreed form of classification. Family Dickinsonidae is just one POV. Another POV I have read is that presumably evolution diverged groups over time, so that close to their point of divergence they were more closely related, so that different Phyla ancestors in the Ediacaran period would be as closely related as animals from different orders (or some smaller subdivision) are today. I was thinking along the lines of animalia and leave it at that! GB 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Placing it in the Anamalia is a big POV! I think the classification of Dickinsonidae is fair – the PoV is whether that should be a family , genus, or phylum. That's a semantic, not factual, decision. Verisimilus T 00:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New reference

The following reference could use incorporating into the article.

Retallack, G.J. (2007). "Growth, decay and burial compaction of Dickinsonia, an iconic Ediacaran fossil" (PDF). Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology. 31 (3): 215–240. Retrieved 2007-11-24.

Thanks, Verisimilus T 13:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated it; a lot of facts referenced to this paper are referenced more securely within it and could use linking to their primary source. Also, the article now probably includes a bit too much of Redecker's point of view, something that could use addressing with a matter of urgency!

Verisimilus T 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well check out Zhang & Reitner (2006) (see here; that might help. IONO whether it is a good thing. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to view the article – the URL you gave just produces a chinese-character messagebox and a blank page. I can't find the article on google scholar, either. Do you have a full reference? Thanks. Verisimilus T 13:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Ah! Tracked it down using its title. My experience of Acta Geolgoica Sinica is that its reviewers are not quite as... incisive... as most peer reviewed journals. I've not managed to access the full text (would be interested if you had a copy), but would have my scruples with including it as a "reliable source"... Verisimilus T 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can drop your email on my Talk (as hidden annotation) and I'll send you the copy. I have just browsed it, it sounds reasonable though the conmclusion (a ctenophore ancestor) is of course open to debate. They report, as the abstract says, on a specimen that shows some internal structuring (it does not look like an artefact; too regular, too symmetrical). Yeah I know what you mean with the Acta bit... language barrier play a role at least in avian papers. But for the original purpose – to balance the lichen theory – this paper would seem rather good. Though it is perhaps a bit forceful, it discusses much of the theories surrounding Dickinsonia classification, and seeing that weird specimen it is hard not to consider the Zhang & Reitner opinion at least as warranted as any.

Did Retallack (2007) cite it? Google Scholar which knows both articles suggests no; the Retallack article is not accessible anymore in fulltext.

In any case, the article would source: "They are thicker at one end than the other, but there is no agreement as to which end is the front, and the organism does not appear to have a "head"." – there is a nice photo of a more conventional specimen (flattened out) that demonstrates this to good effect.

And of course, the concluding remark "It provides additional direct evidence for the hypothesis that metazoans began to diversify before the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al., 1999; Fortey, 2001; Lieberman and Meert, 2004). It also implies that the first metazoan may have evolved before the Ediacaran" as well as the title "Removing It from Vendobionta" is at face value almost mainstream nowadays.

So I suppose the article is at least good and solid as a generalized discussion, however off it may be in its specific conclusion. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look forward to reading it. Brasier also has some specimens showing internal structure, which he believes resembles the structure of Charnia and so on – he's certainly not budged from his 2004 opinion that the organism is within a "Vendobionta"-like clade. Reverting to theories about early cnidaria strikes me as a backward step, but I'll be very interested to see the evidence!

NB hope you retrieve my e-mail address from your edit history. Verisimilus T 12:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Very similar names

There's also a genus of (extant) tree fern called Dicksonia, which could be confused with this thing. 75.208.187.54 (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true, though, do remember that the naming conventions of Taxonomy allow for a generic name to be used more than once, provided that the organisms being named are in different kingdoms, for example, Proteus being used to name a bacterium, and the olm.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Vendomia Machines And Other Evils

I want to ask two things: 1) Can someone translate the caption of this picture [1] ? I'm certain that the upper left figure is of Dickinsonia (Vendomia) menneri, the upper right being Archaeaspinus, and the lower left figure being Paravendia, but, is the lower right figure an immature Yorgia, or a different species? and 2) Which species is the one where they found what they thought is a digestive tract [2] ?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1) the caption for this is a back to front S which clearly says Yorgia Ivantsov, So I would say it definately Yorgia.

2)Marywadea has gonads and Dickinsonia has digestion if you believe the wikipedia articles! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean, what was the species of Dickinsonia that they discovered what they think is a digestive tract.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It should say in the paper I've just e-mailed you. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Images

You guys think that these reconstructions I made [3] [4] [5] [6] are usable for this article?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you edit new pictures with one species and without the other species on them? Having them half cut off looks like we are missing something! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In the recon of D. lissa, should I also crop out D. menneri, and should I crop out Archaeaspinus from the big portrait?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That is my idea, only leave the relevant ones visible, otherwise we are confused. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I finished cropping up the portrait of D. lissa, but, I decided to leave Archaeaspinus in the big portrait, so we can use it for a comparison between dickinsoniids and yorgiids when we expand on Proarticulata.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of View issues?

I removed the POV tag from the article as it's not clear which specific issues this refers to.

Remarks

Bad URL

Erik Sperling1 et al. (2008). "A placozoan affinity for Dickinsonia and the evolution of Late Precambrian metazoan feeding modes" in Palaeontological Association Annual Meeting. Cusack, M; Owen, A; Clark, N Programme with Abstracts 52.

Liu, A. et al (2008). "Taphomorphs and taxonomy of the Ediacara Biota in Avalonia" in Palaeontological Association Annual Meeting. Cusack, M; Owen, A; Clark, N Programme with Abstracts 52.

Correct link - http://downloads.palass.org/annual_meeting/2008/Glasgow2008abstracts.pdf

internal anatomy

"Some spectacular fossils which can be attributed to Dickinsonia appear to preserve internal anatomy, believed to represent a tract that both digested food and distributed it throughout the organism.[11] However, this probably represents an artefact of the preservational process; the reported fossils may have been more decayed than usual for Ediacarans, producing a different appearance.[12]"

Please, don’t do of strange and anything ungrounded generalizations! The research of A. Liu et al “Taphomorphs and taxonomy of the Ediacara Biota in Avalonia” about mystery Ivesheadia and Shepshedia from Avalon biota only!

Internal organs in the manner of channels system at Proarticulata were, it is not artifact of the preservation process it is real structures. These organs were confirmed in hundreds of specimens of Proarticulata members, especially in Yorgia, Cyanorus, "Dickinsonia cf. tenuis", Vendia rachiata, Marywadea. The channels system demonstrate strict constancy of the form, the regularity in structure and form, the ontogenic development in process of organism’s growth and development.

Dickinsonia preserved in coarse sandstone

"The organisms are preserved usually in coarse sandstone." The Australian ediacatan rocks usually are coarse sandstone, but in Russia it usually fine-grained sandstone, aleurolite (siltstone).

Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Dickinsonia is an animal A new study by researchers at the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol, and the British Geological Survey provides strong proof that Dickinsonia was an animal - Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-mysterious-ancient-creature-animal.html#jCp 128.248.201.4 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

More evidence: https://phys.org/news/2018-09-fat-million-years-reveals-earliest.html 2601:240:D500:177D:3851:C001:FDE1:A4F0 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Dickinsonia it is lichens: a critique of the Retallack idea

"Dickinsonia is found in sedimentary beds 8 mm thick; allowing for compaction, this allows these specimens a maximum height of 1 cm." But erosion of the sea-bottom?!

There is regularity - the thin layer contains small Dickinsonia, Kimberella, Yorgia and other fossils of the mobile animals. Big and very big Dickinsonia, Kimberella, Yorgia are discovered only on thick massive not layered sandstone.

"Organisms of all sizes are found on bedding plane assemblages; this shows that they were commonly preserved in life position, as currents would preferentially remove smaller specimens." All agree that a Kimberella is mobile animal and small Kimberella find with Dickinsonia on one surface of fossiliferous beds!

"The organisms displayed isometric growth" - Russian Dickinsonia demonstrate not isometric growth.
"The organisms displayed indeterminate growth" – different species demonstrate different max size.

"Their mode of anchorage may have been oyster-like concretion, lichen-like rooting with rhizines, or fungus-like attachment to an underground network of hyphæ.
The organisms are preserved in such a way that their resistant parts must have been a sturdy biopolymer (such as keratin) rather than a brittle mineral (such as calcite or a pyritised death mask)." This Retallack hypothesis is unproved conjecture, it hypothesis based on assumption that Dickinsonia is fungus/lichens and on assumption that Dickinsonia connected with tubular “Aulozoon” fossil. But "Aulozoon" find only on one bed in Australia. There are no fossils the rhizines, or fungus-like an underground network of hyphae!

The shell of cells of fungus and lichens consists of cellulose (as well as algae) and chitin. In Russia the real algae and fungal preserved on one beds with Dickinsonia as a flat carbonaceous films. Russian specimens displayed elastic deformations and it wrinkled and crumpled.

Preservation style of a Dickinsonia similar to preservation style of Tribrachidium, Kimberella, Yorgia, Temnoxa, Parvancorina and other not fungal-nature organisms (animals).

"The imprints are almost identical, suggesting they were made by one organism -- but this is not necessarily the case: they could be the bases of lichens or "mushrooms arranged in fairy rings"" All positive imprints (traces) identical in one group. These traces overlap each other. They have a stable body orientation, with the head pointing in the direction of movement.

My Best Regards. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dickinsonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/Journals/TRSSA/TRSSA_V073/trssa_v073_p72p99.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927022652/http://vend.paleo.ru/pub/Keller_Fedonkin_1976.pdf to http://vend.paleo.ru/pub/Keller_Fedonkin_1976.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092905/http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/Journals/TRSSA/TRSSA_v071/trssa_v071_p212p224.pdf to http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/Journals/TRSSA/TRSSA_V071/trssa_v071_p212p224.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704183947/http://vend.paleo.ru/pub/Ivantsov_et_Malakhovskaya_2002-e.pdf to http://vend.paleo.ru/pub/Ivantsov_et_Malakhovskaya_2002-e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first sentence say it WAS, not IS?

The title explains my complaint, it seems to have a tensing error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivework (talk • contribs) 00:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent find from India

A fossil has recently been found in India. Please see: Retallack, Gregory J.; Matthews, Neffra A.; Master, Sharad; Khangar, Ranjit G.; Khan, Merajuddin (February 2021). "Dickinsonia discovered in India and late Ediacaran biogeography". Gondwana Research. 90: 165–170. doi:10.1016/j.gr.2020.11.008. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Damaged Dickinsonia specimens

I've found this article regarding that some specimens of Dickinsonia from Russia provide evidence of their growth and biological affinities alongside marginal and terminal areas of wilting deformation being necrotic zones which separate regenerated growth in the specimens. Could this be added to the taxonomy and/or body fossils section? The article in question is https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0269638 Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dickinsonia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a well-written, fully-cited, properly-structured and well-illustrated article so my comments will be few and minor, bordering on suggestions.

• In the lead, the Latin species names should all be spelt out in full at first appearance please: this is the same rule as for chapters of the article.

• You might like to colour the backgrounds of the Status cells (green for valid, red (or maybe grey) for invalid).

• The sentence Gregory Retallack has proposed that the fossils of Dickinsonia and other Ediacaran biota represent lichens that grew in a terrestrial environment,[40] but this has been broadly rejected by other authors, who argue that a marine environment of deposition better fits available evidence.[41][39][42] is a bit long and rambling. Suggest you split it.

• The sentence In 2018 it was found that many Russian specimens were enriched with cholesterol, which is only produced by animals, supporting an animal affinity,[39] though these results have been questioned by other authors, who consider the association between the cholesterol molecules and the Dickinsonia fossils to not be definitive.[49] is a bit long and rambling. Suggest you split it.

• There are some other sentences in the article with the same form, with one statement, "though/but" and a contrary statement. These are always candidates for splitting, specially when there are dependent clauses using "which" into the bargain.

• many Russian specimens were enriched with cholesterol, – suggest "contained cholesterol", as there is no "enrichment" process involved (if there was, the compound would not be native to the fossils at all).

• The first specimens of Dickinsonia were first discovered – remove the second "first".

• this grouping as a whole is likely to be polyphyletic. – delete "as a whole", it's redundant.

Images

• All are on Commons and all are clearly relevant. They all have CC-by-SA licenses which in all but one case appear entirely plausible.

• The most doubtful is the lead image, which says it's a cropped version of something without identifying it; the pattern given DickinsoniaCostata*.png does not match any image on Wikipedia or on Commons, which is odd. Do we believe this is a legitimate photo of a museum specimen? I expect Seilacher had BOTH images of the species in his published articles (that bit's certain) AND museum specimens. The concern obviously is that this could be a copyrighted image from somewhere-or-other. A Google image search reassuringly finds no match other than the Commons image.

• I've suppressed the lines in the gallery, which I find less cluttered with what Tufte called "chartjunk". Hope that works for you.

Sources

• All the sources are relevant and of suitable quality.

• Spot-checks: [14] ok; [28] ok; [44] ok.

• [25] says 1946 but article says 1947. Why is this?

• [52] is a dead link.

• It'd be helpful to readers scanning the list of sources if you'd wikilink the few famous authors among the sources: Sprigg, Conway Morris, Seilacher for instance.

• I notice you sometimes use initials, like Seilacher, A. and sometimes forenames, like Seilacher, Adolf. (Ivantsov [A./Andrey] is another case). Suggest we always use forenames.

• You're also inconsistent in spacing of initials: I see Fedonkin, M. A. but Glaessner, M.F. and Jenkins, R.J.F. for example. Suggest we always space initials out (like Fedonkin).

Summary

• Well, this is another fine article, very little wrong with it. I hope to see it at GA very soon. Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

  I went through and everything you mentioned should have been fixed. I've reworded some stuff and it should be easier to read now. The citations should be more consistent, and the problematic image in the taxobox has been replaced. I may have missed some stuff but that should cover it.

  Also the gallery looks a lot better now. Thanks. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.