This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
Denoting Retallack's claims as questionable?[edit]
Why are Gregory Retallack's claims still given merit? There is no evidence of hyphae or fungal affinity for these fossils, making his "Ediacaran Lichen" hypothesis highly dubious, at best. 74.96.143.21 (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because this article is created by Retallack. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That... sounds like a conflict of interest on G.J. Retallack's part. While I moreso agree that this organism was probably an animal, based upon J. J. Sepkoski's interpretation, I will agree with Retallack that the organism was a late-surviving Petalonam.
The Ediacaran-type preservation is sound and makes sense, but I do not understand where the "rhizoid" claim came from. 108.18.192.138 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
