Cited by 45Paleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyEvolution and Paleontology Studies

CONFIRMING THE METAZOAN CHARACTER OF A 565 MA TRACE-FOSSIL ASSEMBLAGE FROM MISTAKEN POINT, NEWFOUNDLAND

Open access
LIU, ALEXANDER G., MCILROY, DUNCAN, MATTHEWS, JACK J., BRASIER, MARTIN D.·2014·Palaios

Abstract

Surface locomotory trace fossils from the Mistaken Point Formation of Newfoundland, dated at ∼ 565 Ma, suggest that organisms capable of controlled locomotion and possessing muscular tissue may have existed among Avalonian Ediacaran macrofossil assemblages. Here we describe the Mistaken Point trace-fossil assemblage in full, discuss its stratigraphic context within the Mistaken Point Formation, and explore the competing hypotheses for the formation of the traces. We find that the trace fossils, preserved within a turbidite succession in a deep-marine depositional environment, are not attributable to abiogenic structures, to Ediacaran tubular or filamentous body fossils, to rangeomorph stems, or to a host of late Ediacaran and early Phanerozoic ichnofossils. Specimens within the assemblage show some similarities to the ichnogenera Helminthoidichnites and Archaeonassa, but discrepancies in certain aspects of their structure mean that we do not formally attribute them to these ichnotaxa at this time. The Mistaken Point ichnofossils possess morphological characteristics indicative of formation by an organism with a round base. Comparison with traces formed by modern organisms of such character appears to rule out formation by protistan, echinoderm, or annelid styles of movement, but is consistent with organisms moving via muscular controlled locomotion in a similar way to some modern mollusks and actinian cnidarians. We suggest therefore that the Mistaken Point trace-fossil assemblage reveals the presence of muscular metazoans in late Ediacaran deep-marine ecosystems. Such organisms cannot yet be attributed to specific phyla, but their inferred locomotory mechanisms share closest similarities with those utilized by extant actinians.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2110/palo.2014.011

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are no convincing crown-group animals in the fossil record until the first trace fossils appear at around 565 Ma.

    “we regard it as reasonable to state that there are no convincing crown-group animals in the fossil record until the first trace fossils appear at around 565 Ma or so (Liu et al. , 2014 b ).”

    From The origin of the animals and a 'Savannah' hypothesis for early bilaterian evolution (2017) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2014b

    The title identifies a metazoan trace-fossil assemblage dated to 565 Ma. The passages available from our copy do not say these were the first trace fossils or that no convincing crown-group animals occur earlier; searches for crown-group animals and earliest animal evidence found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Earlier trace fossils from the c. 565 Ma Mistaken Point biota are too simple to be confidently assigned to bilaterians, and could have been made by a cnidarian or similar.

    “Earlier trace fossils have been documented from the c . 565 Ma Mistaken Point biota (Fig. 7A; Liu et al. , 2010, 2014 b ) but these are too simple to be confidently assigned to bilaterians, and could have been made by a cnidarian or similar (Liu et al. , 2010).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LIU, A. G., MCILROY, D., MATTHEWS, J. J., & BRASIER, M. D.
Affiliations
  • Memorial University of Newfoundland (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Palaios
Published
2014-08-01
Volume
29
Issue
8
Pages
420-430
ISSN
  • 0883-1351 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-5323
OpenAlex
W2134286500
Cited by
45
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Palaios (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Department of Earth Sciences EPrints Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • University of Oxford
  • Department of Environment and Conservation, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
  • Girton College, University of Cambridge
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  • Natural Environment Research Council
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
Keywords
turbidites, locomotion mechanism, Ediacaran biota

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review