There is another news item on this debate in Science of 6 November, p1020.
Now some say the slightly younger 'fossils' (23 Oct. p601 & 627)
immediately above Seilacher's which therefore cast doubt on the great age
of Seilacher's 'animals' are not fossils but artifacts. But also support
for Seilacher's traces being those of living creatures is equivocal.
Why am I not surprised? I think I'll discount this one until there are
more substantial fossils to debate than tracks which may be anything or
nothing.
Original article:
> > Seilacher A, Bose PK, Pfluger F. (1998) Triploblastic Animals More Than 1
> > Billion Years Ago: Trace Fossil Evidence from India. Science 1998 Oct
> > 2;282(5386):80-83
--
Geoff Read <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
-- ANNELIDA
Discuss = annelida at net.bio.net = talk to all members
Server = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
