What the Heck Are These Fossils?

Are they the first animal embryos? 20 years post-discovery, these and other fossils from the 600-million-year-old Doushantuo Formation remain frustratingly enigmatic

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


In the late 1990s, word began to spread of something paleontologists had long searched for: a fossil bed more tantalizingly close to the beginning of animal life than any yet seen.

Unearthed by phosphate miners in southern China, the microfossils of the Doushantuo formation just predate -- or are the earliest known members of -- the Ediacaran biota, the first bizarre animal life. The Ediacaran itself predates the 550 million-year-old Cambrian Explosion when most modern animal groups emerged.

In this bed were what appeared to be animal embryos.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


20 years and reams of papers later, we still don’t really know what the heck they were. A 2017 review in the Journal of the Geological Society concluded that although they have many animal-like characteristics, none of these features are exclusive to animals. Debate continues.

Other possible Doushantuo finds reviewed by the paper include the first sponge and possible red algae. But nothing except their beauty and marine origin are definitive.

Here are a few:

These fossils bear an unmistakable resemblance to animal embryos. Although the authors of the review agree it is likely the embryo-like fossils represent a single group of organisms, and their characteristics – an ornate envelope, Y-shaped cell junctions, and a particular form of cell division called palintomic -- don’t rule out an animal origin, they also don’t definitively support it.

Some have suggested these stacks of coin-like objects are now-extinct tabulate coral. But corals abandon old chambers, and all of the cells in these forms appear occupied by some sort of biological structures. The authors conclude there’s no good evidence that they were animals of any kind.

G, H, and I all remain mysterious. Some have suggested I is the embryo of a cnidarian, a group that includes coral and jellyfish.

J is a suspected red alga, but the authors feel its non-flattened shape seems at odds with that idea (most algae have flattened blades like leaves to maximize the illumination of their cells). K is an acritarch, the frequently spiny biological equivalent of a UFO. L is a suspected sponge. But other than looking like one, scientists have been unable to find any characteristics in the fossil that are definitively sponge-worthy.

The sculpted, exquisitely precise forms of all these fossils belie their frustrating taxonomic ambiguity. After 600 million years in the ground patiently waiting to be found, they are still waiting to be conclusively identified.

Reference

Cunningham, John A., Kelly Vargas, Zongjun Yin, Stefan Bengtson, and Philip CJ Donoghue. "The Weng'an Biota (Doushantuo Formation): an Ediacaran window on soft-bodied and multicellular microorganisms." Journal of the Geological Society 174, no. 5 (2017): 793-802.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe