The Qingjiang biota—A Burgess Shale–type fossil Lagerstätte from the early Cambrian of South China

Science 363 (6433), 1338-1342.

DOI: 10.1126/science.aau8800

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1126/science.aau8800
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/03/20/363.6433.1338.DC1/aau8800_Fu_SM.pdf

Dongjing Fu1, Guanghui Tong1, Tao Dai1, Wei Liu1, Yuning Yang2, Yuan Zhang1,Linhao Cui1, Luoyang Li1, Hao Yun1, Yu Wu1, Ao Sun1, Cong Liu1, Wenrui Pei1, Robert R. Gaines3, Xingliang Zhang1

Abstract:

Burgess Shale–type fossil Lagerstätten provide the best evidence for deciphering the biotic patterns and magnitude of the Cambrian explosion. Here, we report a Lagerstätte from South China, the Qingjiang biota (~518 million years old), which is dominated by soft-bodied taxa from a distal shelf setting.

The Qingjiang biota is distinguished by pristine carbonaceous preservation of labile organic features, a very high proportion of new taxa (~53%), and preliminary taxonomic diversity that suggests it could rival the Chengjiang and Burgess Shale biotas.

Defining aspects of the Qingjiang biota include a high abundance of cnidarians, including both medusoid and polypoid forms; new taxa resembling extant kinorhynchs; and abundant larval or juvenile forms.

This distinctive composition holds promise for providing insights into the evolution of Cambrian ecosystems across environmental gradients.
————————————————————————————————————
Some fossils:

> Qingjiang biota is distinguished by pristine carbonaceous preservation of labile organic features, a very high proportion of new taxa (~53%), and preliminary taxonomic diversity that suggests it could rival the Chengjiang biota.

So there’s a difference between Qingjiang and Chengjiang biotas. That will confuse me for a while.

Great that there are now three excellent Cambrian fossil sites.

Some of the fossils in the top image look remarkably modern.

mollwollfumble said:

> Qingjiang biota is distinguished by pristine carbonaceous preservation of labile organic features, a very high proportion of new taxa (~53%), and preliminary taxonomic diversity that suggests it could rival the Chengjiang biota.

So there’s a difference between Qingjiang and Chengjiang biotas. That will confuse me for a while.

Great that there are now three excellent Cambrian fossil sites.

Some of the fossils in the top image look remarkably modern.

Yes. The Ctenophore in that image looks just like Ctenophores I have found washed up near here.

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Qingjiang biota is distinguished by pristine carbonaceous preservation of labile organic features, a very high proportion of new taxa (~53%), and preliminary taxonomic diversity that suggests it could rival the Chengjiang biota.

So there’s a difference between Qingjiang and Chengjiang biotas. That will confuse me for a while.

Great that there are now three excellent Cambrian fossil sites.

Some of the fossils in the top image look remarkably modern.

Yes. The Ctenophore in that image looks just like Ctenophores I have found washed up near here.

Is naraoia top left of third image, the ancestor of the trilobites?

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Qingjiang biota is distinguished by pristine carbonaceous preservation of labile organic features, a very high proportion of new taxa (~53%), and preliminary taxonomic diversity that suggests it could rival the Chengjiang biota.

So there’s a difference between Qingjiang and Chengjiang biotas. That will confuse me for a while.

Great that there are now three excellent Cambrian fossil sites.

Some of the fossils in the top image look remarkably modern.

Yes. The Ctenophore in that image looks just like Ctenophores I have found washed up near here.

Nature probably doesn’t need to fix what’s isn’t broken.

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Qingjiang biota is distinguished by pristine carbonaceous preservation of labile organic features, a very high proportion of new taxa (~53%), and preliminary taxonomic diversity that suggests it could rival the Chengjiang biota.

So there’s a difference between Qingjiang and Chengjiang biotas. That will confuse me for a while.

Great that there are now three excellent Cambrian fossil sites.

Some of the fossils in the top image look remarkably modern.

Yes. The Ctenophore in that image looks just like Ctenophores I have found washed up near here.

Is naraoia top left of third image, the ancestor of the trilobites?

It does look similar

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Qingjiang biota is distinguished by pristine carbonaceous preservation of labile organic features, a very high proportion of new taxa (~53%), and preliminary taxonomic diversity that suggests it could rival the Chengjiang biota.

So there’s a difference between Qingjiang and Chengjiang biotas. That will confuse me for a while.

Great that there are now three excellent Cambrian fossil sites.

Some of the fossils in the top image look remarkably modern.

Yes. The Ctenophore in that image looks just like Ctenophores I have found washed up near here.

Is naraoia top left of third image, the ancestor of the trilobites?

The experts have them as similar to but not in Class Trilobita, but that’s not unanimous. They continued at least until the Late Silurian.

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

Michael V said:

Yes. The Ctenophore in that image looks just like Ctenophores I have found washed up near here.

Is naraoia top left of third image, the ancestor of the trilobites?

The experts have them as similar to but not in Class Trilobita, but that’s not unanimous. They continued at least until the Late Silurian.

Amazing detail. China obviously had ideal conditions to record bygone flora and fauna.

nice

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

Is naraoia top left of third image, the ancestor of the trilobites?

The experts have them as similar to but not in Class Trilobita, but that’s not unanimous. They continued at least until the Late Silurian.

Amazing detail. China obviously had ideal conditions to record bygone flora and fauna.

Or the Chinese are more easily organised into fossil hunting teams. Or both.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

The experts have them as similar to but not in Class Trilobita, but that’s not unanimous. They continued at least until the Late Silurian.

Amazing detail. China obviously had ideal conditions to record bygone flora and fauna.

Or the Chinese are more easily organised into fossil hunting teams. Or both.

Not saying there are not good fossil sites elsewhere, but in China there are several sites containing unsurpassed fossils with exceptional detail.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Amazing detail. China obviously had ideal conditions to record bygone flora and fauna.

Or the Chinese are more easily organised into fossil hunting teams. Or both.

Not saying there are not good fossil sites elsewhere, but in China there are several sites containing unsurpassed fossils with exceptional detail.

One of the early fossil hunters was getting good results buying dragon bones from the locals, trouble was he paid by the piece and the locals were smashing fossils to get more money.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Or the Chinese are more easily organised into fossil hunting teams. Or both.

Not saying there are not good fossil sites elsewhere, but in China there are several sites containing unsurpassed fossils with exceptional detail.

One of the early fossil hunters was getting good results buying dragon bones from the locals, trouble was he paid by the piece and the locals were smashing fossils to get more money.

Damn clever those Chinese.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

Amazing detail. China obviously had ideal conditions to record bygone flora and fauna.

Or the Chinese are more easily organised into fossil hunting teams. Or both.

Not saying there are not good fossil sites elsewhere, but in China there are several sites containing unsurpassed fossils with exceptional detail.

This page contains a list of important Konservat-Lagerstätten. Not all are listed (eg Farr’s Hill, Talbragar, NSW)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerst%C3%A4tte

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Or the Chinese are more easily organised into fossil hunting teams. Or both.

Not saying there are not good fossil sites elsewhere, but in China there are several sites containing unsurpassed fossils with exceptional detail.

This page contains a list of important Konservat-Lagerstätten. Not all are listed (eg Farr’s Hill, Talbragar, NSW)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerst%C3%A4tte

>>One of the most important discoveries in paleontological history was the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, discovered in 1909 by Charles Walcott. At this 508 million–year-old fossil locality, soft-bodied fossils are exquisitely preserved, showing skin, eyes, and internal organs such as guts and brains. The Burgess Shale and similar localities found since—including the equally diverse and important Chengjiang biota of China (1), numerous other sites in China (2), and the Emu Bay Shale in Australia (3)—record the sudden appearance of a huge diversity of animals in a geologically short period of time, an event called the Cambrian Explosion (4). On page 1338 of this issue, Fu et al. (5) reveal a stunning new locality, the Qingjiang biota, which is slightly older (518 million years) than the Burgess Shale. The fossils from the site fill gaps in our knowledge and raise questions about the earliest animal ecosystems.<<

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6433/1284