Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T06:54:34.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The rangeomorph fossil Charnia from the Ediacaran Shibantan biota in the Yangtze Gorges area, South China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2022

Chengxi Wu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Center for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China , , , , , , University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Ke Pang*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Center for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China , , , , , , University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Zhe Chen*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Center for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China , , , , , , University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Xiaopeng Wang
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Center for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China , , , , , , University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Chuanming Zhou
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Center for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China , , , , , , University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Bin Wan
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Center for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China , , , , , , University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Xunlai Yuan
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, and Center for Excellence in Life and Palaeoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China , , , , , , University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
Shuhai Xiao
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
*
*Corresponding author
*Corresponding author

Abstract

The terminal Ediacaran Shibantan biota (~550–543 Ma) from the Dengying Formation in the Yangtze Gorges area of South China represents one of the rare examples of carbonate-hosted Ediacara-type macrofossil assemblages. In addition to the numerically dominant taxa—the non-biomineralizing tubular fossil Wutubus and discoidal fossils Aspidella and Hiemalora, the Shibantan biota also bears a moderate diversity of frondose fossils, including Pteridinium, Rangea, Arborea, and Charnia. In this paper, we report two species of the rangeomorph genus Charnia, including the type species Charnia masoni Ford, 1958 emend. and Charnia gracilis new species, from the Shibantan biota. Most of the Shibantan Charnia specimens preserve only the petalodium, with a few bearing the holdfast and stem. Despite overall architectural similarities to other Charnia species, the Shibantan specimens of Charnia gracilis n. sp. are distinct in their relatively straight, slender, and more acutely angled first-order branches. They also show evidence that may support a two-stage growth model and a epibenthic sessile lifestyle. Charnia fossils described herein represent one of the youngest occurrences of this genus and extend its paleogeographic and stratigraphic distributions. Our discovery also highlights the notable diversity of the Shibantan biota, which contains examples of a wide range of Ediacaran morphogroups.

UUID: http://zoobank.org/837216cd-4a4a-4e13-89e2-ee354ba48a4c

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Paleontological Society

Introduction

The late Ediacaran Period witnessed the rise and fall of the Ediacaran macrobiota (~574–539 Ma; Linnemann et al., Reference Linnemann2019; Matthews et al., Reference Matthews, Liu, Yang, McIlroy, Levell and Condon2021), a group of macro-organisms that are complex and soft-bodied. Although some of the Ediacara-type macro-organisms are very likely metazoans (Fedonkin and Waggoner, Reference Fedonkin and Waggoner1997; Bobrovskiy et al., Reference Bobrovskiy, Hope, Ivantsov, Nettersheim, Hallmann and Brocks2018; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Yuan and Xiao2019), most of them remain phylogenetically unresolved. The Ediacaran macrobiota consists of three assemblages that may broadly represent three stages of evolution (Waggoner, Reference Waggoner2003), although environmental conditions may have also played a role in their spatio-temporal distribution (Gehling and Droser, Reference Gehling and Droser2013; Grazhdankin, Reference Grazhdankin2014). These stages are exemplified by the Avalon (~574–560 Ma), White Sea (~560–550 Ma), and Nama (~550–539 Ma) assemblages (Waggoner, Reference Waggoner2003; Boag et al., Reference Boag, Darroch and Laflamme2016). Overall, the three assemblages have distinct taxonomic groupings and representative taxa, although a small number of taxa, for example, the frondose fossil Arborea, are known to occur in all three assemblages (Xiao and Laflamme, Reference Xiao and Laflamme2009; Droser et al., Reference Droser, Tarhan and Gehling2017). Like Arborea, the rangeomorph fossil Charnia is also previously known from the Avalon (Hofmann et al., Reference Hofmann, O'Brien and King2008; Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Trusler, Dalrymple and Greentree2014; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Kenchington and Mitchell2015; Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Kenchington and Wilby2015), White Sea (Martin et al., Reference Martin, Grazhdankin, Bowring, Evans, Fedonkin and Kirschvink2000; Gehling and Droser, Reference Gehling and Droser2013), and Nama assemblages (Grazhdankin et al., Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008), therefore representing one of the longest-ranging genera of Ediacara-type macrofossils in terms of stratigraphic distribution.

Charnia was first described from the Ediacaran Charnian Supergroup in England (Ford, Reference Ford1958). It is perhaps one of the most studied taxa of the Ediacara-type macro-organisms (Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007; Antcliffe and Brasier, Reference Antcliffe and Brasier2008; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018, Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019, Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021; Butterfield, Reference Butterfield2022). Different phylogenetic affinities for Charnia have been proposed since its discovery. It was originally described as an alga (Ford, Reference Ford1958) but later classified into the family Charniidae (Glaessner, Reference Glaessner, Moore, Robinson and Teichert1979), which may belong to the class Rangeomorpha of a proposed extinct phylum, the Petalonamae (Pflug, Reference Pflug1970, Reference Pflug1972; Jenkins, Reference Jenkins1985). Charnia and other rangeomorphs have been variously interpreted as pennatulacean cnidarians (Glaessner, Reference Glaessner1959. Reference Glaessner1984; Glaessner and Wade, Reference Glaessner and Wade1966; Gehling, Reference Gehling1991), lichens (Retallack, Reference Retallack1994), fungi (Peterson et al., Reference Peterson, Waggoner and Hagadorn2003), members of the extinct kingdom Vendobionta (Seilacher, Reference Seilacher1992), or members within the total-group Metazoa (e.g., Xiao and Laflamme, Reference Xiao and Laflamme2009; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018; Butterfield, Reference Butterfield2022). Although Charnia and modern sea pens both possess a similar leaf-like shape, ontogenetic analysis reveals that Charnia and modern sea pens may have opposite growth polarities (Antcliffe and Brasier, Reference Antcliffe and Brasier2007, Reference Antcliffe and Brasier2008). Recently, detailed morphological descriptions and functional analyses, coupled with cladistic investigations (Dececchi et al., Reference Dececchi, Narbonne, Greentree and Laflamme2017, Reference Dececchi, Narbonne, Greentree and Laflamme2018), have led to the phylogenetic interpretations of rangeomorphs as stem-group metazoans (Xiao and Laflamme, Reference Xiao and Laflamme2009; Budd and Jensen, Reference Budd and Jensen2017; Darroch et al., Reference Darroch, Smith, Laflamme and Erwin2018; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018), stem-group eumetazoans (Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018, Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021; Hoyal Cuthill and Han, Reference Hoyal Cuthill and Han2018; Butterfield, Reference Butterfield2022; Runnegar, Reference Runnegar2022), or stem-group cnidarians (Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018; Butterfield, Reference Butterfield2022). The feeding strategy of rangeomorphs also remains debated. Several studies have suggested that rangeomorphs, as well as erniettomorphs and dickinsoniomorphs, may have been capable of osmotrophy due to their high surface area to volume (SA/V) ratios (Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Xiao and Kowalewski2009; Sperling and Vinther, Reference Sperling and Vinther2010; Ghisalberti et al., Reference Ghisalberti, Gold, Laflamme, Clapham, Narbonne, Summons, Johnston and Jacobs2014). Liu et al. (Reference Liu, Kenchington and Mitchell2015) argued that osmotrophy in rangeomorphs may have been limited by the availability and recalcitrant nature of dissolved organic carbon. In addition, Butterfield (Reference Butterfield2022) contended that the large size, hence elevated Reynolds and Péclet numbers, of rangeomorphs are not conducive for osmotrophy. Alternative feeding strategies of rangeomorphs include suspension feeding (Butterfield, Reference Butterfield2022) and intracellular symbiosis (Dufour and McIlroy, Reference Dufour and McIlroy2016; McIlroy et al., Reference McIlroy, Dufour, Taylor and Nicholls2021), but these hypotheses have not been critically evaluated on the basis of detailed morphological observation and theoretical modeling.

The occurrence of Charnia in the Shibantan biota was first reported by S. Xiao et al. (Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020), but a detailed description and morphometric assessment were not presented. Here we provide a systematic description of Charnia fossils, including the type species C. masoni Ford, Reference Ford1958 emend. and C. gracilis n. sp., from this Lagerstätte. The fossils are preserved in thin-bedded bituminous limestone, which was deposited in subtidal environment (Q. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, She, Wang, Li, Ouyang, Cao, Mason and Du2020), from the terminal Ediacaran Shibantan Member of the Dengying Formation in the Yangtze Gorges area of South China. The Shibantan Member is geochronologically constrained to between ~550 Ma and ~543 Ma (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Chen, Ding, Zhou and Zhang2020; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Rooney, Condon, Li, Grazhdankin, Bowyer, Hu, Macdonald and Zhu2021). Thus, these Shibantan specimens not only extend the paleogeographic and paleoenvironmental distributions of Charnia, but also represent one of the youngest fossil records of this genus. They help us to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the rise and fall of the Ediacara-type macro-organisms.

Materials and methods

The Ediacaran succession in the Yangtze Gorges area of South China consists of the Doushantuo and Dengying formations (Fig. 1.1). The Dengying Formation consists of three lithostratigraphic members: the Hamajing, Shibantan, and Baimatuo members, in ascending order (Fig. 1.2). It is constrained by two CA-ID-TIMS zircon U–Pb ages of 551.1 ± 0.7 Ma (Condon et al., Reference Condon, Zhu, Bowring, Wang, Yang and Jin2005) and 550.1 ± 0.6 Ma (Yang et al., Reference Yang, Rooney, Condon, Li, Grazhdankin, Bowyer, Hu, Macdonald and Zhu2021) from the uppermost Miaohe Member, which is regarded as the uppermost Doushantuo Formation (Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Bykova, Kovalick and Gill2017; Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Xiao, Wang, Guan, Ouyang and Chen2017; but see An et al., Reference An, Jiang, Tong, Tian, Ye, Song and Song2015), and a SIMS zircon U–Pb age of 543.4 ± 3.5 Ma from the Baimatuo Member (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Chen, Ding, Zhou and Zhang2020).

Figure 1. (1) Geological map of the Wuhe section in the Yangtze Gorges area with location of the Wuhe quarry (marked with a red star) and the Huangling anticline in the Yangtze Gorges area. Inset map shows the location of the Huangling anticline (red star) and major tectonic terranes in China. (2) Generalized stratigraphic column of the Ediacaran succession in the Yangtze Gorges area, South China, showing stratigraphic distribution of fossils and U–Pb radiometric ages. Star marks the stratigraphic occurrence of Charnia in the Shibantan limestone. Modified from S. Xiao et al. (Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020) and Wu et al. (Reference Wu, Chen, Pang, Wang, Wan, Zhou and Yuan2021). Geochronometric data sources: Condon et al. (Reference Condon, Zhu, Bowring, Wang, Yang and Jin2005) and Yang et al. (Reference Yang, Rooney, Condon, Li, Grazhdankin, Bowyer, Hu, Macdonald and Zhu2021) for the lower Doushantuo Formation and Miaohe Member; Huang et al. (Reference Huang, Chen, Ding, Zhou and Zhang2020) and Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Chang, Chen, Wang, Feng, Steiner, Yang, Mason, She and Yan2022) for the Baimatuo Member; Okada et al. (Reference Okada, Sawaki, Komiya, Hirata, Takahata, Sano, Han and Maruyama2014) for the Cambrian Shuijingtuo Formation. Cry. = Cryogenian; Fm. = Formation; Mbr. = Member; Cam. = Cambrian.

The Hamajing and Baimatuo members are both characterized by dolostones with peritidal structures, such as tepees, karstification structures, and dissolution vugs (Duda et al., Reference Duda, Zhu and Reitner2016; Y. Ding et al., Reference Ding, Chen, Zhou, Guo, Huang and Zhang2019; S. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020). The Shibantan Member consists of 100–150 m dark gray, medium- to thin-bedded bituminous limestone with diagenetic chert nodules and bands (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Xiao, Wang, Guan, Hua and Yuan2014; S. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020). Fine and crinkled laminae are dominant in the Shibantan Member, but hummocky cross-beds, rip-up clasts, intraclastic breccias, and graded beds are also common. Indeed, intraclastic breccias and graded beds in the Shibantan Member are interpreted as tempestites that were laid down in a subtidal environment between fair-weather and storm-wave bases (Q. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, She, Wang, Li, Ouyang, Cao, Mason and Du2020). These tempestites may have contributed to the rapid burial of the soft-bodied Ediacara-type macrofossils (Q. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, She, Wang, Li, Ouyang, Cao, Mason and Du2020). The wrinkled surfaces and dark crinkled micro-laminae in the Shibantan Member, interpreted as evidence for microbial mats (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Meyer, Xiang, Schiffbauer, Yuan and Xiao2013; Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, Xiao, Gill, Schiffbauer, Chen, Zhou and Yuan2014), may have played an important role in the preservation of the soft-bodied Ediacara-type macrofossils (Gehling, Reference Gehling1999; Callow and Brasier, Reference Callow and Brasier2009; Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Schiffbauer, Narbonne and Briggs2011). These microbial mats, probably constructed mainly by cyanobacteria, have close associations with trace fossils from the Shibantan Member and may suggest that they provided oxygen oases as well as nutrients for the trace makers (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Meyer, Xiang, Schiffbauer, Yuan and Xiao2013; Meyer et al., Reference Meyer, Xiao, Gill, Schiffbauer, Chen, Zhou and Yuan2014; W. Ding et al., Reference Ding, Dong, Sun, Ma, Xu, Yang, Peng, Zhou and Shen2019; Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Zhou and Yuan2019).

The Charnia fossils described here were collected from the Shibantan limestone at the Wuhe quarry (30.789°N, 111.051°E; Fig. 1.1), where a number of diverse fossils are preserved (S. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020). The Shibantan biota consists of algal fossils, Ediacara-type macrofossils, trace fossils, and some problematic fossils (S. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020). Recently, biomineralizing tubular fossils have also been discovered in the Baimatuo Member (Liang et al., Reference Liang, Cai, Nolan and Xiao2020; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Chang, Chen, Wang, Feng, Steiner, Yang, Mason, She and Yan2022) and also likely in the upper Shibantan Member (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Zhang, Wei and Zhang2016), but these tubular fossils may be younger than the soft-bodied Ediacara-type macrofossils from Wuhe quarry. There are several frondose genera among the Ediacara-type macrofossils of the Shibantan biota (S. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020), including Arborea, Rangea, Pteridinium (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Xiao, Wang, Guan, Hua and Yuan2014; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Pang, Chen, Wan, Xiao, Zhou and Yuan2020), and Charnia (herein). The Charnia specimens were collected from the basal Shibantan Member (Fig. 1.2) with known stratigraphic orientation (to determine whether fossils are preserved on the top or bottom bedding surface). Specimens were photographed with a Nikon D810 digital camera, and measurements of the specimens were carried out on these photos using ImageJ software. Specimens from Charnwood Forest in the United Kingdom (Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Kenchington and Wilby2015; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018, Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019, Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021), Newfoundland in Canada (Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007; Hofmann et al., Reference Hofmann, O'Brien and King2008; Liu et al., Reference Liu, McIlroy, Matthews and Brasier2013, Reference Liu, Kenchington and Mitchell2015; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019), Sekwi Brook in Northwest Canada (Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Trusler, Dalrymple and Greentree2014), the White Sea region and Olenek Uplift, Siberia in Russia (Sokolov and Fedonkin, Reference Sokolov and Fedonkin1984; Runnegar and Fedonkin, Reference Runnegar, Fedonkin, Schopf and Klein1992; Grazhdankin and Bronnikov, Reference Grazhdankin and Bronnikov1997; Martin et al., Reference Martin, Grazhdankin, Bowring, Evans, Fedonkin and Kirschvink2000; Grazhdankin et al., Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008), Flinders Ranges, South Australia (Glaessner and Wade, Reference Glaessner and Wade1966; Nedin and Jenkins, Reference Nedin and Jenkins1998; Gehling and Droser, Reference Gehling and Droser2013), and Oulongbuluke terrane in Northwest China (Pang et al., Reference Pang, Wu, Sun, Ouyang, Yuan, Shen, Lang, Wang, Chen and Zhou2021) were also measured for comparison (Table 1). Measurements on Newfoundland specimens were conducted on retrodeformed photos from cited sources to account for tectonic deformation of the sediments.

Table 1. Biometric data for morphology comparison of Charnia specimens from the Shibantan biota and other localities.

*Incomplete petalodium.

Repository and institutional abbreviation

Specimens of Charnia illustrated in this study are reposited in Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (NIGPAS), with NIGPAS museum catalog numbers (prefix NIGP-) provided for each specimen.

Systematic paleontology

Type species

Charnia masoni Ford, Reference Ford1958

Charnia masoni Ford, Reference Ford1958, emended
Figure 2.1, 2.2

Reference Ford1958

Charnia masoni Ford, p. 212, pl. 13, fig. 1.

?Reference Glaessner1959

Charnia sp.; Glaessner, p. 1472, text-fig. 1b.

?Reference Glaessner and Daily1959

Rangea?; Glaessner in Glaessner and Daily, p. 387, pl. 46, fig. 2.

Reference Glaessner1961

Charnia sp.; Glaessner, p. 75, text-fig.

Reference Glaessner1962

Charnia sp.; Glaessner, p. 484, pl. 1, fig. 4 (non fig. 5).

Reference Ford1962

Charnia masoni; Ford, fig. 4 (non fig. 5).

Reference Glaessner and Wade1966

Rangea grandis; Glaessner and Wade, p. 616, pl. 100, fig. 5.

Reference Germs1973

Glaessnerina grandis; Germs, p. 5, fig. 1D.

Reference Sokolov1976

Charnia ex gr. masoni; Sokolov, p. 141, text-fig.

Reference Sokolov1977

Charnia ex gr. masoni; Sokolov, p. 441.

Reference Fedonkin1978

Charnia sp.; Fedonkin, fig. 3 (9).

Reference Glaessner, Moore, Robinson and Teichert1979

Charnia masoni; Glaessner, p. A99, fig. 12 (3).

Reference Fedonkin1981a

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, p. 66, pl. 3, figs. 5, 6, pl. 29, fig. 1.

Reference Fedonkin1981a

Zolotytsia biserialis; Fedonkin, p. 67, pl. 3, fig. 7.

Reference Fedonkin1981b

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, p. 100.

Reference Sokolov and Brekhovskikh1981

Charnia masoni; Sokolov and Brekhovskikh, p. 3, text-fig.

Reference Glaessner and Walter1981

Glaessnerina grandis; Glaessner and Walter, fig. 6.11C.

Reference Fedonkin1983a

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, pl. 1, fig. 1.

Reference Fedonkin1983b

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, fig. 37.

Reference Sokolov and Fedonkin1983

Charnia masoni; Sokolov and Fedonkin, p. 13, fig. 9.

Reference Sokolov1984

Charnia masoni; Sokolov, p. 6, text-fig.

Reference Sokolov and Fedonkin1984

Charnia masoni; Sokolov and Fedonkin, fig. 3f.

Reference Glaessner1984

Charnia cf. C. masoni; Glaessner, fig. 2.21B.

Reference Glaessner1984

Charnia masoni; Glaessner, fig. 2.21A.

Reference Glaessner1984

Glaessnerina grandis; Glaessner, fig. 2.21C.

Reference Fedonkin, Sokolov and Iwanowski1985

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, p. 99, pl. 12, fig. 4, pl. 13, figs. 2–4.

Reference Jenkins1985

Charnia cf. C. masoni; Jenkins, fig. 7C.

Reference Jenkins1985

Charnia masoni; Jenkins, fig. 7B.

Reference Fedonkin1987

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, pl. 15.

Reference Preiss1987

Glaessnerina grandis; Preiss, fig. E.

Reference Fedonkin, Sokolov and Iwanowski1990

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, p. 110, pl. 12, fig. 4, pl. 13, figs. 2–4.

Reference Fedonkin, Lipps and Signor1992

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, figs. 28–30.

Reference Runnegar, Fedonkin, Schopf and Klein1992

Charnia masoni; Runnegar and Fedonkin, fig. 7.5.5A, 7.5.10A.

Reference Fedonkin and Bengtson1994

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin, fig. 2A, B.

Reference Boynton and Ford1995

Charnia grandis; Boynton and Ford, p. 168, fig. 1.

Reference Jenkins, Davies, Twidale and Tyler1996

Glaessnerina grandis; Jenkins, p. 35, fig. 4.1.

Reference Grazhdankin and Bronnikov1997

Charnia masoni; Grazhdankin and Bronnikov, fig. 2a, d.

Reference Ford1999

Charnia grandis; Ford, p. 231, figs. 1, 3.

Reference Martin, Grazhdankin, Bowring, Evans, Fedonkin and Kirschvink2000

Charnia; Martin et al., fig. 4A.

Reference Grazhdankin2004

Charnia; Grazhdankin, fig. 2.

Reference Narbonne2004

Charnia-like frond; Narbonne, fig. 3D.

Reference Narbonne, Dalrymple, Laflamme, Gehling and Boyce2005

Charnia masoni; Narbonne et al., pl. 1L.

Reference Grazhdankin, Maslov, Mustill and Krupenin2005

Charnia; Grazhdankin et al., fig. 3d.

Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007

Charnia masoni; Laflamme et al., p. 252, fig. 4A–J.

Reference Fedonkin, Gehling, Grey, Narbonne and Vickers-Rich2007

Charnia cf. C. masoni; Fedonkin et al., fig. 276 (partim).

Reference Fedonkin, Gehling, Grey, Narbonne and Vickers-Rich2007

Charnia cf. C. masoni; Fedonkin et al., figs. 304, 314 (partim).

Reference Fedonkin, Gehling, Grey, Narbonne and Vickers-Rich2007

Charnia masoni; Fedonkin et al., p. 265, fig. 354.

Reference Hofmann, O'Brien and King2008

Charnia masoni; Hofmann et al., p. 16, fig. 13.1, 13.2.

Reference Hofmann, O'Brien and King2008

Charnia grandis?; Hofmann et al., p. 16, fig. 14.

Reference Bamforth and Narbonne2009

Charnia masoni; Bamforth and Narbonne, fig. 7.5.

Reference Wilby, Carney and Howe2011

Charnia masoni; Wilby et al., figs. 2A, 3A.

Reference Grazhdankin, Reitner and Thiel2011

Charnia masoni; Grazhdankin, fig. 3a–d.

Reference Liu, McIlroy, Matthews and Brasier2012

Charnia masoni; Liu et al., figs. 4b, 5a.

Reference Liu, McIlroy, Matthews and Brasier2012

Charnia aff. C. masoni; Liu et al., fig. 4a.

Reference Liu, McIlroy, Matthews and Brasier2013

Charnia aff. C. masoni; Liu et al., fig. 1d.

Reference Liu, McIlroy, Matthews and Brasier2013

Charnia masoni; Liu et al., fig. 2a–d.

Reference Gehling and Droser2013

Charnia sp.; Gehling and Droser, fig. 2Q.

Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Trusler, Dalrymple and Greentree2014

Charnia cf. C. masoni; Narbonne et al., p. 215, fig. 5.1–5.4.

Reference Noble, Condon, Carney, Wilby, Pharaoh and Ford2015

Charnia masoni; Noble et al., fig. 4A, G.

Reference Wilby, Kenchington and Wilby2015

Charnia masoni; Wilby et al., fig. 5.

Reference Liu, Kenchington and Mitchell2015

Charnia masoni; Liu et al., fig. 2D.

Reference Liu, Matthews and McIlroy2016

Charnia masoni; Liu et al., fig. 3D.

Reference Antcliffe, Liu, Menon, McIlroy, McLoughlin and Wacey2017

Charnia masoni; Antcliffe et al., fig. 4E.

Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018

Charnia masoni; Dunn et al., figs. 1E, 3.

Reference Kenchington, Harris, Vixseboxse, Pickup and Wilby2018

Charnia masoni; Kenchington et al., figs. 1A, D, 7E (partim).

Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019

Charnia masoni; Dunn et al., p. 16, figs. 1–3, 5–8, 10.

Reference Liu and Dunn2020

Charnia masoni; Liu and Dunn, fig. 4d.

Reference Matthews, Liu, Yang, McIlroy, Levell and Condon2021

Charnia masoni; Matthews et al., fig. 2B.

Reference McIlroy, Dufour, Taylor and Nicholls2021

Charnia masoni; McIlroy et al., fig. 1b.

Reference Pang, Wu, Sun, Ouyang, Yuan, Shen, Lang, Wang, Chen and Zhou2021

Charnia masoni; Pang et al., figs. 3A–C, S2A–E.

Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021

Charnia masoni; Dunn et al., figs. 1 (A-2), S1–S2.

Reference Butterfield2022

Charnia masoni; Butterfield, figs. 1a, 2.

Reference McIlroy, Hawco, McKean, Nicholls, Pasinetti and Taylor2022

Charnia masoni; McIlroy et al., fig. 10f.

Holotype

LEIUG 2328, from Bed B (Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Carney and Howe2011), North Quarry, Charnwood Forest, UK.

Emended diagnosis

Charnia with ovate to parallel-sided petalodium consisting of sigmoidal first-order branches emanating alternately at an acute angle, typically >20°. First-order branches composed of series of near-rectangular second-order branches arranged acutely to almost perpendicularly to the first-order branches.

Occurrence

Shibantan Member, Dengying Formation, Yangtze Gorges area, South China (S. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020); Bradgate Formation, Charnian Subgroup, Charnwood Forest, UK (Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Carney and Howe2011); Drook, Briscal, Mistaken Point, Trepassey, and Fermeuse formations, Newfoundland, Canada (Narbonne, Reference Narbonne2004; Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007; Hofmann et al., Reference Hofmann, O'Brien and King2008; Liu et al., Reference Liu, McIlroy, Matthews and Brasier2012; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019; Matthews et al., Reference Matthews, Liu, Yang, McIlroy, Levell and Condon2021); Nadaleen Formation (previously known as “June Beds,” Moynihan et al., Reference Moynihan, Strauss, Nelson and Padget2019), northwestern Canada (Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Trusler, Dalrymple and Greentree2014); Khatyspyt Formation, Olenek Uplift, north-central Siberia, Russia (Grazhdankin et al., Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008); Verkhovka Formation, the White Sea region, Russia (Martin et al., Reference Martin, Grazhdankin, Bowring, Evans, Fedonkin and Kirschvink2000); Rawnsley Quartzite, Flinders Ranges, South Australia (Gehling and Droser, Reference Gehling and Droser2013).

Description

Only one specimen in our collections can be assigned to this species. The specimen is characterized by a uniterminal bifoliate frond comprising an incompletely preserved ovate petalodium connected to a discoidal holdfast at the basal end by a stem (Fig. 2.1). The incomplete petalodium is 113.5 mm wide, and its preserved length is 251.5 mm. Petalodium is composed of strongly constrained (sensu Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Greentree and Trusler2009) first-order branches (sensu Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021) or primary branches, which emanate alternately on each side of the zig-zag central axis at an angle of 23.3–45.4° (mean = 34.0°). The longest first-order branch is 103.1 mm long and 11.8 mm wide. First-order branches are inclined toward the apex of the frond and are more or less sigmoidal in shape. First-order branches at the apical end of the petalodium are poorly preserved but seem to be shorter than those at the proximal end. First-order branches appear to be rotated and furled (sensu Brasier et al., Reference Brasier, Antcliffe and Liu2012) or single-sided (sensu Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Greentree and Trusler2009). First-order branches are composed of about a dozen rectangular to near-rectangular second-order branches (sensu Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021) or secondary branches. Second-order branches in the longest first-order branch of each specimen are 4.3–5.1 mm (mean = 4.7 mm, n = 5) wide and arranged perpendicularly to the first-order branch. Third-order branches (sensu Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021) are not observed. The stem is twisted and 158.8 mm long (measured from the base of petalodium to the center of the holdfast). The holdfast is discoidal, 87.7 mm in diameter, with a few filiform-texture structures in the middle (Fig. 2.2).

Materials

One specimen (NIGP161628) from Shibantan Member, Dengying Formation at Wuhe quarry.

Remarks

Three species of the genus CharniaCharnia grandis Glaessner and Wade, Reference Glaessner and Wade1966, Charnia wardi Narbonne and Gehling, Reference Narbonne and Gehling2003, and Charnia antecedens Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007—have previously been erected in addition to its type species Charnia masoni Ford, Reference Ford1958. However, C. grandis is considered a junior synonym of C. masoni (Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Carney and Howe2011; Brasier et al., Reference Brasier, Antcliffe and Liu2012), whereas C. wardi and C. antecedens were subsequently reassigned to Trepassia Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Greentree and Trusler2009 and Vinlandia Brasier et al., Reference Brasier, Antcliffe and Liu2012, respectively. This Shibantan specimen is tentatively classified in the genus Charnia due to its constrained and alternately arranged first-order branches as well as its single-sided rangeomorph units. The divergence angle of first-order branches of this specimen, 34.0° on average, is similar to that of the C. masoni specimens from other localities and much larger than that of the other Shibantan Charnia specimens (Table 1). First-order branches of this specimen are more curved than those of the other Shibantan Charnia specimens (Table 1). Its ovate petalodium and sigmoidal first-order branches also share similarities with other C. masoni specimens elsewhere. Taking all these factors into account, we choose to assign this specimen to C. masoni.

This specimen bears a twisted stem and a relatively large holdfast (Fig. 2.1), which are rare in previously reported Charnia specimens. The stem, together with the proximal end of the petalodium, seems to have been affected by water currents. The holdfast bears filiform textures in the middle (Fig. 2.2), somewhat different from Hiemalora-like holdfasts, which have radially arranged tentacle-like structures around the rim of the central disc (e.g., Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Xiao, Wang, Guan, Hua and Yuan2014, fig. 4; Shao et al., Reference Shao, Chen, Zhou and Yuan2019, fig. 2). The filiform textures could represent drag structures generated by uprooting of the holdfast (Tarhan et al., Reference Tarhan, Droser and Gehling2010), consistent with the twisting of the stem. However, there seem to be at least two sets of filiform textures that are perpendicular to each other, an observation not easily accounted for by uprooting. Alternatively, the filiform textures may be wrinkles resulting from the compression of an originally three-dimensional bulbous holdfast. They are also broadly similar to the radial and concentric bands and filamentous mesh present in an Ediacaria disc from the White Sea region, which was interpreted as possible “skeletal” structure by Luzhnaya and Ivantsov (Reference Luzhnaya and Ivantsov2019).

Charnia gracilis new species
Figures 2.3–2.8, 3

?Reference Sokolov1972a

Rangea sibirica; Sokolov, p. 50.

?Reference Sokolov and Sokolov1972b

Rangea sibirica; Sokolov, pl. 1, fig. 3.

?Reference Glaessner, Moore, Robinson and Teichert1979

Glaessnerina sibirica; Glaessner, p. A99, fig. 12 (1).

?Reference Glaessner1984

Glaessnerina sibirica; Glaessner, fig. 2.21D.

?Reference Nedin and Jenkins1998

Charnia masoni; Nedin and Jenkins, p. 315, fig. 1.

Reference Fedonkin, Gehling, Grey, Narbonne and Vickers-Rich2007

Charnia sp.; Fedonkin et al., fig. 232 (partim).

Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008

Charnia masoni; Grazhdankin et al., fig. 2A.

Reference Grazhdankin2014

Charnia masoni; Grazhdankin, fig. 2.3.

Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020

Charnia sp.; S. Xiao et al., fig. 4f.

Holotype

NIGP161629, from Shibantan Member, Dengying Formation, Yangtze Gorges area, South China, illustrated in Fig. 2.4.

Figure 2. (1) Charnia masoni from the Shibantan limestone preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; black arrow points to twisted stem and white arrow points to discoidal holdfast; (2) magnified view of rectangle in (1), with black and white rectangles marking two different orientations of filiform structures on the holdfast; NIGP161628. (3, 4) Holotype of C. gracilis n. sp. from the Shibantan limestone preserved in positive relief, bed sole view: (3) magnified view of rectangle in (4), showing well-preserved second-order branches and possible third-order branches (arrow); note the straight first-order branches with small divergence angles in (4); NIGP161629. (5) Specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. with complete petalodium, preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; arrowhead points to apex of petalodium; NIGP161630. (6) Specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; NIGP161631. (7) Incomplete specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; arrow points to a possible and faintly preserved holdfast; NIGP161632. (8) Incomplete specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; NIGP161633. (1) Scale bar = 5 cm; (2) scale bar = 2 cm; (3–8) scale bars = 1 cm.

Diagnosis

A Charnia species characterized by a slender petalodium consisting of relatively long, thin, and straight first-order branches that have a parallel-sided blade-like shape. First-order branches emanate alternately from the central axis at an acute angle, typically ≤20°. First-order branches are composed of a series of rectangular or rhomboid second-order branches arranged acutely to perpendicularly to the first-order branches.

Occurrence

Shibantan Member, Dengying Formation, Yangtze Gorges area, South China; Khatyspyt Formation, Olenek Uplift, north-central Siberia, Russia (Grazhdankin et al., Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008); Verkhovka Formation, the White Sea region, Russia (Fedonkin et al., Reference Fedonkin, Gehling, Grey, Narbonne and Vickers-Rich2007); possible occurrence in Rawnsley Quartzite, Flinders Ranges, South Australia (Nedin and Jenkins, Reference Nedin and Jenkins1998).

Description

Specimens are characterized by a centimeter- to decimeter-scale, uniterminal bifoliate frond comprising a nearly parallel-sided and spicate petalodium tapering gradually at the apical end (Figs. 2.32.8, 3). There are four specimens in our collection that bear a completely preserved petalodium, which is 72.4–172.3 mm long (mean = 102.5 mm, n = 4) and 10.7–20.5 mm wide (mean = 14.6 mm, n = 4). Incomplete petalodia of five other specimens can be measured for maximum width, which varies from 14.6 mm to 73.1 mm (mean = 37.0 mm, n = 5), and their preserved length varies from 70.0 mm to 555.7 mm (mean = 204.7 mm, n = 5). Two additional specimens are too incompletely or poorly preserved to allow reliable measurements of petalodium width and length; thus, they are not included in the measurement data. The petalodium is composed of about a dozen strongly constrained (sensu Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Greentree and Trusler2009) first-order branches (sensu Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021). First-order branches emanate alternately on each side of the central axis at an angle of 9.1–21.7°, with the average divergence angle (11.6–17.7° for nine specimens) usually <20°. Opposing first-order branches are offset by half a branch width, forming a zig-zag central suture (e.g., Fig. 2.4). First-order branches are inclined toward the apex of the frond and are nearly straight, although they can be slightly curved at both proximal and distal ends, leading to a blade-like shape. Proximal first-order branches are usually more curved than distal ones. The longest first-order branch usually occurs near the middle of the petalodium, 24.3–164.8 mm long (mean = 52.8 mm, n = 9) and 3.3–8.5 mm wide (mean = 4.8 mm, n = 9). First-order branches are composed of about a dozen second-order branches (sensu Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021) arranged parallel to one another. The widest second-order branches in the longest first-order branch are 1.2–4.7 mm (mean = 2.8 mm, n = 9) wide. Second-order branches vary in shape and orientation in specimens of different sizes. In smaller specimens (e.g., Fig. 2.32.8), second-order branches are generally near rectangular and arranged more or less perpendicularly to the first-order branch, whereas in larger specimens (e.g., Fig. 3.1, 3.2), second-order branches are rhomboidal and arranged more acutely to the first-order branch. The number of second-order branches in each first-order branch seems to remain more or less constant (Fig. 4.1), whereas the average size of second-order branches in each first-order branch increases by ~14 times as the length of the first-order branch increases ~eight times (Fig. 4.2). The shape of second-order branches can also vary from rectangular or rhomboidal in the central region to trigonal or trapezoidal in the proximal and distal regions of the first-order branch (e.g., Fig. 2.3). Rangeomorph units of both first-order branches and second-order branches are rotated and furled (sensu Brasier et al., Reference Brasier, Antcliffe and Liu2012) or single-sided (sensu Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Greentree and Trusler2009). Third-order branches (sensu Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021) are barely discernable in some second-order branches, characterized by obliquely arranged ridges (e.g., Figs. 2.3, 3.2). First-order and third-order branches are inclined toward the apex of the frond. A discoidal holdfast is faintly preserved in one specimen (Fig. 2.7), ~7.3 mm in diameter. A Charnia gracilis n. sp. specimen (Fig. 3.4) is preserved together with a Helminthoidichnites-like trace fossil on the same bedding surface (Fig. 3.3). A possible juvenile specimen of C. gracilis is in alignment with another poorly preserved, taxonomically unidentifiable frond (Fig. 3.5), indicating common orientation of tethered, erect epibenthic organisms by water currents.

Figure 3. Charnia gracilis new species from the Shibantan limestone. (1, 2) The longest specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. in the Shibantan limestone with an incomplete petalodium and well-preserved second-order branches, positive relief, bed sole view; (2) magnified view of the rectangle in (1), showing rhomboidal second-order branches and inclined third-order branches; NIGP161634. (3, 4) A juvenile specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. marked by rectangle in (3), positive relief, bed sole view; the specimen is preserved together with a Helminthoidichnites-like trace fossil, marked by arrow in (3); (4) magnified view of rectangle in (3); NIGP161635. (5) A possible juvenile specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. (bottom) and another poorly preserved unnamed frond (upper) preserved in positive relief, bed sole view. Arrows point to inferred direction of water current that felled and aligned the specimens. NIGP161636. (1) Scale bar = 5 cm; (2, 5) scale bars = 2 cm; (3, 4) scale bars = 1 cm.

Figure 4. Measurements of several specimens of Charnia gracilis new species with well-preserved second-order branches (NIGP161629; NIGP161630; NIGP161631; NIGP161634). (1) Cross-plot of first-order branch (1' branch) length versus number of constituent second-order branches (2' branches); (2) Cross-plot of first-order branch length versus average size of constituent second-order branches. The number of second-order branches in each first-order branch is evaluated by dividing the length of the first-order branch by the average width of constituent second-order branches that are measurable.

Etymology

From gracilis (Latin, slender), in reference to the slender shape of the petalodium as well as the first-order branches.

Materials

Eleven specimens in total, from Shibantan Member, Dengying Formation at Wuhe quarry.

Remarks

The Shibantan specimens possess diagnostic features of the genus Charnia, including single-sided rangeomorph units, strongly constrained first-order branches, and a zig-zag midline. Biometric plots also show that these Shibantan specimens share similarities with Charnia specimens from other localities (Fig. 5; Table 1). For example, the petalodium length versus width (Fig. 5.1), as well as the width of the longest first-order branch versus the largest width of second-order branch in the longest first-order branch (Fig. 5.2), is similar between the Shibantan specimens and C. masoni from Charnwood Forest, UK (Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Kenchington and Wilby2015; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018, Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019, Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021), C. masoni from Newfoundland, Canada (Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007; Hofmann et al., Reference Hofmann, O'Brien and King2008; Liu et al., Reference Liu, McIlroy, Matthews and Brasier2013, Reference Liu, Kenchington and Mitchell2015), Charnia cf. C. masoni from Sekwi Brook, NW Canada (Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Trusler, Dalrymple and Greentree2014), C. masoni and C. gracilis n. sp. from the White Sea region, Russia (Sokolov and Fedonkin, Reference Sokolov and Fedonkin1984; Grazhdankin and Bronnikov, Reference Grazhdankin and Bronnikov1997; Martin et al., Reference Martin, Grazhdankin, Bowring, Evans, Fedonkin and Kirschvink2000), C. masoni from Flinders Ranges, South Australia (Germs, Reference Germs1973; Gehling and Droser, Reference Gehling and Droser2013), C. masoni and C. gracilis from Olenek Uplift, Siberia (Runnegar and Fedonkin, Reference Runnegar, Fedonkin, Schopf and Klein1992; Grazhdankin et al., Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008), and C. masoni from Oulongbuluke terrane, NW China (Pang et al., Reference Pang, Wu, Sun, Ouyang, Yuan, Shen, Lang, Wang, Chen and Zhou2021). Thus, it is reasonable to assign the Shibantan specimens to the genus Charnia. However, there are several notable differences between the Shibantan specimens and C. masoni. Relative to C. masoni specimens from other localities, the Shibantan specimens have first-order branches that are slenderer, longer, and straighter, taper more gradually toward the distal end, have a higher length/width ratio (Fig. 5.3, 5.4), and present a blade-like rather than a sigmoidal shape (Fig. 5.5, 5.9). In addition, the first-order branches are straight and blade-like in the Shibantan specimens but sigmoidal in C. masoni. This difference can be quantified using a new morphologic descriptor defined as X = |(a − b)/(a + b)|, where “a” and “b” are the angles between the diagonal line and borderlines at the distal end of first-order branches (Fig. 5.9). It can be shown that the parameter X effectively distinguishes the sigmoidal (X ≥ 0.3 for C. masoni) or straight (0 ≤ X < 0.3 for C. gracilis) first-order branches (Fig. 5.5). Finally, the mean divergence angle of the first-order branches in the Shibantan specimens, ranging between 12° and 18°, is much lower than in C. masoni specimens elsewhere (Fig. 5.4, 5.5). Considering these morphological disparities as likely interspecific variations, we choose to erect a new species, and we use the mean divergence angle of the first-order branches to differentiate C. gracilis (≤20°) and C. masoni (>20°).

Grazhdankin et al. (Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008) reported Charnia masoni from the Khatyspyt Formation in Siberia (Grazhdankin et al., Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008, fig. 2A). Although incompletely preserved, this Khatyspyt specimen has straight and thin first-order branches with an average divergence angle of 19.8° (Fig. 5.4, 5.5; Table 1). This Khatyspyt specimen shares more morphological similarities with C. gracilis specimens from the Shibantan Member than typical C. masoni material; therefore, it is more appropriate to reassign this specimen to C. gracilis. An incompletely preserved Charnia sp. specimen from the White Sea region (Fedonkin et al., Reference Fedonkin, Gehling, Grey, Narbonne and Vickers-Rich2007, fig. 232) may also be considered C. gracilis. This incomplete specimen possesses a near-parallel-sided petalodium and relatively straight first-order branches with an average divergence angle of 18.5° (Fig. 5.4; Table 1). An incomplete Charnia specimen from Siberia (Glaessner, Reference Glaessner, Moore, Robinson and Teichert1979, fig. 12.1), which was assigned to Glaessnerina sibirica (Sokolov, Reference Sokolov1973), is similar to the Shibantan C. gracilis specimens in its thin, straight, and parallel-sided first-order branches. Its inclined second-order branches are similar to those of the longest specimen in Shibantan limestone (Fig. 3.1). However, the poor preservation of the middle and left parts of its petalodium makes measurement of the divergence angle of the first-order branches difficult. Therefore, this specimen can be only provisionally placed in C. gracilis. A Charnia specimen reported by Nedin and Jenkins (Reference Nedin and Jenkins1998) from the Rawnsley Quartzite, South Australia, also resembles the Shibantan C. gracilis specimens in its straight, slender, and acutely divergent (17.5–26.1°) first-order branches, but its mean divergence angle (21.7°; n = 5) is slightly larger than those of the latter. In general, the Charnia specimens from the White Sea and Nama assemblages can be related to or even reassigned to C. gracilis, on the basis of the morphology of first-order branches, which are more acutely diverged, less curved, and apically thinner and straighter than those from the Avalon assemblage (e.g., Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019, fig. 1F). However, C. gracilis is also somewhat similar to some specimens from Newfoundland in their parallel-sided outlines of the petalodium (e.g., Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007, fig. 4f–h; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Kenchington and Mitchell2015, fig. 2D; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019, fig. 8A), despite the fact that their first-order branches are different (Fig. 5; Table 1).

Dunn et al. (Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019) studied Charnia masoni specimens from different localities and found that they are comparable in morphology but hard to accord with the morphological reconstructions of some other rangeomorphs such as Avalofractus (Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Greentree and Trusler2009) and Rangea (Vickers-Rich et al., Reference Vickers-Rich2013), which possess an internal central stalk (also refer to Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021, fig. 5). Some researchers envisioned that an internal stalk may also be present in Charnia (Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Greentree and Trusler2009), but subsequent studies by other researchers found no evidence for a central stalk (Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019; see also Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021, fig. 5). The Shibantan C. gracilis specimens, which are similar in overall morphology to Charnia fossils reported elsewhere, show no sign of a central stalk.

Discussion

The differences between Charnia gracilis n. sp. and Charnia masoni lie mainly in their first-order branches, as revealed by biometric analysis of Charnia specimens worldwide (Fig. 5). The Shibantan specimens of C. gracilis show notable differences from Charnia specimens elsewhere, with a straight blade-like shape, lower divergence angles, and greater length/width ratios for their first-order branches (Fig. 5.4, 5.5). These differences are unlikely to be artifacts of tectonic or taphonomic deformation. Tectonic shearing can be ruled out because associated holdfast structures are perfectly circular in shape (Fig. 3.2). Although taphonomic deformation did occur in some Shibantan fossils (e.g., Dickinsonia, Wang et al., Reference Wang, Chen, Pang, Zhou, Xiao, Wan and Yuan2021; see also slightly C-shaped fronds in Fig. 3.5), the tightly constrained first-order branches (Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Greentree and Trusler2009) in C. gracilis left little room for their postmortem dislocation, rotation, or deformation. Postmortem compression or stretching of the petalodium, which would increase the length/width ratio of the petalodium, straighten the first-order branches, and decrease their divergence angles, also seemed unlikely to have happened in such a uniform fashion simultaneously.

In addition to the shape of first-order branches of Charnia gracilis specimens, it is unlikely that their lower divergence angles result from alignment by strong currents. Some Shibantan Charnia specimens do show evidence of alignment (Fig. 3.5), perhaps by water currents, although there is no sedimentary evidence for strong water currents in the fossil-bearing horizons (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Zhou, Xiao, Wang, Guan, Hua and Yuan2014; Duda et al., Reference Duda, Zhu and Reitner2016). It is conceivable that the lower divergence angles of C. gracilis specimens may be a biostratinomic artifact related to deformation by strong currents, but this interpretation contradicts the observation that the Shibantan C. masoni specimen, which has a twisted stem and a wrinkled holdfast that may be caused by water currents (Fig. 2.1), has larger divergence angles than the Shibantan C. gracilis specimens (Figs. 2.42.8, 3.1). Some C. masoni specimens from Newfoundland (Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019, figs. 7, 8) exhibit a slender frond with parallel-sided margins, similar to the Shibantan C. gracilis specimens, and they possess a long connecting region, which has been interpreted as an artifact caused by twisting upon felling (Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019) that may also be affected by water currents. However, the divergence angles of these Newfoundland specimens are larger than 20°, and their first-order branches are sigmoidal in shape (Fig. 5.5), both of which are different from C. gracilis specimens.

The slender, straight, and blade-like shape, and the lower divergence angle, of first-order branches of Charnia gracilis are therefore considered a species-level taxonomic distinction. The more or less straight first-order branches of the Shibantan C. gracilis specimens lead to slightly jagged lateral margins and a sharp V-shaped apex of the petalodium (Fig. 2.4). The distal end of the first-order branches of Shibantan C. gracilis specimens is not distinctly curved (Fig. 2.42.8), in contrast to Charnia specimens elsewhere, indicating that the lateral margins of the petalodium in C. gracilis may have been somewhat unfurled and not morphologically influenced by water currents when alive. A petalodium with furled lateral margins would be better streamlined to reduce the drag of water currents, whereas one with unfurled lateral margins would fully expose the surface area of the frond to water currents, thus enhancing the feeding efficiency. However, considering that both C. gracilis and C. masoni are present in the Shibantan Member, and that there are relatively few specimens of either taxon, it is difficult to distinguish whether the Shibantan specimens are furled. It is also uncertain whether furling is a persistent and taxonomically informative character, an ecophenotypic behavior related to feeding strategies and water current intensity, or a biostratinomic feature.

Previous studies proposed that the growth of Charnia was achieved by the insertion of new first-order branches (e.g., Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007; Antcliffe and Brasier, Reference Antcliffe and Brasier2008; Laflamme and Narbonne, Reference Laflamme and Narbonne2008), but recent studies hypothesized that Charnia grew by the insertion of new first-order branches followed by their subsequent inflation (Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Kenchington and Wilby2015; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018). Two small frondose fossils (Fig. 3.4, 3.5) from the Shibantan limestone are recognized as juvenile specimens of C. gracilis. Although poorly preserved, it seems that these juvenile specimens contain fewer first-order branches (~12; Fig. 3.4, 3.5) than the largest specimen in our collection (>26; Fig. 3.1), supporting insertion of new first-order branches as a key growth mechanism. However, the number of second-order branches (~12–20) in each first-order branch does not seem to change much among specimens of different sizes (Fig. 4.1), whereas the shape of the second-order branches varies from near rectangular in the small- and medium-sized specimens (e.g., Fig. 2.3, 2.4), to axially rhomboidal in large-sized specimens (e.g., Fig. 3.1, 3.2); their size also increases greatly (Fig. 4.2). Considering that first-order branches increase in number and size during growth (Fig. 5.6, 5.7) whereas second-order branches increase mainly in size rather than number in every first-order branch (Fig. 4), it seems that the inflation of first-order branches was achieved mainly by inflation of second-order branches rather than insertion of new second-order branches. These observations support the hypothesis that growth of Charnia was accomplished by the insertion and subsequent inflation of first-order branches (Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007; Laflamme and Narbonne, Reference Laflamme and Narbonne2008; Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Kenchington and Wilby2015; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018), which grew largely by inflation rather than insertion of second-order branches. Each first-order branch is basally initiated from the third to sixth second-order branches of the subtending first-order branch in the Shibantan specimens (e.g., Fig. 2.3), similar to those described by Dunn et al. (Reference Dunn, Liu, Grazhdankin, Vixseboxse, Flannery-Sutherland, Green, Harris, Wilby and Donoghue2021). The smaller first-order branches at the apical end of the petalodium (e.g., Fig. 3.4) suggest that new first-order branches were generated distally, in contrast to the long-considered analogs of sea pens (Antcliffe and Brasier, Reference Antcliffe and Brasier2007). The presence of a stem in the larger C. masoni specimen (Fig. 2.1) and the absence of a stem in the juvenile specimens of C. gracilis implies that the stem may have been absent in younger stages but emerged later in the adult stage of the Charnia frond. Therefore, there may have been another generative zone at the proximal end of the Charnia frond where the stem was generated, in addition to the apical growth zone where new first-order branches were inserted (Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Liu and Donoghue2018).

Figure 5. Biometric plots of Charnia from Shibantan limestone and other localities. (1) Cross-plot of petalodium length versus width. (2) Cross-plot of width of the longest first-order branch (1'branch) versus width of the widest second-order branch (2' branch) in the longest first-order branch. (3) Cross-plot of length versus width of the longest first-order branch. (4) Cross-plot of the length/width (L/W) ratio of the longest first-order branch versus mean divergence angle of first-order branches. Sketches at the lower right and upper left in (4) show first-order branches of two representative endmembers. (5) Cross-plot of mean divergence angle versus mean value of X = |(a − b)/(a + b)|; “a” and “b” represent the included angles between the diagonal line and borderlines at the distal end of first-order branches. (6) Cross-plot of petalodium length versus countable number of first-order branches. (7) Cross-plot of petalodium length versus length of the longest first-order branch. (8) Schematic diagram depicting how measurements for first- and second-order branches were made. (9) Schematic diagram depicting how measurements for X = |(a − b)/(a + b)| were made to distinguish the sigmoidal or straight shape of the first-order branches; note that in the lower left case, angle “b” < 0 and angle “a” > 0 (X > 1), whereas in the two other lower cases, both angle “b” and angle “a” are ≥0 (0 ≤ X ≤ 1). Localities are represented by symbols with different colors and shapes. Triangles with an attached arrow represent specimens with incomplete petalodium length in (1) and (7). Dots represent the Avalon assemblage, squares represent the White Sea assemblage, and triangles and crosses represent younger assemblages, possibly belonging to the Nama assemblage. Hollow symbols represent measurements of C. gracilis new species, whereas filled symbols represent measurements of other Charnia species.

Although Charnia is widely considered to have been an epibenthic organism, its posture on the seafloor has been debated. Some researchers consider it a reclining organism on the basis of the inference that most Charnia specimens preserve only one side of the frond, assuming that the two sides might be different (Grazhdankin, Reference Grazhdankin2004; McIlroy et al., Reference McIlroy, Dufour, Taylor and Nicholls2021). However, the twisted stem in a Shibantan C. masoni specimen (Fig. 2.1) implies the influence of water currents that rotated a standing frond, consistent with an erect living lifestyle (Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007; Narbonne et al., Reference Narbonne, Laflamme, Trusler, Dalrymple and Greentree2014; Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Kenchington and Wilby2015; Droser et al., Reference Droser, Tarhan and Gehling2017). The presence of a holdfast in some Charnia specimens (Fig. 2.1, 2.7) is also consistent with an erect lifestyle, although holdfasts are rarely preserved or observed. Some Charnia specimens from other localities preserve a small and bulbous holdfast (Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Narbonne, Greentree, Anderson, Vickers-Rich and Komarower2007; Wilby et al., Reference Wilby, Kenchington and Wilby2015; Dunn et al., Reference Dunn, Wilby, Kenchington, Grazhdankin, Donoghue and Liu2019), which has been taken as evidence that the holdfast was buried below the sediment–water interface (Burzynski and Narbonne, Reference Burzynski and Narbonne2015). One Shibantan C. gracilis specimen preserves a faint holdfast (Fig. 2.7), and another C. masoni specimen bears a distinctly larger holdfast with filiform texture (Fig. 2.1, 2.2; Table 1). It is possible that the larger holdfast illustrated in Figure 2.1 represents an uprooted specimen that was pulled out of the sediment by water currents; this interpretation is also consistent with the twisted stem in this specimen, which may have been caused by rotation of the frond relative to the holdfast because of water currents. Overall, the evidence available seems to suggest that Charnia stood rather than lay on the seafloor.

The occurrence of Charnia in the Shibantan biota expands the paleogeographic distribution of this taxon and represents one of the youngest examples of this genus. The Shibantan Member preserves taxa that were thought to be characteristic of the Nama assemblage (e.g., Cloudina; S. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020) and White Sea assemblage (e.g., Dickinsonia; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Chen, Pang, Zhou, Xiao, Wan and Yuan2021). Previous researchers regarded the Shibantan biota as an example of the Nama assemblage (Boag et al., Reference Boag, Darroch and Laflamme2016; Muscente et al., Reference Muscente2019; Wu et al., Reference Wu, Chen, Pang, Wang, Wan, Zhou and Yuan2021), an example of the White Sea assemblage (Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Gehling and Droser2018), or a transition between these two assemblages (S. Xiao et al., Reference Xiao, Chen, Pang, Zhou and Yuan2020). Regardless, a recent radiometric date of 543.4 ± 3.5 Ma from the overlying Baimatuo Member (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Chen, Ding, Zhou and Zhang2020) indicates that the Shibantan biota preserves one of the youngest occurrences of Charnia, roughly comparable in age to two other terminal Ediacaran occurrences, in the Khatyspyt Formation in Siberia (~553–544 Ma; Grazhdankin et al., Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008; Rogov et al., Reference Rogov, Karlova, Marusin, Kochnev, Nagovitsin and Grazhdankin2015) and in the Zhoujieshan Formation in Qaidam (~550–539 Ma; Pang et al., Reference Pang, Wu, Sun, Ouyang, Yuan, Shen, Lang, Wang, Chen and Zhou2021). Meanwhile, the oldest occurrences of Charnia come from the Drook Formation in Newfoundland, Canada (~574–560 Ma; Narbonne and Gehling, Reference Narbonne and Gehling2003; Matthews et al., Reference Matthews, Liu, Yang, McIlroy, Levell and Condon2021) and the Bradgate Formation in Charnwood Forest, UK (~562–557 Ma; Ford, Reference Ford1958; Noble et al., Reference Noble, Condon, Carney, Wilby, Pharaoh and Ford2015); the genus is also present in the White Sea assemblage (Martin et al., Reference Martin, Grazhdankin, Bowring, Evans, Fedonkin and Kirschvink2000; Gehling and Droser, Reference Gehling and Droser2013). In terms of paleogeographic distribution, Charnia has been reported from almost all major Ediacara-type fossil localities ranging from low to high paleolatitudes (Fig. 6; see also Boddy et al., Reference Boddy, Mitchell, Merdith and Liu2022). In terms of paleoenvironmental distribution, Charnia specimens have been reported from siliciclastic sediments in deep marine basins (Hofmann et al., Reference Hofmann, O'Brien and King2008; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Kenchington and Mitchell2015) to sandstones in shallow shelf environments, including lagoon/delta front and lower shoreface (or sheet-flow sands) (Gehling and Droser, Reference Gehling and Droser2013; McMahon et al., Reference McMahon, Liu, Tindal and Kleinhans2020) to carbonate shelves (Grazhdankin et al., Reference Grazhdankin, Balthasar, Nagovitsin and Kochnev2008; this paper). Thus, Charnia is an Ediacara-type macrofossil genus with a remarkably long stratigraphic range and broad paleogeographic range (Fig. 6). This implies that the sessile Charnia must have had some sort of dispersal strategies, presumably through planktonic larvae (Darroch et al., Reference Darroch, Laflamme and Clapham2013) or waterborne asexual propagules (Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Kenchington, Liu, Matthews and Butterfield2015; Mitchell and Kenchington, Reference Mitchell and Kenchington2018; see also Liu and Dunn, Reference Liu and Dunn2020). In addition, a juvenile specimen of Charnia is preserved together with a Helminthoidichnites-like trace fossil (Fig. 3.3), indicating that Charnia could survive in an environment occupied by bilaterian trace makers. The co-occurrence of Helminthoidichnites-like trace fossils and Ediacara-type body fossils has also been observed in other Ediacaran successions (e.g., Gehling and Droser, Reference Gehling and Droser2018). Such co-occurrences can provide key insights into the ecological interactions between trace-making animals and Ediacara-type soft-bodied macro-organisms and may help to test the biotic replacement hypothesis that bilaterian bioturbation may have led to the demise of sessile frondose taxa in the terminal Ediacaran (e.g., Seilacher, Reference Seilacher1989, Reference Seilacher1992; Laflamme et al., Reference Laflamme, Darroch, Tweedt, Peterson and Erwin2013; Darroch et al., Reference Darroch2015).

Figure 6. Paleogeographic distribution of Charnia (marked by yellow dots) worldwide. The paleogeographic map (~550 Ma) is based on Zhao et al. (Reference Zhao, Wang, Huang, Dong, Li, Zhang and Yu2018) and Pang et al. (Reference Pang, Wu, Sun, Ouyang, Yuan, Shen, Lang, Wang, Chen and Zhou2021). C-Qil = Central Qilian; N-Qt = North Qiangtang; S-Qt-Ls = South Qiangtang and Lhasa; IC = Indochina.

Conclusion

A systematic description of Charnia masoni and Charnia gracilis n. sp. from the Shibantan biota (ca. 550–543 Ma) is presented in this paper. The Shibantan C. gracilis specimens show differences in the overall morphology, length/width ratio, and divergence angle of first-order branches from the type species, C. masoni. Nevertheless, morphological aspects of their first and second-order branches, their tightly constrained and one-sided first-order branches, and their zig-zag central suture indicate that they belong to the genus Charnia. The Shibantan Charnia specimens also present features that seem to support an insertion–inflation growth model and an erect sessile epibenthic lifestyle. Charnia masoni and C. gracilis from the Shibantan limestone represent one of the youngest occurrences of the genus Charnia and extend the paleogeographic, paleoenvironmental, and stratigraphic distributions of this genus. Charnia seems to be an evolutionarily resilient genus that persisted for ~30 Myr and witnessed the rise and fall of the Ediacara-type macro-organisms.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 42130207, 42272005, and 41921002), the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) (grants XDB26000000 and QYZDJ-SSW-DQC009), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant 2022YFF0802700), the Youth Innovation Promotion Association of the CAS (grant 2021307), and the State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy (20201102). We thank Associate Editor J. Schiffbauer, G. Narbonne, A. Liu, and M. Laflamme for constructive reviews.

Declaration of competing interests

The authors declare none.

References

An, Z., Jiang, G., Tong, J., Tian, L., Ye, Q., Song, H., and Song, H., 2015, Stratigraphic position of the Ediacaran Miaohe biota and its constraints on the age of the upper Doushantuo δ13C anomaly in the Yangtze Gorges area, South China: Precambrian Research, v. 271, p. 243253.10.1016/j.precamres.2015.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antcliffe, J.B., and Brasier, M.D., 2007, Charnia and sea pens are poles apart: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 164, p. 4951.10.1144/0016-76492006-080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antcliffe, J.B., and Brasier, M.D., 2008, Charnia at 50: developmental models for Ediacaran fronds: Palaeontology, v. 51, p. 1126.10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00738.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antcliffe, J.B., Liu, A.G., Menon, L.R., McIlroy, D., McLoughlin, N., and Wacey, D., 2017, Understanding ancient life: how Martin Brasier changed the way we think about the fossil record: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 448, p. 1931.10.1144/SP448.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamforth, E.L., and Narbonne, G.M., 2009, New Ediacaran rangeomorphs from Mistaken Point, Newfoundland, Canada: Journal of Paleontology, v. 83, p. 897913.10.1666/09-047.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boag, T.H., Darroch, S.A.F., and Laflamme, M., 2016, Ediacaran distributions in space and time: testing assemblage concepts of earliest macroscopic body fossils: Paleobiology, v. 42, p. 574594.10.1017/pab.2016.20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobrovskiy, I., Hope, J.M., Ivantsov, A., Nettersheim, B.J., Hallmann, C., and Brocks, J.J., 2018, Ancient steroids establish the Ediacaran fossil Dickinsonia as one of the earliest animals: Science, v. 361, p. 12461249.10.1126/science.aat7228CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boddy, C.E., Mitchell, E.G., Merdith, A., and Liu, A.G., 2022, Palaeolatitudinal distribution of the Ediacaran macrobiota: Journal of the Geological Society (London), v. 179, n. jgs2021-030, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2021-030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boynton, H.E., and Ford, T.D., 1995, Ediacaran fossils from the Precambrian (Charnian Supergroup) of Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire, England: Mercian Geologist, v. 13, p. 165182.Google Scholar
Brasier, M.D., Antcliffe, J.B., and Liu, A.G., 2012, The architecture of Ediacaran fronds: Palaeontology, v. 55, p. 11051124.10.1111/j.1475-4983.2012.01164.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budd, G.E., and Jensen, S., 2017, The origin of the animals and a ‘Savannah’ hypothesis for early bilaterian evolution: Biological Reviews, v. 92, p. 446473.10.1111/brv.12239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzynski, G., and Narbonne, G.M., 2015, The discs of Avalon: relating discoid fossils to frondose organisms in the Ediacaran of Newfoundland, Canada: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 434, p. 3445.10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.01.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butterfield, N., 2022, Constructional and functional anatomy of Ediacaran rangeomorphs: Geological Magazine, v. 159, p. 11481159.10.1017/S0016756820000734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callow, R.H.T., and Brasier, M.D., 2009, Remarkable preservation of microbial mats in Neoproterozoic siliciclastic settings: implications for Ediacaran taphonomic models: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 96, p. 207219.10.1016/j.earscirev.2009.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X., Zhou, P., Zhang, B., Wei, K., and Zhang, M., 2016, Lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, sequence stratigraphy and carbon isotope chemostratigraphy of the upper Ediacaran in Yangtze Gorges and their significance for chronostratigraphy: Geology and Mineral Resources of South China, v. 32, p. 87105.Google Scholar
Chen, Z., Zhou, C., Meyer, M., Xiang, K., Schiffbauer, J.D., Yuan, X., and Xiao, S., 2013, Trace fossil evidence for Ediacaran bilaterian animals with complex behaviors: Precambrian Research, v. 224, p. 690701.10.1016/j.precamres.2012.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Z., Zhou, C., Xiao, S., Wang, W., Guan, C., Hua, H., and Yuan, X., 2014, New Ediacara fossils preserved in marine limestone and their ecological implications: Scientific Reports, v. 4, n. 4180, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04180Google ScholarPubMed
Chen, Z., Zhou, C., Yuan, X., and Xiao, S., 2019, Death march of a segmented and trilobate bilaterian elucidates early animal evolution: Nature, v. 573, p. 412415.10.1038/s41586-019-1522-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Condon, D., Zhu, M., Bowring, S., Wang, W., Yang, A., and Jin, Y., 2005, U–Pb ages from the Neoproterozoic Doushantuo Formation, China: Science, v. 308, p. 9598.10.1126/science.1107765CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darroch, S.A.F., Laflamme, M., and Clapham, M.E., 2013, Population structure of the oldest known macroscopic communities from Mistaken Point, Newfoundland: Paleobiology, v. 39, p. 591608.10.1666/12051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darroch, S.A.F. et al., 2015, Biotic replacement and mass extinction of the Ediacara biota: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, v. 282, n. 20151003, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1003Google ScholarPubMed
Darroch, S.A.F., Smith, E.F., Laflamme, M., and Erwin, D.H., 2018, Ediacaran extinction and Cambrian Explosion: Trends in Ecology & Evolution, v. 33, p. 653663.10.1016/j.tree.2018.06.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dececchi, T.A., Narbonne, G.M., Greentree, C., and Laflamme, M., 2017, Relating Ediacaran fronds: Paleobiology, v. 43, p. 171180.10.1017/pab.2016.54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dececchi, T.A., Narbonne, G.M., Greentree, C., and Laflamme, M., 2018, Phylogenetic relationships among the Rangeomorpha: the importance of outgroup selection and implications for their diversification: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 55, p. 12231239.10.1139/cjes-2018-0022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, W., Dong, L., Sun, Y., Ma, H., Xu, Y., Yang, R., Peng, Y., Zhou, C., and Shen, B., 2019, Early animal evolution and highly oxygenated seafloor niches hosted by microbial mats: Scientific Reports, v. 9, n. 13628, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49993-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ding, Y., Chen, D., Zhou, X., Guo, C., Huang, T., and Zhang, G., 2019, Cavity-filling dolomite speleothems and submarine cements in the Ediacaran Dengying microbialites, South China: responses to high-frequency sea-level fluctuations in an ‘aragonite–dolomite sea’: Sedimentology, v. 66, p. 25112537.10.1111/sed.12605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droser, M.L., Tarhan, L.G., and Gehling, J.G., 2017, The rise of animals in a changing environment: global ecological innovation in the late Ediacaran: Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, v. 45, p. 593617.10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-015645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duda, J.-P., Zhu, M., and Reitner, J., 2016, Depositional dynamics of a bituminous carbonate facies in a tectonically induced intra-platform basin: the Shibantan Member (Dengying Formation, Ediacaran Period): Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 31, p. 8799.10.1007/s13146-015-0243-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufour, S.C., and McIlroy, D., 2016, Ediacaran pre-placozoan diploblasts in the Avalonian biota: the role of chemosynthesis in the evolution of early animal life: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v. 448, p. 211219.10.1144/SP448.5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, F.S., Liu, A.G., and Donoghue, P.C.J., 2018, Ediacaran developmental biology: Biological Reviews, v. 93, p. 914932.10.1111/brv.12379CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, F.S., Wilby, P.R., Kenchington, C.G., Grazhdankin, D.V., Donoghue, P.C., and Liu, A.G., 2019, Anatomy of the Ediacaran rangeomorph Charnia masoni: Papers in Palaeontology, v. 5, p. 157176.10.1002/spp2.1234CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, F.S., Liu, A.G., Grazhdankin, D.V., Vixseboxse, P., Flannery-Sutherland, J., Green, E., Harris, S., Wilby, P.R., and Donoghue, P.C.J., 2021, The developmental biology of Charnia and the eumetazoan affinity of the Ediacaran rangeomorphs: Science Advances, v. 7, n. eabe0291, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe0291CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedonkin, M.A., 1978, New locality of nonskeletal Metazoa in Vendian of Winter Shore: Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, v. 239, p. 14231426.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1981a, White Sea biota of the Vendian: Trudy Geologicheskiy Institut, v. 342, p. 1100.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1981b, A major locality of Precambrian: Priroda, v. 5, p. 94102.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1983a, Ecology of Precambrian Metazoa of the White Sea biota, in Problems of Ecology of Fauna and Flora in Ancient Basins: Proceedings of the Paleontological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, v. 194: Moscow, Nauka, p. 25–33.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1983b, Organic world of the Vendian: Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki, seriya Stratigrafiya, Paleontologiya, v. 12, p. 1127.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1985, Systematic description of Vendian Metazoa, in Sokolov, B.S., and Iwanowski, A.B., eds., The Vendian System. Volume 1. Paleontology: Moscow, Nauka, p. 70112.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1987, Non-skeletal fauna of the Vendian and its place in the evolution of metazoans: Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, v. 226, p. 1173.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1990, Systematic description of Vendian Metazoa, in Sokolov, B S., and Iwanowski, A.B., eds., The Vendian System. Volume 1. Paleontology: Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, p. 71120.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1992, Vendian faunas and the early evolution of Metazoa, in Lipps, J., and Signor, P., eds., Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa, v. 10: Boston, Springer, p. 87129.10.1007/978-1-4899-2427-8_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., 1994, Vendian body fossils and trace fossils, in Bengtson, S., ed., Early Life on Earth: New York, Columbia University Press, p. 370388.Google Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., and Waggoner, B.M., 1997, The Late Precambrian fossil Kimberella is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism: Nature, v. 388, p. 868871.10.1038/42242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedonkin, M.A., Gehling, J.G., Grey, K., Narbonne, G.M., and Vickers-Rich, P., 2007, The Rise of Animals: Evolution and Diversification of the Kingdom Animalia: Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 326 p.Google Scholar
Ford, T.D., 1958, Pre-Cambrian fossils from Charnwood Forest: Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, v. 31, p. 211217.10.1144/pygs.31.3.211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, T.D., 1962, The oldest fossils: New Scientist, v. 15, p. 191194.Google Scholar
Ford, T.D., 1999, The Precambrian fossils of Charnwood Forest: Geology Today, v. 15, p. 230234.10.1046/j.1365-2451.1999.00007.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehling, J.G., 1991, The case for Ediacaran fossil roots to the metazoan tree: Geological Society of India Memoir, v. 20, p. 181224.Google Scholar
Gehling, J.G., 1999, Microbial mats in terminal Proterozoic siliciclastics: Ediacaran death masks: Palaios, v. 14, p. 4057.10.2307/3515360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehling, J.G., and Droser, M.L., 2013, How well do fossil assemblages of the Ediacara Biota tell time?: Geology, v. 41, p. 447450.10.1130/G33881.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehling, J.G., and Droser, M.L., 2018, Ediacaran scavenging as a prelude to predation: Emerging Topics in Life Sciences, v. 2, p. 213222.Google ScholarPubMed
Germs, G.J.B., 1973, A reinterpretation of Rangea schneiderhoehni and the discovery of a related new fossil from the Nama Group, South West Africa: Lethaia, v. 6, p. 19.10.1111/j.1502-3931.1973.tb00870.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghisalberti, M., Gold, D.A., Laflamme, M., Clapham, M.E., Narbonne, G.M., Summons, R.E., Johnston, D.T., and Jacobs, D.K., 2014, Canopy flow analysis reveals the advantage of size in the oldest communities of multicellular eukaryotes: Current Biology, v. 24, p. 305309.10.1016/j.cub.2013.12.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glaessner, M.F., 1959, Precambrian Coelenterata from Australia, Africa and England: Nature, v. 183, p. 14721473.10.1038/1831472b0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., 1961, Pre-Cambrian animals: Scientific American, v. 204, p. 7278.10.1038/scientificamerican0361-72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., 1962, Pre-Cambrian fossils: Biological Reviews, v. 37, p. 467493.Google Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., 1979, Precambrian, in Moore, R.C., Robinson, R.A., and Teichert, C., eds., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part A, Fossilization (Taphonomy), Biogeography and Biostratigraphy, Introduction: Boulder, Colorado, and Lawrence, Kansas, Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, p. 79118.Google Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., 1984, The Dawn of Animal Life: A Biohistorical Study: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 244 p.Google Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., and Daily, B., 1959, The geology and late Precambrian fauna of the Ediacara fossil reserve: Records of the South Australian Museum, v. 13, p. 369401.Google Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., and Wade, M., 1966, The late Precambrian fossils from Ediacara, South Australia: Palaeontology, v. 9, p. 599628.Google Scholar
Glaessner, M.F., and Walter, M.R., 1981, Australian Precambrian palaeobiology: Developments in Precambrian Geology, v. 2, p. 361396.10.1016/S0166-2635(08)70200-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grazhdankin, D.V., 2004, Patterns of distribution in the Ediacaran biotas: facies versus biogeography and evolution: Paleobiology, v. 30, p. 203221.10.1666/0094-8373(2004)030<0203:PODITE>2.0.CO;22.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grazhdankin, D., 2011, Ediacaran Biota, in Reitner, J., and Thiel, V., eds., Encyclopedia of Geobiology: Dordrecht, Springer, p. 342348.10.1007/978-1-4020-9212-1_79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grazhdankin, D., 2014, Patterns of evolution of the Ediacaran soft-bodied biota: Journal of Paleontology, v. 88, p. 269283.10.1666/13-072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grazhdankin, D., and Bronnikov, A., 1997, A new locality of the remains of the late Vendian soft-bodied organisms on the Onega Peninsula: Transactions (Doklady) of the Russian Academy of Sciences/Earth Science Sections, v. 357A, p. 13111315.Google Scholar
Grazhdankin, D., Maslov, A., Mustill, T., and Krupenin, M., 2005, The Ediacaran White Sea biota in the Central Urals: Doklady Earth Sciences, v. 401, p. 382385.Google Scholar
Grazhdankin, D.V., Balthasar, U., Nagovitsin, K.E., and Kochnev, B.B., 2008, Carbonate-hosted Avalon-type fossils in arctic Siberia: Geology, v. 36, p. 803806.10.1130/G24946A.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, H.J., O'Brien, S.J., and King, A.F., 2008, Ediacaran biota on Bonavista Peninsula, Newfoundland, Canada: Journal of Paleontology, v. 82, p. 136.10.1666/06-087.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyal Cuthill, J.F., and Han, J., 2018, Cambrian petalonamid Stromatoveris phylogenetically links Ediacaran biota to later animals: Palaeontology, v. 61, p. 813823.10.1111/pala.12393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, T., Chen, D., Ding, Y., Zhou, X., and Zhang, G., 2020, SIMS U–Pb zircon geochronological and carbon isotope chemostratigraphic constraints on the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary succession in the Three Gorges Area, South China: Journal of Earth Science, v. 31, p. 6978.10.1007/s12583-019-1233-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R.J.F., 1985, The enigmatic Ediacaran (late Precambrian) genus Rangea and related forms: Paleobiology, v. 11, p. 336355.10.1017/S0094837300011635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R.J.F., 1996, Aspects of the geological setting and palaeobiology of the Ediacara assemblage, in Davies, M., Twidale, C.R., and Tyler, M.J., eds., Natural History of the Flinders Ranges, v. 7: Richmond, South Australia, Royal Society of South Australia, p. 3345.Google Scholar
Kenchington, C.G., Harris, S.J., Vixseboxse, P.B., Pickup, C., and Wilby, P.R., 2018, The Ediacaran fossils of Charnwood Forest: shining new light on a major biological revolution: Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, v. 129, p. 264277.10.1016/j.pgeola.2018.02.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laflamme, M., and Narbonne, G.M., 2008, Ediacaran fronds: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 258, p. 162179.10.1016/j.palaeo.2007.05.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laflamme, M., Narbonne, G.M., Greentree, C., and Anderson, M.M., 2007, Morphology and taphonomy of an Ediacaran frond: Charnia from the Avalon Peninsula of Newfoundland, in Vickers-Rich, P., and Komarower, P., eds., The Rise and Fall of the Ediacaran Biota: London, Geological Society, p. 237257.Google Scholar
Laflamme, M., Xiao, S., and Kowalewski, M., 2009, Osmotrophy in modular Ediacara organisms: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 106, p. 1443814443.10.1073/pnas.0904836106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laflamme, M., Schiffbauer, J.D., Narbonne, G.M., and Briggs, D.E.G., 2011, Microbial biofilms and the preservation of the Ediacara biota: Lethaia, v. 44, p. 203213.10.1111/j.1502-3931.2010.00235.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laflamme, M., Darroch, S.A.F., Tweedt, S.M., Peterson, K.J., and Erwin, D.H., 2013, The end of the Ediacara biota: extinction, biotic replacement, or Cheshire Cat?: Gondwana Research, v. 23, p. 558573.10.1016/j.gr.2012.11.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laflamme, M., Gehling, J.G., and Droser, M.L., 2018, Deconstructing an Ediacaran frond: three-dimensional preservation of Arborea from Ediacara, South Australia: Journal of Paleontology, v. 92, p. 323335.10.1017/jpa.2017.128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, D., Cai, Y., Nolan, M., and Xiao, S., 2020, The terminal Ediacaran tubular fossil Cloudina in the Yangtze Gorges area of South China: Precambrian Research, v. 351, n. 105931, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2020.105931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnemann, U. et al., 2019, New high-resolution age data from the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary indicate rapid, ecologically driven onset of the Cambrian explosion: Terra Nova, v. 31, p. 4958.10.1111/ter.12368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, A.G., and Dunn, F.S., 2020, Filamentous connections between Ediacaran fronds: Current Biology, v. 30, p. 13221328.10.1016/j.cub.2020.01.052CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, A.G., McIlroy, D., Matthews, J.J., and Brasier, M.D., 2012, A new assemblage of juvenile Ediacaran fronds from the Drook Formation, Newfoundland: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 169, p. 395403.10.1144/0016-76492011-094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, A.G., McIlroy, D., Matthews, J.J., and Brasier, M.D., 2013, Exploring an Ediacaran ‘nursery’: growth, ecology and evolution in a rangeomorph palaeocommunity: Geology Today, v. 29, p. 2326.10.1111/j.1365-2451.2013.00860.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, A.G., Kenchington, C.G., and Mitchell, E.G., 2015, Remarkable insights into the paleoecology of the Avalonian Ediacaran macrobiota: Gondwana Research, v. 27, p. 13551380.10.1016/j.gr.2014.11.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, A.G., Matthews, J.J., and McIlroy, D., 2016, The Beothukis/Culmofrons problem and its bearing on Ediacaran macrofossil taxonomy: evidence from an exceptional new fossil locality: Palaeontology, v. 59, p. 4558.10.1111/pala.12206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luzhnaya, E., and Ivantsov, A.Y., 2019, Skeletal nets of the Ediacaran fronds: Paleontological Journal, v. 53, p. 667675.10.1134/S0031030119070050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M.W., Grazhdankin, D.V., Bowring, S.A., Evans, D.A.D., Fedonkin, M.A., and Kirschvink, J.L., 2000, Age of Neoproterozoic bilatarian body and trace fossils, White Sea, Russia: implications for metazoan evolution: Science, v. 288, p. 841845.Google ScholarPubMed
Matthews, J.J., Liu, A.G., Yang, C., McIlroy, D., Levell, B., and Condon, D.J., 2021, A chronostratigraphic framework for the rise of the Ediacaran macrobiota: new constraints from Mistaken Point Ecological Reserve, Newfoundland: GSA Bulletin, v. 133, p. 612624.10.1130/B35646.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIlroy, D., Dufour, S.C., Taylor, R., and Nicholls, R., 2021, The role of symbiosis in the first colonization of the seafloor by macrobiota: insights from the oldest Ediacaran biota (Newfoundland, Canada): BioSystems, v. 205, n. 104413, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2021.104413CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIlroy, D., Hawco, J., McKean, C., Nicholls, R., Pasinetti, G., and Taylor, R., 2022, Palaeobiology of the reclining rangeomorph Beothukis from the Ediacaran Mistaken Point Formation of southeastern Newfoundland: Geological Magazine, v. 159, p. 11601174.10.1017/S0016756820000941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, W.J., Liu, A.G., Tindal, B.H., and Kleinhans, M.G., 2020, Ediacaran life close to land: coastal and shoreface habitats of the Ediacaran macrobiota, the Central Flinders Ranges, South Australia: Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 90, p. 14631499.10.2110/jsr.2020.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M., Xiao, S., Gill, B.C., Schiffbauer, J.D., Chen, Z., Zhou, C., and Yuan, X., 2014, Interactions between Ediacaran animals and microbial mats: insights from Lamonte trevallis, a new trace fossil from the Dengying Formation of South China: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 396, p. 6274.10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.12.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, E.G., and Kenchington, C.G., 2018, The utility of height for the Ediacaran organisms of Mistaken Point: Nature Ecology & Evolution, v. 2, p. 12181222.10.1038/s41559-018-0591-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, E.G., Kenchington, C.G., Liu, A.G., Matthews, J.J., and Butterfield, N.J., 2015, Reconstructing the reproductive mode of an Ediacaran macro-organism: Nature, v. 524, p. 343346.10.1038/nature14646CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moynihan, D.P., Strauss, J.V., Nelson, L.L., and Padget, C.D., 2019, Upper Windermere Supergroup and the transition from rifting to continent-margin sedimentation, Nadaleen River area, northern Canadian Cordillera: GSA Bulletin, v. 131, p. 16731701.10.1130/B32039.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muscente, A.D. et al., 2019, Ediacaran biozones identified with network analysis provide evidence for pulsed extinctions of early complex life: Nature Communications, v. 10, n. 911, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08837-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narbonne, G.M., 2004, Modular construction of early Ediacaran complex life forms: Science, v. 305, p. 11411144.10.1126/science.1099727CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Narbonne, G.M., and Gehling, J.G., 2003, Life after snowball: the oldest complex Ediacaran fossils: Geology, v. 31, p. 2730.10.1130/0091-7613(2003)031<0027:LASTOC>2.0.CO;22.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narbonne, G., Dalrymple, R., Laflamme, M., Gehling, J., and Boyce, W., 2005, Life after snowball: Mistaken Point Biota and the Cambrian of the Avalon. North American Paleontological Convention Field Trip Guidebook: Halifax, North American Paleontology Convention, 100 p.Google Scholar
Narbonne, G.M., Laflamme, M., Greentree, C., and Trusler, P., 2009, Reconstructing a lost world: Ediacaran rangeomorphs from Spaniard's Bay, Newfoundland: Journal of Paleontology, v. 83, p. 503523.10.1666/08-072R1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narbonne, G.M., Laflamme, M., Trusler, P.W., Dalrymple, R.W., and Greentree, C., 2014, Deep-water Ediacaran fossils from northwestern Canada: taphonomy, ecology, and evolution: Journal of Paleontology, v. 88, p. 207223.10.1666/13-053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedin, C., and Jenkins, R.J.F., 1998, First occurrence of the Ediacaran fossil Charnia from the Southern Hemisphere: Alcheringa, v. 22, p. 315316.10.1080/03115519808619329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, S.R., Condon, D.J., Carney, J.N., Wilby, P.R., Pharaoh, T.C., and Ford, T.D., 2015, U–Pb geochronology and global context of the Charnian Supergroup, UK: constraints on the age of key Ediacaran fossil assemblages: GSA Bulletin, v. 127, p. 250265.10.1130/B31013.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okada, Y., Sawaki, Y., Komiya, T., Hirata, T., Takahata, N., Sano, Y., Han, J., and Maruyama, S., 2014, New chronological constraints for Cryogenian to Cambrian rocks in the Three Gorges, Weng'an and Chengjiang areas, South China: Gondwana Research, v. 25, p. 10271044.10.1016/j.gr.2013.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pang, K., Wu, C., Sun, Y., Ouyang, Q., Yuan, X., Shen, B., Lang, X., Wang, R., Chen, Z., and Zhou, C., 2021, New Ediacara-type fossils and late Ediacaran stratigraphy from the northern Qaidam Basin (China): paleogeographic implications: Geology, v. 49, p. 11601164.10.1130/G48842.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, K.J., Waggoner, B., and Hagadorn, J.W., 2003, A fungal analog for Newfoundland Ediacaran fossils?: Integrative and Comparative Biology, v. 43, p. 127136.10.1093/icb/43.1.127CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pflug, H.D., 1970, Zur Fauna der Nama-Schichten in Südwest-Afrika. II. Rangeidae, Bau und Systematische Zugehörigkeit: Palaeontographica Abteilung A, v. 135, p. 198231.Google Scholar
Pflug, H.D., 1972, Zur Fauna der Nama-Schichten in Südwest-Afrika. III. Erniettomorpha, Bau and Systematik: Palaeontographica Abteilung A, v. 139, p. 134170.Google Scholar
Preiss, W.V., 1987, The Adelaide Geosyncline: Late Proterozoic Stratigraphy, Sedimentation, Palaeontology and Tectonics: Bulletin of the Geological Survey of South Australia, v. 53, 438 p.Google Scholar
Retallack, G.J., 1994, Were the Ediacaran fossils lichens?: Paleobiology, v. 20, p. 523544.10.1017/S0094837300012975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogov, V.I., Karlova, G.A., Marusin, V.V., Kochnev, B.B., Nagovitsin, K.E., and Grazhdankin, D.V., 2015, Duration of the first biozone in the Siberian hypostratotype of the Vendian: Russian Geology and Geophysics, v. 56, p. 573583.10.1016/j.rgg.2015.03.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runnegar, B.N., 2022, Following the logic behind biological interpretations of the Ediacaran biotas: Geological Magazine, v. 159, p. 10931117.10.1017/S0016756821000443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runnegar, B.N., and Fedonkin, M.A., 1992, Proterozoic metazoan body fossils, in Schopf, J.W., and Klein, C., eds., The Proterozoic Biosphere: A Multidisciplinary Study: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 369388.Google Scholar
Seilacher, A., 1989, Vendozoa: organismic construction in the Proterozoic biosphere: Lethaia, v. 22, p. 229239.10.1111/j.1502-3931.1989.tb01332.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A., 1992, Vendobionta and Psammocorallia: lost constructions of Precambrian evolution: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 149, p. 607613.10.1144/gsjgs.149.4.0607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, Y., Chen, Z., Zhou, C., and Yuan, X., 2019, Hiemalora stellaris from the Ediacaran Dengying Formation in the Yangtze Gorges area, Hubei Province: affinity and taphonomic analysis: Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, v. 58, p. 110.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., 1972a, Precambrian biosphere in light of paleontological data: Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, v. 8, p. 4854.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., 1972b, The Vendian stage in Earth history, in Sokolov, B.S., ed., Proceedings of the 24th Session of the International Geological Congress: Reports of Soviet Geologists: Moscow, Nauka, p. 114124.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., 1973, Vendian of Northern Eurasia, in Pitcher, M. G., ed., Arctic Geology: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 19, p. 204–218.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., 1976, Organic world of the Earth on its way to Phanerozoic differentiation: Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, v. 1, p. 126143.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., 1977, Organic world of the Earth on its way to Phanerozoic differentiation, in The 250th Anniversary of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Documents and Records of the Celebrations: Moscow, Nauka, p. 423–444.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., 1984, Vendian period in the Earth's history: Priroda, v. 12, p. 318.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., and Brekhovskikh, L.M., 1981, The progress of Earth sciences: Zemlya i Vselennaya, v. 1, p. 27.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., and Fedonkin, M.A., 1983, Another 100 million years: Nauka v SSSR, v. 5, p. 1019.Google Scholar
Sokolov, B.S., and Fedonkin, M.A., 1984, The Vendian as the terminal system of the Precambrian: Episodes Journal of International Geoscience, v. 7, p. 1219.Google Scholar
Sperling, E.A., and Vinther, J., 2010, A placozoan affinity for Dickinsonia and the evolution of late Proterozoic metazoan feeding modes: Evolution & Development, v. 12, p. 201209.10.1111/j.1525-142X.2010.00404.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarhan, L.G., Droser, M.L., and Gehling, J.G., 2010, Taphonomic controls on Ediacaran diversity: uncovering the holdfast origin of morphologically variable enigmatic structures: Palaios, v. 25, p. 823830.10.2110/palo.2010.p10-074rCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers-Rich, P. et al., 2013, Reconstructing Rangea: new discoveries from the Ediacaran of Southern Namibia: Journal of Paleontology, v. 87, p. 115.10.1666/12-074R.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waggoner, B., 2003, The Ediacaran biotas in space and time: Integrative and Comparative Biology, v. 43, p. 104113.10.1093/icb/43.1.104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, X., Pang, K., Chen, Z., Wan, B., Xiao, S., Zhou, C., and Yuan, X., 2020, The Ediacaran frondose fossil Arborea from the Shibantan limestone of South China: Journal of Paleontology, v. 94, p. 10341050.10.1017/jpa.2020.43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., Chen, Z., Pang, K., Zhou, C., Xiao, S., Wan, B., and Yuan, X., 2021, Dickinsonia from the Ediacaran Dengying Formation in the Yangtze Gorges area, South China: Palaeoworld, v. 30, p. 602609.10.1016/j.palwor.2021.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilby, P.R., Carney, J.N., and Howe, M.P.A., 2011, A rich Ediacaran assemblage from eastern Avalonia: evidence of early widespread diversity in the deep ocean: Geology, v. 39, p. 655658.10.1130/G31890.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilby, P.R., Kenchington, C.G., and Wilby, R.L., 2015, Role of low intensity environmental disturbance in structuring the earliest (Ediacaran) macrobenthic tiered communities: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 434, p. 1427.10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.03.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, C., Chen, Z., Pang, K., Wang, X., Wan, B., Zhou, C., and Yuan, X., 2021, The Ediacaran Shibantan biota in the Yangtze Gorges area: perspectives from quantitative paleontology and ecospace occupancy: Acta Palaeontologica Sinica, v. 60, p. 4268.Google Scholar
Xiao, Q., She, Z., Wang, G., Li, Y., Ouyang, G., Cao, K., Mason, R., and Du, Y., 2020, Terminal Ediacaran carbonate tempestites in the eastern Yangtze Gorges area, South China: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v. 547, n. 109681, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2020.109681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, S., and Laflamme, M., 2009, On the eve of animal radiation: phylogeny, ecology and evolution of the Ediacara biota: Trends in Ecology & Evolution, v. 24, p. 3140.10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiao, S., Bykova, N., Kovalick, A., and Gill, B.C., 2017, Stable carbon isotopes of sedimentary kerogens and carbonaceous macrofossils from the Ediacaran Miaohe Member in South China: implications for stratigraphic correlation and sources of sedimentary organic carbon: Precambrian Research, v. 302, p. 171179.10.1016/j.precamres.2017.10.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, S., Chen, Z., Zhou, C., and Yuan, X., 2019, Surfing in and on microbial mats: oxygen-related behavior of a terminal Ediacaran bilaterian animal: Geology, v. 47, p. 10541058.10.1130/G46474.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, S., Chen, Z., Pang, K., Zhou, C., and Yuan, X., 2020, The Shibantan Lagerstätte: insights into the Proterozoic–Phanerozoic transition: Journal of the Geological Society, v. 178, n. jgs2020–135, https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2020-135Google Scholar
Yang, C., Rooney, A.D., Condon, D.J., Li, X., Grazhdankin, D.V., Bowyer, F.T., Hu, C., Macdonald, F.A., and Zhu, M., 2021, The tempo of Ediacaran evolution: Science Advances, v. 7, n. eabi9643, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi9643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Chang, S., Chen, C., Wang, X., Feng, Q., Steiner, M., Yang, B., Mason, R., She, Z., and Yan, J., 2022, Cloudina aggregates from the uppermost Dengying Formation, Three Gorges area, South China, and stratigraphical implications: Precambrian Research, v. 370, n. 106552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2021.106552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, G., Wang, Y., Huang, B., Dong, Y., Li, S., Zhang, G., and Yu, S., 2018, Geological reconstructions of the East Asian blocks: from the breakup of Rodinia to the assembly of Pangea: Earth-Science Reviews, v. 186, p. 262286.10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, C., Xiao, S., Wang, W., Guan, C., Ouyang, Q., and Chen, Z., 2017, The stratigraphic complexity of the middle Ediacaran carbon isotopic record in the Yangtze Gorges area, South China, and its implications for the age and chemostratigraphic significance of the Shuram excursion: Precambrian Research, v. 288, p. 2338.10.1016/j.precamres.2016.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. (1) Geological map of the Wuhe section in the Yangtze Gorges area with location of the Wuhe quarry (marked with a red star) and the Huangling anticline in the Yangtze Gorges area. Inset map shows the location of the Huangling anticline (red star) and major tectonic terranes in China. (2) Generalized stratigraphic column of the Ediacaran succession in the Yangtze Gorges area, South China, showing stratigraphic distribution of fossils and U–Pb radiometric ages. Star marks the stratigraphic occurrence of Charnia in the Shibantan limestone. Modified from S. Xiao et al. (2020) and Wu et al. (2021). Geochronometric data sources: Condon et al. (2005) and Yang et al. (2021) for the lower Doushantuo Formation and Miaohe Member; Huang et al. (2020) and Zhang et al. (2022) for the Baimatuo Member; Okada et al. (2014) for the Cambrian Shuijingtuo Formation. Cry. = Cryogenian; Fm. = Formation; Mbr. = Member; Cam. = Cambrian.

Figure 1

Table 1. Biometric data for morphology comparison of Charnia specimens from the Shibantan biota and other localities.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (1) Charnia masoni from the Shibantan limestone preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; black arrow points to twisted stem and white arrow points to discoidal holdfast; (2) magnified view of rectangle in (1), with black and white rectangles marking two different orientations of filiform structures on the holdfast; NIGP161628. (3, 4) Holotype of C. gracilis n. sp. from the Shibantan limestone preserved in positive relief, bed sole view: (3) magnified view of rectangle in (4), showing well-preserved second-order branches and possible third-order branches (arrow); note the straight first-order branches with small divergence angles in (4); NIGP161629. (5) Specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. with complete petalodium, preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; arrowhead points to apex of petalodium; NIGP161630. (6) Specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; NIGP161631. (7) Incomplete specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; arrow points to a possible and faintly preserved holdfast; NIGP161632. (8) Incomplete specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. preserved in positive relief, bed sole view; NIGP161633. (1) Scale bar = 5 cm; (2) scale bar = 2 cm; (3–8) scale bars = 1 cm.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Charnia gracilis new species from the Shibantan limestone. (1, 2) The longest specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. in the Shibantan limestone with an incomplete petalodium and well-preserved second-order branches, positive relief, bed sole view; (2) magnified view of the rectangle in (1), showing rhomboidal second-order branches and inclined third-order branches; NIGP161634. (3, 4) A juvenile specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. marked by rectangle in (3), positive relief, bed sole view; the specimen is preserved together with a Helminthoidichnites-like trace fossil, marked by arrow in (3); (4) magnified view of rectangle in (3); NIGP161635. (5) A possible juvenile specimen of C. gracilis n. sp. (bottom) and another poorly preserved unnamed frond (upper) preserved in positive relief, bed sole view. Arrows point to inferred direction of water current that felled and aligned the specimens. NIGP161636. (1) Scale bar = 5 cm; (2, 5) scale bars = 2 cm; (3, 4) scale bars = 1 cm.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Measurements of several specimens of Charnia gracilis new species with well-preserved second-order branches (NIGP161629; NIGP161630; NIGP161631; NIGP161634). (1) Cross-plot of first-order branch (1' branch) length versus number of constituent second-order branches (2' branches); (2) Cross-plot of first-order branch length versus average size of constituent second-order branches. The number of second-order branches in each first-order branch is evaluated by dividing the length of the first-order branch by the average width of constituent second-order branches that are measurable.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Biometric plots of Charnia from Shibantan limestone and other localities. (1) Cross-plot of petalodium length versus width. (2) Cross-plot of width of the longest first-order branch (1'branch) versus width of the widest second-order branch (2' branch) in the longest first-order branch. (3) Cross-plot of length versus width of the longest first-order branch. (4) Cross-plot of the length/width (L/W) ratio of the longest first-order branch versus mean divergence angle of first-order branches. Sketches at the lower right and upper left in (4) show first-order branches of two representative endmembers. (5) Cross-plot of mean divergence angle versus mean value of X = |(a − b)/(a + b)|; “a” and “b” represent the included angles between the diagonal line and borderlines at the distal end of first-order branches. (6) Cross-plot of petalodium length versus countable number of first-order branches. (7) Cross-plot of petalodium length versus length of the longest first-order branch. (8) Schematic diagram depicting how measurements for first- and second-order branches were made. (9) Schematic diagram depicting how measurements for X = |(a − b)/(a + b)| were made to distinguish the sigmoidal or straight shape of the first-order branches; note that in the lower left case, angle “b” < 0 and angle “a” > 0 (X > 1), whereas in the two other lower cases, both angle “b” and angle “a” are ≥0 (0 ≤ X ≤ 1). Localities are represented by symbols with different colors and shapes. Triangles with an attached arrow represent specimens with incomplete petalodium length in (1) and (7). Dots represent the Avalon assemblage, squares represent the White Sea assemblage, and triangles and crosses represent younger assemblages, possibly belonging to the Nama assemblage. Hollow symbols represent measurements of C. gracilis new species, whereas filled symbols represent measurements of other Charnia species.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Paleogeographic distribution of Charnia (marked by yellow dots) worldwide. The paleogeographic map (~550 Ma) is based on Zhao et al. (2018) and Pang et al. (2021). C-Qil = Central Qilian; N-Qt = North Qiangtang; S-Qt-Ls = South Qiangtang and Lhasa; IC = Indochina.