Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-217
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-217
01 Feb 2024
 | 01 Feb 2024

Reply to Comment on Franz et al. (2023): A reinterpretation of the 1.5 billion year old Volyn ‘biota’ of Ukraine, and discussion of the evolution of the eukaryotes, by Head et al. (2023)

Gerhard Franz, Vladimir Khomenko, Peter Lyckberg, Vsevolod Chornousenko, and Ulrich Struck

Abstract. Head et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of the Volyn biota for the evolution, especially in the so-called ‘boring billion’, in a detailed outline about the biological and geological context. However, they question that the Volyn biota represent Precambrian fossils and instead argue that they are young contaminants of ‘museum dust’. In addition, they postulate that they are of abiotic origin. We present here a detailed discussion of their points of concern based on presented data, including some additional information. Their points of concern were:

  • One object, shown by Franz et al. (2023) is similar to a pollen grain, another object is similar to trichomes; we show indications for fossilization and summarize our arguments against ‘museum dust’.
  • They question the fossil character of the biota and argue for a biomineralization; we show that the biomineralization in trichomes is distinct from the mineralization of the biota.
  • They missed information about the internal structure; we repeat the presented information about the internal structure in more detail, which is also indicative of fossil material and inconsistent with trichomes.
  • They argue that we did not compare via infrared spectroscopy the biota with recent fungi; since the biota experienced temperatures near 300 °C, we think that a comparison with thermally degraded chitosan is more appropriate.
  • They question the use of strongly negative δ13C as an argument for biotic origin, but we show that in combination with positive δ15N values and the geological situation, a biotic origin is more likely than abiotic synthesis.

In addition, Popov (2023) questioned the age of the Volyn biota, which we postulated as between approximately 1.5 and 1.7 Ga. He argues that the fossils could be Phanerozoic. We will also outline our arguments for the minimum age of 1.5 Ga.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Share

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

20 Sep 2024
Reply to Head's comment on “The Volyn biota (Ukraine) – indications of 1.5 Gyr old eukaryotes in 3D preservation, a spotlight on the `boring billion' ” by Franz et al. (2023)
Gerhard Franz, Vladimir Khomenko, Peter Lyckberg, Vsevolod Chournousenko, and Ulrich Struck
Biogeosciences, 21, 4119–4131, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4119-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4119-2024, 2024
Short summary
Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Short summary
The Volyn biota (Ukraine), previously assumed to be an extreme case of natural, abiotic...
Share