400-Million-Year-Old Mystery: Giant Tree-like Object in Epoch Before Trees Existed

[common_sense_seeker]

This article 400-Million-Year-Old Mystery: Giant Tree-like Object in Epoch Before Trees Existed describes the mystery. I think that the rocks are more like 200 million years old and that there's a major problem with rock dating (see Antarctic 'Alps' enigma), in my personal opinion.

The giant fossil Prototaxites is a big 400-million year old mystery. The fossils resemble tree trunks, and yet they are from a time before trees existed. The stable carbon isotope values are similar to those of fungi, but the fossils do not display structures usually found in fungi. Hence, the enigma.

 

[spidergoat]

Neat, this is actually science!

 

[Enmos]

Neat, this is actually science!

Wait for it. He probably has a 'theory'.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Looks like the fossil of giant Hyrax to me. See the 3 and 4 toes?

 

[Enmos]

Perhaps it stood underwater? Or maybe it didn't stand upright at all.
Anyhow, it's probably not a tree, but some other organism. One from that era, obviously.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Looks like the fossil of giant Hyrax to me. See the 3 and 4 toes?

Of course it's a hyrax!
From the OP

The giant fossil Prototaxites is a big 400-million year old mystery

Notice how hyraX and prototaXites are spelt nearly the same (if you're wearing a woo woo hat that is). The X is a massive clue.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Interesting find, funny how all of the big stuff is old.

 

[MacGyver1968]

Interesting find, funny how all of the big stuff is old.

That's what my girlfriend says about "Mr. Happy"

 

[Grim_Reaper]

that's what my girlfriend says about "mr. Happy"

lol

 

[Orleander]

I thought it was already decided that it was a fungus

 

[Doreen]

Hey MODS,

Why is this in pseudoscience?

The source is The American Journal of Botany. Is this in pseudoscience because a number of the responses are skeptical about ideas that are NOT in the thread but might be later put in?

I thought it was already decided that it was a fungus

your link from 2007
here's the original article the OP is based on which is from 2010. They are still not sure what this thing is...

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/97/2/268

 

[Enmos]

Hey MODS,

Why is this in pseudoscience?

Why do you assume the mods have anything to do with it?

Is this in pseudoscience because a number of the responses are skeptical about ideas that are NOT in the thread but might be later put in?

No. It was already in Pseudoscience when I posted that. I reckon he posted his thread here himself.

 

[Doreen]

Why do you assume the mods have anything to do with it?

Mods generally move threads they feel are appropriately elsewhere. I took mods participating as at least tacit approval of the location.

No. It was already in Pseudoscience when I posted that. I reckon he posted his thread here himself.

Well, I suppose if he did I can certain see taking a wait and see stance, so I withdraw my whine.

 

[Orleander]

....your link from 2007
here's the original article the OP is based on which is from 2010. They are still not sure what this thing is...

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/97/2/268

yeah. so they didn't know what it was, then they did, and now they don't.

what changed?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Doreen and Orleander; thanks for the replies and the 2007 link. It's a genuine mystery alright. My solution is that the tectonic plates move more repidly during the glacial period and so geological calculations of ancient rocks (which are forced up at plate boundaries) are therefore woefully overestimated. What do you think?