We were gobsmacked': 350 million-year-old tree fossils are unlike any scientists have ever seen

Jul 12, 2020
34
5
4,555
Visit site
I need a better article. The numbers, branchings, photos, meter-scale, trunk, and computer reconstruction aren't adding up.
edit:
The question marks under Figs. 6 and 7 in the source paper leaves open just how long the trunk really was, and since it was ripped out and transported from its origin before burying; and being a decidedly unique form of tree/plant, perhaps what we are calling the 'trunk', was mostly actually a significant part of its rooting system. The latter, both living and fossil, are known to have a diversity almost as great as above-ground architectures.
 
Last edited:

BRS

Feb 3, 2024
1
0
10
Visit site
I need a better article. The numbers, branchings, photos, meter-scale, trunk, and computer reconstruction aren't adding up.
edit:
The question marks under Figs. 6 and 7 in the source paper leaves open just how long the trunk really was, and since it was ripped out and transported from its origin before burying; and being a decidedly unique form of tree/plant, perhaps what we are calling the 'trunk', was mostly actually a significant part of its rooting system. The latter, both living and fossil, are known to have a diversity almost as great as above-ground architectures.
Always rely on the original sources, not articles like this. These are good for bringing the subject to your attention. If it's details and specifics you are after, download the original publications and contact the original authors of the related studies.