Deep questions about the nature of early-life signals: a commentary on Lister (1673) ‘A description of certain stones figured like plants’

Brasier, Martin D.

doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0254

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(160 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7). Although adhering to the abiogenic current as far as concerning the origin of fossils, the contribute of Lister's work to the birth of Palaeontology was paramount, and his 1673 article can be acknowledged for setting the issue of the relevance of accurate illustrations in comparative studies (Brasier 2015).…”

Section: Lister's Idea Of Illustrated Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

MARTIN LISTER’S 1678 AMMONIS CORNU AND THE MISREADING OF HILDOCERAS BIFRONS (BRUGUIÈRE, 1789). AN HISTORICAL INSIGHT ON THE RELEVANCE OF ARTWORK AND DETAILS IN TAXONOMY

Ridente¹

2023

RIPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hildoceras bifrons (Bruguière, 1789) is a cosmopolite ammonite species from the Lower Jurassic of the Boreal and Mediterranean (Tethys) palaeogeographical provinces. Inter-demic and phylogenetic variability are noticeable, also affecting the most distinctive morphological trait: the spiral groove along the whorl flank. Since the XIX century, however, a number of morphotypes assigned to Hildoceras bifrons (many of which from the Apennines and other Italian localities) lacked a neat spiral groove, replaced by a shallow, variably evident and discontinuous inflection. Buckman (1918) provided a photographic illustration of a specimen he interpreted as corresponding to the holotype, until then represented by a drawing described by Lister (1678) as Ammonis cornu. Buckman’s illustration assessed the well-carved spiral groove as a distinctive feature of the holotype and a trademark of the species. Nevertheless, several authors insisted on referring faintly grooved specimens to Hildoceras bifrons, an attitude thus envisaged as due to their negligence or inaccuracy. In contrast with this view, it is herein argued that, on one hand, the specimen illustrated by Buckman, in quality of holotype or neotype, differs from Lister’s drawing to a point that it may not be the same specimen; on the other hand, Lister’s drawing (never formally invalidated as holotype) could have been legitimately considered representative also of those faintly grooved Hildoceras now assigned to Hildoceras lusitanicum Meister, 1913. This alternative view clarifies the taxonomic approach held by many authors, proving the coherency of their taxonomic work rather than their attitude at a superficial evaluation of diagnostic traits.

show abstract

Section: Lister's Idea Of Illustrated Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

MARTIN LISTER’S 1678 AMMONIS CORNU AND THE MISREADING OF HILDOCERAS BIFRONS (BRUGUIÈRE, 1789). AN HISTORICAL INSIGHT ON THE RELEVANCE OF ARTWORK AND DETAILS IN TAXONOMY

Ridente¹

2023

RIPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The late Martin Brasier in his last paper discussed Steno vis-a-vis a vocal critic of the biological origin of fossil shells, Martin Lister [26]. Brasier pointed out that in a 1673 publication Lister argues in favour of the biological origin of some echinoderm fossils based on taphonomic 7 criteria as "the earliest known example of taphonomic reasoning in a scientific paper."…”

Section: Conjecture 6 Whether Bodies Dug From the Ground And Resembling Parts Of Animals Should Be Considered Parts Of Animalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nicolaus Steno on solutes and solvents in time-related structural changes of muscles, fossils, landscapes and crystals, his galilean heritage

Kardel¹

2021

Substantia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Part One of the Specimen of Elements of Myology, a book in three parts published in Florence 1667, Nicolaus Steno described the changes taking place between muscle relaxation and contraction in a two-stage geometrical model based on anatomical observations in man and animals. The ‘new myology’ was rejected by G.A. Borelli in 1680 and outright ridiculed by J. Bernoulli in 1694. The anatomical correctness and predictive value was rightfully acknowledged only towards the Millennium. In Part Two, the Canis …, Steno gave a detailed anatomical description of a giant shark’s head with focus on the likeness of its teeth and the so-called tongue stones, or “glossopetrae”, dug from the ground. Steno conjectured that remnants from sharks living in the past had become fossils due to chemical processes through interaction with the surrounding sediments at the bottom of the sea, presuming that the finding areas had been sea-covered. From studies in Part Three of reproductive organs in mammals, viviparous ray-fish and shark, he concluded that the so-called female testicles in women and mammals are analogous with ovaries of oviparous animals and should therefore be named accordingly. Two years later in the Prodromus De Solido intra Solidum, Steno described the transformation over time of sedimentary landscapes in Tuscany, and how crystals grow by accretion to the surface of entities derived from limpid sea-water or freshwater in caves. These are studies of time-related transformations of solids in organic and inorganic materials. However, such processes could not be documented by visual observation, since changes go too quickly in muscles, in the case of the landscapes because the transformations took place in the past. Thus, Steno and contemporaries put forward hypotheses on such hidden processes that were only gradually corroborated when fitting into a cluster of evidence. His considerations on crystal growth may have been triggered by an interest as a physician to know how saliva, gall and kidney stones are formed. Likewise, considerations on sharks’ replacement of their teeth could extend knowledge on dentition to bring a better cure for those who complain of being toothless. He emphasized the importance of mathematical methods to describe processes in the human body and cited from Galileo, Discourse on Bodies in Water (1612), in which physics outweighs Aristotelian rules to explain the interaction of solids and solvents. Likewise, Steno’s ‘New Myology’ was a showdown against an Aristotelean physical dogma from Physics VII: everything which moves is moved by another, which excluded fibre shortening in muscles and blinded researchers on muscle contraction for generations after Steno.

show abstract

Understanding ancient life: how Martin Brasier changed the way we think about the fossil record

Antcliffe

Liu

Menon

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crucial to our understanding of life on Earth is the ability to judge the validity of claims of very ancient ‘fossils’. Martin Brasier's most important contribution to this debate was to establish a framework within which to discuss claims of the ‘oldest’ life. In particular, he made it clear that the burden of proof must fall on those making the claim of ancient life, not those refuting it. This led to his formulation of the concept of the continuum of morphologies produced by life and non-life and the considerable challenges of differentiating biogenesis from abiogenesis. Martin Brasier developed a set of criteria for distinguishing life from non-life and extended the use of many new high-resolution analytical techniques to palaeontological research. He was also renowned for his work on the Cambrian explosion and the origin of animals. Although he had spent much of his early career working on the geological context of these events, it was not until he returned to studying the Ediacaran and Cambrian periods in his later years that he began to apply this null hypothesis way of thinking to these other major transitions in the history of life. This led to him becoming involved in the development of a series of nested null hypotheses, his ‘cone of contention’, to analyse enigmatic fossils more generally. In short, Martin Brasier taught us how to formulate biological hypotheses in deep time, established the rules for how those hypotheses should be tested and championed a host of novel analytical techniques to gather the data required. As a consequence, future discussions of enigmatic specimens and very old fossils will be greatly enriched by his contributions.

show abstract

Deep questions about the nature of early-life signals: a commentary on Lister (1673) ‘A description of certain stones figured like plants’

Cited by 4 publications

References 52 publications

MARTIN LISTER’S 1678 <em>AMMONIS CORNU</em> AND THE MISREADING OF <em>HILDOCERAS BIFRONS</em> (BRUGUIÈRE, 1789). AN HISTORICAL INSIGHT ON THE RELEVANCE OF ARTWORK AND DETAILS IN TAXONOMY

MARTIN LISTER’S 1678 <em>AMMONIS CORNU</em> AND THE MISREADING OF <em>HILDOCERAS BIFRONS</em> (BRUGUIÈRE, 1789). AN HISTORICAL INSIGHT ON THE RELEVANCE OF ARTWORK AND DETAILS IN TAXONOMY

Nicolaus Steno on solutes and solvents in time-related structural changes of muscles, fossils, landscapes and crystals, his galilean heritage

Understanding ancient life: how Martin Brasier changed the way we think about the fossil record

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About