 | Spriggina received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In one speculative view, a spriggina would wriggle up onto a stationary frond-like, mushroom-like or plant-like lifeform, release digestive juices, let the juices loosen up the victim's flesh, and them absorb it internally.
It may actually be the mouth that was the Cambrian-explosion-triggering device, not eyesight, as is commonly speculated. A mouth allows one to eat on the run. This could explain why the precambrian critters mostly dissappeared: they were overly adapted to external digestion such that they couldn't get away from preditors and digest food at the same time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.137.111 ( talk • contribs)
- Cite reliable sources for this speculation, and it can be used. -- Donald Albury 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Stephen C Meyer it actually exhibits glide, not bilateral, symmetry. Also according to Rodin, Szathmary and Rodin in, “on the origin of the genetic code and tRNA before translation” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FE28:207F:8700:C8F:33CF:E9DF:3A8B ( talk) 22:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Material by User:Philcha moved from Cambrian explosion
The following could use incorporation here. Smith609 Talk 20:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
but its body segments seem to be offset across the midline rather than being symmetrically paired as as they are in all known arthropods; [1]
Done08:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
References
-
^ Ivantsov, A.Y. 2001. "Vendia and other Precambrian "arthropods"". Paleontological Journal. 35: 335–343.
{{ cite journal}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list ( link)
"its front few segments fused to form a head" (Introduction) would seem to contradict "The organism was segmented, with no fused segments" (Morphology). Tapatio ( talk) 07:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Whether Spriggina has "differentiated parts" is controversial. Some reconstructions show a distinct "plow" for a head. But the fossils seem to show a more ambiguous transition from the body to the plow portion, suggesting the plow is just a thicker "segment". It's unclear what's actually going on at the "head". It matters in debates about whether Spriggina may be a single cell, or possibly a single multi-nucleus cell, as found in some existing large-cell life-forms. One interpretation is that the fact it has "trouble" forming a clear head structure is evidence of being single-celled. Another is that because the most frontal plow segment may break off, the segments just behind it are "getting ready" to be a plow by gradually thickening up, creating a kind of twisted look seen in some fossils. In this interpretation, a given segment has to grow wider to cover both left and right to serve as a proper plow. Those segments just behind the final plow are thus in mixed stages of widening/thickening, some covering say 2/3 of the width, giving the "mid head" the asymmetrical appearance seen in many fossils. This interpretation doesn't directly depend on a particular cell structure model, but may imply that each segment is a cell in itself. -- 146.233.0.202 ( talk) 16:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Are you proposing a change to the article? If so, please provide reliable sources to support such changes. - Donald Albury 17:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a question to those who have access to the sources: it's interesting, is there any fossil evidence for speculations like "may have been predatory", "may have borne eyes and antennae"? And about the head - I agree with Tapatio, it doesn't seem that the way of head forming is known. Stas000D ( talk) 11:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)