Abstract

Gierlowski-Kordesch and Cassle (2015, Earth-Science Reviews 148, 209–227) interpreted microconchids (extinct tentaculitoid encrusters) as strictly marine, rejecting the previous conclusions that these organisms occupied a variety of habitats ranging from marine to non-marine. We argue that due to misunderstanding of previous statements concerning the affinity of microconchids, the authors used an actualistic approach and incorrectly compared microconchids with modern phoronids, which led to oversimplifications and misinterpretations. Also their idea that microconchids, as supposedly strictly marine organisms, were preserved in non-marine settings only because of transport by storm surges and tsunamis is unsupported on paleontological grounds. These errors led to mistaken conclusions about microconchid paleoecology that must be discussed in order to avoid an erroneous interpretation of microconchid paleoenvironments.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.