Mysterious spherical fossils could be oldest known animals

A series of bizarre spherical fossils unearthed in China and dating back 600 million years could be the remains of some of the earliest animals.

Lei Chen and Shuhai Xiao
Strange multicellular spherical fossils dating back 600 million years were discovered in South China's Doushantuo Formation.

A series of mysterious spherical fossils found in southern China may be remnants of some of the world's earliest animals.

A new study finds that these controversial fossils are not likely to be bacteria or single-celled protists; their cells, preserved for more than 600 million years in rock, are too complex and differentiated. Instead, the fossils may be multicellular algae, or even the embryosof ancient animals.

"The real value of these fossils is that we now have some direct evidence about how this transition from single-celled organisms to things like animals and plants occurred in the evolutionary past," said study researcher Shuhai Xiao, a geobiologist at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. [See images of the strange spherical fossils]

Multicellular and differentiated

The bizarre fossils, known as Megasphaera, come from a rock layer in southern China called the Doushantuo Formation. Xiao first studied Megasphaera specimens in 1998 and suspected that they might beanimal embryos.

Each fossil measures a mere 0.03 inches (0.7 millimeters) or so across and comes from what would have been a shallow marine environment at the time.

But no adult animals that might have produced these embryos have ever been found, leaving the identity of the fossils open to scrutiny. Previous Megasphaera fossils studied have been extracted from a gray rock in the Doushantuo Formation, Xiao told Live Science. Now, he and his team have succeeded in extracting more difficult-to-see fossils from the formation's black rocks.

By slicing the rocks ultrathin, the researchers were able to shine light through the fossils to see the structures inside, just like stained glass. Using microscopy, they observed multiple cells, cleaved together in spherical clusters. The cells were different from one another in shape and size, suggesting they have developed different tissue types — a process known as cell differentiation — and presumably have different cellular functions, Xiao said.

"That is a telling sign of the complexity of multicellular organisms that you don't find in bacteria or protists," he said.

Among the cells were clusters that contained smaller cells than the rest of the fossil. Because of their nestled appearance, the researchers dubbed these clusters "matryoshkas," after the word for Russian nesting dolls. They suspect the matryoshkas may be reproductive cells.

Animal or plant?

Some of the fossils also have what appears to be a peripheral layer that is different from the interior cells, Xiao said.

"The bottom line is that they are multicelled and that they have cellular differentiation and that they have separation of reproductive cells from sterile somatic [body] cells," Xiao said. "This is a big thing, because if you look at modern multicellular organisms, including animals, this is a critical step towards very complex multicellular organisms."

The fossils may thus represent the transition between single-celled life and multicellular animals, Xiao said. However, their anatomy is also consistent with algal life forms, meaning the fossils could be plantlike instead.

The next step, Xiao said, is to keep looking for more Megasphaera — including the elusive adults that may have produced the possibly embryonic fossils.

"We will have to be open-minded in terms of what can be expected," Xiao said. "From the living animal point of view, we only have a certain morphology to go with. But there are extinct animals or even offshoots of the lineages leading to animals that could be rather different from what we know as animals living today."

The findings were published online today (Sept. 24) in the journal Nature.

Follow Stephanie Pappas on Twitter and Google+. Follow us @livescience, Facebook & Google+. Original article on Live Science.

Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.