Quantitative study of developmental biology confirms Dickinsonia as a metazoan

¹

,

²

,

³

et al. 2021

Abstract

Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing

“…Our results do not support previous interpretations that more stable growth trajectories accompany the anterior differentiation model (Hoekzema et al 2017). Both models produce variability, which is expected based on inconsistencies in module number relative to body size.…”

Section: Discussion

contrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Variations in module width (Fig. 5) are consistent with previously observed trends (Evans et al 2017; Hoekzema et al 2017). The widest module in any given specimen is located roughly one-third of the body length from the anterior (Fig.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 91%

“…7). However, when the entire available dataset is included, there is a clear power function relationship consistent with previous results (Hoekzema et al 2017). The apparent lack of relationship results from specimens on TB-ARB occupying a relatively narrow portion of the overall size distribution.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 90%

“…5A,B). This corroborates previous claims that, regardless of the location of module addition, growth rates of all modules must have been variable based on relative position within the body (Wade 1972; Evans et al 2017; Hoekzema et al 2017). Due to the magnitude of module width relative to module length at the midline and outer margin, module area exhibits a similar trend (Supplementary Fig.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 89%

“…Specimens from TB-ARB do not display any relationship between total module number and the relative area of the AMU, reflecting the small number of specimens in this subsample. As previously suggested, the size of the AMU clearly decreased relative to overall body size with increasing numbers of modules (Hoekzema et al 2017). It is unclear why this would support one model over another.…”

Section: Discussion

supporting

confidence: 68%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Ediacara growing pains: modular addition and development in Dickinsonia costata

¹

,

²

,

³

et al. 2021

Abstract

Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing

“…Our results do not support previous interpretations that more stable growth trajectories accompany the anterior differentiation model (Hoekzema et al 2017). Both models produce variability, which is expected based on inconsistencies in module number relative to body size.…”

Section: Discussion

contrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Variations in module width (Fig. 5) are consistent with previously observed trends (Evans et al 2017; Hoekzema et al 2017). The widest module in any given specimen is located roughly one-third of the body length from the anterior (Fig.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 91%

“…7). However, when the entire available dataset is included, there is a clear power function relationship consistent with previous results (Hoekzema et al 2017). The apparent lack of relationship results from specimens on TB-ARB occupying a relatively narrow portion of the overall size distribution.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 90%

“…5A,B). This corroborates previous claims that, regardless of the location of module addition, growth rates of all modules must have been variable based on relative position within the body (Wade 1972; Evans et al 2017; Hoekzema et al 2017). Due to the magnitude of module width relative to module length at the midline and outer margin, module area exhibits a similar trend (Supplementary Fig.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 89%

“…Specimens from TB-ARB do not display any relationship between total module number and the relative area of the AMU, reflecting the small number of specimens in this subsample. As previously suggested, the size of the AMU clearly decreased relative to overall body size with increasing numbers of modules (Hoekzema et al 2017). It is unclear why this would support one model over another.…”

Section: Discussion

supporting

confidence: 68%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ediacara growing pains: modular addition and development in Dickinsonia costata

¹

,

²

,

³

et al. 2021

Abstract

Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing

“…Our results do not support previous interpretations that more stable growth trajectories accompany the anterior differentiation model (Hoekzema et al 2017). Both models produce variability, which is expected based on inconsistencies in module number relative to body size.…”

Section: Discussion

contrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Variations in module width (Fig. 5) are consistent with previously observed trends (Evans et al 2017; Hoekzema et al 2017). The widest module in any given specimen is located roughly one-third of the body length from the anterior (Fig.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 91%

“…7). However, when the entire available dataset is included, there is a clear power function relationship consistent with previous results (Hoekzema et al 2017). The apparent lack of relationship results from specimens on TB-ARB occupying a relatively narrow portion of the overall size distribution.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 90%

“…5A,B). This corroborates previous claims that, regardless of the location of module addition, growth rates of all modules must have been variable based on relative position within the body (Wade 1972; Evans et al 2017; Hoekzema et al 2017). Due to the magnitude of module width relative to module length at the midline and outer margin, module area exhibits a similar trend (Supplementary Fig.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 89%

“…Specimens from TB-ARB do not display any relationship between total module number and the relative area of the AMU, reflecting the small number of specimens in this subsample. As previously suggested, the size of the AMU clearly decreased relative to overall body size with increasing numbers of modules (Hoekzema et al 2017). It is unclear why this would support one model over another.…”

Section: Discussion

supporting

confidence: 68%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ediacara growing pains: modular addition and development in Dickinsonia costata

¹

,

²

,

³

et al. 2021

Abstract

Smart CitationsHow this paper cites the one you are viewing

“…Our results do not support previous interpretations that more stable growth trajectories accompany the anterior differentiation model (Hoekzema et al 2017). Both models produce variability, which is expected based on inconsistencies in module number relative to body size.…”

Section: Discussion

contrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Variations in module width (Fig. 5) are consistent with previously observed trends (Evans et al 2017; Hoekzema et al 2017). The widest module in any given specimen is located roughly one-third of the body length from the anterior (Fig.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 91%

“…7). However, when the entire available dataset is included, there is a clear power function relationship consistent with previous results (Hoekzema et al 2017). The apparent lack of relationship results from specimens on TB-ARB occupying a relatively narrow portion of the overall size distribution.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 90%

“…5A,B). This corroborates previous claims that, regardless of the location of module addition, growth rates of all modules must have been variable based on relative position within the body (Wade 1972; Evans et al 2017; Hoekzema et al 2017). Due to the magnitude of module width relative to module length at the midline and outer margin, module area exhibits a similar trend (Supplementary Fig.…”

Section: Results

supporting

confidence: 89%

“…Specimens from TB-ARB do not display any relationship between total module number and the relative area of the AMU, reflecting the small number of specimens in this subsample. As previously suggested, the size of the AMU clearly decreased relative to overall body size with increasing numbers of modules (Hoekzema et al 2017). It is unclear why this would support one model over another.…”

Section: Discussion

supporting

confidence: 68%

See 3 more Smart Citations