按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
merely 鈥渇ortuitous inorganic markings鈥濃�攑atterns made by wind or rain ortides； but not living beings。 his hopes not yet entirely crushed； sprigg traveled to london andpresented his findings to the 1948 international geological congress； but failed to exciteeither interest or belief。 finally； for want of a better outlet； he published his findings in thetransactions of the royal society of south australia。 then he quit his government job andtook up oil exploration。
nine years later； in 1957； a schoolboy named john mason； while walking throughcharnwood forest in the english midlands； found a rock with a strange fossil in it； similar toa modern sea pen and exactly like some of the specimens sprigg had found and been trying totell everyone about ever since。 the schoolboy turned it in to a paleontologist at the universityof leicester； who identified it at once as precambrian。 young mason got his picture in thepapers and was treated as a precocious hero； he still is in many books。 the specimen wasnamed in his honor chamia masoni。
today some of sprigg鈥檚 original ediacaran specimens； along with many of the other fifteenhundred specimens that have been found throughout the flinders range since that time； canbe seen in a glass case in an upstairs room of the stout and lovely south australian museumin adelaide； but they don鈥檛 attract a great deal of attention。 the delicately etched patterns arerather faint and not terribly arresting to the untrained eye。 they are mostly small and disc…shaped； with occasional； vague trailing ribbons。 fortey has described them as 鈥渟oft…bodiedoddities。鈥�
there is still very little agreement about what these things were or how they lived。 theyhad； as far as can be told； no mouth or anus with which to take in and discharge digestivematerials； and no internal organs with which to process them along the way。 鈥渋n life；鈥潯orteysays； 鈥渕ost of them probably simply lay upon the surface of the sandy sediment； like soft；structureless and inanimate flatfish。鈥潯t their liveliest； they were no more plex thanjellyfish。 all the ediacaran creatures were diploblastic； meaning they were built from twolayers of tissue。 with the exception of jellyfish； all animals today are triploblastic。
some experts think they weren鈥檛 animals at all； but more like plants or fungi。 thedistinctions between plant and animal are not always clear even now。 the modern spongespends its life fixed to a single spot and has no eyes or brain or beating heart； and yet is ananimal。 鈥渨hen we go back to the precambrian the differences between plants and animalswere probably even less clear；鈥潯ays fortey。 鈥渢here isn鈥檛 any rule that says you have to bedemonstrably one or the other。鈥�
nor is it agreed that the ediacaran organisms are in any way ancestral to anything alivetoday （except possibly some jellyfish）。 many authorities see them as a kind of failedexperiment； a stab at plexity that didn鈥檛 take； possibly because the sluggish ediacaranorganisms were devoured or outpeted by the lither and more sophisticated animals of thecambrian period。
鈥渢here is nothing closely similar alive today；鈥潯ortey has written。 鈥渢hey are difficult tointerpret as any kind of ancestors of what was to follow。鈥�
the feeling was that ultimately they weren鈥檛 terribly important to the development of lifeon earth。 many authorities believe that there was a mass extermination at the precambrian鈥揷ambrian boundary and that all the ediacaran creatures （except the uncertain jellyfish） failed to move on to the next phase。 the real business of plex life； in other words； started withthe cambrian explosion。 that鈥檚 how gould saw it in any case。
as for the revisions of the burgess shale fossils； almost at once people began to questionthe interpretations and； in particular； gould鈥檚 interpretation of the interpretations。 鈥渇rom thefirst there were a number of scientists who doubted the account that steve gould hadpresented； however much they admired the manner of its delivery；鈥潯ortey wrote in life。 thatis putting it mildly。
鈥渋f only stephen gould could think as clearly as he writes！鈥潯arked the oxford academicrichard dawkins in the opening line of a review （in the london sunday telegraph） ofwonderful life。 dawkins acknowledged that the book was 鈥渦nputdownable鈥潯nd a 鈥渓iterarytour…de…force；鈥潯ut accused gould of engaging in a 鈥済randiloquent and near…disingenuous鈥�
misrepresentation of the facts by suggesting that the burgess revisions had stunned thepaleontological munity。 鈥渢he view that he is attacking鈥攖hat evolution marchesinexorably toward a pinnacle such as man鈥攈as not been believed for 50 years；鈥潯awkinsfumed。
and yet that was exactly the conclusion to which many general reviewers were drawn。
one； writing in the new york times book review； cheerfully suggested that as a result ofgould鈥檚 book scientists 鈥渉ave been throwing out some preconceptions that they had notexamined for generations。 they are； reluctantly or enthusiastically； accepting the idea thathumans are as much an accident of nature as a product of orderly development。鈥�
but the real heat directed at gould arose from the belief that many of his conclusions weresimply mistaken or carelessly inflated。 writing in the journal evolution； dawkins attackedgould鈥檚 assertions that 鈥渆volution in the cambrian was a different kind of process fromtoday鈥潯nd expressed exasperation at gould鈥檚 repeated suggestions that 鈥渢he cambrian was aperiod of evolutionary 鈥榚xperiment；鈥櫋volutionary 鈥榯rial and error；鈥櫋volutionary 鈥榝alse starts。鈥櫋 �
。 。 it was the fertile time when all the great 鈥榝undamental body plans鈥櫋ere invented。
nowadays； evolution just tinkers with old body plans。 back in the cambrian； new phyla andnew classes arose。 nowadays we only get new species！鈥�
noting how often this idea鈥攖hat there are no new body plans鈥攊s picked up； dawkins says：
鈥渋t is as though a gardener looked at an oak tree and remarked； wonderingly： 鈥榠sn鈥檛 it strangethat no major new boughs have appeared on this tree for many years？ these days； all the newgrowth appears to be at the twig level。鈥櫋♀��
鈥渋t was a strange time；鈥潯ortey says now； 鈥渆specially when you reflected that this was allabout something that happened five hundred million years ago； but feelings really did runquite high。 i joked in one of my books that i felt as if i ought to put a safety helmet on beforewriting about the cambrian period； but it did actually feel a bit like that。鈥�
strangest of all was the response of one of the heroes of wonderful life； simon conwaymorris； who startled many in the paleontological munity by rounding abruptly on gouldin a book of his own； the crucible of creation。 the book treated gould 鈥渨ith contempt； evenloathing；鈥潯n fortey鈥檚 words。 鈥渋 have never encountered such spleen in a book by aprofessional；鈥潯ortey wrote later。 鈥渢he casual reader of the crucible of creation； unaware of the history； would never gather that the author鈥檚 views had once been close to （if not actuallyshared with） gould鈥檚。鈥�
when i asked fortey about it； he said： 鈥渨ell； it was very strange； quite shocking really；because gould鈥檚 portrayal of him had been so flattering。 i could only assume that simon wasembarrassed。 you know； science changes but books are permanent； and i suppose he regrettedbeing so irremediably associated with views that he no longer altogether held。 there was allthat stuff about 鈥榦h fuck； another phylum鈥櫋nd i expect he regretted being famous for that。鈥�
what happened was that the early cambrian fossils began to undergo a period of criticalreappraisal。 fortey and derek briggs鈥攐ne of the other principals in gould鈥檚 book鈥攗sed amethod known as cladistics to pare the various burgess fossils。 in simple terms； cladisticsconsists of organizing organisms on the basis of shared features。 fortey gives as an examplethe idea of paring a shrew and an elephant。 if you considered the elephant鈥檚 large size andstriking trunk you might conclude that it could have little in mon with a tiny； sniffingshrew。 but if you pared both of them with a lizard； you would see that the elephant andshrew were in fact built to much the same plan。 in essence； what fortey is saying is thatgould saw elephants and shrews where they saw mammals。 the burgess creatures； theybelieved； weren鈥檛 as strange and various as they appeared at first sight。 鈥渢hey were often nostranger than trilobites；鈥潯ortey says now。 鈥渋t is just that we have had a century or so to getused to trilobites。 familiarity； you know； breeds familiarity。鈥�
this wasn鈥檛； i should note； because of sloppiness or inattention。 interpreting the forms andrelationships of ancient animals on the basis of often distorted and fragmentary evidence isclearly a tricky business。 edward o。 wilson has noted that if you took selected species ofmodern insects and presented them as burgess…style fossils nobody would ever guess that theywere all from the same phylum； so different are their body plans。 also instrumental in helpingrevisions were the discoveries of two further early cambrian sites； one in greenland and onein china； plus more scattered finds； which b