Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

muriel_volestrangler

(106,319 posts)

6. This may be saying "the Cambrian Explosion" had been held to not have started before 535 million years ago

Reply to erronis (Reply #5)

Tue Apr 14, 2026, 06:06 PM

7 hrs ago

although the Cambrian Period is held to have started at 539. But the writing is not clear, I think. The "back by at least 4 million years" may actually be meant to imply "probably a lot more than 4 million", but again it seems unclear. I can't access the actual paper to see if they do better than "at least 4 million".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Spectacular fossil treasure trove pushes back origins of complex animals [View all] erronis Apr 2 OP

Absolutely AMAZING!!! calimary Apr 2 #1

... progressoid Apr 2 #2

Wasn't that Adam and Steve? Oh, wait. paleotn Apr 2 #3

Who had set the start of the Cambrian to 535 million years ago, and why didn't they tell the ICS? muriel_volestrangler 7 hrs ago #4

Interesting. For someone like me that can't remember a spouse's birthday --- I'm flummoxed. erronis 7 hrs ago #5

This may be saying "the Cambrian Explosion" had been held to not have started before 535 million years ago muriel_volestrangler 7 hrs ago #6