Conodont debate

[Mark Purnell <map2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

For those of you for whom this is not tiresome duplication, there 
follow just couple of points arising from the message forwarded 
from Sue Turner.  If you subscribe to vrtpaleo, delete now.

Regarding Sue's posting concerning the great conodont debate:
Yes, we are saying that conodonts are vertebrates (based on 
anatomy, strongly supported by hard tissue histology);
Yes, we are saying that conodont elements functioned as teeth 
(based partly on allometric arguments that they could not have been 
suspension-feeding devices, but more importantly on microwear 
analysis);
Yes, we are saying that they were macrophagous (based on microwear) 
and that they may have been predatory;
No, we are not saying that conodonts are our earliest ancestors; we 
are saying that they are among the earliest vertebrates known and 
therefore have a role to play in understanding what the earliest 
vertebrates were like.

Regarding "the several papers out" that refute these arguments, we 
too would very much like to know about these, irrespective of their 
relative "sexiness".

Hope this clarifies our position; I think these are all points on 
which the primary advocates of conodonts as vertebrates would 
agree.

MARK



Dr Mark A. Purnell

Department of Geology, University of Leicester
University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K
tel: 0116 2523629  fax: 0116 2523918