Tiny vampires in ancient seas: evidence for predation via perforation in fossils from the 780–740 million-year-old Chuar Group, Grand Canyon, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One explanation for the Early Neoproterozoic expansion of eukaryotes is the appearance of eukaryovorous predators-i.e. protists that preyed on other protists. Evidence for eukaryovory at this time, however, is indirect, based on inferences from character state reconstructions and molecular clocks, and on the presence of possible defensive structures in some protistan fossils. Here I describe 0.1-3.4 µm circular holes in seven species of organic-walled microfossils from the 780-740 million-year-old Chuar Group, Grand Canyon, Arizona, USA, that are similar to those formed today by predatory protists that perforate the walls of their prey to consume the contents inside. Although best known in the vampyrellid amoebae, this 'vampire-like' behaviour is widespread among eukaryotes, making it difficult to infer confidently the identity of the predator. Nonetheless, the identity of the prey is clear: some-and perhaps all-of the fossils are eukaryotes. These holes thus provide the oldest direct evidence for predation on eukaryotes. Larger circular and half-moon-shaped holes in vase-shaped microfossils from the upper part of the unit may also be the work of 'tiny vampires', suggesting a diversity of eukaryovorous predators lived in the ancient Chuar sea.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".