关于清河镇动物群和昌图动物群化石的一些问题──答陈孟莪的质疑

本文根据手标本上、岩石切片上以及岩样上所见的化石与国外发表的已知假化石作了比较研究;从用酸溶样实验提取了化石的论据;对微体化石与其它的微体化石的共生现象进行了研究;还从化石出现与重现的实际资料、化石的生物组织和结构特征与已知生物化石进行了对比,并从生物信息、化石的化学成分、矿物成分的测试等几个主要方面论证了两群化石的真实性质。

THEY ARE FOSSILS──REPLY TO PROFESSOR CHEN ON THE "QINGHEZHEN FAUNA" AND "CHANGTU FAUNA" FROM NORTHERN MARGIN OF SINOKOREAN PLATFORM

or replying Professor Chen, the writer sorts out some data to give reasons of that the 'Qinghezhen Fauna' and 'Changtu Fauna' are undoubtedly fossils.1. The fossils of the two faunas are obtained from the rock samples by acid treatment and have been directly discoveried in some rock samples, thin sections of rocks and on the residual samples of acid treatment. Those fossils are the same in characters.2. In total samples with acid treatment, there are samples less than one quarter producing the fossils and the recurrences of the fossil species are different in number.3. The analysis of chemical and mineral composition of the fossils with electron prob spectrograph and XRD show that the chemical composition is predominantly Caand the mineral composition is predominantly the minerals containing Ca2CO3. Comparison with the small shalls from southern Shaanxi the compositions of the samplesfrom northeastern China and southern Shaanxi are all predominantly Ca, but in addition, a lot of P in the samples of southern Shaanxi, suggesting the different geological setting in early Cambrian of the two places.The above facts lead the writer to believe that the fossils of the two faunas are really not pseudofossils but true fossils.