Widespread preservation of fossilized biomolecules in many fossil animals has recently been reported in six studies, based on Raman microspectroscopy. Here, we show that the putative Raman signatures of organic compounds in these fossils are actually instrumental artefacts resulting from intense background luminescence. Raman spectroscopy is based on the detection of photons scattered inelastically by matter upon its interaction with a laser beam. For many natural materials, this interaction also generates a luminescence signal that is often orders of magnitude more intense than the light produced by Raman scattering. Such luminescence, coupled with the transmission properties of the spectrometer, induced quasi-periodic ripples in the measured spectra that have been incorrectly interpreted as Raman signatures of organic molecules. Although several analytical strategies have been developed to overcome this common issue, Raman microspectroscopy as used in the studies questioned here cannot be used to identify fossil biomolecules.

Claims for the widespread preservation of fossilized biomolecules in many fossil animals have recently been reported in six studies, based on Raman microspectroscopy. Here, we show that the putative Raman signatures of organic compounds in these fossils are actually instrumental artefacts resulting from intense background luminescence. Raman spectroscopy relies upon the detection of photons scattered inelastically by matter as a result of its interaction with a laser beam. For many natural materials, this interaction also generates a luminescence signal that is often orders of magnitude more intense than the light produced by Raman scattering. Such luminescence, coupled with the transmission properties of the spectrometer, induced quasi-periodic ripples in the measured spectra that have been incorrectly interpreted as Raman signatures of organic molecules. Although several analytical strategies have been developed to overcome this common issue, Raman microspectroscopy as used in the studies questioned here cannot be used to identify fossil biomolecules.

No abstract

Branchiopod crustaceans are represented by fairy, tadpole, and clam shrimps (Anostraca, Notostraca, Laevicaudata, Spinicaudata), which typically inhabit temporary freshwater bodies, and water fleas (Cladoceromorpha), which live in all kinds of freshwater and occasionally marine environments [1, 2]. The earliest branchiopods occur in the Cambrian, where they are represented by complete body fossils from Sweden such as Rehbachiella kinnekullensis [3] and isolated mandibles preserved as small carbonaceous fossils [4-6] from Canada. The earliest known continental branchiopods are associated with hot spring environments [7] represented by the Early Devonian Rhynie Chert of Scotland (410 million years ago) and include possible stem-group or crown-group Anostraca, Notostraca, and clam shrimps or Cladoceromorpha [8-10], which differ morphologically from their modern counterparts [1, 2, 11]. Here we report the discovery of an ephemeral pool branchiopod community from the 365-million-year-old Strud locality of Belgium. It is characterized by new anostracans and spinicaudatans, closely resembling extant species, and the earliest notostracan, Strudops goldenbergi [12]. These branchiopods released resting eggs into the sediment in a manner similar to their modern representatives [1, 2]. We infer that this reproductive strategy was critical to overcoming environmental constraints such as seasonal desiccation imposed by living on land. The pioneer colonization of ephemeral freshwater pools by branchiopods in the Devonian was followed by remarkable ecological and morphological stasis that persists to the present day.