Rugoconites

{{Short description|Extinct genus of invertebrates}}

{{more footnotes|date=January 2022}}

{{Automatic taxobox

| fossil_range = Cryogenian - Ediacaran {{fossil range|670|550}}

| taxon = Rugoconites

| authority = Glaessner & Wade 1966

| image = Rugoconites.jpg

| image_caption = Reconstruction of Rugoconites, an extinct organism

| subdivision_ranks = Species

| subdivision = * R. enigmaticus (type) Glaessner & Wade 1966

• R. reguibatensis Hachour et al., 2023
• R. tenuirugosus Wade, 1972

| synonyms = *Lorenzinites Glaessner & Wade, 1966

• Wadea Jenkins, 1992

}}

Rugoconites is a genus of Ediacaran biota found as fossils in the form of a circular or oval-like impression preserved in high relief, six or more centimeters in diameter. The fossils are surrounded by frills that have been interpreted (Wade 1972) as sets of tentacles. The bifurcating radial ribs, spreading from a central dome, serve to distinguish this genus from the sponge Palaeophragmodictya, and may represent the channels of the gastrovascular system.{{Cite journal|last1=Fedonkin|first1=M. A.|last2=Cope|first2=J. C. W.|last3=Whittington|first3=Harry Blackmore|last4=Conway Morris|first4=S.|date=1985-10-17|title=Precambrian metazoans: the problems of preservation, systematics and evolution|url=https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1985.0136|journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences|volume=311|issue=1148|pages=27–45|doi=10.1098/rstb.1985.0136|bibcode=1985RSPTB.311...27F |s2cid=84598490 |url-access=subscription}} Fossils of Rugoconites have been interpreted as early sponges,{{Cite journal |last1=Gehling |first1=James G. |last2=Rigby |first2=J. Keith |date=March 1996 |title=Long expected sponges from the Neoproterozoic Ediacara fauna of South Australia |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022336000023283/type/journal_article |journal=Journal of Paleontology |language=en |volume=70 |issue=2 |pages=185–195 |doi=10.1017/S0022336000023283 |bibcode=1996JPal...70..185G |s2cid=130802211 |issn=0022-3360|url-access=subscription }} although this is countered by Sepkoski et al. (2002), who interpreted the organism as a free-swimming jellyfish-like cnidarian; similar to Ovatoscutum.{{Cite journal |last1=Sepkoski |first1=J.J. |last2=Jablonski |first2=D. |date=2002 |title="A Compendium of Fossil Marine Animal Genera" |journal=Bulletins of American Paleontology}} However, the fossil is consistently preserved as a neat circular form and its general morphology does not vary, therefore a benthic and perhaps slow-moving or sessile lifestyle is more likely. Ivantstov & Fedonkin (2002), suggest that Rugoconites may possess tri-radial symmetry and be a member of the Trilobozoa.{{Cite journal|last1=Ivantsov|first1=Andrei Yu|last2=Fedonkin|first2=Mikhail A.|date=2002|title=Conulariid–like fossil from the Vendian of Russia: a metazoan clade across the Proterozoic/Palaeozoic boundary|journal=Palaeontology|language=en|volume=45|issue=6|pages=1219–1229|doi=10.1111/1475-4983.00283|bibcode=2002Palgy..45.1219I |s2cid=128620276 |issn=1475-4983|doi-access=free}}

Rugoconites have been reported in clusters; this may represent a social/colonial way of life, or simply accumulation by the action of currents, sea-floor processes, or possibly preservational conditions.{{Cite journal |last1=Boan |first1=Phillip C. |last2=Evans |first2=Scott D. |last3=Hall |first3=Christine M. S. |last4=Droser |first4=Mary L. |date=2023-03-13 |title=Spatial distributions of Tribrachidium, Rugoconites, and Obamus from the Ediacara Member (Rawnsley Quartzite), South Australia |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/paleobiology/article/abs/spatial-distributions-of-tribrachidium-rugoconites-and-obamus-from-the-ediacara-member-rawnsley-quartzite-south-australia/066B9AD6529D8E2958DB13FBC9551D5C |journal=Paleobiology |volume=49 |issue=4 |language=en |pages=601–620 |doi=10.1017/pab.2023.9 |bibcode=2023Pbio...49..601B |s2cid=257521294 |issn=0094-8373|url-access=subscription }}

The Rugoconites genus may contain two species: Rugoconites enigmaticus and Rugoconites tenuirugosus, the latter being less dome-shaped and having smaller and more numerous radial ridges than the former.{{Cite web|url=http://www.ediacaran.org/rugoconites.html|title=Rugoconites|website=Ediacaran.org}} However, due to the dubious nature of R. tenuirugosus, its taxonomy is still unclear, and it has been suggested that a new genus named Wadea should be erected for R." tenuirugosus''.{{Cite book|last1=Lipps|first1=Jere H.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CQzyBwAAQBAJ&dq=Rugoconites+tenuirugosus&pg=PA160|title=Origin and Early Evolution of the Metazoa|last2=Signor|first2=Philip W.|date=2013-11-21|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-1-4899-2427-8|language=en}}

In 1966, Martin Glaessner along with Mary Wade unearthed the external mold of a form which possessed a small central disc that had eleven radiating lobes from its center that they named Lorenzinites rarus.{{cite web | url=https://www.palass.org/publications/palaeontology-journal/archive/9/4/article_pp599-628 | title=The Late Precambrian fossils from Ediacara, South Australia | the Palaeontological Association }} This form was also compared to the top of some Rugoconites specimens. The fossil of Lorenzinites rarus was, however, reconsidered to be a Rugoconites enigmaticus specimen despite his original observations and placed it along with the genus in the synonymy of Rugoconites.{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=VGo5AAAAIAAJ&dq=lorenzinites&pg=PA243 | isbn=9780521312165 | title=The Dawn of Animal Life: A Biohistorical Study | date=20 June 1985 | publisher=CUP Archive }} The genus was then forgotten about and needs further examination.