div class=trans-pagebuttonPage 1button div class=trans-image amp-img class=trans-thumb alt=Page 1: · The organisms designated Schizophyta NO 2 and NO 3 were compared with Archaeothrix contexta and A oscillatoriformis and While they were regarded as possible fungal hyphae src=https:reader034fdocumentsinreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails1jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=trans-pagebuttonPage 2button div class=trans-image amp-img class=trans-thumb alt=Page 2: · The organisms designated Schizophyta NO 2 and NO 3 were compared with Archaeothrix contexta and A oscillatoriformis and While they were regarded as possible fungal hyphae src=https:reader034fdocumentsinreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails2jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=trans-pagebuttonPage 3button div class=trans-image amp-img class=trans-thumb alt=Page 3: · The organisms designated Schizophyta NO 2 and NO 3 were compared with Archaeothrix contexta and A oscillatoriformis and While they were regarded as possible fungal hyphae src=https:reader034fdocumentsinreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails3jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=trans-pagebuttonPage 4button div class=trans-image amp-img class=trans-thumb alt=Page 4: · The organisms designated Schizophyta NO 2 and NO 3 were compared with Archaeothrix contexta and A oscillatoriformis and While they were regarded as possible fungal hyphae src=https:reader034fdocumentsinreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails4jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=trans-pagebuttonPage 5button div class=trans-image amp-img class=trans-thumb alt=Page 5: · The organisms designated Schizophyta NO 2 and NO 3 were compared with Archaeothrix contexta and A oscillatoriformis and While they were regarded as possible fungal hyphae...