· The organisms. designated Schizophyta NO. 2 and NO. 3, were compared with Archaeothrix contexta...

28

Transcript of  · The organisms. designated Schizophyta NO. 2 and NO. 3, were compared with Archaeothrix contexta...

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,
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,
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,
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,
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,
Page 6:  · 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,
Page 7:  · 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,
Page 8:  · 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,
Page 9:  · 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,
Page 10:  · 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,
Page 11:  · 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,
Page 12:  · 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,
Page 13:  · 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,
Page 14:  · 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,
Page 15:  · 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,
Page 16:  · 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,
Page 17:  · 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,
Page 18:  · 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,
Page 19:  · 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,
Page 20:  · 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,
Page 21:  · 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,
Page 22:  · 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,
Page 23:  · 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,
Page 24:  · 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,
Page 25:  · 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,
Page 26:  · 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,
Page 27:  · 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,
Page 28:  · 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,