The main topic of both the lecture and the reading is about several possible predictions on how agnostids have lived and behaved. The reading asserts three possibilities with some evidence. However, the lecture completely denies whatever mentions in the passage through several conclusive observations. First, both the lecture and the passage talk about a theory of considering these animals as free-swimming predators. The reading claims that as similar as other primitive arthropods these small organisms were swimmers and preyed on a great deal of smaller organisms. In contrast, the professor rejects this claim owing to lacking the accurate visual ability. Some of them were completely blind and if they were able to chase preys, they should have had another sense.
…show more content…
The reading argues that they would have survived on the seafloor by eating dead organisms or digesting bacteria. According to the lecture, all of the organisms which live on the seafloor are the ones who lack the ability of going fast and far. However, agnostides could move long distance easily and occupy a vast stretch of
The reading argues that they would have survived on the seafloor by eating dead organisms or digesting bacteria. According to the lecture, all of the organisms which live on the seafloor are the ones who lack the ability of going fast and far. However, agnostides could move long distance easily and occupy a vast stretch of