div class=ts-pagebuttonPage 1button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-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:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails1jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 2button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-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:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails2jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 3button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-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:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails3jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 4button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-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:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails4jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 5button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails5jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 6button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails6jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 7button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails7jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 8button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails8jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 9button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails9jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 10button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails10jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 11button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails11jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 12button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails12jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 13button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails13jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 14button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails14jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 15button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails15jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 16button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails16jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 17button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails17jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 18button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails18jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 19button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails19jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 20button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails20jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 21button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails21jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 22button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails22jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 23button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails23jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 24button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails24jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 25button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails25jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 26button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails26jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 27button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails27jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdivdiv class=ts-pagebuttonPage 28button div class=ts-image amp-img class=ts-thumb alt=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 src=https:reader034vdocumentsusreader034viewer20220507165e262dc1781848173f1f793ahtml5thumbnails28jpg width=142 height=106 layout=responsive amp-img divdiv