the surface of the burrow is made of red metalliferous sediment. When it becomes inactive, this becomes covered with a light gray Lutite and the top flattens out. The red sediment is only found under the surface sediment in this environment, so its presence at the surface hints at a biotic factor which brings up the sediment. The number of rows and the spacing of these rows increases in correlation with the size of the overall form. This indicates that these burrows are a result of organic growth. The raised parts of the burrow force water to flow through the burrow. As a result of this, scientists found large numbers of foraminifera tests within the burrows. These were trapped in certain areas suggesting that the burrows were engineered to catch food as prey. However the microbial counts didn't change from the inside of the burrows to the area surrounding it. Hypothesis 1 – trace fossil The hypothesis supported by Seilacher, that the burrows we find are trace fossils of a worm-like animal, is supported by several features of the burrows, and is also not an unheard of concept in the animal kingdom. The shape of the burrows is consistent with other graphoglyptids. The burrows also had several exits, which is inconsistent with the idea of a "megalith" foraminifera. A different animal that creates burrows, and cultivates food within those burrows, is the leafcutter ant. This suggests that the idea of an animal cultivating its own food is not unreasonable, and the fact that the deep-ocean seafloor environment is so low in nutrition it seems like a logical evolutionary step to have been taken. Hypothesis 2 – sponge / xenophyophore The second hypothesis, supported by Rona, is that a sponge or megalith foraminifera such as a xenophyophore left the structures as a cast of its body. Through testing of collected burrow samples, this hypothesis gained a lot of evidence both for and against it. One test that was run was watching how water flowed over the burrows. The forced water flow exhibited by these specimen was similar to the forced water flow in several sponges. Another reason that this hypothesis seems likely is that best estimates of the size of the worm suggest that it would have to travel unreasonably long distances (compared to its body length) to fully navigate its burrows (~). However, there are several problems with this hypothesis