Abstract

A recent article argued that signals from conventional Raman spectroscopy of organic materials are overwhelmed by edge filter and fluorescence artefacts. The article targeted a subset of Raman spectroscopic investigations of fossil and modern organisms and has implications for the utility of conventional Raman spectroscopy in comparative tissue analytics. The inferences were based on circular reasoning centered around the unconventional analysis of spectra from just two samples, one modern, and one fossil. We validated the disputed signals with in situ Fourier‐Transform Infrared (FT‐IR) Spectroscopy and through replication with different lasers, filters, and operators in independent laboratories. Our Raman system employs a holographic notch filter which is not affected by edge filter or other artefacts. Multiple lines of evidence confirm that conventional Raman spectra of fossils contain biologically and geologically meaningful information. Statistical analyses of large Raman and FT‐IR spectral data sets reveal patterns in fossil composition and yield valuable insights into the history of life.