[Ira_Louvin]

Just like Mr Thomas’s article

[count-your-change]

You should go back and read your own #22 post and check the references of the posted article.
In the one from Geology (10) etc., you would find (caps mine) this sentence on what was found:

“ORGANIC chemistry, carbon and nitrogen isotopes, and carbon/nitrogen ratios are consistent with a fungal origin.”

Then the abstract adds,
“Unequivocally diagnostic data, however, may have been precluded by post-burial replacement of its organic constituents.”,
so the posted article
was correct in repeating what the abstract referred to, “organic “ chemistry though the role of the fungus was not “unequivocally” established.

Using the term “fossil” obviously wasn't intended to mean nothing of the original was left.