4.8 Article

Amphibious flies and paedomorphism in the Jurassic period

Journal

NATURE
Volume 495, Issue 7439, Pages 94-97

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature11898

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB821903]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91114201, J1210006]
  3. Outstanding Youth Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2012049]
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-YW-QN104]
  5. US National Science Foundation [DEB-0542909]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The species of the Strashilidae (strashilids) have been the most perplexing of fossil insects from the Jurassic period of Russia and China(1,2). They have been widely considered to be ectoparasites of pterosaurs or feathered dinosaurs, based on the putative presence of piercing and sucking mouthparts and hind tibio-basitarsal pincers purportedly used to fix onto the host's hairs or feathers(1-6). Both the supposed host and parasite occur in the Daohugou beds from the Middle Jurassic epoch of China (approximately 165 million years ago)(7,8). Here we analyse the morphology of strashilids from the Daohugou beds, and reach markedly different conclusions; namely that strashilids are highly specialized flies (Diptera) bearing large membranous wings, with substantial sexual dimorphism of the hind legs and abdominal extensions. The idea that they belong to an extinct order(2) is unsupported, and the lineage can be placed within the true flies. In terms of major morphological and inferred behavioural features, strashilids resemble the recent (extant) and relict members of the aquatic fly family Nymphomyiidae. Their ontogeny are distinguished by the persistence in adult males of larval abdominal respiratory gills, representing a unique case of paedomorphism among endopterygote insects. Adult strashilids were probably aquatic or amphibious, shedding their wings after emergence and mating in the water.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available