4.8 Article

Lichen mimesis in mid-Mesozoic lacewings

Journal

ELIFE
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

eLIFE SCIENCES PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.59007

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31970383, 31730087, 31770022, 41688103]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality [5192002]
  3. Academy for Multidisciplinary Studies of Capital Normal University
  4. Capacity Building for Sci-Tech Innovation-Fundamental Scientific Research Funds [19530050144]
  5. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT-17R75]
  6. Support Project of High Level Teachers in Beijing Municipal Universities [IDHT20180518]
  7. Graduate Student Program for International Exchange and Joint Supervision at Capital Normal University [028175534000, 028185511700]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animals mimicking other organisms or using camouflage to deceive predators are vital survival strategies. Modern and fossil insects can simulate diverse objects. Lichens are an ancient symbiosis between a fungus and an alga or a cyanobacterium that sometimes have a plant-like appearance and occasionally are mimicked by modern animals. Nevertheless, lichen models are almost absent in fossil record of mimicry. Here, we provide the earliest fossil evidence of a mimetic relationship between the moth lacewing mimic Lichenipolystoechotes gen. nov. and its co-occurring fossil lichen model Daohugouthallus ciliiferus. We corroborate the lichen affinity of D. ciliiferus and document this mimetic relationship by providing structural similarities and detailed measurements of the mimic's wing and correspondingly the model's thallus. Our discovery of lichen mimesis predates modern lichen-insect associations by 165 million years, indicating that during the mid-Mesozoic, the lichen-insect mimesis system was well established and provided lacewings with highly honed survival strategies.

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