4.0 Article

Eocene giant ants, Arctic intercontinental dispersal, and hyperthermals revisited: discovery of fossil Titanomyrma (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Formiciinae) in the cool uplands of British Columbia, Canada

期刊

CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST
卷 155, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.4039/tce.2022.49

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study examines the distribution of the extinct ant genus Titanomyrma and its implications for intercontinental dispersal. The first fossil of this genus was discovered in Eocene Canada, providing insights into the formation of modern Holarctic distributions.
We examine the implications for intercontinental dispersal of the extinct ant genus, Titanomyrma Archibald et al. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae: Formiciinae), following the discovery of its first fossil in Eocene temperate upland Canada. Modern Holarctic distributions of plants and animals were in part formed by dispersals across Late Cretaceous through early Eocene Arctic land bridges. Mild winters in a microthermal Arctic would allow taxa today restricted to the tropics by cold intolerance to cross, with episodic hyperthermal events allowing tropical taxa requiring hot climates to cross. Modern ants with the largest queens inhabit low latitudes of high temperature and mild coldest months, whereas those with smaller queens inhabit a wide variety of latitudes and climates. Gigantic and smaller formiciine ants (Titanomyrma and Formicium Westwood) are known from Europe and North America in the Eocene. The new Canadian Titanomyrma inhabited a cooler upland. It is incomplete, indistinctly preserved, and distorted in fossilisation, and so we do not assign it to a species or erect a new one for it. The true size of this fossil is unclear by this distortion: small size would support gigantism in Titanomyrma requiring hot climates and dispersal during hyperthermals; if it was large, it may have been cold-winter intolerant and able to have crossed during any time when the land bridge was present.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据