4.8 Article

Paleozoic Nymphal Wing Pads Support Dual Model of Insect Wing Origins

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 263-269

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.11.021

关键词

-

资金

  1. GACR [14-03847J]
  2. DFG [HO 2306/12-1, HO 2306/6-2]
  3. grant of Charles University [SW 260 313/2016]
  4. KBN [N N303 345535]
  5. US NSF [DEB-1144162]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The appearance of wings in insects, early in their evolution [1], has been one of the more critical innovations contributing to their extraordinary diversity. Despite the conspicuousness and importance of wings, the origin of these structures has been difficult to resolve and represented one of the abominable mysteries in evolutionary biology [2]. More than a century of debate has boiled the matter down to two competing alternatives one of wings representing an extension of the thoracic notum, the other stating that they are appendicular derivations from the lateral body wall. Recently, a dual model has been supported by genomic and developmental data [3-6], representing an amalgamation of elements from both the notal and pleural hypotheses. Here, we reveal crucial information from the wing pad joints of Carboniferous palaeodictyopteran insect nymphs using classical and high-tech techniques. These nymphs had three pairs of wing pads that were medially articulated to the thorax but also broadly contiguous with the notum anteriorly and posteriorly (details unobservable in modern insects), supporting their overall origin from the thoracic notum as well as the expected medial, pleural series of axillary sclerites. Our study provides support for the formation of the insect wing from the thoracic notum as well as the already known pleural elements of the arthropodan leg. These results support the unique, dual model for insect wing origins and the convergent reduction of notal fusion in more derived clades, presumably due to wing rotation during development, and they help to bring resolution to this long-standing debate.

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

4.8
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