Abstract
Camouflage strategies, including several types of concealments, are known for several insect groups today, such as immatures of some species within reduviid bugs (Hemiptera), lace wings (Neuroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera) and bark lice (Psocodea). However, camouflage has only rarely been reported in the fossil record. Here we report findings of four bark lice preserved in 100 Million year old amber from Myanmar, which represent the first fossil evidence for masking behaviour in Cretaceous representatives of Psocodea. All four of these, probably not conspecific, and immature bark lice carry sand granules and organic material atop their back, which probably resulted in camouflaging them against the background (e.g. bark) to avoid detection by predators. We briefly summarise concepts of camouflage and examples of decoration behaviour within insects, as well as possible “receiver” (i.e. predators) of the camouflage of the herein described bark lice. The exact phylogenetic position of the specimens remains unclear, due to the scarce fossil record of Cretaceous immatures of Psocodea, as well as extant immatures. This demonstrates the importance of findings as reported here, as a wide knowledge of morphology and development of a certain group is crucial to get an insight into their evolution and reconstructing environments in deep time.
Highlights
Camouflage, in the general sense, is used by animals to hamper their detection or recognition, e.g. to avoid being spotted by predators, or prey
Short overview of entomological terminology and the relevant usage The insect body is typically organised in three tagmata: the head, the anterior trunk or thorax and the posterior trunk or abdomen
Decorating or masking behaviour in context of camouflage is known for immature of some groups within Psocodea, but the evolution of this strategy is mainly unknown so far
Summary
Camouflage, in the general sense, is used by animals to hamper their detection or recognition, e.g. to avoid being spotted by predators, or prey. The terminology of camouflage strategies and types of concealments have been controversially discussed (Poulton 1898; Cott 1940; Wickler 1968; Wiens 1978; Vane-Wright 1980 and comments on it in Cloudsley-Thompson 1981; Edmunds 1981 and Rothschild 1981; Robinson 1981) and underlying concepts of these have been varied and not universally agreed upon (Rettenmeyer 1970; Roesler and Küppers 1977; Endler 1981; Roesler 1987; Stevens and Merilaita 2009) Several terms, such as ‘crypsis’, ‘masquerade’, ‘aggressive mimicry’ and others have been either used as different categories or as part of, or even partly synonymously. Batesian mimicry (mimic of a dangerous/inedible species by harmless species) or Müllerian mimicry (mimic of a dangerous/inedible species by another dangerous/inedible species) and Mertensian mimicry (mimic of a harmless species by a dangerous species) (Endler 1981 and references therein)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
