Widespread mermithid nematode parasitism of Cretaceous insects

  1. Cihang Luo  Is a corresponding author
  2. George O Poinar
  3. Chunpeng Xu
  4. De Zhuo
  5. Edmund A Jarzembowski
  6. Bo Wang  Is a corresponding author
  1. State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
  2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
  3. Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, United States
  4. Beijing Xiachong Amber Museum, China

Abstract

Mermithid nematodes are obligate invertebrate parasites dating back to the Early Cretaceous. Their fossil record is sparse, especially before the Cenozoic, thus little is known about their early host associations. This study reports 16 new mermithids associated with their insect hosts from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber, 12 of which include previously unknown hosts. These fossils indicate that mermithid parasitism of invertebrates was already widespread and played an important role in the mid-Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystem. Remarkably, three hosts (bristletails, barklice, and perforissid planthoppers) were previously unknown to be parasitized by mermithids both past and present. Furthermore, our study shows that in contrast to their Cenozoic counterparts, Cretaceous nematodes including mermithids are more abundant in non-holometabolous insects. This result suggests that nematodes had not completely exploited the dominant Holometabola as their hosts until the Cenozoic. This study reveals what appears to be a vanished history of nematodes that parasitized Cretaceous insects.

Editor's evaluation

This important study greatly expands our knowledge of the fossil record of mermithid nematodes, modern members of which are ecologically important parasitoids of arthropods, annelids and mollusks today. The most important finding is that mermithids parasitized a number of insect clades in the Cretaceous that they are not known to infect today or in Cenozoic amber. The evidence for a shift in exploited hosts from non-holometabolous insects in the mid-Cretaceous to holometabolous ones by the Eocene is exceptionally well supported by statistical analysis; potential collection bias is addressed as well and ruled out.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86283.sa0

Introduction

Nematodes (roundworms), a group of non-segmented worm-like invertebrates, are some of the most abundant animals on earth in terms of individuals (Lorenzen, 1994; Poinar, 2011). They are distributed worldwide in almost all habitats and play key roles in ecosystems by linking soil food webs, influencing plant growth and facilitating nutrient cycling (Yeates et al., 2009; van den Hoogen et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). The earliest known definite nematode fossil occurs in the Lower Devonian Rhynie Chert inside the cortex cells of an early land plant and has been considered to be a plant parasite (Poinar et al., 2008), but unconfirmed nematode-like fossils and trace fossils may date back to the Precambrian (Poinar, 1979; Parry et al., 2017; De Baets et al., 2021a). Despite their abundance in many extant ecosystems, nematodes are exceedingly rare in the fossil record, since most of them are small, with soft bodies and concealed habits (Poinar, 2011).

The Mermithidae represent a family of nematodes that are obligate invertebrate parasites which occur in insects, millipedes, crustaceans, spiders, molluscs, and earthworms (Nickle, 1972; Poinar, 1979). They can affect the morphology, physiology, and even the behavior of their hosts (Petersen, 1985). The life cycle of mermithids comprises five stages (Poinar and Otieno, 1974; Poinar, 1983 ; Poinar, 2001b). Eggs are deposited in the environment, and the developing embryos moult once and emerge from the eggs as second-stage juveniles. These juveniles are the infective stage that enter the hemocoel of potential hosts. After a relatively rapid growth phase (third stage), mermithids exit hosts as postparasitic juveniles (fourth stage). They then enter a quiescent phase and moult twice to become adults (Poinar, 2015a). They tend to exit their hosts even before maturation, though, if their hosts are stressed (Poinar, 2015b). Hosts usually die when the mermithids exit, which is why mermithids have been widely studied as possible biological control agents, especially against aquatic stages of medically important insects like mosquito larvae (Petersen, 1985). Although mermithids kill their hosts like parasitoids, they are commonly considered as parasites like other nematodes (De Baets et al., 2021a; De Baets et al., 2021b).

Palaeontological records of parasitism provide critical clues about the origination and diversification of important nematode groups, and elucidate the synecology and coevolution of ancient parasites and their hosts. Due to their relatively large size and invertebrate-parasitic habits, mermithid nematodes are most likely of all nematodes to occur as recognizable fossils, especially in amber as they exited their invertebrate hosts that became entrapped in resin (Poinar, 2011). Their fossil record dates back to the Early Cretaceous with Cretacimermis libani from a chironomid midge (Diptera: Chironomidae) in Lebanese amber (~135 Ma; million years ago) (Poinar et al., 1994). However, there is a dearth of examples of other Cretaceous mermithids prior to the present study, with only Cretacimermis chironomae, also from chironomid hosts, Cretacimermis protus from biting midges (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) and Cretacimermis aphidophilus from an aphid (Hemiptera: Burmitaphididae) in mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber (Poinar and Buckley, 2006; Poinar and Sarto i Monteys, 2008; Poinar, 2011; Poinar, 2017).

Here, we report 16 additional mermithid nematodes associated with their insect hosts in mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber (approximately 99 million years old). These examples triple the diversity of Cretaceous mermithids (from 4 to 13 species) and reveal previously unknown host–parasite relationships. Our study also shows that mermithids were widely distributed in a number of diverse insect lineages by the mid-Cretaceous, but they preferred to parasitize non-holometabolous rather than holometabolous insects, thus providing novel insights into the early evolution of nematode parasitism of insects.

Results

Systematic palaeontology

Fossil nematodes can be attributed to the family Mermithidae based mainly on their relatively large size, coiled posture, and morphological comparison with extant mermithids (body shape, length, diameter, tail structure, etc.) (Poinar, 2011). They can also be distinguished from nematomorphs due to the lack of small elevations of irregular areas (areoles) on their epicuticles (Poinar, 2001b). Due to palaeontological inability to adequately detect all biological adult characters, it is impossible to place in or refer fossil mermithid nematodes to any natural extant genus. This is why fossil collective genera have been erected under the same guidelines as recent collective genera for difficult nematodes. The importance of placing nematode species in collective genera is to underpin or establish the time, place and hosts of these parasitic lineages. For Cretaceous Mermithidae not assignable to any previously known genus or lacking biologically preferred diagnostic characters, the collective genus Cretacimermis was erected (but invalidly, see remarks for Cretacimermis below) (Poinar, 2001b). Putative hosts were determined by noting nematodes emerging from their bodies or completely emerged nematodes adjacent to potential hosts, especially if there is physical evidence that a particular insect was parasitized.

Family Mermithidae Braun, 1883

Collective genus Cretacimermis Poinar, gen. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:152E262D-5A65-4EB8-A059-D380D53D32F8

Etymology. The generic name is derived from the combination of the prefix, ‘cretac-’ meaning chalky referring to the Cretaceous age of the collective, and ‘Mermis’ is the name of the type genus of Mermithidae. Gender: feminine.

Included species. Cretacimermis adelphe Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.; Cretacimermis aphidophilus Poinar, 2017; Cretacimermis calypta Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.; Cretacimermis cecidomyiae Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.; Cretacimermis chironomae Poinar, 2011; Cretacimermis cimicis Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.; Cretacimermis directa Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.; Cretacimermis incredibilis Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.; Cretacimermis libani (Poinar et al., 1994) Poinar, 2001a (=Heleidomermis libani Poinar et al., 1994); Cretacimermis longa Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.; Cretacimermis manicapsoci Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.; Cretacimermis protus Poinar and Buckley, 2006; Cretacimermis psoci Luo & Poinar, sp. nov.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematodes not assignable to any previously known genus or lacking biologically preferred diagnostic characters from the Cretaceous. Size large compared with host, length commonly more than 5.0 mm, with length/width ratio more than 50; coiled for at least one loop; cuticle smooth and lacking cross fibres; trophosome clear but sometimes fractured; head and tail rounded or pointed.

Age and occurrence. Cretaceous; Lebanese and Kachin ambers.

Remarks. The genus name ‘Cretacimermis’ was invalidly established in Poinar, 2001b due to the lack of a formal definition (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999: Art. 13.1.1). Here, we formally erect this genus.

Cretacimermis incredibilis Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 1A and 2A–D)
Mermithids and their insect hosts from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber (~99 Ma; million years ago).

(A) Cretacimermis incredibilis sp. nov. (holotype) adjacent to its bristletail host. (B) Cretacimermis calypta sp. nov. (holotype) adjacent to its damselfly host. (C) Two separate specimens of Cretacimermis adelphe sp. nov. (upper specimen is holotype) that have emerged from their earwig host. (D) Cretacimermis directa sp. nov. (holotype) adjacent to its cricket host. (E) Cretacimermis longa sp. nov. (holotype) adjacent to its adult cockroach host. (F) Cretacimermis longa sp. nov. (paratype) adjacent to its juvenile cockroach host. (G) Cretacimermis perforissi sp. nov. (holotype) adjacent to its perforissid planthopper host. (H) Cretacimeris perforissi sp. nov. (paratype) adjacent to second perforissid planthopper. Scale bars = 2.0 mm (B, E, F), 1.0 mm (A, C, D, G), 0.5 mm (H).

Detailed photographs of Cretacimermis incredibilis sp. nov., holotype, NIGP201872 (A–D), Cretacimermis calypta sp. nov., holotype, NIGP201870 (E–H), and Cretacimermis adelphe sp. nov. (upper specimen is holotype and lower specimen is paratype), NIGP201876 (I–K).

(A) Habitus of C. incredibilis, some trophosome remains are marked by triangular black arrows. (B) Fine ridges in areas of body bends. (C) Head (arrowed). (D) Tail and the exit wound on the host (arrowed). (E) Habitus except head part of C. calypta, some trophosome remains are marked by triangular black arrows. (F) Detail of body. (G) Head. (H) Tail. (I) Habitus of upper specimen (holotype), opaque body and pointed head. (J) Detail of head. (K) Detail of tail. Scale bars = 0.5 mm (A, E), 0.2 mm (H, I), 0.1 mm (B–D, F, G, J, K). Abbreviations: he, head; ta, tail.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:22E141CC-8BEE-42F6-85BB-84243D13C1A9

Etymology. The species epithet is from the Latin ‘incredibilis’ = incredible.

Type host. Bristletail (Archaeognatha).

Material. Holotype. Kachin amber, rectangular piece, 18×7×4 mm, weight 0.4 g, specimen No. NIGP201872.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing Archaeognatha from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. Body brownish, partially transparent (Figure 2A); cuticle smooth, lacking cross fibres but with fine ridges in areas of body bends (Figure 2B); trophosome evident (Figure 2A); head rounded (Figure 2C), tail appendage not observed (Figure 2D); length 17.9 mm; greatest width 80 µm; a (length/width)=224.

Remarks. While the nematode has completely exited from the host, the tail end is adjacent to an exit wound on the host (Figure 2D) indicating a true parasitic association.

Cretacimermis calypta Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 1B and 2E-H)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:3F29A451-1993-4EE7-B24E-81D8A1F5B8B7

Etymology. The species epithet is derived from the Greek ‘kalyptê’ = hidden.

Type host. A specimen of Burmaphlebia reifi Bechly & Poinar (Odonata: Epiophlebioptera: Epiophlebioidea: Burmaphlebiidae).

Material. Holotype. Kachin amber, rhomboid piece, 19×13×5 mm, weight 1.4 g, specimen no. NIGP201870.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing Odonata from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. Body white with clear partially transparent portions (Figure 2E); cuticle lacking cross fibres (Figure 2F); trophosome fractured (Figure 2E); head round (Figure 2G), tail bluntly rounded (Figure 2H); length 40.9 mm; greatest width 324 µm; a=126.

Remarks. Although no exit wound can be clearly found, most of the body coils are adjacent to the head of the adjacent damselfly, indicating that the nematode was just emerging from the host.

Cretacimermis adelphe Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 1C and 2I-K)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:B2858585-3B4C-4E06-B5AA-7CCD37F7CC5A

Etymology. The species epithet is derived from the Greek ‘adelphê’ = sister.

Type host. Earwig (Dermaptera).

Material. Kachin amber, cabochon, 16×13×3 mm, weight 0.4 g, specimen no. NIGP201876.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing Dermaptera from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. Upper specimen (holotype): body dark gray, opaque, coiled (Figure 2I); cuticle smooth, lacking cross fibres; head narrowed with acute tip (Figure 2J), tail blunt (Figure 2K); length 7.4 mm, greatest width 67 µm, a=110. Lower specimen (paratype): body dark gray, opaque, outstretched; head point-blunted, length at least 7.5 mm, greatest width 76 µm.

Remarks. The posterior part of the abdomen of the earwig has been damaged, so it is most likely that these mermithids exited from the host through this wound.

Cretacimermis directa Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 1D, 3A and B)
Detailed photographs of Cretacimermis directa sp. nov., holotype, NIGP201873 (A, B) and Cretacimermis longa sp. nov., holotype, NIGP201875 (C–F), paratype, NIGP201877 (G–J).

(A) Detail of head. (B) Detail of tail. (C) Host, an adult of Mesoblattinidae (Blattodea), note the hollow abdomen (arrowed) that probably contained the developing nematode. (D) Detail of body. (E) Enlarged details of body. (F) Head. (G) Host, a juvenile of Mesoblattinidae (Blattodea). (H) The termination of the nematode, note the mermithid was in the process of emerging from the host’s body (arrowed). (I) Detail of body. (J) Head, showing loose outer cuticle. Scale bars = 1.0 mm (C, G), 0.5 mm (D), 0.2 mm (H, I), 0.1 mm (A, B, E, F, J). Abbreviations: he, head; ta, tail.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:3565ACFE-BD87-441D-9923-DC75F640EDC2

Etymology. The species epithet is from the Latin ‘directa’=arranged in a straight line.

Type host. An early instar cricket nymph (Orthoptera: Ensifera: Grylloidea).

Material. Holotype. Kachin amber, cabochon, 18.5×4.5×3 mm, weight 0.3 g, specimen no. NIGP201873.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing Orthoptera from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. Body well preserved, elongate except for a small coil at anterior end, grayish; trophosome slightly fractured in a few areas; head rounded (Figure 3A), tail bluntly pointed (Figure 3B); length 8.8 mm; greatest width 98 µm; a=90.

Remarks. There is no distinct wound on this cricket’s body, but the nematode is adjacent to it, and there is no other insect nearby. Therefore, it is most likely that the mermithid had just emerged from the host.

Cretacimermis longa Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 1E,F,3C-J)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:4EE8DDA3-FEB8-4B4E-ABD2-2D9A9587FB1A

Etymology. The species epithet is from the Latin ‘longa’=long.

Type host. Cockroaches of the extinct Family Mesoblattinidae (Blattodea) (Figure 3C and G).

Material. Kachin amber. First piece (holotype): cabochon, 20×13×2 mm, weight 0.5 g, specimen no. NIGP201875; second piece (paratype): cabochon, 35×24×6 mm, weight 5.2 g, specimen no. NIGP201877.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing mesoblattinid cockroach from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. Nematode from adult cockroach, first piece (Figures 1E and 3C–F): body light gray, speckled, partially transparent; head narrow, tail obscured; length at least 104.3 mm, greatest width 310 µm. Nematode from juvenile cockroach, second piece (Figures 1F and 3G–J): body light to dark gray; head rounded, tail obscured; length at least 59.9 mm; greatest width 246 µm.

Remarks. These two nematodes are still in the process of exiting. Also, the cavity in the abdomen of the adult cockroach (Figure 3C) indicates the location of the developing parasite.

Cretacimermis perforissi Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 1G,H,4)
Detailed photographs of Cretacimermis perforissi sp. nov., holotype, NIGP201868 (A–E) and paratype, NIGP201878 (F–H).

(A) Host, Perforissidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha), note the hollow abdomen (arrowed) which probably contained the developing nematode. (B) Habitus of the coiled body of C. perforissi, some trophosome remains are marked by triangular black arrows. (C) Detail of body, note artefact ridges on cuticle. (D) Head. (E) Tail. (F) Host, Perforissidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha), note the broken abdomen that is probably due to the emergence of the mermithid. (G) Front view of host, indicating it is a perforissid planthopper. (H) Detail of body, showing smooth cuticle and dark, fractured trophosomes (arrowed). Scale bars = 0.5 mm (A, B, F), 0.2 mm (G), 0.1 mm (C–E, H). Abbreviations: he, head; ta, tail.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:32C1C1E1-C177-4E25-90FE-E5D48A0E471E

Etymology. The species epithet is derived from the type genus of Perforissidae.

Type host. Planthopper of the extinct Family Perforissidae (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha).

Material. Kachin amber. First piece (holotype): trapezoid, 9×7×3 mm, weight 0.2 g, specimen no. NIGP201868; second piece (paratype): semicircular, 8×4×4 mm, weight 0.1 g, specimen no. NIGP201878.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing perforissid planthopper from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. First piece (Figure 4A–E): body complete, mostly grayish and opaque, coiled several times; trophosome evident in some body areas; cuticle smooth, lacking cross fibres but with fine ridges in areas of body bends; head blunt; tail pointed; length 22.2 mm; greatest width 183 µm; a=121. Second piece (Figure 4F–H): body incomplete with single coil, mostly black and opaque; trophosome fractured; cuticle smooth; head and tail missing; total length unknown; greatest width 109 µm.

Remarks. The abdomen of the first perforissid planthopper is empty, which probably contained the developing nematode. The abdomen of the second perforissid planthopper is broken, which is consistent with an emerging mermithid.

Cretacimermis manicapsoci Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 5A,B,6A-G)
Mermithids and their insect hosts from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber. Part II.

(A) Cretacimermis manicapsoci sp. nov. (holotype) adjacent to its manicapsocid barklouse host. (B) Cretacimermis manicapsoci sp. nov. (paratype) adjacent to second manicapsocid barklouse host. (C) Cretacimermis psoci sp. nov. (holotype) adjacent to its compsocid barklouse host. (D) Cretacimermis cecidomyiae sp. nov. (holotype) emerging from its gall midge (cecidomyiid) host. (E–H) Four specimens of Cretacimermis chironomae Poinar, 2011 emerging from their chironomid hosts. Scale bars = 2.0 mm (A), 1.0 mm (B), 0.5 mm (C–H).

Detailed photographs of Cretacimermis manicapsoci sp. nov., holotype, NIGP201879 (A–D), paratype, NIGP201880 (E–G), and Cretacimermis psoci sp. nov., holotype, NIGP201874 (H–J).

(A) Barklouse host, Manicapsocidae (Psocoptera). (B) Detail of body. (C) Head. (D) Tail. (E) Barklouse host, Manicapsocidae. (F) Coiled body. (G) Head. (H) Barklouse host, Compsocidae (Psocoptera), note the broken abdomen that is probably due to the emergence of the mermithid. (I) Detail of body. (J) Tail, note artefactual cuticular ridges. Scale bars = 0.5 mm (A), 0.2 mm (E, F, H), 0.1 mm (B–D, G, I, J). Abbreviations: he, head; ta, tail.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:B0C34BAB-A6F5-4E39-86CF-D87A1A61C2E4

Etymology. The species epithet is derived from the type genus of Manicapsocidae.

Type host. Barklouse of the Family Manicapsocidae (Psocodea) (Figure 6A, E).

Material. Kachin amber. First piece (holotype): cabochon, 34×15×3 mm, weight 1.3 g, specimen no. NIGP201879; second piece (paratype): cabochon, 13×9×2 mm, weight 0.1 g, specimen no. NIGP201880.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing manicapsocid barklouse from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. First piece (Figure 6A–D): body complete, essentially a dark tube inside a clear tube, bent several times, one bend overlapping leg of host; lacking cross fibres but with fine ridges; cuticle smooth; head blunt; tail narrowed; length 34.0 mm; greatest width, 87 µm; a=391. Second piece (Figure 6E–G): body incomplete, uneven, mostly grayish and opaque, coiled twice; trophosome evident, cuticle lacking cross fibres; head blunt, tail missing; length of remaining body 12.7 mm; greatest width 107 µm.

Remarks. First piece: there is no distinct wound on the barklouse’s body, but the nematode is adjacent to it, and there is no other sizeable insect nearby. Therefore, it is most likely that the mermithid had just emerged from the host. Second piece: the abdomen of the second perforissid planthopper is partly lost, which is consistent with an emerging mermithid.

Cretacimermis psoci Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 5C and 6H-J)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:13C60738-C5FA-4EBC-914A-1E68149DF282

Etymology. The species epithet is derived from New Latin ‘psocus’=member of psocopteran lineage.

Type host. Barklouse of the family Compsocidae (Psocodea) (Figure 6H).

Material. Holotype. Kachin amber, cabochon, 12×4×2 mm, weight 0.1 g, specimen no. NIGP201874.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing compsocid barklouse from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. Body incomplete, tanned, partially transparent (Figure 6I); cuticle with areas of shrinkage ridges; head missing, tail rounded (Figure 6J); length 9.6 mm; greatest width 111 µm; a=87.

Remarks. The nematode is adjacent to the host and the empty abdomen indicates the area that contained the developing parasite.

Cretacimermis cecidomyiae Luo & Poinar, sp. nov. (Figures 5D and 7A-C)
Mermithids and their Diptera hosts from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

(A–C) Cretacimermis cecidomyiae sp. nov., holotype, NIGP201871. (A) Head of cecidomyiid host. (B) Habitus of nematode, some trophosome remains are marked by triangular black arrows. (C) Detail of body. (D–H) First piece with Cretacimermis chironomae Poinar, 2011, NIGP201869. (D) Detail of head of host. (E) Habitus of nematode. (F) Forewing venation of host. (G) Detail of body. (H) Detail of head. (I–K) Second piece of C. chironomae, LYD-MD-NG001. (I) Detail of head of host. (J) Forewing venation of host. (K) Habitus of nematode, note that a portion of the mermithid is still in the host’s abdomen. (L–N) Third piece with C. chironomae, LYD-MD-NG002. (L) Detail of head of host. (M) Forewing venation of host. (N) Detail of head and body. (O–Q) Fourth piece with C. chironomae, NIGP201881. (O) Detail of head of host. (P) Forewing venation of host. (Q) Habitus of two nematodes. Scale bars = 0.2 mm (B, E, K, O–Q), 0.1 mm (A, D, F, G, I, J, L–N), 50 μm (C, H). Abbreviation: he, head.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:507A7843-3FC1-4366-9268-833D751E236B

Etymology. The species epithet is derived from the type genus of Cecidomyiidae.

Type host. Gall midge of the family Cecidomyiidae (Diptera: Culicomorpha) (Figure 7A).

Material. Holotype. Kachin amber, cabochon, 7×4×3 mm, weight 0.1 g, specimen no. NIGP201871.

Diagnosis. Mermithid nematode parasitizing cecidomyiid midge from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber.

Description. Body grayish with white areas; cuticle smooth, lacking cross fibres; body with dark trophosome; head missing, tail obscured; length at least 1.5 mm; greatest width 73 µm; a=at least 21 (Figure 7B and C).

Remarks. The mermithid is preserved in the process of emerging from the host’s body.

Cretacimermis chironomae Poinar, 2011 (Figures 5E-H and 7D-Q)

Type host. A non-biting midge of the family Chironomidae (Diptera: Culicomorpha).

Material. Kachin amber. First piece: subtrapezoidal, 9.5×3.5×2 mm, weight 0.1 g, specimen no. NIGP201869; second piece: cabochon, 14×9×4 mm, weight 0.5 g, specimen no. LYD-MD-NG001; third piece: cabochon, 16×13×4 mm, weight 0.6 g, specimen no. LYD-MD-NG002; fourth piece: cabochon, 18×10×2 mm, weight 0.1 g, specimen no. NIGP201881.

Description. First piece (Figure 7D–H): body grayish, uniform with little distortion; cuticle smooth, lacking cross fibres; details of trophosome clear; head rounded; length at least 3.6 mm, greatest width 193 µm. Second piece (Figure 7I–K): body well preserved, with distinct opaque trophosome; length at least 4.9 mm, greatest width 106 µm. Third piece (Figure 7L–N): body well preserved, mostly opaque due to trophosome; posterior body portion flattened and slightly twisted; head pointed; length at least 4.3 mm, greatest width 75 µm. Fourth piece (Figure 7O–Q): both specimens’ body dark brown, very wide in relation to length; cuticle smooth, lacking cross fibres; trophosome opaque; heads rounded, tails obscured; lengths not possible to attain, greatest widths 175 µm and 155 µm, respectively.

Remarks. These mermithids were in the process of emerging from the hosts’ bodies.

Discussion

The sixteen new mermithids associated with their insect hosts described above include 10 insect–mermithid associations. The hosts of nine species were previously unrecorded, which triples the diversity of Cretaceous Mermithidae (from 4 to 13 species). In today’s ecosystems, mermithids have been reported from a variety of arthropods, in a range of environments, and often infecting large percentages of host populations and causing mass mortality (Poinar, 1975; Poinar, 1979; Petersen, 1985). Despite their abundance in extant terrestrial ecosystems, mermithids are rare in the fossil record as they are not readily preserved as fossils. Twenty-two fossil mermithid species have been described from the Cenozoic with their hosts (Supplementary file 1: Table S1), mainly from Eocene Baltic amber (11 species) and Miocene Dominican amber (9 species), but only four pre-Cenozoic species associated with only two insect orders have previously been recorded (Poinar and Buckley, 2006; Poinar and Sarto i Monteys, 2008; Poinar, 2011; Poinar, 2017). However, according to our new records, nine insect orders are now known to have been infested by mermithid nematodes in Kachin amber and this number is even higher than that of Baltic amber (~45 Ma) and Dominican amber (~18 Ma) (six and three insect orders, respectively), despite a much longer time spent searching for nematodes in the latter two amber deposits (Poinar, 2011). Together with previously described mermithids in Kachin amber (Poinar, 2001b; Grimaldi et al., 2002; Poinar and Buckley, 2006; Poinar, 2011; Poinar, 2017), our results suggest that mermithid parasitism of insects was actually widespread during the mid-Cretaceous (Figure 8). Mermithids species are usually characterized by strong host specificity, they are specific to a single species or to one or two families of insects, and are almost always lethal to their hosts (Stoffolano, 1973; Petersen, 1985), thus our study indicates that the widespread mermithid parasitism probably already played an important role in regulating the population of insects in Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystems.

The fossil record of Mermithidae plotted on the phylogenetic tree of insects.

The chronogram of the insect tree is modified from Misof et al., 2014 (thin black line); insect orders without a fossil record of mermithid parasitism are excluded. Thick black lines indicate the presence of mermithid parasitism. Rectangles represent the fossil number of species of mermithid not exceeding one, hexagons represent the fossil number of mermithids between two and five (inclusively), and circles represent the fossil number of mermithids more than five. Yellow coloration within the symbols represents previous records, red coloration within the symbols represents records in this paper. 1 – Lebanese amber, Early Cretaceous, approximately 135 Ma; 2 – Kachin amber, mid-Cretaceous, approximately 99 Ma; 3 – Baltic amber, Eocene, approximately 45 Ma; 4 – Rhine lignite (brown coal), Oligocene/Miocene, approximately 24 Ma; 5 – Mexican amber, Early Miocene, approximately 20 Ma; 6 – Dominican amber, Miocene, approximately 18 Ma. 7 – Willershausen, Kreis Osterode, Germany, Late Pliocene, approximately 3 Ma.

Our study provides new information on fossil host–parasite associations, including three previously unknown host–mermithid associations and first fossil records of four host associations. One is Cretacimermis incredibilis sp. nov., which has completely exited from a bristletail (Archaeognatha). Its tail end is still adjacent to an exit wound on the host (Figure 2D), indicating a true parasitic association. There are no previous extant or extinct records of nematodes attacking bristletails (Poinar, 1975; Poinar, 2011). A second new mermithid–host association is barklice (Psocodea) with three different specimens parasitized by mermithids. No barklice are parasitized by mermithids today (Poinar, 1975), but our specimens imply that such relationship might have been quite common in the mid-Cretaceous. Two members of the extinct planthopper family Perforissidae were also parasitized by mermithids, thus providing the oldest record of mermithid parasitism of planthoppers. The mermithid Heydenius brownii parasitized achiliid planthoppers in Baltic amber (Poinar, 2001a) and this association also occurs in extant planthoppers (Choo et al., 1989; Helden, 2008). Furthermore, our findings are the first fossil records of mermithids parasitizing dragonflies (Odonata), earwigs (Dermaptera), crickets (Orthoptera) and cockroaches (Blattodea), four host associations predicted from extant records (Poinar, 1975).

Nematode body fossils are scarce and mainly known from amber (De Baets et al., 2021b), sometimes together with their hosts (Poinar, 2011). To explore the evolution of nematode–host relationship, we compiled nematode–host records in the three best-studied amber biotas (mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber, Eocene Baltic amber and Miocene Dominican amber; Supplementary file 1: Table S1). Our results indicate that not only the mermithids, but also the nematodes as a whole, experienced a certain degree of host transition between the Cretaceous and Cenozoic (Figure 9). We cannot fully exclude the possibility of collection bias, but its influence is probably low because Kachin amber has been extensively studied in the last two decades and its biota has already become the most diverse known amber biota; moreover, holometabolous insects are much more diverse in the collections than non-holometabolous ones (1296 vs 465 species: Ross, 2023). It is therefore unlikely that holometabolous insects are underrepresented among the known hosts of mermithids. Among the insect hosts of mermithids preserved in Kachin amber, only one of the nine orders (Diptera) is holometabolous (i.e. insects with ‘complete’ metamorphosis), whilst it is four out of six (Hymenoptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera and Diptera) in Baltic amber and all three insect host orders (Hymenoptera, Coleoptera and Diptera) are holometabolous in Dominican amber. The situation is similar when referring to the amount of nematode parasitism (Table 1). In Kachin amber, only about 40% of the hosts (in total, not only insects) are holometabolous, while this percentage increases to 80% in Baltic and Dominican amber and this result is acceptable when uncertainty is considered (Figure 9B). Diptera are the most common hosts of nematodes from all three amber biotas; also, the oldest fossil animal that was found to host a mermithid is a dipteran from Early Cretaceous Lebanese amber (Poinar et al., 1994). This is probably because most dipteran larvae develop in moist or aquatic environments that are particularly suitable habitats for nematodes (Poinar, 2011). It is evident that Holometabola are the most important hosts of extant mermithids as well as all invertebrate-parasitizing nematodes (Poinar, 1975) and this hexapod subgroup dominated the insect fauna during the Cretaceous (Labandeira and Sepkoski, 1993; Labandeira, 2005; Sohn et al., 2015; Peters et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Thomas et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022). Our study suggests that, except for Diptera, nematodes had not completely exploited Holometabola as hosts in the mid-Cretaceous. This suggests that non-holometabolous insects (i.e. insects without ‘complete’ metamorphosis) were more available as hosts in the mid-Cretaceous and the widespread association between nematodes and Holometabola might have formed later.

The occurrence frequency of invertebrate–nematode associations from mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber (~99 Ma), Eocene Baltic amber (~45 Ma) and Miocene Dominican amber (~18 Ma).

(A) Pie diagrams, the quantity of fossil species is indicated below the orders. (B) Stacked bar plots, error bars represent 95% binomial confidence intervals (for data, see also Table 1).

Table 1
The quantity of invertebrate–nematode associations from the mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber (~99 Ma), Eocene Baltic amber (~45 Ma) and Miocene Dominican amber (~18 Ma).
Amber sourceHost typeQuantityFOI95% CI
Kachin amberHolometabola1058.33%38.80–75.56%
Other invertebrates14
Baltic amberHolometabola1620.00%7.49–42.18%
Other invertebrates4
Dominican amberHolometabola3220.00%10.24–35.01%
Other invertebrates8
  1. 95 % CI is calculated using the Agresti-Coull method of the “binom.confint” function from the binom R package (https://cran.r-project.org/package=binom) of R 4.2.2. Abbreviations: FOI, frequency of other invertebrates; CI, confidence intervals.

Finally, discovering these nematodes in mid-Cretaceous Kachin amber brings new opportunities to study the evolution of parasitism through the medium of amber. Amber is a unique form of fossilization (Hsieh and Plotnick, 2020). Although amber is patchily distributed in space and time, it is still especially suitable for investigating the evolution of terrestrial parasites associated with arthropods due to preservation potential (De Baets and Littlewood, 2015; Leung, 2017; De Baets et al., 2021a; De Baets et al., 2021b; Leung, 2021; Poinar, 2021). The high diversity of mermithid nematodes during the mid-Cretaceous as shown here provides a glimpse into the structure of ancient parasitic nematode–host associations and their evolution over the past 100 million years.

Materials and methods

Provenance and deposition

Request a detailed protocol

The specimens described here are from the Cretaceous deposits in the Hukawng Valley located southwest of Maingkhwan in Kachin State (26°20’ N, 96°36’ E) in Myanmar (Thu and Zaw, 2017). Radiometric U–Pb zircon dating determined the age to be 98.79±0.62 Ma (Shi et al., 2012), a date consistent with an ammonite trapped in the amber (Yu et al., 2019).

Fourteen specimens (NIGP201868–201881) are deposited in the NIGPAS, and two specimens (LYD-MD-NG001, 002) are deposited in Linyi University. The fossils were collected in full compliance with the laws of Myanmar and China (work on this manuscript began in early 2016). To avoid any confusion and misunderstanding, all authors declare that to their knowledge, the fossils reported in this study were not involved in armed conflict and ethnic strife in Myanmar, and were acquired prior to 2017. All specimens are permanently deposited in well-established, public museums, in full compliance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the Statement of the International Palaeoentomological Society (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999; Szwedo et al., 2020).

Optical photomicrography

Request a detailed protocol

Observations were performed using a Zeiss Stemi 508 microscope. The photographs were taken with a Zeiss Stereo Discovery V16 microscope system in the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and measurements were taken using Zen software. Photomicrographic composites of 10–150 individual focal planes were digitally stacked using the software HeliconFocus 6.7.1 for a better illustration of 3D structures. Photographs were adjusted using Adobe Lightroom Classic and line drawings were prepared using CorelDraw 2019 graphic software.

Data availability

All data are available in the main text and/or the supplementary materials.

References

    1. Choo HY
    2. Kaya HK
    3. Kim JB
    (1989)
    Agamermis Unka (Mermithidae) Parasitism of Nilaparvata Lugens in rice fields in Korea
    Journal of Nematology 21:254–259..
  1. Book
    1. De Baets K
    2. Dentzien-Dias P
    3. Harrison GWM
    4. Littlewood DTJ
    5. Parry LA
    (2021a) Fossil constraints on the timescale of parasitic helminth evolution
    In: De Baets K, Huntley JW, editors. The Evolution and Fossil Record of Parasitism: Identification and Macroevolution of Parasites. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. pp. 231–271.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42484-8
  2. Book
    1. De Baets K
    2. Huntley JW
    3. Klompmaker AA
    4. Schiffbauer JD
    5. Muscente AD
    (2021b) The fossil record of parasitism: its extent and taphonomic constraints
    In: De Baets K, Huntley JW, editors. The Evolution and Fossil Record of Parasitism: Coevolution and Paleoparasitological Techniques. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–50.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52233-9
  3. Book
    1. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
    (1999)
    International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th ed)
    London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.
  4. Book
    1. Labandeira CC
    (2005)
    Fossil history and evolutionary ecology of Diptera and their associations with plants
    In: Yeates DK, Wiegmann BM, editors. The Evolutionary Biology of Flies. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 217–273.
  5. Book
    1. Leung TLF
    (2021) Parasites of fossil vertebrates: what we know and what can we expect from the fossil record?
    In: De Baets K, Huntley JW, editors. The Evolution and Fossil Record of Parasitism: Identification and Macroevolution of Parasites. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–28.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42484-8
  6. Book
    1. Lorenzen S
    (1994)
    The Phylogenetic Systematics of Freeliving Nematodes
    The Ray Society.
    1. Nickle WR
    (1972)
    A contribution to our knowledge of the Mermithidae (Nematoda)
    Journal of Nematology 4:113–146..
  7. Book
    1. Petersen JJ
    (1985) Nematodes as biological control agents: Part I. Mermithidae
    In: Baker JR, Muller R, editors. Advances in Parasitology. Academic Press. pp. 307–344.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-308x(08)60565-5
  8. Book
    1. Poinar GO
    (1975)
    Entomogenous Nematodes: A Manual and Host List of Insect-Nematode Associations
    Leiden: E. J. Brill.
  9. Book
    1. Poinar GO
    (1979)
    Nematodes for Biological Control of Insects (1st ed)
    Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  10. Book
    1. Poinar GO
    (1983)
    The Natural History of Nematodes
    Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
    1. Poinar GO
    2. Acra A
    3. Acra F
    (1994)
    Earliest fossil nematode (Mermithidae) in Cretaceous Lebanese amber
    Fundamental and Applied Nematology 17:475–477.
  11. Book
    1. Poinar GO
    (2001b) Nematoda and Nematomorpha
    In: Thorp JH, Covich AP, editors. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. New York: Academic Press. pp. 255–295.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374855-3.00009-1
  12. Book
    1. Poinar GO
    (2015a) Phylum Nemata
    In: Thorp JH, Rogers DC, editors. Thorp and Covich’s Freshwater Invertebrates (Fourth Edition). Boston: Academic Press. pp. 273–302.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385026-3.00014-0
  13. Book
    1. Poinar GO
    (2021) Fossil record of viruses, parasitic bacteria and parasitic protozoa
    In: De Baets K, Huntley JW, editors. The Evolution and Fossil Record of Parasitism: Identification and Macroevolution of Parasites. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 29–68.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42484-8
  14. Book
    1. Thu K
    2. Zaw K
    (2017) Chapter 23 Gem deposits of Myanmar
    In: Barber AJ, Zaw K, Crow MJ, editors. Myanmar: Geology, Resources and Tectonics. The Geological Society. pp. 497–529.
    https://doi.org/10.1144/M48.23
  15. Book
    1. Yeates GW
    2. Ferris H
    3. Moens T
    4. Van Der Putten WH
    (2009) The role of nematodes in ecosystems
    In: Wilson MJ, Kakouli-Duarte T, editors. Nematodes as Environmental Indicators. CAB International. pp. 1–44.
    https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845933852.0000

Decision letter

  1. David Marjanovic
    Reviewing Editor; Museum für Naturkunde, Germany
  2. George H Perry
    Senior Editor; Pennsylvania State University, United States
  3. David Marjanovic
    Reviewer; Museum für Naturkunde, Germany

Our editorial process produces two outputs: (i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; (ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Widespread mermithid nematode parasitism of Cretaceous insects" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers including David Marjanović as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by George Perry as the Senior Editor.

Two of the reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

1) The abstract mentions statistical analyses, but only pie charts are presented. The data you present in the supplementary material could easily, and should, be used for a statistical analysis to test your hypothesis of a shift toward holometabolous insects as hosts. Please also briefly address, in the text, the possibility of collection bias: are, for example, beetles underrepresented in museum collections of insects in amber, and are such biases likely to be identical for all sources of amber (Baltic amber has been sampled for centuries, Kachin amber only for a decade or two)?

2) Please write for a slightly wider audience. For example, please explain how trophosomes are recognized, and how fossil mermithids can be differentiated from, for example, nematomorphs; please also mention if mermithids are known to exit their hosts as a panic reaction. If you can illustrate and describe the exit wounds, this would greatly strengthen the manuscript against the possibility that some of the associations might be accidental.

3) The nomenclature needs a few minor improvements. I also urge you to take this opportunity to publish the genus name Cretacimermis properly, because that has not been done so far – the original publication lacks a diagnosis, which is required even for collective groups, so the name "Cretacimermis" is not currently available and does not even compete for homonymy.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

I am not familiar with nematodes or amber, so I only wrote my review after receiving and reading the other reviews, and I have focused on the topics I am more competent in.

Comments on science

Given the wide readership of eLife, it would be good to explicitly state the evidence that these rather featureless elongate fossils represent specifically the parasitic stage of, specifically, mermithids (and not for example nematomorphs or a whole new group of nematodes). In your descriptions you mention trophosomes (implying parasitism) and details of the cuticle; is any of this diagnostic for Mermithidae, or is something else that you can see? How are trophosomes recognized? (I see the brown fragments you point out in Figure 4H; why do you interpret them as a trophosome?) Is it possible to illustrate or at least describe the exit wounds in more detail in the specimens where the mermithids have fully exited?

Can you exclude collection bias as a factor in the apparent shift to holometabolous hosts?

Line 25: By "statistical analyses", do you mean the pie charts in Figure 9? That's a presentation of data, not an analysis. The term made me expect mathematics.

64: Are mermithids known to exit their hosts as a flight reaction when the host is stressed?

Comments on nomenclature

I was wrong in my pre-review: collective groups are explicitly allowed under the ICZN; and diagnoses do not need to be limited to morphological characters, they can refer to behavior. However, collective species are not allowed – only collective genera and subgenera (ICZN Articles 10.3, 42.2.1). The species names you propose are therefore fine, just don't call them "collective".

However, because genus names must be published with a diagnosis even if they're intended for a collective genus, "Cretacimermis" is actually unavailable: for purposes of zoological nomenclature, this name does not exist. I quote the original publication (Poinar 2001b: 262): "Since the generic placement of this specimen was based in part on its host family, it is now prudent to transfer the species libani from Heleidomermis Rubstov into a new genus Cretacimermis Poinar. Thus, this nematode, which is the oldest definite fossil nematode, should now be called Cretacimermis libani Poinar, Acra and Acra (1994)." This is not "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon" (ICZN Art. 3.1.1). I therefore strongly recommend that you validly publish Cretacimermis here as a new name. (Interestingly, you don't need to select a type species, because collective groups do not have type species: ICZN Art. 13.3.2, 42.3.1, 66, 67.14. This must be precisely because species cannot be collective groups.)

I also strongly recommend against using times or places in diagnoses (if I find, say, a mermithid exiting an archaeognath in Late Cretaceous amber from New Jersey, do I really have to erect a new species name for it instead of referring it to "Cretacimermis" incredibilis…?), let alone the type of preservation (amber), but this is not forbidden by the ICZN. ("Character", as used in Art. 3.1.1, is defined in the Glossary as: "Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa.")

Line 101: Why "extraordinary" and not simply "incredible"?

129: The species name itself is fine, but adelphos means "brother", not "sister"; "sister" is "adelphê".

144: Much simpler: "The species epithet is the Latin 'directa' = arranged in a straight line."

172, 175, 193, 225: Another reviewer has pointed out that not all bugs are bedbugs, and that naming a planthopper parasite after bedbugs may therefore not be a good idea. Given that you name "C." manicapsoci after the type genus of Manicapsocidae (not directly after Manicapsocidae) and likewise "C." cecidomyiae after they type genus of Cecidomyiidae, you could also name the planthopper parasite "C. perforissi", after the type genus of Perforissidae.

226: Being a valid name, Cecidomyia should be preceded by a comma rather than surrounded by quotation marks. You can also delete it entirely; you didn't spell out Manicapsocus in line 193.

286: Replace "Archeognatha" by "Archaeognatha".

365: Is he Peter or Petr?

593-594 and Supplementary Table: As you correctly state in the text, the authors of "C." chironomae are not Poinar, 2011, but Grimaldi et al., 2002.

Comments on style and language

Line 27-28: "have […] exploited" is from the point of view of the present, so it clashes with "until the Cenozoic"; replace it by "had […] exploited".

34: Replace "one" by "some" to fit the plural "Nematodes […] are" in the preceding line.

40: Likewise, replace "a plant parasite" by "plant parasites" to stay in the plural.

41: Replace "can" by "could", "may" or "might".

63: It took me a second to understand "invertebrate parasitic habits"; in this form it would mean that their habits are both parasitic and invertebrate. Please use a hyphen in "invertebrate-parasitic habits" (or reword entirely, e.g. "parasitism of invertebrates").

292: Replace "be" by "have been" simply because the mid-Cretaceous is in the past.

294: Remove the comma; it wrongly implies that H. brownii is the only mermithid you're talking about here (and would need to be matched by another comma after the name).

313-315: "depicted" refers to literal pictures; replace it by "shown", "recorded" or "demonstrated". More importantly, however, the entire clause seems like it was incompletely edited; in its current form it states that mermithids parasitized dipterans before they parasitized anything else. I think you mean: "also, the first fossil animal that was found to host a mermithid is a dipteran from Early Cretaceous Lebanese amber (Poinar et al., 1994)" or something to that effect.

316: Replace "developed" by "develop".

325: Replace "be built" by "have formed".

Figure 8: Replace "~" by "-" (Ctrl+minus on the numeric block in MS Word, Alt+0150 on the numeric block in other software); "~" will not be understood as "to" outside of China – it will be mistaken as having its mathematical meaning of "about".

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Overall, I would highly recommend this manuscript be accepted for publication, however, I do have a few minor comments about the manuscript that I would like the authors to address before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

L62: "their large size" should be changed to "their relatively large size" since while it is true that mermithids are fairly large in terms of nematodes, there are also many nematodes which reach much, much larger sizes than mermithids.

L175: I question naming this species after bedbugs (Cimex) since the host was a planthopper. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to name the species after the host taxa?

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

As stated before this monumental description and valuable new data on fossil parasitic parasites is timely and very welcome. I just feel you could your own observations and work a bit short by not including a supporting statistical analysis of the shift in host exploitation (at minimum an analysis with error or confidence intervals would be appropriate). You alluded to a statistical analysis in the abstract but I could not find it in the manuscript. I feel this can be easily achieved with the new literature and data you compiled and would make your interpretations much more robust and fundamental. Here are my main suggestions on how you may achieve that goal:

Line 40-41: the statements need to be backed up by more recent publications – the authors could cite De Baets et al. 2021a in this context which reviewed the nematode fossil record and the authors already cite. In addition, the authors could cite Parry et al. (2017) who most recently reported sinusoidal traces which might reflect nematode activity but also cautioned for possible alternative interpretations.

Line 59: the fossils are also treated as parasitic nematodes in another publication in the same volumes by De Baets et al. (2021b); this chapter might be of interest as the authors also depict the nematode fossil record through the Phanerozoic and clearly demonstrate that amber provides one of the richest records of nematode body fossils including parasitic ones.

Line 76-79: Indeed, also the changes in proportion for heterometabolous to holometabolous insects could be mentioned. I feel that you undersell the importance of your study by dumping this information in the supplementary material. You also allude to a statistical analysis in the abstract but as far as I can see you are just naming percentages and have pie diagrams which can be widely deceiving (e.g., Rougier et al. 2014). Depicting the changing proportions of parasitic nematodes from heterometabolous to holometabolous insects would make your study easier to follow and reproduce as well as your interpretations more convincing.

Lines 100, 114, 128, 143, 157, 174, 192, 210, 224, Below each new species, the zoobank number should be added.

Line 300: You need to back up this statement with a reference. De Baets et al. 2021 (not to be confused with the other reference you already cite) recently depicted the known record of nematode body fossils and show that amber is one of its richest sources of nematodes backing up your statement.

Line 302-305: This is an important result and therefore the information should not be buried in the supplementary material. It is crucial to analyze/depict this information in a bar plot rather than pie diagrams which although graphically appealing might distort information (compare Figure 1.3 in De Baets et al. 2021) and I feel this could be done by separating those species in heterometabolous and holometabolous insects per amber deposit. To make your interpretations more robust and deal with differences in sampling heterometabolous versus holometabolous insects, at minimum binomial error or confidence intervals should be added to this plot (Raup 1991; Takeda and Tanabe 2014) if not more broadsweeping statistical analyses. Confidence intervals are more conservative and can easily be calculated in Matlab with Binofit function or R with the binom.confint function of the package Binom as well as other software. I feel such analyses could be done for both mermithids and all (parasitic) nematodes in those 3 amber deposits. Particularly tabulated data and depiction of the distribution of mermithids in modern insects would be helpful to understand the context. This might be trivial to you but not so to the reader who does not necessarily has access to all relevant literature.

Line 330-331: In addition to De Baets et al. 2021a, 2021b would be highly relevant in this context.

Line 344-353: I appreciate this explicit ethics statement and I feel it should be mandatory in all kind of studies dealing with fossils not just amber.

Line 390: Thank you for providing the raw data but I feel your study would also benefit from depicting this data in a bar plot with confidence intervals (as explained before) as well as add data and host distributions of modern mermithids.

Suggested references:

De Baets, K., Dentzien-Dias, P., Harrison, G.W.M., Littlewood, D.T.J., Parry, L.A. (2021a). Fossil Constraints on the Timescale of Parasitic Helminth Evolution. In: De Baets, K., Huntley, J.W. (eds) The Evolution and Fossil Record of Parasitism. Topics in Geobiology 49: 231-271. Springer, Cham. (already cited)

De Baets, K., Huntley, J.W., Klompmaker, A.A., Schiffbauer, J.D., Muscente, A.D. (2021b). The Fossil Record of Parasitism: Its Extent and Taphonomic Constraints. In: De Baets, K., Huntley, J.W. (eds) The Evolution and Fossil Record of Parasitism. Topics in Geobiology 50: 1-50. Springer, Cham.

Parry, L. A., Boggiani, P. C., Condon, D. J., Garwood, R. J., Leme, J. D. M., McIlroy, D., … & Liu, A. G. (2017). Ichnological evidence for meiofaunal bilaterians from the terminal Ediacaran and earliest Cambrian of Brazil. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(10), 1455-1464.

Raup, D. M. (1991). The future of analytical paleobiology. Short courses in paleontology, 4, 207-216.

Rougier, N. P., Droettboom, M., & Bourne, P. E. (2014). Ten simple rules for better figures. PLoS computational biology, 10(9), e1003833.

Takeda, Y., & Tanabe, K. (2014). Low durophagous predation on Toarcian (Early Jurassic) ammonoids in the northwestern Panthalassa shelf basin. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 60(4), 781-794.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86283.sa1

Author response

Essential revisions:

1) The abstract mentions statistical analyses, but only pie charts are presented. The data you present in the supplementary material could easily, and should, be used for a statistical analysis to test your hypothesis of a shift toward holometabolous insects as hosts. Please also briefly address, in the text, the possibility of collection bias: are, for example, beetles underrepresented in museum collections of insects in amber, and are such biases likely to be identical for all sources of amber (Baltic amber has been sampled for centuries, Kachin amber only for a decade or two)?

Thanks. We fully agreed with the reviewer and revised this part. We have added a new Figure 9B and Table 1 to our paper. Indeed, collection bias is almost present in all amber biotas. However, we believe we have robust reasons to argue that the shift to holometabolous hosts does exist. Although Kachin amber has only been studied extensively in the last two decades (compared with centuries of study in Baltic amber or Dominican amber), it has become by far the most intensively studied amber biota since its Cretaceous age was appreciated, now comprising an exceptional 700 families (Ross, 2023). Also, the fossil record of holometabolous insects is clearly much better than non-holometabolous insects in Kachin amber (1296 spp. vs 465 spp. respectively). But as shown in our paper, the nematodes we found in Kachin amber are mainly associated with heterometabolous insects. Therefore, even if collection bias might exist, such as the presence of some unreported nematode-Holometabola associations, we believe our conclusion about the shift is robust. We also add some explanation in our paper, please see line 350–356 in the clean copy of our revised manuscript.

2) Please write for a slightly wider audience. For example, please explain how trophosomes are recognized, and how fossil mermithids can be differentiated from, for example, nematomorphs; please also mention if mermithids are known to exit their hosts as a panic reaction. If you can illustrate and describe the exit wounds, this would greatly strengthen the manuscript against the possibility that some of the associations might be accidental.

Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. Please see below.

3) The nomenclature needs a few minor improvements. I also urge you to take this opportunity to publish the genus name Cretacimermis properly, because that has not been done so far – the original publication lacks a diagnosis, which is required even for collective groups, so the name "Cretacimermis" is not currently available and does not even compete for homonymy.

Thanks. We formally erect this genus in this paper.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

I am not familiar with nematodes or amber, so I only wrote my review after receiving and reading the other reviews (I am the Reviewing Editor), and I have focused on the topics I am more competent in.

Comments on science

Given the wide readership of eLife, it would be good to explicitly state the evidence that these rather featureless elongate fossils represent specifically the parasitic stage of, specifically, mermithids (and not for example nematomorphs or a whole new group of nematodes). In your descriptions you mention trophosomes (implying parasitism) and details of the cuticle; is any of this diagnostic for Mermithidae, or is something else that you can see? How are trophosomes recognized? (I see the brown fragments you point out in Figure 4H; why do you interpret them as a trophosome?) Is it possible to illustrate or at least describe the exit wounds in more detail in the specimens where the mermithids have fully exited?

Thank you very much for pointing out these issues. First, the parasitic stage of fossil mermithids is almost impossible to determine due to the lack of detailed structure. In fact, it is also very difficult to determine the stage of extant mermithids only based on morphological characters. It is a pity that the number of moults is based on experimental observation (Poinar, 1974), which is impossible to duplicate in fossil research.

The identification of fossil mermithids is based mainly on their relatively large size, the morphological comparison with extant mermithids (body shape, length, body diameter, tail structure, etc.), and their position and posture in relation to the insects. Other invertebrateparasitic nematodes are usually relatively short, not coiled, and much smaller than their hosts, but mermithids are relatively long, coiled, and large compared with their hosts (Poinar, 2011). Nematomorphs are also long and big, but their epicuticles are normally crossed by grooves or furrows, leaving small elevations of irregular areas (areoles) between them (Poinar, 1999, 2001, 2006). We have therefore added some explanation at the beginning of Systematic palaeontology. Please see line 86-90 in the clean copy.

Trophosome are intestines of mermithids. As mermithids develop, the intestine becomes detached from the remainder of the alimentary tract and serves as a food storage organ (trophosome) (Poinar, 2015). Trophosomes can usually be detected in fossil mermithids by their different hues (Poinar, 2011). In order to make it readable for a wider audience, we have added some arrows and explanations in our figures.

Finally, exit wounds are hard to detect even in extant insects because when mermithids have left, these wounds tend to close up. For our specimens, we indeed have evidence (direct or indirect) to argue these associations are not accidental. We revised our figures and also have added these comments as “Remarks” in Systematic palaeontology, please see lines 137–139, 154–156, 171–172, 205–207, 225–227, 245–249, 263–264, 278–279, 298 in the clean copy.

Cretacimermis incredibilis: As we illustrated in Figure 2D, the tail end of the mermithids is adjacent to an exit wound on the host, indicating a true parasitic association.

Cretacimermis calypta: Although no exit wound can be clearly found, this mermithid is closely coiled around the dragonfly, indicating that the nematode was just emerging from the host.

Cretacimermis adelphe: The posterior part of the abdomen of this earwig has been damaged; it is most likely that these mermithids exited from the host through this wound.

Cretacimermis directa: There is no distinct wound on this cricket’s body, but the nematode is adjacent to it, and there is no other insect nearby. Therefore, it is most likely that the mermithid was just emerging from the host.

Cretacimermis longa: These two nematodes are still in the process of exiting. Also, the abdomen of the adult cockroach is empty and therefore probably contained the developing nematode.

Cretacimermis perforissi: The abdomen of the first perforissid planthopper is clearly empty and probably contained the developing nematode. The abdomen of the second perforissid planthopper is broken, which could be the result of the emerging mermithid.

Cretacimermis manicapsoci: first piece: there is no distinct wound on the barklouse’s body, but the nematode is adjacent to it, and there is no other insect big enough nearby. Therefore, it is most likely that the mermithid was just emerging from the host. Second piece: the abdomen of the second perforissid planthopper is lost, which could be the result of the emerging mermithid.

Cretacimermis psoci: The abdomen of the barklouse is broken, which could be the result of the emerging of mermithid.

References:

Poinar GO, Otieno WA. 1974. Evidence of four molts in the Mermithidae. Nematologica 20:370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/187529274X00456

Poinar GO, 1999. Paleochordodes protus n.g., n.sp. (Nematomorpha, Chordodidae), parasites of a fossil cockroach, with a critical examination of other fossil hairworms and helminths of extant cockroaches (Insecta: Blattaria). Invertebrate Biology 118:109-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3227053

Poinar GO, 2001. Nematoda and Nematomorpha, in: Thorp JH, Covich AP (Eds.), Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates, Second ed. Academic Press, New York, pp. 255–295.

Poinar GO, Buckley R. 2006. Nematode (Nematoda: Mermithidae) and hairworm (Nematomorpha: Chordodidae) parasites in Early Cretaceous amber. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 93:36–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2006.04.006

Poinar GO, 2011. The evolutionary history of nematodes: as revealed in stone, amber and mummies. Brill, Amersfoort, the Netherlands.

Poinar GO, 2015. Chapter 14 – Phylum Nemata, in: Thorp JH, Rogers DC (Eds.), Thorp and Covich's Freshwater invertebrates (Fourth Edition). Academic Press, Boston, pp. 273–302.

Can you exclude collection bias as a factor in the apparent shift to holometabolous hosts?

Thanks. The collection bias does not affect our result. Please see Essential revision #2.

Line 25: By "statistical analyses", do you mean the pie charts in Figure 9? That's a presentation of data, not an analysis. The term made me expect mathematics.

Thanks. We calculated the 95% CI using the Agresti-Coull method of the “binom.confint” function from the binom R package (https://cran.r-project.org/package=binom) of R 4.2.2. We also added a new Figure 9B and Table 1 to our paper.

64: Are mermithids known to exit their hosts as a flight reaction when the host is stressed?

Thank you. Yes, nematodes tend to leave their hosts when their hosts are threated, e.g., caught by resin flow. That is why many fossil nematodes that occur in amber are very close to their hosts or just emerging from their hosts. We also add some words to explain this. Please see lines 53–56 in the clean copy.

Comments on nomenclature

I was wrong in my pre-review: collective groups are explicitly allowed under the ICZN; and diagnoses do not need to be limited to morphological characters, they can refer to behavior. However, collective species are not allowed – only collective genera and subgenera (ICZN Articles 10.3, 42.2.1). The species names you propose are therefore fine, just don't call them "collective".

Thanks. We deleted all the “Collective species” before our new species.

However, because genus names must be published with a diagnosis even if they're intended for a collective genus, "Cretacimermis" is actually unavailable: for purposes of zoological nomenclature, this name does not exist. I quote the original publication (Poinar 2001b: 262): "Since the generic placement of this specimen was based in part on its host family, it is now prudent to transfer the species libani from Heleidomermis Rubstov into a new genus Cretacimermis Poinar. Thus, this nematode, which is the oldest definite fossil nematode, should now be called Cretacimermis libani Poinar, Acra and Acra (1994)." This is not "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon" (ICZN Art. 3.1.1). I therefore strongly recommend that you validly publish Cretacimermis here as a new name. (Interestingly, you don't need to select a type species, because collective groups do not have type species: ICZN Art. 13.3.2, 42.3.1, 66, 67.14. This must be precisely because species cannot be collective groups.)

Thank you very much for pointing out this issue. We formally erect this genus in this paper. Collectives do not contain type species because they are not natural genera. Please see lines 104–123 in the clean copy.

I also strongly recommend against using times or places in diagnoses (if I find, say, a mermithid exiting an archaeognath in Late Cretaceous amber from New Jersey, do I really have to erect a new species name for it instead of referring it to "Cretacimermis" incredibilis…?), let alone the type of preservation (amber), but this is not forbidden by the ICZN. ("Character", as used in Art. 3.1.1, is defined in the Glossary as: "Any attribute of organisms used for recognizing, differentiating, or classifying taxa.")

Thanks. We also do not want to simply use times or places in diagnoses; however, it is almost impossible to identify fossil nematodes at generic and/or specific level based on morphology and we therefore have to use some other information in diagnoses like times, places and hosts as valuable circumstantial evidence. The same method is widely used in fossil nematodes. For example, Heydenius Taylor, 1935 was erected as a collective genus for all fossil mermithids from the Cenozoic, and Heydenius neotropicus Poinar, 2011 is for those infecting Chironomidae from Dominican amber, Heydenius matutinus (Menge, 1866) Taylor, 1935 is for those infecting Chironomidae from Baltic amber. Thus, if we do find a mermithid exiting an archaeognathan in Late Cretaceous amber from New Jersey, a new species is reasonable as unlikely to have infected chironomids in Dominican amber. It is therefore a more natural solution.

Line 101: Why "extraordinary" and not simply "incredible"?

Thanks. Corrected.

129: The species name itself is fine, but adelphos means "brother", not "sister"; "sister" is "adelphê".

Thanks. Corrected. We are very grateful for your comments and suggestions about the nomenclature.

144: Much simpler: "The species epithet is the Latin 'directa' = arranged in a straight line."

Thanks. Corrected.

172, 175, 193, 225: Another reviewer has pointed out that not all bugs are bedbugs, and that naming a planthopper parasite after bedbugs may therefore not be a good idea. Given that you name "C." manicapsoci after the type genus of Manicapsocidae (not directly after Manicapsocidae) and likewise "C." cecidomyiae after they type genus of Cecidomyiidae, you could also name the planthopper parasite "C. perforissi", after the type genus of Perforissidae.

Thanks. Corrected.

226: Being a valid name, Cecidomyia should be preceded by a comma rather than surrounded by quotation marks. You can also delete it entirely; you didn't spell out Manicapsocus in line 193.

Thanks. Deleted.

286: Replace "Archeognatha" by "Archaeognatha".

Thanks. Corrected.

365: Is he Peter or Petr?

Thanks. He is Peter

593-594 and Supplementary Table: As you correctly state in the text, the authors of "C." chironomae are not Poinar, 2011, but Grimaldi et al., 2002.

Thanks. However, although Grimaldi et al., 2002 first reported two mermithid nematode parasites emerging from the abdomen of a female chironomid midge, they did not describe it. It was “Poinar, 2011” who formally described these nematodes and proposed this new species.

Comments on style and language

Line 27-28: "have […] exploited" is from the point of view of the present, so it clashes with "until the Cenozoic"; replace it by "had […] exploited".

Thanks. Corrected.

34: Replace "one" by "some" to fit the plural "Nematodes […] are" in the preceding line.

Thanks. Corrected.

40: Likewise, replace "a plant parasite" by "plant parasites" to stay in the plural.

Thanks. We replaced “fossils” by “fossil” since there is only one nematode known from Rhynie Chert so far.

41: Replace "can" by "could", "may" or "might".

Thanks. Corrected.

63: It took me a second to understand "invertebrate parasitic habits"; in this form it would mean that their habits are both parasitic and invertebrate. Please use a hyphen in "invertebrate-parasitic habits" (or reword entirely, e.g. "parasitism of invertebrates").

Thanks. Corrected.

292: Replace "be" by "have been" simply because the mid-Cretaceous is in the past.

Thanks. Corrected.

294: Remove the comma; it wrongly implies that H. brownii is the only mermithid you're talking about here (and would need to be matched by another comma after the name).

Thanks. Corrected.

313-315: "depicted" refers to literal pictures; replace it by "shown", "recorded" or "demonstrated". More importantly, however, the entire clause seems like it was incompletely edited; in its current form it states that mermithids parasitized dipterans before they parasitized anything else. I think you mean: "also, the first fossil animal that was found to host a mermithid is a dipteran from Early Cretaceous Lebanese amber (Poinar et al., 1994)" or something to that effect.

Thanks. Corrected.

316: Replace "developed" by "develop".

Thanks. Corrected.

325: Replace "be built" by "have formed".

Thanks. Corrected.

Figure 8: Replace "~" by "-" (Ctrl+minus on the numeric block in MS Word, Alt+0150 on the numeric block in other software); "~" will not be understood as "to" outside of China – it will be mistaken as having its mathematical meaning of "about".

Thanks. Corrected.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Overall, I would highly recommend this manuscript be accepted for publication, however, I do have a few minor comments about the manuscript that I would like the authors to address before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

L62: "their large size" should be changed to "their relatively large size" since while it is true that mermithids are fairly large in terms of nematodes, there are also many nematodes which reach much, much larger sizes than mermithids.

Thanks. Corrected.

L175: I question naming this species after bedbugs (Cimex) since the host was a planthopper. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to name the species after the host taxa?

Thanks. We renamed this species as Cretacimermis perforissi based on the editor’s comments (please see comment 16).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

As stated before this monumental description and valuable new data on fossil parasitic parasites is timely and very welcome. I just feel you could your own observations and work a bit short by not including a supporting statistical analysis of the shift in host exploitation (at minimum an analysis with error or confidence intervals would be appropriate). You alluded to a statistical analysis in the abstract but I could not find it in the manuscript. I feel this can be easily achieved with the new literature and data you compiled and would make your interpretations much more robust and fundamental. Here are my main suggestions on how you may achieve that goal:

Thanks. We have added a new Figure 9B and Table 1 to our paper.

Line 40-41: the statements need to be backed up by more recent publications – the authors could cite De Baets et al. 2021a in this context which reviewed the nematode fossil record and the authors already cite. In addition, the authors could cite Parry et al. (2017) who most recently reported sinusoidal traces which might reflect nematode activity but also cautioned for possible alternative interpretations.

Thanks. We have added these two references here.

Line 59: the fossils are also treated as parasitic nematodes in another publication in the same volumes by De Baets et al. (2021b); this chapter might be of interest as the authors also depict the nematode fossil record through the Phanerozoic and clearly demonstrate that amber provides one of the richest records of nematode body fossils including parasitic ones.

Thanks. We added this reference here.

Line 76-79: Indeed, also the changes in proportion for heterometabolous to holometabolous insects could be mentioned. I feel that you undersell the importance of your study by dumping this information in the supplementary material. You also allude to a statistical analysis in the abstract but as far as I can see you are just naming percentages and have pie diagrams which can be widely deceiving (e.g., Rougier et al. 2014). Depicting the changing proportions of parasitic nematodes from heterometabolous to holometabolous insects would make your study easier to follow and reproduce as well as your interpretations more convincing.

Thanks. We have added a new Figure 9B and Table 1 to our paper.

Lines 100, 114, 128, 143, 157, 174, 192, 210, 224, Below each new species, the zoobank number should be added.

Thanks. Added.

Line 300: You need to back up this statement with a reference. De Baets et al. 2021 (not to be confused with the other reference you already cite) recently depicted the known record of nematode body fossils and show that amber is one of its richest sources of nematodes backing up your statement.

Thanks. This reference is informative and we added this reference.

Line 302-305: This is an important result and therefore the information should not be buried in the supplementary material. It is crucial to analyze/depict this information in a bar plot rather than pie diagrams which although graphically appealing might distort information (compare Figure 1.3 in De Baets et al. 2021) and I feel this could be done by separating those species in heterometabolous and holometabolous insects per amber deposit. To make your interpretations more robust and deal with differences in sampling heterometabolous versus holometabolous insects, at minimum binomial error or confidence intervals should be added to this plot (Raup 1991; Takeda and Tanabe 2014) if not more broadsweeping statistical analyses. Confidence intervals are more conservative and can easily be calculated in Matlab with Binofit function or R with the binom.confint function of the package Binom as well as other software. I feel such analyses could be done for both mermithids and all (parasitic) nematodes in those 3 amber deposits. Particularly tabulated data and depiction of the distribution of mermithids in modern insects would be helpful to understand the context. This might be trivial to you but not so to the reader who does not necessarily has access to all relevant literature.

Thank you very much for pointing out these issues. We also realize this drawback and we have now calculated the 95% CI using the Agresti-Coull method of the “binom.confint” function from the binom R package (https://cran.r-project.org/package=binom) of R 4.2.2. We also added a new Figure 9B and Table 1 in our paper to address this problem. We did not prepare a similar figure for mermithids alone because the dataset is too small at present. Meanwhile, since we compiled the “occurrence” of invertebrate–nematode associations from these amber localities, it is impossible to compare with modern mermithids. For example, the parasite of Cretacimermis chironomae occurs five times in Kachin amber, but an extant dipteran-parasitized mermithid species can occur many times just in a single pond. However, it is evident that mermithids as well as all invertebrate-parasitized nematodes prefer to infect holometabolous insects rather than other invertebrates (Poinar, 1975; Poinar, personal observation). We have also added some explanations in our paper, please see lines 367–369 in the clean copy.

Line 330-331: In addition to De Baets et al. 2021a, 2021b would be highly relevant in this context.

Thanks. We have added this reference here.

Line 344-353: I appreciate this explicit ethics statement and I feel it should be mandatory in all kind of studies dealing with fossils not just amber.

Thanks for your positive comment.

Line 390: Thank you for providing the raw data but I feel your study would also benefit from depicting this data in a bar plot with confidence intervals (as explained before) as well as add data and host distributions of modern mermithids.

Thanks. We have added a new Figure 9B and Table 1 to our paper.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86283.sa2

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Cihang Luo

    1. State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China
    2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing
    For correspondence
    chluo@nigpas.ac.cn
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4855-6185
  2. George O Poinar

    Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, United States
    Contribution
    Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  3. Chunpeng Xu

    1. State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China
    2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
    Contribution
    Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  4. De Zhuo

    Beijing Xiachong Amber Museum, Beijing, China
    Contribution
    Investigation, Visualization
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  5. Edmund A Jarzembowski

    State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China
    Contribution
    Writing – review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  6. Bo Wang

    State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology and Center for Excellence in Life and Paleoenvironment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, China
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing
    For correspondence
    bowang@nigpas.ac.cn
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8001-9937

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (42125201)

  • Bo Wang

Chinese Academy of Sciences (Strategic Priority Research Program XDB26000000)

  • Bo Wang

Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (2019QZKK0706)

  • Bo Wang

CAS President's International Fellowship Initiative

  • Edmund A Jarzembowski

UNESCO-IUGS (IGCP Project 679)

  • Edmund A Jarzembowski

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to George Perry, David Marjanović and two anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions, which greatly improved this paper. We also thank Daran Zheng, Youning Su, Peter Vršanský, Adam Stroiński, and Art Borkent for help with identification of the hosts of nematodes. This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42125201), Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDB26000000), the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (2019QZKK0706) and the CAS President’s International Fellowship Initiative (PIFI). This is a contribution to UNESCO-IUGS IGCP Project 679.

Senior Editor

  1. George H Perry, Pennsylvania State University, United States

Reviewing Editor

  1. David Marjanovic, Museum für Naturkunde, Germany

Reviewer

  1. David Marjanovic, Museum für Naturkunde, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: January 18, 2023
  2. Preprint posted: February 7, 2023 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: May 24, 2023
  4. Version of Record published: July 14, 2023 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2023, Luo et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 601
    Page views
  • 118
    Downloads
  • 2
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Cihang Luo
  2. George O Poinar
  3. Chunpeng Xu
  4. De Zhuo
  5. Edmund A Jarzembowski
  6. Bo Wang
(2023)
Widespread mermithid nematode parasitism of Cretaceous insects
eLife 12:e86283.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86283

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.86283

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Plant Biology
    Jamie Mitchel Waterman, Tristan Michael Cofer ... Matthias Erb
    Research Article

    Volatiles emitted by herbivore-attacked plants (senders) can enhance defenses in neighboring plants (receivers), however, the temporal dynamics of this phenomenon remain poorly studied. Using a custom-built, high-throughput proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry (PTR-ToF-MS) system, we explored temporal patterns of volatile transfer and responses between herbivore-attacked and undamaged maize plants. We found that continuous exposure to natural blends of herbivore-induced volatiles results in clocked temporal response patterns in neighboring plants, characterized by an induced terpene burst at the onset of the second day of exposure. This delayed burst is not explained by terpene accumulation during the night, but coincides with delayed jasmonate accumulation in receiver plants. The delayed burst occurs independent of day:night light transitions and cannot be fully explained by sender volatile dynamics. Instead, it is the result of a stress memory from volatile exposure during the first day and secondary exposure to bioactive volatiles on the second day. Our study reveals that prolonged exposure to natural blends of stress-induced volatiles results in a response that integrates priming and direct induction into a distinct and predictable temporal response pattern. This provides an answer to the long-standing question of whether stress volatiles predominantly induce or prime plant defenses in neighboring plants, by revealing that they can do both in sequence.

    1. Ecology
    Congnan Sun, Yoel Hassin ... Yossi Yovel
    Research Article

    Covid-19 lockdowns provided ecologists with a rare opportunity to examine how animals behave when humans are absent. Indeed many studies reported various effects of lockdowns on animal activity, especially in urban areas and other human-dominated habitats. We explored how Covid-19 lockdowns in Israel have influenced bird activity in an urban environment by using continuous acoustic recordings to monitor three common bird species that differ in their level of adaptation to the urban ecosystem: (1) the hooded crow, an urban exploiter, which depends heavily on anthropogenic resources; (2) the rose-ringed parakeet, an invasive alien species that has adapted to exploit human resources; and (3) the graceful prinia, an urban adapter, which is relatively shy of humans and can be found in urban habitats with shrubs and prairies. Acoustic recordings provided continuous monitoring of bird activity without an effect of the observer on the animal. We performed dense sampling of a 1.3 square km area in northern Tel-Aviv by placing 17 recorders for more than a month in different micro-habitats within this region including roads, residential areas and urban parks. We monitored both lockdown and no-lockdown periods. We portray a complex dynamic system where the activity of specific bird species depended on many environmental parameters and decreases or increases in a habitat-dependent manner during lockdown. Specifically, urban exploiter species decreased their activity in most urban habitats during lockdown, while human adapter species increased their activity during lockdown especially in parks where humans were absent. Our results also demonstrate the value of different habitats within urban environments for animal activity, specifically highlighting the importance of urban parks. These species- and habitat-specific changes in activity might explain the contradicting results reported by others who have not performed a habitat specific analysis.