Abstract
Abstract
Background
Mayflies are basal winged insects of crucial importance for the understanding of the early evolution of Pterygota. Unlike all other insects, they have two successive winged stages, the subimago and the imago. Their forewings feature so-called bullae, which are desclerotized spots in the anterior main veins. Up to now, they have been considered to play a major role in wing bending during flight.
Results
We investigated bullae by multiple methods to reveal their structure and arrangement and to gain new information on the evolution of insect flight. Bullae are mostly present in the anterior negative wing veins, disrupting the otherwise rigid veins. High-speed videography reveals that mayfly wings do not bend during flight. Likewise, different arrangements of bullae in different species do not correlate with different modes of flying. Observations on the moulting of subimagines unravel that they are essential for wing bending during the extraction of the imaginal wing from the subimaginal cuticle. Bullae define predetermined bending lines, which, together with a highly flexible wing membrane enriched with resilin, permit wing bending during subimaginal moulting. Bullae are only absent in those species that remain in the subimaginal stage or that use modified modes of moulting. Bullae are also visible in fossil mayflies and can be traced back to stemgroup mayflies of the Early Permian, the 270 million years old Protereismatidae, which most probably had bullae in both fore- and hind wings.
Conclusions
Bullae in mayfly wings do not play a role in flight as previously thought, but are crucial for wing bending during subimaginal moulting. Thus, the presence of bullae is a reliable morphological marker for a subimaginal life stage, confirming the existence of the subimago already in Permian Protereismatidae. A thorough search for bullae in fossils of other pterygote lineages may reveal wheather they also had subimagines and at what point in evolution this life stage was lost. In mayflies, however, the subimago may have been retained due to selective advantages in connection with the transition from aquatic to terrestrial life or due to morphological requirements for a specialized mating flight.
Funder
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart (SMNS)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cell Biology,Developmental Biology,Plant Science,General Agricultural and Biological Sciences,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,Physiology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics,Structural Biology,Biotechnology
Reference53 articles.
1. Hennig W. Insect Phylogeny. Chichester: Wiley; 1981.
2. Kristensen NP. Forty years’ insect phylogenetic systematics. Zool Beitr NF. 1995;36:83–124.
3. Willmann R. Advances and problems in insect phylogeny. In: Fortey RA, Thomas RH, editors. Arthropod relationships. Dordrecht: The Systematics Association Special Volume Series 55. Springer; 1998. p. 269–79.
4. Misof B, Liu S, Meusemann K, Peters RS., Donath A, Mayer C, ... Zhou X. Phylogenomics resolves the timing and pattern of insect evolution. Science 2014;346(6210),763–767. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257570
5. Edmunds GF Jr, McCafferty WP. The mayfly subimago. Annu Rev Entomol. 1988;33:509–29.