very tiny mosquitos mating?

[blackmoth]

People thought in this mid-jurrasic shale piece there is only  the travial Estherians, but  under the scope, the little stain becomes some thing interesting.  It looks no biggerthan the counter-fake little red or green threads in the green buck. actaully the abdomen is only 1mm long, as can be seen in one of the figues.  

[Fossildude19]

Looks a bit more like a robber fly. 

 

 

[jpc]

insect for sure... but mating?

but what is this..."travial Estherians,"?

[Rockwood]

5 hours ago, jpc said:

but mating?

Third photo.

I strongly suspect it represents a more destructive event though.

[Fossildude19]

8 hours ago, jpc said:

insect for sure... but mating?

but what is this..."travial Estherians,"?

I think he may have meant trivial Estherisans. Conchostrachans. 

[Fossildude19]

I am thinking now, with that small size, it is probably a mosquito or some such insect.

[FossilDAWG]

Without very sharp close-up photos that show actual diagnostic details, it is not possible to identify this fossil beyond the very general level of "probable dipteran".  In the current photo we cannot see anything of the mouthparts or the wing veination, either of which would be very helpful.  In any case, mosquitoes are extremely rare in the fossil record, compared to many other groups of insects.  Of the many thousands of insects collected from McAbee and other Okanagan Highlands Eocene lake deposits, not one mosquito has been published or listed in published accounts.  Even more significant, the oldest known fossil mosquito dates to the mid Cretaceous (link) so it is very unlikely that this chip of Jurassic shale would happen to contain a true mosquito.

 

Insect abdomens have hardened plates (sclerites) on the top (dorsal surface) and bottom (ventral surface), separated by thinner more flexible exoskeleton (called the pleural membrane) along the sides.  This allows the abdomen to expand to accommodate food.  The fossil is preserved in lateral view, and the abdomen is squished flat, which separated the dorsal and ventral sclerites.  The soft thin pleural membrane is not preserved.  This explains the superficial appearance of two insects in mating posture.

 

Don

[blackmoth]

3 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I am thinking now, with that small size, it is probably a mosquito or some such insect.

that's what I think.  The only thing puzzles me is the small size, otherwise it is just a piece of poorly preserved dipteran.

[blackmoth]

3 hours ago, Fossildude19 said:

I think he may have meant trivial Estherisans. Conchostrachans. 

Yes, they are everywhere.  People say a piece of shale   "blank one " if he only sees  Conchostrachans on it.

[Tidgy's Dad]

The insect is great but I for one really rather like those conchostrachans. 

Very interesting. 

[blackmoth]

3 hours ago, FossilDAWG said:

Without very sharp close-up photos that show actual diagnostic details, it is not possible to identify this fossil beyond the very general level of "probable dipteran".  In the current photo we cannot see anything of the mouthparts or the wing veination, either of which would be very helpful.  In any case, mosquitoes are extremely rare in the fossil record, compared to many other groups of insects.  Of the many thousands of insects collected from McAbee and other Okanagan Highlands Eocene lake deposits, not one mosquito has been published or listed in published accounts.  Even more significant, the oldest known fossil mosquito dates to the mid Cretaceous (link) so it is very unlikely that this chip of Jurassic shale would happen to contain a true mosquito.

 

Insect abdomens have hardened plates (sclerites) on the top (dorsal surface) and bottom (ventral surface), separated by thinner more flexible exoskeleton (called the pleural membrane) along the sides.  This allows the abdomen to expand to accommodate food.  The fossil is preserved in lateral view, and the abdomen is squished flat, which separated the dorsal and ventral sclerites.  The soft thin pleural membrane is not preserved.  This explains the superficial appearance of two insects in mating posture.

 

Don

Thanks for the thoughts on the seperated dorsal and ventral sclerites. I believe it explains very well why some fossils in that place have "double, parallel" abdomens. But this one has the two andomens more seperated and no longer going parallel. Anyway it is poorly preserved in many ways so I guess I will just leave it as a probable dipteran with a very small size, with no fancy on the mating thing. The rareness of mosquito fossil in Jurassic shale ( 170 miilion years old) is however another thing. I got another piece from the same place, which looks like nothing but a mosquito.

[blackmoth]

I am trying to bring this lead back to life to see if it could get some expert interested in it. The fossil is kept in my parents home in Beijing.

[itsandbits1]

On 12/11/2019 at 8:26 AM, blackmoth said:

Thanks for the thoughts on the seperated dorsal and ventral sclerites. I believe it explains very well why some fossils in that place have "double, parallel" abdomens. But this one has the two andomens more seperated and no longer going parallel. Anyway it is poorly preserved in many ways so I guess I will just leave it as a probable dipteran with a very small size, with no fancy on the mating thing. The rareness of mosquito fossil in Jurassic shale ( 170 miilion years old) is however another thing. I got another piece from the same place, which looks like nothing but a mosquito.

The rareness of mosquito fossil in Jurassic shale ( 170 miilion years old) is however another thing.

yes I agree with you, comparing the jurassic to the eocene time period is a stretch. It's unfortunate the wings are obscured or missing. I can't comment on what it is but doing an internet search comes up with many similar identified as mosquito