Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mosquito fossils and the antiquity of Culicidae Fossil records can provide insights into anatomical diversification, historical biogeography and the antiquity of taxa, but they are too incomplete to document precisely the divergence and ages of taxonomic groups. In the case of mosquitoes, the fossil record is so poor that it is not possible to establish the actual ages of the family and extant taxa. Edwards (1923) surmised that “The origin and phylogenetic history of the Culicidae must go back to well into the Mesozoic Era; and, from the small size and fragile nature of the insects, it is probably too much to hope that we can ever obtain much direct palaeontological evidence on these matters”. Poinar et al. (2000) provided a list and critical evaluation of mosquito fossils. A number of extinct species have been assigned to Culicidae since the beginning of binomial nomenclature, but only 15 can be placed in the family with confidence (Poinar et al., 2000; Zavortink & Poinar, 2000; Borkent & Grimaldi, 2004). Thirteen of these species are from the Tertiary, including species of Aedes, Culex, Mansonia and two non-extant genera, and two are from the Cretaceous. The discovery of the two cretaceous species confirms Edwards’ (1923) view that the evolution of Culicidae must extend into the Mesozoic. The oldest fossil, Burmaculex antiquus Borkent & Grimaldi, is embedded in Burmese amber from the mid-Cretaceous (90–100 Mya). This species bears several plesiomorphic features, including a short proboscis, which suggest it is a stem-group mosquito that is intermediate between extant mosquitoes and other midges. In fact, the phylogenetic analysis of morphological data conducted by Borkent & Grimaldi (2004) indicates that Burmaculex is the sister group of all other fossil and modern mosquitoes. The second oldest fossil, Paleoculicis minutus Poinar et al., is entombed in Canadian amber from the Late Cretaceous (76.5–79.5 Mya). Morphological features indicate that Paleoculicis shares a closer affinity with culicine than anopheline mosquitoes, which suggests that this ancestral lineage is younger than the lineage that gave rise to subfamily Anophelinae. Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus?) dominicanus Zavortink & Poinar and An. (?) rottensis Statz are the only fossil anopheline mosquitoes. The former is contained in Dominican amber from the mid-Tertiary (15–45 Mya) and the latter is from the Late Oligocene of Germany (approximately 25 Mya). If the Anophelinae are indeed basal to all other Culicidae, it would appear from available fossil evidence that extant groups of Culicidae may have evolved in the Cenozoic Era. Considering the impact of mosquitoes on human health, it is not surprising that phylogenetic studies of these insects have only dealt with relationships within the four major groups that contain the majority of medically important species. These include subfamily Anophelinae and tribes Aedini, Culicini and Sabethini of subfamily Culicinae. As the following discussions will show, the phylogenies of these groups are far from being resolved and their classifications are not entirely natural.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".