↓ Skip to main content

An endoparasitoid Cretaceous fly and the evolution of parasitoidism

Overview of attention for article published in The Science of Nature, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
An endoparasitoid Cretaceous fly and the evolution of parasitoidism
Published in
The Science of Nature, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00114-015-1327-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qingqing Zhang, Junfeng Zhang, Yitao Feng, Haichun Zhang, Bo Wang

Abstract

Parasitoidism is a key innovation in insect evolution, and parasitoid insects, nowadays, play a significant role in structuring ecological communities. Despite their diversity and ecological impact, little is known about the early evolution and ecology of parasitoid insects, especially parasitoid true flies (Diptera). Here, we describe a bizarre fly, Zhenia xiai gen. et sp. nov., from Late Cretaceous Burmese amber (about 99 million years old) that represents the latest occurrence of the family Eremochaetidae. Z. xiai is an endoparasitoid insect as evidenced by a highly developed, hypodermic-like ovipositor formed by abdominal tergites VIII + IX that was used for injecting eggs into hosts and enlarged tridactylous claws supposedly for clasping hosts. Our results suggest that eremochaetids are among the earliest definite records of parasitoid insects. Our findings reveal an unexpected morphological specialization of flies and broaden our understanding of the evolution and diversity of ancient parasitoid insects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 31%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 46%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Unknown 3 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2020.
All research outputs
#5,323,422
of 25,385,864 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#575
of 2,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,776
of 403,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 403,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.