CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Coleoptera Taxonomy and DistributionAnimal Behavior and ReproductionInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior

The life cycle of Micromalthus debilisLeConte (1878) (Coleoptera: Archostemata: Micromalthidae): historical review and evolutionary perspective

Open access
POLLOCK, D. A., NORMARK, B. B.·2002·Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research
DOI 10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00183.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Micromalthus debilis LeConte (1878 ), has one of the most bizarre life cycles of any metazoan. Reproduction is typically by thelytokous, viviparous, larviform females, but there is also a rare arrhenotokous phase. The active first-instar (triungulin) larva develops into a legless, feeding (cerambycoid) larva. This form either pupates, leading to a diploid adult female, or develops into any of three subsequent types of reproductive paedogenetic forms: (1) a thelytokous female that produces triungulins via viviparity; (2) an arrhenotokous female that produces a single egg that develops into the short-legged (curculionoid) larva, eventually devouring its mother and becoming a haploid adult male; or (3) an amphitokous female that can follow either of the two above reproductive pathways. We speculate that Micromalthus is dependent on maternally transmitted bacteria for the ability to digest rotting wood, and that these bacteria are senescent in males, causing males to be obligately cannibalistic. Obligate male cannibalism, in turn, would have dramatically increased the cost of males, and have created a strong selective advantage for cyclic thelytoky and the other features of the Micromalthus life cycle that minimize the role of the male.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00183.x

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Insects that have lost complete metamorphosis via type I paedomorphosis are known from several independent dipteran lineages and the beetle species Micromalthus debilis.

    “Insects that have lost complete metamorphosis via type I paedomorphosis are known from several independent dipteran lineages (Johannsen, 1910; Wyatt, 1961, 1963, 1967; Ibrahim & Gad, 1975; Hodin & Riddiford, 2000) and the unusual beetle species Micromalthus debilis (reviewed in Pollock & Normark, 2002).”

    From Why grow up? <scp>A</scp> perspective on insect strategies to avoid metamorphosis (2016) · cites this paper as Pollock & Normark, 2002

    The Life cycle section describes reproductive larvae of Micromalthus debilis that can produce young without pupating, supporting the beetle example. It also reports pupae and winged adults, so the paper does not support saying the species has lost complete metamorphosis altogether. The cited passage does not identify this process as “type I paedomorphosis”; the dipteran lineages have separate citations in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In type I paedomorphic species, the metamorphic pathway can be viewed as a response to deterioration in quality of the resource patch, or as an inbreeding avoidance strategy.

    “As in other type I paedomorphic species, the metamorphic pathway can be viewed as a response to deterioration in quality of the resource patch, or as an inbreeding avoidance strategy (Pollock &amp;Normark, 2002).”

    From Why grow up? <scp>A</scp> perspective on insect strategies to avoid metamorphosis (2016) · cites this paper as Pollock & Normark, 2002

    In “Obligate matriphagy by males” (page unavailable), the paper says male production apparently responds to habitat drying, which supports a link to deteriorating conditions. In “Life cycle: an historical review of the evidence” (page unavailable), it reports Barber’s view that the life cycle hinders inbreeding. It does not present metamorphosis in type I paedomorphic species generally as a response to declining resource-patch quality or as an inbreeding-avoidance strategy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Amphitokous forms of Micromalthus debilis follow both the thelytokous and arrhenotokous pathways.

    “Amphitokous forms follow both of the aforementioned pathways (Pollock &amp; Normark, 2002).”

    From Why grow up? <scp>A</scp> perspective on insect strategies to avoid metamorphosis (2016) · cites this paper as Pollock & Normark, 2002

  • In M. debilis, as an alternative to all-female diploid broods (approximately 10 daughters), the mother larva can produce a single haploid son that consumes the mother before pupating into a fully metamorphosed adult.

    “In M. debilis (Micromalthidae), as an alternative to all female diploid broods (approx. 10 daughters), the mother larva can also produce a single haploid son that consumes the mother before pupating into a fully metamorphosed adult.”

    From Why grow up? <scp>A</scp> perspective on insect strategies to avoid metamorphosis (2016) · cites this paper as Pollock & Normark, 2002

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. Barber, H. S., 1913a: Observations on the life history of Micromalthus debilis LeC. (Coleoptera). Proc. Ent. Soc. Washington 15, 31-38.
  2. Barber, H. S., 1913b: The remarkable life-history of a new family (Micromalthidae) of beetles. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 26, 185-190.
  3. Buchner, P., 1965: Endosymbiosis of Animals with Plant-Like Micro- Organisms. New York: Wiley Interscience.
  4. Crowson, R. A., 1975: The evolutionary history of Coleoptera, as documented by fossil and comparative evidence. Atti del X Congr. Naz. Ital. di Ent. Firenze: Tip. Coppini, pp. 47-90.
  5. Hamilton, W. D., 1978: Evolution and diversity under bark. In: Mound, L. A.; Waloff, N. (eds), Diversity of Insect Faunas. New York: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 154-175.
  6. Life cycle of Micromalthus debilis LeConte 111 14390469, 2002, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00183.x by Mount Vernon Nazarene University, Wiley Online Library on [02/09/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License · DOI
  7. Hamilton, W. D., 1993: Inbreeding in Egypt and in this book: a childish perspective. In: Thornhill, N. W. (ed.), The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 429-450.
  8. Hennig, W., 1981: Insect Phylogeny. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  9. Hubbard, H. G., 1878: The Coleoptera of Michigan. 4. Description of the larva of Micromalthus debilis LeC. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 17, 666-668 + Plate
  10. Lawrence, J. F., 1982: Coleoptera. In: Parker, S. P. (ed.), Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms. New York: McGraw-Hill Publications, pp. 482-553.
  11. Lawrence, J. F., 1991: Micromalthidae. In: Stehr, F. W. (ed.), Immature Insects, Vol. 2. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., pp. 300-302.
  12. Lawrence, J. F.; Newton, A. F. Jr, 1995: Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (with selected genera, notes, references and data on family-group names). In: Pakaluk, J.; Slipinski, S. A. (eds), Biology, Phylogeny and Classification of Coleoptera. Papers Celebrating the 80th Birthday of Roy A. Crowson. Warszawa: Muzeum I Instytut PAN, pp. 779-1006.
  13. LeConte, J. L., 1878: The Coleoptera of Michigan. 1. Descriptions of new species. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 17, 593-626.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
POLLOCK, D. A., & NORMARK, B. B.
Affiliations
  • Eastern New Mexico University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Corresponding author
POLLOCK, D. A.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research
Publisher
Hindawi Limited
Published
2002-06
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
105-112
ISSN
  • 0947-5745 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-0469
DOI
10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00183.x
OpenAlex
W2057168741
Cited by
45
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 4840 d)
Locations
Journal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Coleoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Keywords
life cycle, thelytoky, paedogenesis, viviparity, wood digestion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review