ArticleInsects2026
The About 100 Million Years Old Enigmatic "Beak Larva" Is a Weird Click Beetle Relative.
Article in Insects, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
"Beak larva" is a collective term for four fossil specimens from Kachin amber, which are holometabolan larvae with a forward-projecting beak. This arrangement is very unusual, and so far it has been unclear whether these specimens are larvae of beetles or of lacewings. We present here new details of the mouthparts of one of these larvae based on synchrotron radiation-based X-ray µ-CT (SRµCT) imaging. We can identify that the main part of the beak is formed by the labrum and the labium; the mandibles insert laterally into this beak. The beak has two distinct channels to which the mandibles seem to be connected. The maxillae are tightly connected to the labium and head capsule and have an endite each (unclear if lacinia, galea, or mala), also inserting into the beak. Overall, these details reveal a mouthpart arrangement incompatible with an interpretation as a lacewing. The arrangement is most similar to that in some beetle larvae, namely those of Elateroidea. It most closely resembles that of the larvae of the species-poor sister groups Cerophytidae and Jurasaidae. It seems likely that the beak larvae are closely related to Jurasaidae, possessing an intermediate morphology. The combined data allow us to reconstruct aspects of the entire group, including the beak larvae, Cerophytidae, and Jurasaidae, indicating that they undergo hypermetamorphosis. The latter is most expressed in Jurasaidae. Combined with the paedomorphic female, this group seems to have four rather distinct morphologies and ecologies: (1) early mobile larvae, (2) physogastric, strongly wormlike larvae, (3) "normal"-appearing adult males, and (4) females with another unique morphology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.