New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Mysterious Insect Fossil Gap Explained

A lack of diverse, winged hexapods—not low oxygen levels—could explain the gap in the fossil record

Prehistoric insects in Lithuanian Baltic amber.

PJR Studio Alamy

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Insects are everywhere—in the air, on the ground, in the ground, and sometimes in your house and food. Yet there are none whatsoever in the known fossil record between 385 million and 325 million years ago. The earliest known insect fossil is a 385-million-year-old wingless creature that looks like a silverfish. But for the next 60 million years there is not so much as a single dragonfly, grasshopper or roach.

This so-called hexapod gap has long vexed paleontologists, given that insects today are found in almost every imaginable land habitat. One hypothesis suggests that chokingly low oxygen levels kept insect diversity from soaring during the gap and that these creatures proliferated only once the life-giving gas increased.

But advances in the understanding of atmospheric oxygen levels are challenging that idea, explains Sandra Schachat, a paleoentomologist at Stanford University, who led a recent study that modeled the gas's availability during the hexapod gap. Atmospheric oxygen at the time was much higher than once believed, according to the research, which was published in January in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A fungus gnat in amber. Credit: Natural History Museum, London Alamy

The disagreement between Schachat's findings and earlier research stems from the fact that her team used more recent atmospheric data that nowadays can be gathered cheaply and efficiently. “If these results are confirmed, we could dismiss low oxygen levels as a possibility” for explaining the gap, says Jesus Lozano Fernandez, a paleobiologist at the University of Bristol in England, who was not involved in the new work.

Schachat and her team combed through fossil information from a public paleontology database and realized there was something special about many of the insect fossils that came after the gap: they had wings. This was likely the trait that helped hexapod diversity take off; winged insects can zip away from predators and get at otherwise unreachable foods such as leaves and other insects. “The gap is simply the tail end of a larger interval in which insects are very rare on the landscape because wings had not yet originated,” Schachat says.

The mystery now bugging Schachat is how insect wings evolved at all; the earliest flying insects found after the gap seem to have already been very diverse. “The two very first winged insects that we have in the fossil record—they're about as different from each other as you could imagine,” she says. The origins of wings, then, must lie within the gap itself. Lurking somewhere in it, there may be undiscovered fossils that could reveal how insects became the first animals to take to the skies.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe