2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.cretres.2020.104604
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revision of the Early Cretaceous mydid Cretomydas santanensis (Diptera: Mydidae)

Abstract: The Early Cretaceous mydid genus and species Cretomydas santanensis is revised on the basis of a new specimen, allowing to precise its relationships within the 'advanced Mydidae', probably close to the subfamily Diochlistinae. This extant group has a 'Gondwanan' distribution, known from Southern South America and Australia, in accordance with its possible great antiquity in the Early Cretaceous. The presence of an 'advanced Mydidae' during the Cretaceous also suggests a greater antiquity for this family.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This includes material currently housed in museum collections which lack detailed field collecting records, and/or which provenance cannot be definitively ascertained with certainty' [254]. This journal, however, notoriously continues to publish numerous fossils of highly questionable origin from regions such as Araripe [255][256][257][258] including 'U. jubatus' [26], finally removed after complaints from other researchers and social media pressure.…”
Section: Recommendations To Journal Editors and Reviewersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This includes material currently housed in museum collections which lack detailed field collecting records, and/or which provenance cannot be definitively ascertained with certainty' [254]. This journal, however, notoriously continues to publish numerous fossils of highly questionable origin from regions such as Araripe [255][256][257][258] including 'U. jubatus' [26], finally removed after complaints from other researchers and social media pressure.…”
Section: Recommendations To Journal Editors and Reviewersmentioning
confidence: 99%