My research interest lies predominantly in the development and evolution of arthropods. During my Bachelor Thesis I worked on fossil insects (Palaeodictyoptera) and cockroaches (Dictyoptera) and the development of their wings (cf. Kiesmüller et al. 2019). I also worked on a few research practical during my Master studies comprising different research areas: camel spiders (Solifugae) and their tagmatisation, cockroaches and a potential wing locking-mechanism and also on peculiar marine slugs (Heterobranchia, Mollusca) which had a probably secondarily coiled visceral sac similar to that found in terrestrial snails (but without the shell). My Master Thesis was on the pupal development of flour beetles (Tenebrionidae, Coleoptera, Insecta) during which I tried different techniques to look inside the pupae (histology and cuticle made transparent).

<¤¤¤♦^♦♦¤¤¤>

Now I’m mostly interested in adaptions for a predatory or predator-avoiding (prey) life style in insects. In my PhD thesis I will work on this with the title: “To eat or to be eaten” in the fossil record – functional adaptations of predatory insects and their prey.

Insects like most animals can be categorised as either predator or prey (or both), so adaptations to a predatory or predator-avoiding life style are very common. That’s also why predator-prey-interactions are a general principle of ecology: even Darwin studied these types of interactions. Adaptations of this kind can take hold on different layers of interactions, meaning that adaptations can be looked at either from the perspective of the predator or the prey (and sometimes both at the same time). So adaptations for a predatory life style could mean for instance repurposing of appendages for prey capture, this is e.g. found in assassin bugs which have raptorial forelegs similar to those found in mantodeans.

These days most ecologists who work on predator-prey interactions work with models of these systems and less with field work, probably because these interactions are more difficult to assess in the field, especially in smaller animals such as insects. This is why morphology and also predominately functional morphology is more and more important. Due to the behavioural aspect of these interactions, it is difficult to observe in the field and even more so in the fossil record. Nonetheless the work with fossils can show results, because behaviour doesn’t have to be directly observed (‘frozen behaviour’), but it can be indirectly inferred as well. There are many different methods regarding this, all of which have some connection to the preservation of the fossils.

An example of a well preserved fossil is e.g. odonatan (dragonfly) larvae with its characteristic raptorial labial mask (cf. image above, right lower corner). Odonatan larvae are fierce ambush predators in the aquatic realm and can also be found in the fossil record. But even if the preservation doesn’t allow detailed observation of the animal or if only parts of the animal are preserved, you still can use a phylogenetic position to pinpoint potential behaviour exhibited by them when comparing to the behavioural range of closely related recent species of this group.