Explore this animal in Size of Extinct Animals ↗
188 / Mesozoic
Archaboilus
Archaboilus musicus
Preserved forewing sound structures support a reconstructed musical call: 6.4 kHz in 2012 and about 5 kHz in a later model.
View original image · 1536 × 1024- Time range
- About 165 million years ago (2012 study)
- Final stage
- Exact last occurrence uncertain
- Geographic range
- Forested lake region · Daohugou, Inner Mongolia, China
01 / ANSWER FIRST
What was Archaboilus musicus?
Archaboilus musicus was a Jurassic relative of katydids whose fossil forewings preserve a sound-producing apparatus. Researchers used that anatomy to estimate its call frequency.
The sound is a reconstruction from a fossil, not a recording from the Jurassic. The 2012 description placed the insect at about 165 million years old.
02 / QUICK FACTS
Archaboilus at a glance
- Group
- Orthoptera · Prophalangopsidae
- Locality
- Daohugou, Inner Mongolia, China
- 2012 estimate
- 6.4 kHz
- 2017 estimate
- 4.99 kHz, approximately 5 kHz
What did Archaboilus sound like?
Gu and colleagues reconstructed a low-pitched, musical call at 6.4 kHz in 2012 by comparing the fossil stridulatory apparatus with living relatives. This describes the main carrier frequency, not the complete timing or loudness of a living insect's song.
A broader comparative model published in 2017 predicted 4.99 kHz from the fossil's file length. The change to roughly 5 kHz shows how the comparison set and model affect the result; neither value is a direct sound measurement.
03 / ANATOMY
How did its wings produce sound?
A preserved stridulatory file
A row of small teeth on the forewing forms part of a friction-based sound apparatus. The fossil preserves the structure used to test a wing-rubbing interpretation.
An inferred resonant call
The 2012 analysis favored a tonal signal rather than broadband noise. A fossil outline alone does not preserve every material property of the original vibrating wing.
04 / DIET & BEHAVIOUR
Why might it have called?
Mate attraction is the published interpretation, supported by comparison with living singing insects. No fossil records an individual female responding to this male.
05 / DIET & BEHAVIOUR
Did it sing at night?
The 2012 authors discussed how a low-frequency call might travel through Jurassic vegetation. Calling time and behavior remain ecological inferences, not direct observations.
06 / RANGE & HABITAT
Where and when was it found?
The named species is based on Jurassic material from Daohugou in northeastern China.
A fossil locality, not a complete range
Daohugou anchors the anatomical study. It does not establish the full geographic range or exact lifespan of Archaboilus musicus.
07 / FOSSIL EVIDENCE
How reliable is the reconstructed sound?
2012: fossil anatomy and living comparisons
The original study links the preserved wing apparatus to a testable acoustic estimate. Its 6.4 kHz result should retain that model context.
2017: a revised prediction
Table 3 of the later comparative study lists both the earlier value and the new 4.99 kHz prediction. It is a reanalysis of morphology, not a newly recovered ancient recording.
08 / DISAPPEARANCE & DEBATE
Why did Archaboilus go extinct?
The acoustic studies do not establish a species-specific extinction cause or a precise final date.
Its importance is the evidence for ancient insect communication. The persistence of wing stridulation in later insects does not mean this species survived.
09 / FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Archaboilus FAQ
Can we hear the original Archaboilus sound?
Only a model-based reconstruction is possible. The fossil preserves wing anatomy, not an audio recording.
Was its call 6.4 kHz or 5 kHz?
The 2012 study estimated 6.4 kHz; a 2017 comparative model predicted 4.99 kHz, about 5 kHz. The different estimates reflect methods and comparative data.
Was Archaboilus a dinosaur?
No. It was an orthopteran insect related to katydids, living during the Jurassic.
04 / SOURCES & FURTHER READING
Check the source record
Use the scientific name to compare taxonomy, occurrence records and the fossil record. Database coverage and classifications may differ.
05 / REVISION HISTORY
How has this record changed?
- Expanded this profile with research sources, focused questions and explicit limits on reconstructions; updated search metadata.
- Verified authoritative entity sources and added three responsive reconstruction sizes.
- Initial bilingual species record published.
06 / CORRECTIONS & ADDITIONS