A new study conducted at the University of Haifa has for the first time identified chemical substances that are secreted by the mosquitoes' natural predators and serve as warning signs for the mosquitoes
A scientific breakthrough can help in the fight against mosquitoes: a new study conducted at the University of Haifa identified for the first time chemical substances that are secreted by the natural predators of the mosquitoes and serve as warning signs for the mosquitoes. Meaning: introducing these natural chemicals into the mosquito spawning areas will make the mosquitoes think that the water is infested with predators and prefer to stay away from there. The research will soon be published in the prestigious journal: Ecology Letters.
In the field of ecological and evolutionary research of predator-prey relationships, it is known that there are certain chemicals that the predators unconsciously secrete and are absorbed by their prey, thus serving as "warning signs" for the presence of the predators in the environment. However, the great difficulty in identifying those chemicals meant that until today scientists have not identified any such chemical. The new study, skin and tendon cream in Prof. Leon Blaustein's ecology laboratory, in the Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology at the University of Haifa. Along with Prof. Blaustein, PhD student Alon Zilbarbush and Dr. Shai Markman carried out the research in collaboration with Dr. Ephraim Levinson and Einat Bar, from the Agricultural Research Institute in Neve Yaer and Prof. Yoel Cohen from Rockefeller University in the United States.
This multidisciplinary research team has identified for the first time two chemicals that are secreted by an insect from the bedbug series called the stingray (scientific name Notonecta maculata) and absorbed by one of its main prey species, a species of mosquito (Culiseta longiareolata), one of the most common mosquito species in Israel.
In order to find the chemicals that serve as mosquito warning signs, the researchers first performed a series of chemical tests in the water where the predators swam and identified two chemicals that did not appear in the water where another mosquito predator swam, the dragonfly larva, which does not repel the same species of mosquito by chemical means, and also in water without predators at all. In another series of tests, the researchers examined whether these chemicals actually repel the mosquitoes: the researchers provided the mosquitoes with spawning pools that contained water with one of the chemicals, water with a combination of the two chemicals, a control group of water without either of the two chemicals, and water in which they had previously crawled. The tests included using concentrations of the chemicals that were identical to those secreted by the predator, at different times and during different interventions.
From the analysis of the data, it became clear that each of the chemicals individually lowers the amount of mosquitoes that came to breed in the water, when combining the two chemicals together created a repelling effect very similar to that created by the predator. The researchers also added that the fact that they used synthetic chemicals in their experiment, produced in a laboratory, further strengthens the claim that the mosquitoes were repelled by the chemical and not by another biological component that may have been present in the water but was not detected by them.
According to Prof. Blaustein, their identification could be a breakthrough in the creation of a natural and environmentally friendly mosquito repellent. Unlike the mosquito repellents that exist today that are applied to the skin or are supposed to repel the mosquito from entering the house, a mosquito repellent based on these natural chemicals will prevent the mosquitoes from reaching the breeding area at all.
Also, many of the chemicals that are introduced into water bodies where mosquitoes spawn are toxic not only to mosquitoes but also to wildlife and humans. "Most mosquito repellents available today are not environmentally friendly and mosquitoes develop resistance to them relatively quickly. I would not recommend rushing and throwing away the materials that exist today, but of course the best prevention is to prevent mosquitoes from reaching populated areas at all. In addition, our breakthrough will help to understand the predator-prey mechanisms of other species", Prof. Blaustein concluded.
53 תגובות
We, a group of scientists, have developed an opposite process for rejection. Every mosquito within 50 m is destroyed. It is ideal for populated areas.
The system is environmentally friendly and utilizes all the mosquito's senses (and other stingers) for attraction. It is selective by choice, also for the type of mosquito. The system is active and requires a refresh every 3 months. The system is a breakthrough and registered as a patent. There is no similarity between her and all the traps of their kind and nothing. The base is completely different.
Serious investors are welcome to join.
Such a discovery deserves a Nobel Prize! This is something that will really improve our lives.
How do mosquitoes breed?
Thank you all for the encouragement.
deer. According to the way I see it - if there is a "non-irritating" mosquito, you will not wake up scratching from your sleep to kill it (either in the morning or the next day, because it did not bother you) and the chances of its survival do increase.
I can personally testify that when I'm bitten by a mosquito, I won't rest until I find it and kill it.
You mean don't post defamatory comments that are against the site's rules. How do you want me to treat an anonymous person who attacks a person who identifies himself by name?
Why do you think this should be of interest to all readers? You have a complaint, send it by email in an orderly manner.
It's gagging, they don't approve my response* it's a self-imposed dictatorship
Nice diagnosis.
It reminded me a bit of what I wrote about the development of language
(https://www.hayadan.org.il/birth-of-language-1110084/ )
In addition to all the reasons mentioned so far (and especially that killing mosquitoes by humans constitutes a really negligible evolutionary pressure) - it seems to me that there is another significant point related to the intelligence of humans.
Let's even suppose that today, in an age where science is quite developed, a mosquito was born whose bite is not felt - would any of the participants in the discussion be lying in bed, see it and say to themselves:
"Ahhh - this is the one whose bite doesn't hurt - I don't think I'll kill her!"
In short - what Amir is proposing has an evolutionary advantage only if the other party knows it happened, and this will not happen because even if there is a species of mosquito whose bite is not painful, we as private humans will not know it (not in general - but when we see a specific mosquito) and will continue to kill mosquitoes.
By analogy:
The antelope whose meat was unpalatable to the lions had an evolutionary advantage - the problem is that the lion would have known about it only after killing the prototype of this species.
emir,
When there was real evolutionary pressure on the mosquito, for example by using DDT, resistant strains developed very quickly (within decades). It turns out that no mammal, despite the itching, exerted any evolutionary pressure on the mosquitoes, and the mosquitoes are not even afraid to buzz, because if you were to cancel something, you would expect the buzz to disappear.
Amir, seriously! As explained to you - it would have been more effective - from the mosquito's point of view - to evolve into a fire-breathing dragon and he didn't do that either. It turns out that the set of survival tools he has is quite good (a fact that in the meantime - with all the efforts - we still fail to fight him).
By the way - your entire thesis is based on human intelligence.
Have you ever thought how long this intelligence has existed and how long it has been since it was created until the connection between mosquito bites and itching was understood?
On an evolutionary scale this is hardly a time and given the fact that killing by a human is not a significant cause of death even today I guess you will have to wait a few more million years to maybe see the trait you are looking for.
By the way, I'm willing to wait a few million years even if it costs me itchy bites. They say that people who smoked for 120 years lived a very long time.
Ok, so my name is Nati Guata and I live in Tel Menasha, if you want you can sue me
emir,
It seems to me that you have turned from a mosquito into a tick.
Just kidding, just kidding…
Yair,
And variations of creatures can still develop locally (in the human environment), right? What kind of mammal that a mosquito feeds on is there in a quasi-urban environment for example (which has existed for quite a few years). And maybe it's really only a matter of time before such a mosquito appears.
emir,
Your far fetched script shows why you don't listen to all the answers you got. Except for man who kills a small proportion of mosquitoes, most mammals are not able to kill half a mosquito at all. Therefore your evolutionary prospectus does not hold.
Yes,
We revolve around the same thing, and I made the mistake of bringing up the vampire association, because it's really unrelated.
After 30 responses, I will focus for a moment on phenomena that are familiar to us and must have been happening for thousands of years:
A person sees a mosquito in his house/cave. A man remembers that he hates mosquitoes. A man kills a mosquito. A mosquito does not breed.
This simple scenario could not have happened if a generation of mosquitoes that did not cause irritation had appeared. Maybe at first a person who remembers the stimulus will kill, but a few "non-biting" mosquitoes will survive and a person's anger will subside. And so quite fast evolution (maybe?) would have produced a more durable and therefore more common genome. I wonder why it hasn't happened yet?
It also turns out that while I was writing my response, R. H. wrote a similar response.
Amir and others:
So it turns out that they researched the issue in depth and the mosquito really has no reason to hide the itch because it arises after it has finished its work.
The reason for this is that mosquito saliva also contains anesthetics (local anesthesia) designed to prevent us from feeling that it is making holes in us.
Read more here
You can also read here that as I mentioned - the immune system creates the stimulus as a result of its ability to attack any foreign protein and has no special adaptation to mosquitoes. That's why (as it turns out) the first mosquito bite you got didn't itch (you probably remember 🙂 ).
Mosquitoes, ticks, vampires, leeches and other bloodsuckers secrete during the sting or bite numbing substances that prevent sensation and that is why during contact with them you usually do not feel them. After they leave the numbing effect wears off and then the wound is felt like any other wound. In addition, they also secrete anticoagulants. In the case of the mosquito, the delayed itching is an overreaction of our immune system against the secreted substances.
emir:
1. Please remember that even the mosquito bite does not wake you up from your sleep.
2. The bat really uses an anticoagulant called "Dracolin" (named after Dracula). I don't know what someone hit by a bat feels like when they wake up but I guess they have some kind of pain.
3. In general - when a hole is made in your body to suck blood - you will likely feel it (if you are awake) regardless of the itching that may or may not arise later.
Sorry for the typos. I am tired after a very busy day.
wow!!! This is a real forum here. Sorry for the waves I caused. And thanks again for all the many efforts to remove me. It may be that I really don't understand the way things work (here a site and in evolution). Bijumbom, thanks for the defense but really it wasn't necessary, I might have hurt Michael. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to.
In any case, I would still like to hear if anyone has an additional explanation for what seems puzzling to me.
I suddenly remembered a nature film that I once saw in which there are bats that feed on the blood of mammals, what really amazed me was that they filmed a false one injuring a person in his sleep and licking his blood for long minutes without the person feeling it.
From here the original question becomes even more acute.
Michael...
Give him what he wants to hear.
Dear Amir, you are right!
The theory of evolution is fundamentally wrong.
It is impossible for there to be evolution in a world that has only existed for 6000 years.
In fact, you have found here the contradiction to the theory of evolution that no other person has found before you.
I wouldn't reveal it like that just in a talkback! I suggest that you write directly to Neitzer's editors and fuck their brains out.... Such a sensational discovery will surely shock the Sip mothers.
post Scriptum.
(To the question of why I attack...
People sit here and give straight answers. There sits a man who, although he asks politely, but completely ignores the answers as if they did not satisfy him, when in fact he does not bother to answer and in the meantime accuses us of a fixed mindset, fundamentalism and all. So it's true "I started with him" but come on, how many intelligent questions can you tolerate from one person....)
Listen, Bijumbom or whatever your name is:
What about links to facts/reading comprehension?
Amir asked a question in response 4.
So let's see how I am always angry and attacking.
I answered him in question 6 a completely matter-of-fact answer.
Is giving information considered to you as anger and assault?
Let's move on.
Amir says in response 8 that he still did not understand what he asked in the first place.
I answer him in response 9 with many more considerations and data that he did not take into account and that may help him understand.
One of the data, by the way, is a link from Wikipedia that takes most of the point out of his question because it turns out according to the data that appears there that killing by being bitten is almost never the cause of the mosquito's death and therefore canceling the itching caused by the bite does not confer an advantage. Despite this, there are other considerations and additional data. I do not detect any anger in this response.
Do you recognize?
In response 10, Amir repeats the question without referring (except for an expression of thanks) to even one of the data and considerations presented to him.
Although it's really upsetting because everything seems to have been explained and he doesn't dismiss the explanations but just tells us that he's still itchy - I'm not upset and in response 11 I simply repeat the main points of the explanations he's already received.
In response 13, Amir again repeats the question almost without referring to anything that was said to him.
He refers to one thing and that is the question of the existence of anticoagulant substances that the person is not allergic to.
Although it was very convenient to stop at this point because Amir thought he had found an answer to his question, I found it appropriate to explain to him in response 14 that such materials actually exist (and on that occasion I also repeated the data from Wikipedia which actually removes the point from the question).
I also directed him to a detailed description of those anticoagulants and explained a few more things about the coagulation system.
I repeat: Silently agreeing to his words would have stopped the discussion in a situation where Amir was convinced of the correctness of our claim, but since the reason for the persuasion was not correct, I found it appropriate to give him data that would explain to him that if this is the reason for his persuasion, then it is not a valid reason and he should continue to ask.
On that occasion I brought another argument and it is the absence of an intelligent planner.
Is it an expression of anger?
I think just the opposite.
In response 15, Netzer, who up to that point had not intervened, entered and expressed his protest in a Hetoli manner that Amir was not paying attention to what was being explained to him.
Do you understand? Those who actually read the comments can also understand what's going on, but it doesn't seem to me that you did, and therefore you didn't understand either.
My 16th comment addressed a scion response that made me smile.
Still - no anger towards anyone and I emphasize that I did not express any anger even though a conversation with someone who does not relate to your words is quite annoying. But I didn't even attack him for his lack of consideration and in every response I also presented him with additional data and considerations.
So what happens in response 17?
Amir calls me a fundamentalist.
Even if non-response is not an irritating thing (and it actually is), the fact that you are called a fundamentalist even though your whole sin is that you did not wave at the questioner and repeated and taught him more and more things in each response, this must be an aggressive act that deserves an aggressive response.
But what do I do in my next response (20)? Am I attacking him? No! I still continue to explain to him and show him another possible answer to his question!
And what do I get in return?
In Amir's response 21, he understood "fundamentalist" as not irritating enough and then he describes me as having a mental fixation.
Isn't that absurd?
I repeat to him again and again with each and every response and he ignores the things and repeats the same things over and over again but I am "fixed mentally"
He also accuses me in the same response of disrespecting his words even though all my responses expressed the exact opposite.
Even though he repeated the same things like a broken speaker and even though he didn't address the explanations he received, I addressed his question again and again and each time I bothered to bring him additional explanations and this without even coming to him with any claim for his non-addressing.
Do you understand?
Such a reversal of creativity is second only to the reversal of creativity in your response (where you accuse me of anger and assault even though what happened is exactly the opposite!)
And yet - in response 22 I answered him relatively gently and explained to him that his (personal, irrelevant and incorrect) claims are not true (do you understand? I did not dwell on the senselessness and unfairness of a personal attack, but only explained to him that he was wrong and that in fact he was guilty of the same behaviors of which he accused me).
In response 23 I answered Ra'anan's words.
No anger and no attack.
In response 25, Amir asks how my response (to refresh) relates to his question and betrays (again) the degree of (lack of) attention he pays to what he reads.
On that occasion, he brings up another wrong thought (about the possible damage to mosquito breeding in the event that it gives up the substance that causes us to itch - as if not injecting the substance into our body at all is related to giving up this substance for other needs).
He also exaggerates and complains that so far only conjectures have been raised and not answers, even though it is a question that, in principle, is almost impossible to answer and conjectures are all we will have to be content with forever and ever.
Is it problematic in your eyes that in response 26 - after all the unjustified personal attacks he attacked me I was a little irritated?
And yet I also answered him matter-of-factly.
In response 27 I even bothered to come up with a very sympathetic interpretation of one of the hypotheses he himself put forward and to give a possible scenario that goes along with this interpretation.
So maybe you can explain to me - Bijumbom (or whatever your name is) what exactly are your claims based on?
By the way: My name is Michael Rothschild - exactly as I identified myself. Are you really called Bijumbom or do you use that name because you know you are defaming yourself and if you identify yourself someone else might sue you for it?
By the way: Netzer's response (whom you call your brother even though this response really attacks Amir and rightly so) is based in the framework of the attack on reasons that I gave in a non-aggressive way (reasoning of the absence of the rational planner, which is why not everything that is rational happens) in response 14.
R.H.'s sarcastic (and rightly so) response (19) also attacks Amir using the reasoning I gave in response 6 in a non-aggressive manner.
But they are not the goal you set for yourself in advance.
Netzer Seidenberg-(Reply 15)- In my brother's life, let's say there was a mistake in the genome and your child went out into the world spitting fire, who will you marry?
Maybe it's because they breed with more success than evolution, so what does it matter less one here and one there, and besides that maybe it's good that they cause some of them to die and regulate them, because if not they will multiply and spread many diseases, and kill masses and there will be epidemics, so that in the end they themselves will cause their own extinction exactly as in the "many" plagues
Tamshea Michael Rothschild or whatever your name is. I don't know if you're paying attention but I read your comments and you always attack and look angry, a guy asked a question, and another interesting question (the fact that 90% of the responses are to his question) give credit.
post Scriptum.
Listen Amir, great question, I'm scratching my head, let me get back to you
emir:
On another thought - there may also be something in the idea you brought up.
It is possible that the itch that the stinger itches at the site of the bite and the body fluids that accumulate and evaporate at the site of the itch cause the spread of an odor that makes it easier to find the victim again.
emir:
It turns out that you read response 23 with the same level of concentration as you read the other responses.
Otherwise you would see that it is directed to refresh.
Regarding your hope: if someone comes with an "answer" you will immediately know that he is a liar or a fool. In this field there will be no answers and only hypotheses can be made.
Some hypotheses are more likely than others.
In the responses addressed to you, a lot of reasonable assumptions were made.
The hypothesis that the itching that the mosquitoes create is somehow beneficial to them seems to me, on the other hand, rather absurd.
Michael,
I did not understand your words in number 23. How does this relate to my question?
In my opinion, there is some survival advantage for the mosquito by feeling its bite (perhaps the same protein we are allergic to, essential for the mosquito and its survival and "giving up" on it will result in its inability to reproduce, etc.) but I really have no idea. I'm just guessing.
Let's hope that someone with an answer and not a hypothesis will join what has turned into a discussion here.
Thanks in advance
There are about 3000 species of mosquitoes, only a few hundred biting ones, more precisely biting ones since only the females need
The blood proteins for the process of creating stinging eggs.
Soon a full and more detailed list.
fresh:
Mosquitoes that develop "resistance" to the chemicals will be eaten by the predators that produce it naturally.
You are simply underestimating the wisdom of the idea.
emir:
What fixation and what contempt?
I understand that in your eyes to argue about someone who has a mental fixation is not disrespect.
I understand that in your eyes ignoring many logical answers you received is not a mental fixation and is not disdain.
There is no way to give firm answers to these kinds of questions and you have to be satisfied with reasonable answers.
You have received such a lot and the only reason you continue to insist is mental fixation.
Well, maybe there are a total of three people here with mental fixation, so I get the same answers all the time.
I gave the comments here some exposure time and maybe someone who knows how to give an answer and not just mumble mantras, will read and want to answer.
Thank you for the great effort you put in and it's a bit of a shame that you cover a note of disdain in your words. I am not at all satisfied with your answers because you didn't give an answer that satisfied me (but that's me. Maybe I just don't understand something that is so clear to you. Sorry if it makes you feel that I'm coming to harass you or tease you)
By the way, there is another way to see the matter.
Mosquitoes that manage to suck the blood were actually created and the animals did not develop means to sense them.
What else?
From the moment they were created - there was no longer any need for them to fly from place to place and they could spend their lives on the animal without wasting unnecessary energy.
So they continued to evolve and today they are... ticks.
Besides, as already stated above, in fact we are constantly bitten by millions of mosquitoes that do not itch, they are transparent, do not cause diseases and do not buzz and therefore we do not feel them. But they are here.
1. You don't listen
2. Evolution will not create anything even if it goes against nature at all...
3. You stubbornly step into a chicken and egg problem and we're gone.
First, apparently, as you were told, it turns out that mosquitoes don't die because they feel their bites, so even though you're sure it's a huge evolutionary advantage, it turns out that it's not such a big deal.
Second, it would have been better with the mosquito, it wouldn't have had to bite at all, and it would have produced the energy it needed, suitable for diesels. It still turns out that it is not that simple to produce solar cells or fire breathing.
Thirdly... who said she didn't develop... mosquitoes were developed that don't feel their bite.
But there was further evolution in the other creatures. Now we do feel…
I think all the answers have already been received
but i dot the i's and cross the t's for you
Stop being so fundamentalist and someone will just try to explain to me why it is not a survival advantage for mosquitoes - that the bitten will not feel their bite. Simple logic (my own) says that a "non-stinging" mosquito had to be evolved at some point.
My dear child, you don't give a satisfactory answer, so I keep asking, because I'm still wondering. Surely there is an explanation for the matter, but it is hidden from my eyes for now. Perhaps the survival of the mosquito also increases in some way from the preservation of the stimulus?
: )
I do not understand.
It is clear that creatures that breathe fire and have the ability to read minds and move objects with their thoughts have a huge advantage over creatures whose thoughts are only sufficient to write repetitive talkbacks without listening to the answers.
So how is it that like the latter there are and like the former there are not.
emir:
As it appears from the data - also statistically - not creating the stimulus has no evolutionary advantage.
Anticoagulant substances that the human body is not allergic to.
for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heparin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfarin
And even the well-known and good aspirin.
However - these are substances that are anti-coagulant inside the body and may not be effective for the mosquito because there are different types of coagulation mechanisms and also the blood of a person who receives (for medical reasons) anticoagulants will clot, for example, when exposed to air thanks to coagulation mechanisms that the above drugs do not affect .
In short - life is complex and in addition, since it does not have an intelligent planner - not everything that is intelligent happens.
Thanks for all the interesting answers.
It is clear to me that the survival of the specific mosquito does not change while it bites. According to me, the survival of mosquitoes around a person after being bitten - decreases. And if a mosquito developed into a mosquito that did not feel its "bite" we would not bother to kill it. That is, his brother or children, who may also no longer be irritants, and thus the matter of "mosquito bites" would be extinct.
I think that a mosquito that does not cause irritation as a result of its "bite" would thrive near humans and possibly other mammals as well. It's just puzzling to me how it didn't develop like this.
Perhaps there is no anticoagulant to which we are not "allergic" and cannot domesticate such. And that's why there can never be such a mosquito. Do not know. I don't understand it enough.
emir,
Because as Michael told you, there is no selection in favor of such a mosquito because even a warm-blooded person who has been bitten cannot kill mosquitoes in a significant way, even if they cause itching. Note that we only feel the scratch after the mosquito has left us. I'm not sure about a mosquito but for example a tick also secretes anesthetics and its wound is felt only after it leaves the victim.
emir:
It seems to me that in light of all the information you received - things should already be understood.
On the one hand - the mosquito has to inject anti-coagulants into the sting. On the other hand - these anticoagulants must not be caught by the immune system.
Not every substance is an anticoagulant and almost every organic substance is captured by the immune system so it is a very difficult task to begin with.
On the other hand - contrary to the impression created by your words - it is probably not a significant survival advantage.
In addition to all this - how do you say? - A packet is also a fact. When there is a series of difficulties leading to a conclusion that is in conflict with nature - the defect is in the series of difficulties and not in nature.
Michael, thank you very much
I'm trying to think why it really hasn't happened until now
After all, the war between humans and mosquitoes is one of the most difficult we know. The mosquito is the #1 disease-carrying animal and causes so much death indirectly. And the indication to us as humans (and also to other mammals that hit mosquitoes with their tails, etc.) that there is a mosquito (meaning danger) is the stimulus. So how is it that after millions of years/hundreds of thousands of years (?) he didn't develop a mosquito that manages to suck his blood without causing irritation?
emir:
Okay, so here are a few more things to think about:
1. Mosquitoes do not only feed on humans. In fact - most of their food comes from other animals.
2. Even humans - and certainly other animals - manage to kill only a tiny fraction of the mosquitoes that bite them. Note the fact that in the Wikipedia description, "clapping" is not listed as a major cause of mosquito death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito
3. The immune system is built to fight against any protein, except for the proteins that the body produces by itself. Of course, she is not XNUMX% successful, but most of the proteins that you try to inject into the body other than through the digestive system will encounter an immune response - not only because they are from a mosquito, but because they are not from the body. Therefore, the flexibility of the mosquito in creating a substance that is both an anticoagulant (of the appropriate type - because there are different types of anticoagulants in the body and not each of them is suitable for the situation of blood-sucking by a mosquito) and also manages to escape the immune system's radar is not high.
4. The adult mosquito's life is short anyway. Only the mosquito bites animals and it does so once every three days during a life period of two weeks.
thanks for the answers
But still, it is not clear to me how it is that a simple mosquito does not itch, after all it would have succeeded in multiplying much more among us humans.
I think the itching is felt after the mosquito has finished eating. Sometimes you feel a sting during penetration.
emir:
I completely agree with R.H. and I would like to add another aspect.
The itch is a reaction that the immune system reacts to proteins in the saliva that the mosquito injects into our body during the bite.
Mosquito saliva (as opposed to mosquito hip-hop) contains anti-coagulant proteins and the mosquito must inject it into our body so that the biting effort will pay off and it will have time to draw the blood before it clots.
But between us - how do you know that there isn't some mosquito that bites you from time to time without causing you an itch or any damage?
Maybe there is and you just don't feel it? 🙂
emir,
Good question. The answer in my opinion is that it's the other way around, the ones who went through the evolution are us mammals. The itch results from an overreaction of the immune system against the site of the bite. Creatures that didn't react strongly and therefore didn't itch either, were simply exterminated by all the diseases transmitted by mosquitoes.
A question for those interested (Darwinists of any kind)
How come a mosquito that doesn't itch hasn't evolved?
After all, they are much less resistant than the mosquito that will have/had a mutant of the substance that causes us irritation.
Agree with Raanan
Find a chemical for one predator. Against hundreds of mosquito species. come on. Against the common predator the dragonfly larva they found nothing.
Because mosquito evolution is much faster than human evolution, and each generation lasts a few days, very quickly the mosquitoes will develop resistance to the chemical, similar to antibiotic resistance in viruses. You have to find a cocktail of substances and change the combinations in the composition of the cocktail every so often so that the mosquitoes cannot get used to one substance for a long time.