Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
    • Front Matter Portal
    • Journal Club
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
Research Article

Structure and function of a compound eye, more than half a billion years old

View ORCID ProfileBrigitte Schoenemann, Helje Pärnaste, and Euan N. K. Clarkson
  1. aDepartment of Zoology (Neurobiology/Animal Physiology), Biocenter Cologne, D-50647 Cologne, Germany;
  2. bInstitut of Biology Education, D-50931 Cologne, Germany;
  3. cKivion MTÜ, Tallinn 13517, Estonia;
  4. dGrant Institute, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, EH3 9LJW Edinburgh, Scotland

See allHide authors and affiliations

PNAS December 19, 2017 114 (51) 13489-13494; first published December 4, 2017; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716824114
Brigitte Schoenemann
aDepartment of Zoology (Neurobiology/Animal Physiology), Biocenter Cologne, D-50647 Cologne, Germany;
bInstitut of Biology Education, D-50931 Cologne, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Brigitte Schoenemann
  • For correspondence: B.Schoenemann@uni-koeln.de
Helje Pärnaste
cKivion MTÜ, Tallinn 13517, Estonia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Euan N. K. Clarkson
dGrant Institute, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, EH3 9LJW Edinburgh, Scotland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Dale Purves, Duke University, Durham, NC, and approved November 3, 2017 (received for review September 25, 2017)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Significance

An exceptionally well-preserved arthropod fossil from near the base of the lower Cambrian shows the internal sensory structures of a compound eye, more than half a billion years old. The trilobite to which it belongs is found in a zone where the first complete organisms appear in the fossil record; thus, it is probably the oldest record of a visual system that ever will be available. This compound eye proved to possess the same kind of structure as the eyes of bees and dragonflies living today, but it lacks the lenses that are typical of modern eyes of this type. There is an elegant physical solution, however, of how to develop a quality image of modern type.

Abstract

Until now, the fossil record has not been capable of revealing any details of the mechanisms of complex vision at the beginning of metazoan evolution. Here, we describe functional units, at a cellular level, of a compound eye from the base of the Cambrian, more than half a billion years old. Remains of early Cambrian arthropods showed the external lattices of enormous compound eyes, but not the internal structures or anything about how those compound eyes may have functioned. In a phosphatized trilobite eye from the lower Cambrian of the Baltic, we found lithified remnants of cellular systems, typical of a modern focal apposition eye, similar to those of a bee or dragonfly. This shows that sophisticated eyes already existed at the beginning of the fossil record of higher organisms, while the differences between the ancient system and the internal structures of a modern apposition compound eye open important insights into the evolution of vision.

  • compound eye
  • visual system
  • arthropod
  • evolution
  • Cambrian

Vision is one of the key factors in triggering evolutionary changes. In many groups of animals, it is an essential support for finding social partners for mating and it provides information about the nature and settings of the environment. The “race” between predator and prey and the need “to see” and “to be seen” or “not to be seen” were drivers for the origin and subsequent evolution of efficient visual systems, as well as for protective shells, systems of camouflage, and many adaptations and strategies for survival, as the “light switch theory” (1, 2) formulates. Effective vision was an important tool that aided survival in the world of competition and selection.

The origin of vision still “lies the dark.” At the boundary between the Precambrian– Cambrian (∼541 Ma), there is a sudden appearance in the fossil record of entirely new organisms that can be considered as the ancestors of most modern animal groups. This event, known as the “Cambrian Explosion” or the “Cambrian Radiation,” is a relatively short interval of time [ca. 20 (3, 4)–25 (5, 6) My]. The early origins of complex animal life, however, actually started in the Precambrian to continue during the Cambrian Explosion and the “Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event” (7).

Marine invertebrates of the Cambrian Explosion are, for example, excellently represented in the Chengjiang Biota of China (8, 9), Burgess Shale Fauna (10, 11), and Sirius Passet (12, 13), as “Orsten” fossils (14, 15) and at other Lagerstätten. Many of these organisms were equipped with eyes. Primordial single-lens eyes existed in the lobopodians (16), worm-like creatures with legs, which are now placed systematically among the Ecdysozoa, and perhaps even camera eyes were present in the early chordates and vertebrates of Chengjiang. The faunas of this period were dominated by arthropods, showing basic compound eyes, but there were also sophisticated lens systems, densely and hexagonally packed, sometimes with several thousand facets (16⇓⇓⇓–20). Some of these arthropods even possessed a second eye system, which is typical for modern euarthropods, the ocellar median eyes (18, 21, 22). Most spectacular were the highly acute compound eyes of organisms that lived in the slightly younger Emu Bay Formation of Australia (23, 24). Some of these compound eyes have been assigned to the most impressive arthropods of their time, anomalocaridids (radiodontids) (24).

The dominant preserved group among the early Cambrian arthropods, however, was the trilobites, which were well equipped with compound eyes from their very beginning. To have insight into the internal structures of a lower Atdabanian trilobite’s eye, an arthropod from one of the earliest of all trilobite records of the Cambrian, would surely provide us with critical information about the oldest documentable compound eyes so far, as well as the state of visual organs at the beginning of the metazoan fossil record.

Characterization of Schmidtiellus reetae Bergström, 1973 and its Stratigraphic Assignments

The eye structures studied here are preserved in the holotype specimen of Schmidtiellus reetae Bergström, 1973 (25) (Fig. 1A), which is deposited at the Institute of Geology at Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia, under repository number GIT 294-1.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Trilobite S. reetae Bergström, 1973 (25) (GIT 294-1) and its compound eye. (A) Holotype. (B) Head region of A. (C) Fields of view. (D) Abraded part of the right eye. Arrowheads indicate the ommatidial columns. (E) Lateral view of the right eye. (F) Schematic drawing of E. (G) Two visual units (big arrows in D). (H) Schematic drawing of G. (Scale bars: A–C, 1 cm; D, 1 mm; E and F, 2 mm; and G, 200 μm.)

S. reetae Bergström, 1973 (25) belongs to the group of Olenelloidea (superfamily), occurring on all paleocontinents, that presumably gave rise to all other groups of trilobites, because they were simply the only trilobites at the beginning and the first of all (26⇓⇓–29). The origin of trilobites is still unclear in general (26⇓⇓–29), so no further phylogenetic discussion is possible at this point.

In Estonia, the lower Cambrian is represented by shallow marine terrigenous sediments (clay, silts, and sandstones) of which the alternations mark several water level low stands and uplifts (30⇓–32). The lower Cambrian sediments accumulated in a relatively shallow epicontinental basin on the Baltica Paleoterrane. Subsequently, different regions of Baltoscandia were affected by postdepositional heating in different ways. The most altered sediments are those in Norway, where temperatures ranged between 150 °C and 200 °C during the Caledonian Orogeny (33), while superb preservation of acritarch organic material in Estonia indicates temperatures well below 100 °C (34). Here, the cuticular exoskeletons of the trilobites are exceptionally well preserved in contrast to those in some other regions of the world, which have been demineralized and may have vanished altogether.

The nearly complete specimen of S. reetae Bergström, 1973 (25) described here was collected from the Saviranna section below the beds with Schmidtiellus mickwitzi (Schmidt, 1888) (35) but above the beds with Rusophycus trace fossils, which supposedly mark arthropod (likely trilobite) traces, and contains fragmentary unidentified trilobites, possibly also Schmidtiellus. The alternating successions of clay and silt in the Lükati Formation of the Dominopolian regional stage correlate with the lowermost part of the Atdabanian (22, 36⇓⇓⇓–40) or may extend down into the underlying Tommotian as suggested by the global acritarch succession (41, 42). Consequently the trilobite described here may be older than the fauna represented in the “Chengjiang Fauna,” which is correlated to the Qiongzhusian (43, 44), a stage correlated with the late Atdabanian stage in Siberian sequences of the middle of the lower Cambrian (44⇓⇓–47). The stratigraphy of the lower lower Cambrian is an object of intense research and discussion; it is broadly demonstrated and accepted, however, that the oldest trilobite fossils were preceded by arthropod (possibly trilobite) traces (40) as reported here. It has been demonstrated, unequivocally in a very few cases, when in trace fossils like Rusophycus and Cruziana, trilobite specimens have actually been found in the trace they were making, but not, so far as we are aware, for any Cambrian examples as old as the cases we are referring to [those were upper Cambrian (48)]. S. mickwitzi (Schmidt, 1888) (35) and S. reetae Bergström, 1973 (25) belong to an early trilobite assemblage comparable to those of the oldest assemblages of the lower Atdabanian of Siberia and lower Ovetian of France, Spain, and Antarctica, or the earliest trilobites of Morocco [Issendalenian (approximately lower Ovetian) (49)] and Laurentia (Montezuman). All these trilobites are more or less coeval. The early trilobites of China [Nangao (approximately middle Ovetian, upper Atabanian) (40)] are slightly younger (5, 39) (Fig. S1).

Baltoscandian trilobites are among the earliest in the world (40). They occur coevally with the assemblages of the lower Atdabanian of Siberia [Profallotaspis, Bigotinella, Bigotina (Olenelloidea, at the base of the Atdabanian)], Laurentia (olenellids of the Fritzaspis zone, uppermost part of the Begadean stage, which is correlated to the lower Atdabanian of Siberia), the bigotinid trilobites from southern Europe, Spain, and France (lower Ovetian, correlated to the lower Atdabanian), and the assemblages of Antarctica (Lemdadella lower Ovetian stage, correlated to the lower Atdabanian), while the oldest trilobites from Morocco (Bigotina, Eofallotaspis, Fallotaspis, and Lemdadella Issendalenian) and the redlichiid trilobites of China (Abadiella, Abadiella zone correlates with the upper Atdabanian) and Australia (Abadiella) are slightly younger (39, 40).

The Cambrian Explosion or Cambrian Radiation started about 542 Ma (3⇓⇓–6, 46, 50), and the Cambrian Radiation of rich arthropod faunas is known mainly from rare “time windows” preserving fossil Lagerstätten. The best known and studied are the Chengjiang Biota (∼520 Ma) in China (e.g., refs. 8, 9); Sirius Passet Biota in Greenland (∼518 Ma) (e.g., refs. 51, 52); Emu Bay Formation on Kangaroo Island, Australia (∼514 Ma) (e.g., refs. 53, 54); and the biotas of the Kaili Formation in China (∼510 Ma) (e.g., refs. 44, 45), or the slightly younger fauna of the middle Cambrian Burgess Shale Formation in British Columbia, Canada (∼508 Ma) (e.g., refs. 10, 11); the middle Cambrian Weeks Formation (late Guzhangian, ∼497–500.5 Ma) in Utah (e.g., refs. 55, 56); and the Orsten fossils (e.g., refs. 14, 15). Meanwhile more than 50 of these Burgess Shale-type biotas have been described so far (e.g., ref. 56). The critical point here is that the Baltoscandian trilobites are older than any of these famous Lagerstätten (Fig. S1).

The cuticle of S. reetae is preserved as calcium phosphate, which often allows the record of finest details, such as, for example, in the filter-feeding branchiopod Rehbachiella kinnekullensis from upper Cambrian limestone concretions collected in southern Sweden, where fine setae and setulae (<1 μm) were shown to be present on its appendages (14).

This is most unlikely to be primary, considering that all other trilobites have cuticles of calcite set in an organic base (57). Secondary phosphatization, however, is quite common in trilobites and other Cambrian fossils; cases that come immediately to mind are the magnificently preserved Orsten crustaceans and other fossils, with perfectly preserved appendages, from the Furongian of central Sweden (58, 59). Other examples are the lower Cambrian bradoriids and eodiscids in perfect preservation from South China (60). Finally, there is evidence of the preservation of ommatidia in lower Cambrian radiodontans (61), and the preservation of ommatidia by phosphatization has also been reported recently in a Jurassic crustacean (62).

The availability of vast quantities of phosphate in the Cambrian (63) was apparently set in motion by a massive marine transgression at the beginning of the Cambrian that generated substantial upwelling. The phosphorus and other vital elements that had accumulated on the late Precambrian ocean floors for millions of years were thus released into the upper waters of the sea, to be made available both for the formation of organophosphatic shells, as in inarticulated brachiopods, and for the proliferation of phosphate bacteria, which covered the surfaces of calcareous and other shells in micrometric deep layers, producing a thin but durable shell, replicating outer and inner surfaces. Solution-containing carbonate rocks, containing such fossilized shells in weak acids, release the replicas, which are then available for study (63). South China was a major center of such phosphatic replication in lower Cambrian times; however, by the middle Cambrian, this center had shifted to Australia. It is likely that phosphatization spread to the inner parts of the shells in some instances, so that what had been entirely calcite became solid phosphate. This is what seems to have happened to our specimen of Schmidtiellus.

Another possibility is that increasingly deep bioturbation in the early Cambrian disturbed the surface layers of the sediment and released minerals from the lower layers (64).

Results

Compound eyes of apposition type are typical of modern diurnal arthropods, whereas more advanced and sensitive systems (superposition eyes) may not have existed before the Devonian [419.2 ± 3.2 Ma–358.9 ± 0.4 Ma (65)].

Apposition compound eyes are composed of numerous identically repeated visual units, the ommatidia. Recognizable externally as facets, they consist, among the Mandibulata, of a cuticular “corneal lens” and a so-called “crystalline cone” focusing the incident light onto the tip of a central light-guiding structure, the rhabdom, lying underneath [“focal apposition eye,” sensu Land and Nilsson (66)]. In its longitudinal section, the crystalline cone often forms an approximately triangular shape. In aquatic systems, the difference in optical density between water and the organic material that forms the lens is not high enough to supply the capacity for effective refraction; thus, normally, it is the crystalline cone instead of the lens that forms an effective dioptric apparatus. The central rhabdom is part of the receptor cell system; these cells lie arranged around it like a rosette. The number of receptor cells is variable and depends on the species; very commonly, there are eight of them. In a focal apposition eye, all stimuli within the visual field of each facet are focused, and thus concentrated on the distal tip of the rhabdom, averaged to one mean light impression. Screening pigment cells, differing in number among species, optically isolate the visual units from each other. Thus, the focal apposition eye as a whole provides a perceived mosaic-like image (67, 68). The acuity of such eyes depends, among other factors, on the number of facets: The more there are, the higher is the quality of the image (in the same way that pixels define the quality of a computer graphic). The acuity of the image relates also to the acceptance angle of the rhabdoms [between 0.8° and 10° for most compound eyes (69)], and the sensitivity of the eye also depends, among other factors, upon the latter.

As with all coeval trilobites, S. reetae lived as benthos. Gliding over the sea floor it had, in common with all (more or less) contemporary genera of olenellid trilobites, such as Holmia, Lemdadella, Fallotaspis, and others, reniform eyes with a narrow slit-like visual surface oriented toward the front and especially toward the lateral horizon (Fig. 1 B, C, E, and F). Conspicuously, the top of the eye is covered by a lenseless top surface, the “palpebral lobe,” and the visual field does not extend upward more than 25–30° above it. This is a common pattern in early trilobites generally, but why that is so remains an open question. It is likely that the vertically narrow visual field limited the distracting effect of bright light signals from the lower surface of the water. The horizontal visual field of S. reetae covers ∼2 × 124° (Fig. 1 B and C); thus, the eye was able to scan the seafloor anterolaterally around the trilobite. There were certainly free-swimming predators capable of tackling trilobites, which, in a more or less homogeneous environment on the sea floor, could be detected already from a distance by this wide, horizontally directed visual field.

The eye of the specimen investigated here is about 10 mm long and 4.5 mm wide The lateral aspect of the compound eye shows that the elongated, crescentic visual surface has just a few (< ∼100), relatively large lenses (∼50 μm) (Fig. 1 E and F). Functionally, even a small number of such lenses could pick up the movement of potential predators passing within the field of view, as a result of change in light intensity detected by one ommatidium after another. Thus, the system probably worked as a movement detector rather than as an image-forming eye, but also as an obstacle detector when scanning the environment.

In the specimen S. reetae Bergström, 1973 (25) GIT 294-1-1, the palpebral lobes are present, although their papillated upper surfaces are slightly abraded. While all structures are destroyed superficially in the left eye, this is not so with the right eye, which allows extraordinarily rare insight into its internal structures. Several internal relicts ranged against the ocular suture may be seen here, which presumably, on account of their position, belonged to the lowest part of the eye. There may be as many as seven of these, some in situ and others slightly displaced (Fig. 1D).

In the best preserved of these (Figs. 1 D, G, and H and 2 B–D and J), the lenses (∼1 mm in diameter), broken across, are extremely flat and thin, showing no convexity (Figs. 1 G and H and 2 C, D, and J). Beneath the lens lies a basket-like structure, consisting of spherical elements, perhaps former cells (Figs. 1 G and H and 2 B–D and J). It is about 460 μm high and probably about 1.3 mm wide. In its center is a conical tube, broken at its upper side. The distal surface shows the conical tube to consist of seven elements of similar but different sizes (∼50 μm) grouped around a central core (Figs. 1 G and H and 2 B–D and J), what must be a sensory complex in the form of seven radially arranged, more or less triangularly shaped elements (receptor cells) grouped around a central structure (rhabdom). This conical tube has a diameter of ∼160 μm and a length of ∼338 μm, and it connects centrally with a long thin tube that is directed inward (∼500 μm long, ∼70 μm Ø in diameter). The total length cannot be described because the proximal end of the system plunges downward outside the bottom of the “basket.” Distally from the tube, a regular, triangular element (∼56 μm high, ∼350 μm wide) can be seen, positioned directly below the lens (Figs. 1G and 2 B–D and J). Distally from the tube, a regular, triangular element (∼56 μm high, ∼350 μm wide) can be seen, positioned below the “lens,” which slightly covers this triangular element. It can be interpreted as a kind of crystalline cone because of its triangular shape (from a side view) and its relative position between lens and sensory complex. These elements and their arrangement are typical for compound eyes of the appositional type, as explained before. The typical position within of the unit of a compound eye excludes other possibilities for explaining this pattern, formed so characteristically for an ommatidium. Additionally, at least we do not know of any plant-based pattern, protozoan structure, or mineral structure that would be similar.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Internal structures of the functional visual unit. (A) Ommatidium. Note the cellular elements (relicts of receptor cells) arranged radially around the central core (relict of the rhabdom). (B) Ommatidium positioned in a basket. Note the cellular elements (relicts of receptor cells) arranged radially around the central core (relict of the rhabdom). (C) General aspect of B for interpretation in D. (E) General aspect of A for interpretation in F. (G) Cross-section of the ommatidium of the extant crustacean Dulichia porrecta (Bate, 1857) (87) (Crustacea, Amphipoda) (88). (H) Schematic drawing of the elements of a typical sensory system in the aquatic compound eye in G. (I) Schematic drawing of a longitudinal section of an ommatidium. (J) Schematic drawing of the visual unit of S. reetae. b, basket; cc, crystalline cone; L, lens; om, ommatidium; p, pigment screen; r, rhabdom; sc, sensory (receptor) cells. (Scale bars: A, B, E, F, and J, 200 μm; C and D, 100 μm; and G, 1 μm.)

Close to it, on the left-hand side, and at a distance of about 1 mm from the first, a second conical tube-like structure similar to the first, although displaced and rotated, can be clearly seen (Figs. 1 D, G, and H and 2 A, E, F, and J). It has a total length of ∼364 μm, and is ∼208 μm wide. It ends proximally in a small tube ∼70 μm in diameter, which sinks into the depth of the matrix. There are seven triangular elements (largest: ∼70 μm, smallest: 56 μm) that surround a central circular structure (diameter ∼ 20 μm). The difference in the diameter of both tubular systems of about ∼48 μm (∼160 μm vs. ∼208 μm) can be explained by a difference in structure: The second system is embraced by a wide membrane-like sheet, while the sheet of the first system described is thinner. Another difference between the two systems is that inside the seven elements of the first system, just a dark irregular spot can be seen, while in the second system, dark areas surrounded by a membrane can be more clearly made out. In their principal structure, however, both elements are congruent. This system seems to have a triangular element between the lens and tubular element also; this, however, appears distorted (Figs. 1 G and H and 2 E, F, and J).

In comparison to many modern, compact systems, such as those of bees or dragonflies, the large distance (one system’s diameter is ∼1 mm) between the ommatidial cones is remarkable, and may have provided or supported an effective optical isolation of the individual visual units.

We are aware that due to the limited amount of data, only a generalized description of the performance of this early eye is possible. There exist measurable parameters, however, that allow an approximate estimation, and thus a rough characterization, of this early visual system. In comparison to terrestrial visual systems, aquatic vision suffers by the absorbance of light in water; thus, in principle, the compound eyes of aquatic arthropods, at the same time of the day, require a higher sensitivity than those of terrestrial organisms. This is all the more so the deeper the arthropod lives in the water column. Under low-light conditions, vision appears very “noisy” because the low photon numbers show relatively large random fluctuations. This improves with receptors capable of a high photon capture rate. This photon capture rate can be increased by a wide aperture (lens diameter) A, a large diameter of the receptor (rhabdom) d, and a sufficient length of the absorbing structure (rhabdom) x (70, 71). Land (70, 71) defined a fine measure to describe the capacity of a receptor in a compound eye to capture light: the sensitivity S. It describes the rate of photons absorbed by each receptor to the number of photons emitted per steradian by 1 m2 of an extended standardized source, and this would enable a comparison between the ancient visual system investigated here and the sensitivities of recent arthropods:S=(π2)2·(Af)2·(1−e−kx)=0.64·(350/156)2·(1–e−0.0069·338)=2.91[m2⋅sr].[S sensitivity, (0.64) is derived from the circular shape of the system (70), A aperture (μm]), f focal length, k absorption coefficient of the photopigment [0.69% per micrometer; lobster (72), after Land 1981 (70)], x (μm) length of the perceiving structure (rhabdom), here 338 μm (length of the rhabdom approximates length of the tubular structure, which is interpreted as an ommatidium).]

For the first discussed system the sensitivity results to ∼2.91 [m2 ⋅ sr]. Thus, the approximate estimated sensitivity of S. reetae Bergström, 1973 (25) is very similar to that of the branchiopod crustacean Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758) (73) [S = 2.3 [m2 ⋅ sr] (71)] when it is dark-light–adapted. A. salina is a shallow water inhabitant, and the results presented here are in accordance with sedimentological evidence, which indicates that this benthic trilobite inhabited shallow waters also.

An effective parameter describing an eye’s light-gathering capacity is the F-number: F = f/D, where f is the focal length and D is the diameter of the lens. It is familiar to all photographers that cameras with low F-numbers produce bright images (ref. 69, p. 75). If we accept that this eye is a focal apposition eye because of the conical shape of the crystalline cone, the system suggests that the focused light fell on the tip of the rhabdom; thus, f ≈ 156 μm. Furthermore if we take, as discussed, the upper width of the crystalline cone as aperture A ≈ 350 μm, the F-number can be calculated as 2.2. This value matches F-numbers typical for lenses of recent apposition eyes, which normally show F-numbers of about 2 (69, 70, 71).

As mentioned, the resolution of this early compound eye is rather low. Because the rhabdom acts as a light-guiding structure, the light is trapped into the system only up to a critical angle (Φcrit), which is given by arcsin (n1/n2). The refractive index of sea water is about n1 = 1.34 (35% salinity, 20 °C), and n2 = 1.36–1.40 for the rhabdom (ref. 66, p. 59). The results are an acceptance angle for the rhabdom of 20–30° and overlapping visual fields of each system, as is quite common in modern compound eyes. The interommatidial angle (Δϕ) lies at about 10°. In terrestrial systems not suffering from light absorbance, such as insects, they often range from 1–5° (74). In aquatic crustaceans and xiphosurans with apposition eyes, however, this value is quite common, so we find in the xiphosuran Limulus, active at night, an interommatidial angle of 8°; for Artemia, a shallow water branchiopod, an interommatidial angle of ∼9°, and in Cirolana, a deep sea isopod, an interommatidial angle of 15° (71). Thus, an interommatidial angle of 10° is not uncommon in aquatic arthropods. Due to the interommatidial angle, it is possible to estimate the anatomical resolution, which can be defined as the highest spatial frequency (of a sinusoidal grating) (νs) that is resolved by such an array of sampling stations (ommatidia): νs = 1/2Δϕ [cycl/rad] (70, 75⇓⇓⇓–79), which allows a good comparison with other investigated systems. The νs results here to 2.87 [cycl/rad], revealing an anatomical resolution lower than that of Limulus (4.8 [cycl/rad]) but higher than that of Cirolana (1.9 [cycl/rad]) (67). So, in total, the system of the trilobite S. reetae is in a state similar to modern aquatic arthropods, even without a lens.

Discussion

In discussion of these findings, it is remarkable that very little lens structure can be clearly distinguished. There are indications of round lens-like discs when the eye is studied from the outside, but from the internal aspect, no convexities that could effectuate any refraction of light can be made out. Also lens cylinders, such as in xiphosurans of the genus Limulus (68), cannot be recognized here. Even calcite as typical material for trilobite lenses, with a high refractive index, may not have been effective enough to refract light in water if there were not surfaces curved sufficiently enough, forming a “real convex lens.” Differing from S. reetae in aquatic crustaceans of today, the refractive element is commonly built by a massive cellular crystalline cone, often with an index gradient (70, 71). It is possible that at the time S. reetae was living in this marine environment, the dioptric apparatus of these early trilobites was, in some respects, relatively simple. If the small triangular structure underneath the lens was indeed an early type of crystalline cone, this might suggest, among other things, a relationship of the trilobites with the Mandibulata, because no crystalline cones can be observed in cheliceratae; alternatively, it may have been an indication of convergent development in this special case. The crystalline cone has been considered to be a synapomorphy of either Mandibulata or Pancrustacea (80⇓⇓⇓–84). To have any refractive power and focusing, even in this ancient system, an index gradient then might be assumed to have existed.

Different from typical modern apposition eyes, the sensory apparatus lies in a kind of probably cellular basket. Inside of the basket-like unit in S. reetae, the seven elements arranged like a rosette around the central axis (Figs. 1 G and H and 2 A–F and J) clearly can be interpreted as relicts of former sensory cells, grouped around a central fused rhabdom, underneath a small crystalline cone; it is a typical ommatidium of a focal apposition eye (70, 71) (Fig. 2 G–J). The arrangement of both systems described is almost identical: The small differences in diameter and the covering sheet may arise by diagenetic processes, or the systems may be of different function but identical principle. Unlike those of most modern compound eyes, the ommatidial systems lie very isolated from each other, and pigment cells, shielding the units against each other optically would not have been necessary.

One hypothesis may suggest that the circular discs (lenses) had only been more or less transparent parts of the cuticle, and that, as explained, the rhabdom itself overtook all light-gathering functions. This also may explain, why in most early Cambrian trilobites, where the visual surfaces are preserved, no distinct facets can be made out in their compound eyes. The very few visual units of this compound eye (Fig. 1 E and F), resulting in a pixilated mode of vision, surely did not provide an image formation but probably functioned as a movement detector discovering objects passing by, but without any detailed impression of the surroundings in its shallow water environments.

It may be mentioned that another trilobite, Holmia kjerulfi (Linnarsson, 1871) (85) from Norway, Botoman Formation, thus just less than 2 My younger, already had established densely packed compound eyes (Fig. 3), comparable to those of modern dragonflies.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

H. kjerulfi (Linnarsson, 1871) (85) (Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo, PMO 73168). (A) Head region of H. kjerulfi. (B) Left eye of A. (C) Dense facets in B, hexagonally packed. (D) Lateral aspect of the head. (Scale bars: A and D, 1 cm; B, 2 mm; and C, 500 μm.)

In summary, the oldest compound eye so far known from the fossil record, which is that of the trilobite S. reetae Bergstrom, 1973 (25), was a focal apposition eye. In its principal structure, it was simpler than, but otherwise almost identical to, that of the modern compound eyes of bees and dragonflies living today; thus, the focal apposition eye is more than half a billion years old.

Materials and Methods

The holotype specimen of S. reetae Bergström, 1973 (25) is deposited at the Institute of Geology at Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia, under repository number GIT 294-1.

H. kjerulfi (Linnarsson, 1871) (85), described by Kiaer (86), from Tomten, Ringsaker, Norway, is deposited in the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo under repository number PMO-73168. The photographs were taken with a Nikon D7000 camera and a Nikon AZ100 microscope.

Acknowledgments

We thank Gennadi Baranov for kindly taking the photographs of S. reetae Bergström, 1973 (GIT 294-1-1) and its compound eye described here, which made these analyses possible. We thank B. V. Meyer-Rochow for allowing us to use the photograph in Fig. 2G, and his helpful discussions. We also thank two anonymous referees, whose comments immensely helped to improve the manuscript. We also thank Prof. N. Strausfeld and Prof. D. Waloszek for giving us their expertise about the preservation of the internal structures of the compound eye of this trilobite and its relevance.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: B.Schoenemann{at}uni-koeln.de.
  • Author contributions: B.S., H.P., and E.N.K.C. designed research; B.S., H.P., and E.N.K.C. performed research; B.S. analyzed data; and B.S. and E.N.K.C. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1716824114/-/DCSupplemental.

  • Copyright © 2017 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Parker AR
    (1998) Colour in Burgess Shale animals and the effect of light on evolution in the Cambrian. Proc Biol Sci 265:967–972.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Parker AR
    (2003) In the Blink of an Eye (Perseus, New York).
  3. ↵
    1. Valentine JW,
    2. Jablonski D,
    3. Erwin DH
    (1999) Fossils, molecules and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion. Development 126:851–859.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  4. ↵
    1. Budd G
    (2013) At the origin of animals: The revolutionary. Curr Genomics 14:344–354.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Erwin DH, et al.
    (2011) The Cambrian conundrum: Early divergence and later ecological success in the early history of animals. Science 334:1091–1097.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Kouchinsky A, et al.
    (2012) Chronology of early Cambrian biomineralization. Geol Mag 149:221–251.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. dos Reis M, et al.
    (2015) Uncertainty in the timing of origin of animals and the limits of precision in molecular timescales. Curr Biol 25:2939–2950.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Hou X-G,
    2. Aldridge RJ,
    3. Bergström J,
    4. Siveter DJ,
    5. Feng X-H
    (2004) The Cambrian Fossils of Chengjiang, China. The Flowering of Early Animal Life (Blackwell Science, Malden, MA).
  9. ↵
    1. Chen JY
    (2004) The Dawn of Animal World (Jiangsu Science Technology Press, Nanjing, China).
  10. ↵
    1. Briggs DEG,
    2. Erwin DH,
    3. Collier FJ
    (1994) The Fossils of the Burgess Shale (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC).
  11. ↵
    1. Orr PJ,
    2. Briggs DEG,
    3. Kearns SL
    (1998) Cambrian burgess shale animals replicated in clay minerals. Science 281:1173–1175.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Peel JS,
    2. Stein M
    (2009) A new arthropod from the lower Cambrian Sirius Passet Fossil-Lagerstätten of North Greenland. Bull Geosci 84:625–630.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Strang KM,
    2. Armstrong HA,
    3. Harper DAT,
    4. Trabucho-Alexandre JP
    (2016) The Sirius Passet Lagerstätte: Silica death masking opens the window on the earliest matground community of the Cambrian explosion. Lethaia 49:631–643.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Waloszek D
    (1993) The upper Cambrian Rehbachiella kinnekullensis and the phylogeny of Branchiopoda and Crustacea. Fossils Strata 32:1–202.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Edgecombe GD
    1. Walossek D,
    2. Müller KJ
    (1998) Early arthropod phylogeny in light of the Cambrian “Orsten” fossils. Arthropod Fossils and Phylogeny, ed Edgecombe GD (Columbia Univ Press, New York), pp 185–231.
  16. ↵
    1. Schoenemann B,
    2. Liu J-N,
    3. Shu D-G,
    4. Han J-A,
    5. Zhang Z-F
    (2009) A miniscule optimised visual system in the lower Cambrian. Lethaia 42:265–273.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Ma X,
    2. Hou X,
    3. Edgecombe GD,
    4. Strausfeld NJ
    (2012) Complex brain and optic lobes in an early Cambrian arthropod. Nature 490:258–261.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Schoenemann B,
    2. Clarkson ENK
    (2012) At first sight–Functional analysis of lower Cambrian eye systems. Palaeontographica Abt A Paläozool Stratigr 297:123–149.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Zhao F,
    2. Bottjer DJ,
    3. Hu S,
    4. Yin Z,
    5. Zhu M
    (2013) Complexity and diversity of eyes in early Cambrian ecosystems. Sci Rep 3:2751.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Strausfeld NJ, et al.
    (2016) Arthropod eyes: The early Cambrian fossil record and divergent evolution of visual systems. Arthropod Struct Dev 45:152–172.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. García-Bellido DC,
    2. Collins D
    (2007) Reassessment of the genus Leanchoilia (Arthropoda, Arachnomorpha) from the middle Cambrian Burgess Shale, British Columbia, Canada. Palaeontology 50:693–709.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Schoenemann B,
    2. Clarkson ENK
    (2012) The eyes of Leanchoilia. Lethaia 45:524–531.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Lee MS, et al.
    (2011) Modern optics in exceptionally preserved eyes of early Cambrian arthropods from Australia. Nature 474:631–634.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Paterson JR, et al.
    (2011) Acute vision in the giant Cambrian predator Anomalocaris and the origin of compound eyes. Nature 480:237–240.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Bergström J
    (1973) Classification of olenellid trilobites and some Balto-Scandian species. Nor Geol Tidsskr 53:283–314.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Fortey RA,
    2. Whittington HB
    (1989) The Trilobita as a natural group. Hist Biol 2:125–138.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Edgecombe GD,
    2. Ramsköld L
    (1999) Relationships of Cambrian Arachnata and the systematic position of Trilobita. J Paleontol 73:263–287.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  28. ↵
    1. Lieberman BS
    (2002) Phylogenetic analysis of some basal early Cambrian trilobites, the biogeographic origins of the Eutrilobita, and the timing of the Cambrian radiation. J Paleontol 76:692–708.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Lieberman BS,
    2. Karim TS
    (2010) Tracing the trilobite tree from the root to the tips: A model marriage of fossils and phylogeny. Arthropod Struct Dev 39:111–123.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Mens K,
    2. Pirrus EA
    (1977) Stratotipicheskie Razrezy Kembrieiia Ėstonii (Valgus, Tallinn, Estonia). Russian.
  31. ↵
    1. Raukas A,
    2. Teedumäe A
    1. Mens K,
    2. Pirrus E
    (1997) Cambrian. Geology and Mineral Resources of Estonia, eds Raukas A, Teedumäe A (Estonian Academy Publishers, Tallinn, Estonia), pp 39–52.
  32. ↵
    1. Nielsen AT,
    2. Schovsbo NH
    (2011) The lower Cambrian of Scandinavia: Depositional environment, sequence stratigraphy and palaeogeography. Earth Sci Rev 107:207–310.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Moczydłowska M,
    2. Vidal G
    (1986) Lower Cambrian acritarch zonation in southern Scandinavia and southern Poland. Geol Foren Stockh Forh 108:201–223.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Kirsimäe K,
    2. Kalm V,
    3. Jørgensen P
    (1999) Low-temperature diagenetic illite-smectite in lower Cambrian clays in North Estonia. Clay Miner 34:151–163.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  35. ↵
    1. Schmidt F
    (1888) Über eine neuentdeckte untercambrische Fauna in Estland. Mem Acad Imp Sci St-Pétersbourg 7:1–27. German.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Mens K,
    2. Bergström J,
    3. Lendzion K
    (1990) The Cambrian system on the east European platform, correlation chart and explanatory notes. IU Geol Sci 25:1–73.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Moczydłowska M
    (1991) Acritarch biostratigraphy of the lower Cambrian and the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary in southeastern Poland. Fossils Strata 29:1–127.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Zhuravlev AY
    (1995) Preliminary suggestions on the global early Cambrian zonation. Beringeria 2:147–160.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Rábano I,
    2. Gozalo R,
    3. García Bellido D
    1. Hollingsworth JS
    (2008) The first trilobites in Laurentia and elsewhere. Advances in Trilobite Research, eds Rábano I, Gozalo R, García Bellido D (Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid), pp 171–177.
  40. ↵
    1. Liñán E,
    2. Gámez Vintaned JA,
    3. Gozalo R
    (2015) The middle lower Cambrian (Ovetian) Lunagraulos n. gen. from Spain and the oldest trilobite records. Geol Mag 152:1123–1136.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Ahlberg P,
    2. Bergström J,
    3. Johansson J
    (1986) Lower Cambrian olenellid trilobites from the Baltic Faunal Province. Geol Foren Stockh Forh 108:39–56.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    1. Moczydłowska M,
    2. Vidal G
    (1988) Early Cambrian acritarchs from Scandinavia and Poland. Palynology 12:1–10.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  43. ↵
    1. Hou X-G,
    2. Bergström J
    (1997) Arthropods of the lower Cambrian Chengjiang fauna, southwest China. Fossils Strata 45:1–116.
    OpenUrl
  44. ↵
    1. Rozanov AY,
    2. Zhu M-Y,
    3. Pak KL,
    4. Parkhaev PY
    (2008) The second Sino-Russian symposium on the lower Cambrian subdivision. Paleontol J 42:441–446.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Zhang X,
    2. Liu W,
    3. Zhao Y
    (2008) Cambrian Burgess Shale-type Lagerstätten in South China: Distribution and significance. Gondwana Res 14:255–262.
    OpenUrl
  46. ↵
    1. Zhao F,
    2. Zhu M,
    3. Hu S
    (2010) Community structure and composition of the Cambrian Chengjiang biota. Sci China Earth Sci 53:1784–1799.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Zhao F, et al.
    (2012) Spatial variation in the diversity and composition of the lower Cambrian (series 2, stage 3) Chengjiang Biota, South West China. Palaeo 3:54–65.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Fortey RA,
    2. Seilacher A
    (1997) The trace fossil Cruziana semiplicata and the trilobite that made it. Lethaia 30:105–112.
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. Geyer G,
    2. Landing E
    (2004) A unified lower-middle Cambrian chronography for West Gondwana. Acta Geol Pol 54:179–218.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Erwin DH,
    2. Valentine JW
    (2013) The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity (Roberts and Company, Greenwood Village, CO).
  51. ↵
    1. Martin MW, et al.
    (2000) Age of Neoproterozoic bilatarian body and trace fossils, White Sea, Russia: Implications for metazoan evolution. Science 288:841–845.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Peel JS,
    2. Ineson JR
    (2011) The extent of the Sirius Passet Lagerstätte (early Cambrian) of North Greenland. Bull Geosci 86:535–543.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Nedin C
    (1995) The Emu-Bay-Shale, a lower Cambrian fossil Lagerstätte, Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Mem Australas Assoc Palaeontol 18:31–40.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Paterson JR, et al.
    (2016) The Emu Bay Shale Konservat-Lagerstätte: A view of Cambrian life from East Gondwana. J Geol Soc London 173:1–11.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. ↵
    1. Lerosey-Aubril R,
    2. Gaines RR,
    3. Hegna T,
    4. Vannier J
    (2006) Composition and significance of the Weeks Formation Fauna (Guzhangian; Utah, USA). Palaeontol Assoc Newsl 84:78–79.
    OpenUrl
  56. ↵
    1. Gaines RR
    (2014) Burgess Shale-type preservation and its distribution in space and time. Reading and writing of the fossil record: Preservational pathways to exceptional fossilization. Paleontol Soc Papers 20:123–146.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Wilmot NV,
    2. Fallick AE
    (1989) Original mineralogy of trilobite exoskeletons. Palaeontology 32:297–304.
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Müller KJ
    (1983) Crustacea with preserved soft parts from the upper Cambrian of Sweden. Lethaia 16:93–109.
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Müller KJ,
    2. Waloszek D
    (1987) Morphology, ontogeny, and life habit of Agnostus pisiformis from the upper Cambrian of Sweden. Fossils Strata 19:1–124.
    OpenUrl
  60. ↵
    1. Zhang X-G,
    2. Clarkson ENK
    (2012) Phosphatised eodiscoid trilobites from the Cambrian of China. Palaeontographica A 297:1–121.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Cong P,
    2. Daley AC,
    3. Edgecombe GD,
    4. Hou X,
    5. Chen A
    (2016) Morphology of the radiodontan Lyrarapax from the early Cambrian Chengjiang biota. J Paleontol 90:663–671.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Vannier J,
    2. Schoenemann B,
    3. Gillot T,
    4. Charbonnier S,
    5. Clarkson E
    (2016) Exceptional preservation of eye structure in arthropod visual predators from the Middle Jurassic. Nat Commun 7:10320.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Cook PJ,
    2. Shergold JH
    (1984) Phosphorus, phosphorites and skeletal evolution at the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary. Nature 308:231–236.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  64. ↵
    1. Novek JM,
    2. Dornbos SQ,
    3. McHenry LJ
    (2016) Palaeoredox geochemistry and bioturbation levels of the exceptionally preserved early Cambrian Indian Springs biota, Nevada, USA. Lethaia 49:604–616.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. ↵
    1. Gaten E
    (1998) Optics and phylogeny: Is there an insight? The evolution of superposition eyes in the Decapoda (Crustacea). Contrib Zool 67:223–236.
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Land MF,
    2. Nilsson DE
    (2012) Animal Eyes (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford).
  67. ↵
    1. Müller J
    (1826) Zur vergleichenden Physiologie des Gesichtssinnes des Menschen und der Thiere, nebst einem Versuch über die Bewegungen der Augen und über den menschlichen Blick (Cnobloch, Leipzig, Germany). German.
  68. ↵
    1. Exner S
    (1891) Die Physiologie der facettirten Augen von Krebsen und Insecten: Eine Studie (Franz Deuticke, Leipzig, Germany). German.
  69. ↵
    1. Cronin TW,
    2. Johnson S,
    3. Marshall NJ,
    4. Warrant EJ
    (2014) Visual Ecology (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton).
  70. ↵
    1. Autrum H
    1. Land MF
    (1981) Vision in invertebrates. Handbook of Sensory Physiology, ed Autrum H (Springer, Berlin), Vol VII/6B, pp 471–592.
    OpenUrl
  71. ↵
    1. Ali MA
    1. Land MF
    (1984) Crustacea. Photoreception and Vision in Invertebrates, ed Ali MA (Plenum, New York), pp 401–438.
  72. ↵
    1. Bruno MS,
    2. Barnes SN,
    3. Goldsmith TH
    (1971) The visual pigment and visual circle of the lobster Homarus. J Comp Physiol 120:123–142.
    OpenUrl
  73. ↵
    1. Linnaeus C
    (1758) Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum chararteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, Tomus 1 Regnum animale (Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm (Holmiae), Sweden), 10th Ed. Latin.
  74. ↵
    1. Horridge GA
    1. Land MF
    (1975) Head movements and fly vision. The Compound Eye and Vision of Insects, ed Horridge GA (Clarendon, Oxford), pp 469–489.
  75. ↵
    1. Horridge GA
    (1977) Insects which turn and look. Endeavour 1:7–17.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  76. ↵
    1. Horridge GA
    (1978) The separation of visual axes in apposition compound eyes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 285:1–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  77. ↵
    1. Snyder AW
    (1977) Acuity in compound eyes: Physical limitations and design. J Comp Physiol 116:161–182.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  78. ↵
    1. Autrum H
    1. Snyder AW
    (1979) Physics of vision in compound eyes. Comparative Physiology and Evolution of Vision in Invertebrates, ed Autrum H (Springer, Berlin), pp 225–313.
  79. ↵
    1. Autrum H
    1. Wehner R
    (1981) Spatial vision in arthropods. Handbook of Sensory Physiology, ed Autrum H (Springer, Berlin), Vol VII/6c, pp 287–616.
    OpenUrl
  80. ↵
    1. Gupta AP
    1. Paulus HF
    (1979) Eye structure and the monophyly of the Arthropoda. Arthropod Phylogeny, ed Gupta AP (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York), pp 299–383.
  81. ↵
    1. Fanenbruck M
    (2009) Die Kopfanatomie der Mandibulata (Südwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften (Düsseldorf, Germany). German.
  82. ↵
    1. Wägele JW,
    2. Bartolomaeus T
    (2014) Deep Metazoan Phylogeny: The Backbone of the Tree of Life: New Insights from Analyses of Molecules, Morphology, and Theory of Data Analysis (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin).
  83. ↵
    1. Harzsch S,
    2. Walossek D
    (2001) Neurogenesis in the developing visual system of the branchiopod crustacean Triops longicaudatus (LeConte, 1846): Corresponding patterns of compound-eye formation in Crustacea and Insecta? Dev Genes Evol 211:37–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Strausfeld NJ,
    2. Andrew DR
    (2011) A new view of insect-crustacean relationships I. Inferences from neural cladistics and comparative neuroanatomy. Arthropod Struct Dev 40:276–288.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Linnarsson G
    (1871) Om några försteningar från Sveriges och Norges ‘primordialzon’ Öfvers Kungl Vetensk Akad Förhandl 6:789–796. Swedish.
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Kiaer J
    (1916) The lower Cambrian Holmia fauna at Tømten in Norway. Nor Vidensk Skr 1 Mat Naturv Kl 10:1–140.
    OpenUrl
  87. ↵
    1. Bate CS
    (1857) British Edriophthalma. Ann Mag Nat Hist 2nd Ser 2:524–525.
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. Meyer-Rochow VB,
    2. Stephan H,
    3. Moro SD
    (1991) Morphological and anatomical observations on the hairy eyes of males and females of the marine amphipod Dulichia porrecta (crustacea, amphipoda, podoceridae). Italian J Zoo 58:59–69.
    OpenUrl
    1. Cederström P, et al.
    (2012) Morphology, ontogeny and distribution of the Cambrian Series 2 ellipsocephalid trilobite Strenuaeva spinosa from Scandinavia. Geol Foren Stockh Forh 134:157–117.
    OpenUrl
    1. Moczydłowska M,
    2. Jensen S,
    3. Ebbestad JOR,
    4. Budd GE,
    5. Marti-Mus M
    (2001) Biochronology of the autochthonous lower Cambrian in the Laisvall-Storuman area, Swedish Caledonisdes. Geol Mag 138:435–453.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Structure and function of a compound eye, more than half a billion years old
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Compound eye, more than half a billion years old
Brigitte Schoenemann, Helje Pärnaste, Euan N. K. Clarkson
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2017, 114 (51) 13489-13494; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1716824114

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Compound eye, more than half a billion years old
Brigitte Schoenemann, Helje Pärnaste, Euan N. K. Clarkson
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2017, 114 (51) 13489-13494; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1716824114
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Physical Sciences
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 114 (51)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Characterization of Schmidtiellus reetae Bergström, 1973 and its Stratigraphic Assignments
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Reflection of clouds in the still waters of Mono Lake in California.
Inner Workings: Making headway with the mysteries of life’s origins
Recent experiments and simulations are starting to answer some fundamental questions about how life came to be.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Radoslaw Lecyk.
Depiction of the sun's heliosphere with Voyager spacecraft at its edge.
News Feature: Voyager still breaking barriers decades after launch
Launched in 1977, Voyagers 1 and 2 are still helping to resolve past controversies even as they help spark a new one: the true shape of the heliosphere.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Drop of water creates splash in a puddle.
Journal Club: Heavy water tastes sweeter
Heavy hydrogen makes heavy water more dense and raises its boiling point. It also appears to affect another characteristic long rumored: taste.
Image credit: Shutterstock/sl_photo.
Mouse fibroblast cells. Electron bifurcation reactions keep mammalian cells alive.
Exploring electron bifurcation
Jonathon Yuly, David Beratan, and Peng Zhang investigate how electron bifurcation reactions work.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Panda bear hanging in a tree
How horse manure helps giant pandas tolerate cold
A study finds that giant pandas roll in horse manure to increase their cold tolerance.
Image credit: Fuwen Wei.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Subscribers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Cozzarelli Prize
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates
  • FAQs
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Rights & Permissions
  • About
  • Contact

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490