DOCSLIB.ORG

General Subject Index

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Subject Index General Subject Index 14C-2-deoxyglucose technique, 142, Araneophagic, 5, 36 145–146 Artificial horizon, 287 3-hydroxyretinol, 193, 204, 207–209, 211, Artificial neural network (ANN), 101, 153 212 Associative grouping, 66, 73 4-hydroxyretinal, 300 Associative learning. See Learning, associative Absorption Associative recall, 67 efficiency, 302 Attack, predatory, 239, 314 spectrum, 166, 193, 194, 204, 207–209, Attention, 142, 144, 159 212, 215 Attentional priming, 12 Acceptance angle, physiological, 80, 81, 82 Accessory olfactory system, 273 Background effects, 121, 123, 136–137 Acetylcholinergic synapses, 277 Banked retina, 300 Acoustic interference, 346 Barrier detection, 124, 158 Acoustic signal Basal ganglia, 142, 159 disturbance, 338, 345 Basement lamina, 277, 296 mate location, 336 Basement membrane, 294 spacing, 337 Benthic, 288 species-specificity, 336–337, 347 b (beta)-band 209, 212 Acute zone, 241, 258, 260. See also Bezold-Brucke Effect, 178 Compound eye, acute zone Bilateral symmetry, 288 Adapting angle, 286 Bimodal convergence, 123, 129, 133–134 Adaptive tuning, 167 Binocular disparity, in mantids, 105–107 Aggressive mimicry, 10 Binocular Agonistic displays, 298 input, 127–128, 133, 147 Alarm substance, 273 visual field, in mantids, 79–81, 91 Algorithm Biodiversity, 307 backpropagation, 151, 153 Bioluminescence, 302 computational, 99, 100 Bird cone cells, 285 features relating, 157, 160 Birefringent, 250 prey recognition, in mantids, 101 Blue-shifted, 253–254, 300 Alternative male morphs, 345, 347–348 Brain Amacrine cells, 82, 291 lesions, 138, 140, 144–145, 158 Ambient light, 289 size, 13 Angle of polarization, 286 Brightness-matched camouflage, 289 Annular light stimulus, 294 Broad-band, 202, 212, 263 Aperture detection, 124–125 Butterfly, 193–219 Appetitive behavior, praying mantids, 90 Apposition eye, 79, 84, 241, 246. See also Campaniform sensilla, 316, 333 Compound eye Carotenoid-based filters, 263, 285 428 General Subject Index Carotenoid, 215 filters, 302 Catching patterns, in amphibians, 118 and flower choice, 183, 184 Category formation, in amphibians, 156 matching, 285 cDNA, 193, 210 opponency, 266, 304 Cell assembly, 149–151 opponent coding, 171, 174, 175 Central brain, 273 preference, 183–186 Central photoreceptors, 297 principal, 198 Cerci, 314, 329 processing, 177 Channel molecules, 297 receptors, 170, 246 Chemical senses, 119, 272 saturation, 178 Chemotactile memory, 272 sensitivity, 302 Chordotonal organ space, 179, 180, 182, 188, 189 anatomy of, 339 vision, 23–26, 124, 165, 173, 174, 179, distance perception, 343–344 193–195, 199, 218, 285 exteroreceptive functions, 342–343 Colorblindness in octupus, 285 mismatch to signal carrier frequency, 341 Colorblind system, 302 neuronal projection patterns, 343 Color-matched camouflage, 289 serial, 339–340 Color-opponent channels, 288 Chromatic aberration, 23 Combinatorial aspects, 160 Chromatophore, 166, 193, 204, 284, 285 Command Ciliary muscles, 276 element, 147 Circadian rhythms, 275 releasing system, 147 Circalunar rhythms, 275 Complex mazes Circular polarization, 304 following a sign, 52, 54 Circularly polarized light, 249, 250 symbolic cues, 53, 55 Closed loop behavior, 19 unmarked mazes, 53, 56, 57 Coarse coding, 316 Compound eye, 14–18, 77–82, 173, 199, Cochlea, 265, 266 202–204, 213, 216, 218. See also Eye; Cognition, 9, 10, 12. See also Learning Ommatidia Cognitive acceptance angle, 80–82 capacity, 41, 72 acute zone, 79–82, 91, 95, 106–108 limitations, 188 corneal lens, 21, 79 process, 72, 74 dioptric apparatus, 79–80 Collaterals, 277 facet, 79–80 Colliculus, superior, 157 integration time, 82 Color interommatidial angle, 80–82 based context-specific decisions, 189 light sensitivity, 80–81 categories, 181 motion sensitivity, 82 categorization, 178 Computation, explicit/implicit, 155 change, 284 Conditioning coding, 170, 172 visual-olfactory, 145 constancy, 177, 181–184, 195, 198, 199, visual-visual, 144 263, 264, 265 Cone cells, 215, 285 contrast, 178, 289 Cone opponency, 291, See also detection, 170 Opponency; Opponent discrimination, 174, 188, 189, 198, 199, Configurational selectivity, 134, 155 218, 219, 297 Contrast 429 General Subject Index detection, 119, 121, 129 Detour, ix, 9, 11–12, 20, 21, 36 discrimination, 288 Detoxification stress proteins, 276 enhanced, 285 Dichromatic enhancement, 304 channels, 265, 266 enhancer, 290 color vision, 288 mechanisms, 283 Dishabituation, 121–122, 158 patterns, 288 Disinhibition, 140, 142, 145, 159 sensitivity, 80–81 Disruptive stimulus, 328 body pattern, 284 Coordinated binocular vision, 283 skin patterns, 285 Copulation, 314 Distal rhabdoms, 300 Cornea, 202, 246, 255, 257, 267. See also Distance estimation, in mantids, 110–112 Compound eye Downwelling light, 242, 243 Corneal lens. See Compound eye Dragline, 6, 9 Counterilluminating, 305, 306 Countershading, 274 E-vector, 249, 264, 266 Courtship, 314 angle, 249, 288 Crystalline cone, 79–80, 203, 246, 254, orientation, 279 255, 257. See also Compound eye Edge detection, 120, 292 Cues Effective stimuli, 120, 273 chemical, 6, 12, 13, 36 Efferent nerves, 291 odor, 6 Electric vector, 290 visual, 12, 34–36 Electroretinogram (ERG), 79, 81, 82, 285, Cuticle, 314 291 Cut-off filter, 302 Electrotonic junctions, 277 Cyclically, 273 Elementary motion detectors, 87, 88, 114 Enhanced contour detection, 283 Dance language, x Enhancing visual contrast, 288 Dark adaptation, 277 Epidermal hair cells, 273 Darwin, Charles, 336, 349 Epigamic rhythms, 12 Dehydroretinal, 300 Epi-illumination, 203, 210, 217 Delayed match-to-sample, 64, 67 ERG. See Electroretinogram Delayed nonmatch-to-sample, 67 Escape, 123, 147, 158 Dendritic fields, 281 and visual stimuli, 120, 329 Depolarizations, 292 touch-evoked, 324 Depth wind-evoked of field, 16 Evolutionary transitions in bladder of focus, 276 grasshoppers, 348 perception, 136, 147 Explicit computation, 155 Descending Extraocular photoreceptors, 275 contralateral movement detector Eye. See also Compound eye (DCMD), 100–108, 112–114 anterior lateral, 20–21, 37 ipsilateral movement detector (DIMD), anterior median, 20–34, 37 88, 101, 112–113 camera, 14 mechanosensory interneurons, 322, 324 compound (see Compound eye) Detection, visual, 145–152, 329 human, 15 Detour behavior, 124, 158 movements, 117, 258, 259, 260, 261, 267 430 General Subject Index Eye. See also Compound eye (cont.) Giant interneurons, 322 muscles, 274 Glass cells, 21 posterior lateral, 19 Global image motion, 90, 107 posterior median, 15 Glutathione S-transferase, 276 principal, 14, 19, 20–34, 37 Gonadotropin, 273 secondary, 14, 15–20, 37 Gustatory stimuli, 123 shine, 215–219 tube, 21, 30, 33–35, 37 Habituation, 121–122, 158, 273 vertebrate, 15 Hairs, filiform, 314, 316 Head-preference phenomenon, in toads, False color phenomenon, 302 120–121 Fast escape responses, 273 Hearing, 335 Feature Hearing sensitivity, bladder grasshoppers, detection (in toads), 119, 121, 125, 138, 340–341 149, 151–152, 155 Heterogeneity, in butterfly retinae, 202, relationships, 119, 136, 155–156 203, 213, 2116–219 Feeding, 117–118, 142, 144, 146, 155, 215 Horizontal Field of view, 15, 33–34, 244 axes, 286 Filter pigment, 247, 250, 251, 252, 253, grid, 124 254, 263, 267 orientation, 286 Flicker fusion frequency, 81–82 polarized, 289 Floral detection, 174 polarizer, 290 Flower, 193, 195, 198, 199, 213, 218, 219 stripe, 119 colors, 170 Hue, dominant wavelength, 178, 179 constancy, fidelity, 188, 189 Hunting strategy, 300 structure and constancy, 190 Hybridization, 210, 211 scent constancy, 190 Fluorescence, 203, 204, 210, 213, 215 Illusory contour, 48 microscopy, 203, 213 Image motion, 90–99, 107, 117, 121, 123 ommatidial, 204 distance estimation, 90–91, 95, 110–112, spectrum, 204 136 Flying, 111–112 global, 90, 107 Focal length, 15, 16, 18, 21, 276 local, 88–90, 91–99 Foraging, 64, 67, 72, 73 self-induced, 90–91, 107–112 decisions, color learning, 186 Image sharpening, 292 Forebrain, 138–145, 158–159 Image-forming vision, 275 Fovea, 30–33, 241 Implicit computation, 155 mammalian, 15 Impulse generator sites, 294 Foveal acquisition, 260 Inferior frontal lobes, 272 Fused rhabdom, 279. See also Rhabdom Information transfer, optic lobe, 82–88 Information, mechanosensory, 133, 322 Ganglia Inhibition, mutual, 292 terminal abdominal, cockroach, 316 Innate color preference, 186–188 thoracic, cockroach, 316 Inner ear, 274 Ganglion cells, retinal, 84, 126, 128 Integration Gastropod mollusks, 289 mechanosensory, 33, 133 Gating a response, 142, 159 visual, 33 431 General Subject Index Intensity, brightness, 179, 180 experiments, 288 Interference, 215 and memory, 64 reflection, 215 nonassociative, 121–122, 158 Interneurons, visual, 82–88, 100–108, Lens, 276. See also Compound eye 112–113, 128, 332 crystallin, 276 Interommatidial angle, 80, 81 corneal, 21, 33 Intracellular recordings, 287, 294 pit, 21 Intrinsic cells, 83 secondary, 21, 30 Iridophores, 284, 297 telephoto, 21–23, 33 Isochromatic, 289 Leucophores, 284 Isoluminous, 289 LGMD-DCMD complex, 99–107, 108, 112–114. See also Descending Jetting escape response, 273 contralateral movement detector Julesz Light pattern, 98 adaptation, 279 texture, 125, 136 guides, 30–32 organs, 300 K+ channel blockers, 273 Light-flash, 291 Kainic acid, 138 Light-guiding, 279 Linear polarization, 249, 304 Labeling, 210–212, 218 LMC. See Monopolar cells Lambda (l) max, 302 Lobula, 87–89 Lamina, 82–85 dynamic integration, 112–114 acute zone, 84 giant movement detector (LGMD), amacrine cell, 82 100–108, 112–114 cartridge, 82–85, 256, 257, 266 movement-sensitive cell L-15, 103, 105 ganglionaris,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animal Eyes and the Darwinian Theory of the Evolution of the Human
    Animal Eyes We can learn a lot from the wonder of, and the wonder in, animal eyes. Aldo Leopold a pioneer in the conservation movement did. He wrote in Thinking like a Mountain, “We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes – something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.” For Aldo Leopold, the green fire in the wolf’s eyes symbolized a new way of seeing our place in the world, and with his new insight, he provided a new ethical perspective for the environmental movement. http://vimeo.com/8669977 Light contains information about the environment, and animals without eyes can make use of the information provided by environmental light without forming an image. Euglena, a single-celled organism that did not fit nicely into Carl Linnaeus’ two kingdom system of classification, quite clearly responds to light. Its plant-like nature responds to light by photosynthesizing and its animal- like nature responds to light by moving to and staying in the light. Light causes an increase in the swimming speed, a response known as 165 photokinesis. Light also causes another response in Euglena, known as an accumulation response (phototaxis).
    [Show full text]
  • Lafranca Moth Article.Pdf
    What you may not know about... MScientific classificationoths Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Photography and article written by Milena LaFranca order: Lepidoptera [email protected] At roughly 160,000, there are nearly day or nighttime. Butterflies are only above: scales on moth wing, shot at 2x above: SEM image of individual wing scale, 1500x ten times the number of species of known to be diurnal insects and moths of moths have thin butterfly-like of microscopic ridges and bumps moths compared to butterflies, which are mostly nocturnal insects. So if the antennae but they lack the club ends. that reflect light in various angles are in the same order. While most sun is out, it is most likely a butterfly and Moths utilize a wing-coupling that create iridescent coloring. moth species are nocturnal, there are if the moon is out, it is definitely a moth. mechanism that includes two I t i s c o m m o n f o r m o t h w i n g s t o h a v e some that are crepuscular and others A subtler clue in butterfly/moth structures, the retinaculum and patterns that are not in the human that are diurnal. Crepuscular meaning detection is to compare the placement the frenulum. The frenulum is a visible light spectrum. Moths have that they are active during twilight of their wings at rest. Unless warming spine at the base of the hind wing. the ability to see in ultra-violet wave hours. Diurnal themselves, The retinaculum is a loop on the lengths.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction; Environment & Review of Eyes in Different Species
    The Biological Vision System: Introduction; Environment & Review of Eyes in Different Species James T. Fulton https://neuronresearch.net/vision/ Abstract: Keywords: Biological, Human, Vision, phylogeny, vitamin A, Electrolytic Theory of the Neuron, liquid crystal, Activa, anatomy, histology, cytology PROCESSES IN BIOLOGICAL VISION: including, ELECTROCHEMISTRY OF THE NEURON Introduction 1- 1 1 Introduction, Phylogeny & Generic Forms 1 “Vision is the process of discovering from images what is present in the world, and where it is” (Marr, 1985) ***When encountering a citation to a Section number in the following material, the first numeric is a chapter number. All cited chapters can be found at https://neuronresearch.net/vision/document.htm *** 1.1 Introduction While the material in this work is designed for the graduate student undertaking independent study of the vision sensory modality of the biological system, with a certain amount of mathematical sophistication on the part of the reader, the major emphasis is on specific models down to specific circuits used within the neuron. The Chapters are written to stand-alone as much as possible following the block diagram in Section 1.5. However, this requires frequent cross-references to other Chapters as the analyses proceed. The results can be followed by anyone with a college degree in Science. However, to replicate the (photon) Excitation/De-excitation Equation, a background in differential equations and integration-by-parts is required. Some background in semiconductor physics is necessary to understand how the active element within a neuron operates and the unique character of liquid-crystalline water (the backbone of the neural system). The level of sophistication in the animal vision system is quite remarkable.
    [Show full text]
  • Vision-In-Arthropoda.Pdf
    Introduction Arthropods possess various kinds of sensory structures which are sensitive to different kinds of stimuli. Arthropods possess simple as well as compound eyes; the latter evolved in Arthropods and are found in no other group of animals. Insects that possess both types of eyes: simple and compound. Photoreceptors: sensitive to light Photoreceptor in Arthropoda 1. Simple Eyes 2. Compound Eyes 1. Simple Eyes in Arthropods - Ocelli The word ocelli are derived from the Latin word ocellus which means little eye. Ocelli are simple eyes which comprise of single lens for collecting and focusing light. Arthropods possess two kinds of ocelli a) Dorsal Ocelli b) Lateral Ocelli (Stemmata) Dorsal Ocellus - Dorsal ocelli are found on the dorsal or front surface of the head of nymphs and adults of several hemimetabolous insects. These are bounded by compound eyes on lateral sides. Dorsal ocelli are not present in those arthropods which lack compound eyes. • Dorsal ocellus has single corneal lens which covers a number of sensory rod- like structures, rhabdome. • The ocellar lens may be curved, for example in bees, locusts and dragonflies; or flat as in cockroaches. • It is sensitive to a wide range of wavelengths and shows quick response to changes in light intensity. • It cannot form an image and is unable to recognize the object. Lateral Ocellus - Stemmata Lateral ocelli, It is also known as stemmata. They are the only eyes in the larvae of holometabolous and certain adult insects such as spring tails, silver fish, fleas and stylops. These are called lateral eyes because they are always present in the lateral region of the head.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Eyes
    Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline Annu. Reo. Neurosci. 1992. 15:1-29 Copyright © 1992 by Annual Review~ Inc] All rights reserved THE EVOLUTION OF EYES Michael F. Land Neuroscience Interdisciplinary Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton BN19QG, United Kingdom Russell D. Fernald Programs of HumanBiology and Neuroscience and Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305 KEYWORDS: vision, optics, retina INTRODUCTION: EVOLUTION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS Since the earth formed more than 5 billion years ago, sunlight has been the most potent selective force to control the evolution of living organisms. Consequencesof this solar selection are most evident in eyes, the premier sensory outposts of the brain. Becauseorganisms use light to see, eyes have evolved into manyshapes, sizes, and designs; within these structures, highly conserved protein molecules for catching photons and bending light rays have also evolved. Although eyes themselves demonstrate manydifferent solutions to the problem of obtaining an image--solutions reached rela- by University of California - Berkeley on 09/02/08. For personal use only. tively late in evolution--some of the molecules important for sight are, in fact, the same as in the earliest times. This suggests that once suitable Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 1992.15:1-29. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org biochemical solutions are found, they are retained, even though their "packaging"varies greatly. In this review, we concentrate on the diversity of eye types and their optical evolution, but first we consider briefly evolution at the more fundamental levels of molecules and cells. Molecular Evolution The opsins, the protein componentsof the visual pigments responsible for catching photons, have a history that extends well beyond the appearance of anything we would recognize as an eye.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Dimorphism in the Compound Eye of Heliconius Erato:A Nymphalid Butterfly with at Least Five Spectral Classes of Photoreceptor Kyle J
    © 2016. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd | Journal of Experimental Biology (2016) 219, 2377-2387 doi:10.1242/jeb.136523 RESEARCH ARTICLE Sexual dimorphism in the compound eye of Heliconius erato:a nymphalid butterfly with at least five spectral classes of photoreceptor Kyle J. McCulloch1, Daniel Osorio2 and Adriana D. Briscoe1,* ABSTRACT birds and bees, there is little variation in photoreceptor spectral Most butterfly families expand the number of spectrally distinct sensitivities between species within a given clade (Osorio and photoreceptors in their compound eye by opsin gene duplications Vorobyev, 2005; Bloch, 2015), or between sexes. Aquatic taxa together with lateral filter pigments; however, most nymphalid genera including teleost fish (Carleton and Kocher, 2001; Bowmaker and have limited diversity, with only three or four spectral types of Hunt, 2006) and stomatopods (Cronin and Marshall, 1989; Porter photoreceptor. Here, we examined the spatial pattern of opsin et al., 2009) do have substantial spectral diversity of photoreceptors expression and photoreceptor spectral sensitivities in Heliconius between related species, which can often be related to the spectral erato, a nymphalid with duplicate ultraviolet opsin genes, UVRh1 and variation in ambient illumination in water. Among terrestrial UVRh2. We found that the H. erato compound eye is sexually animals, dragonflies (Futahashi et al., 2015) and butterflies dimorphic. Females express the two UV opsin proteins in separate (Briscoe, 2008) are known for the diversity of their photoreceptor photoreceptors, but males do not express UVRh1. Intracellular spectral sensitivities, but the evolutionary causes and physiological recordings confirmed that females have three short wavelength- significance of these differences remain unclear, and there is limited λ ∼ evidence for sexual dimorphism in photoreceptor spectral sensitive photoreceptors ( max=356, 390 and 470 nm), while males λ ∼ sensitivities (but see below).
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Dimorphism and Light/Dark Adaptation in the Compound Eyes of Male and Female Acentria Ephemerella (Lepidoptera: Pyraloidea: Crambidae)
    Eur. J. Entomol. 104: 459–470, 2007 http://www.eje.cz/scripts/viewabstract.php?abstract=1255 ISSN 1210-5759 Sexual dimorphism and light/dark adaptation in the compound eyes of male and female Acentria ephemerella (Lepidoptera: Pyraloidea: Crambidae) TING FAN (STANLEY) LAU1, ELISABETH MARIA GROSS2 and VICTOR BENNO MEYER-ROCHOW1,3 1Faculty of Engineering and Sciences, Jacobs University Bremen, P.O.Box 750561, D-28725 Bremen, Germany 2Limnological Institute, University of Konstanz, P.O. Box M659, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany 3Department of Biology (Zoological Museum), University of Oulu, P.O.Box 3000, SF-90014 Oulu, Finland; e-mail: [email protected] and [email protected] Key words. Pyraloidea, Crambidae, compound eye, photoreception, vision, retina, sexual dimorphism, polarization sensitivity, dark/light adaptation, photoreceptor evolution Abstract. In the highly sexual-dimorphic nocturnal moth, Acentria ephemerella Denis & Schiffermüller 1775, the aquatic and win- gless female possesses a refracting superposition eye, whose gross structural organization agrees with that of the fully-winged male. The possession of an extensive corneal nipple array, a wide clear-zone in combination with a voluminous rhabdom and a reflecting tracheal sheath are proof that the eyes of both sexes are adapted to function in a dimly lit environment. However, the ommatidium of the male eye has statistically significantly longer dioptric structures (i.e., crystalline cones) and light-perceiving elements (i.e., rhab- doms), as well as a much wider clear-zone than the female. Photomechanical changes upon light/dark adaptation in both male and female eyes result in screening pigment translocations that reduce or dilate ommatidial apertures, but because of the larger number of smaller facets of the male eye in combination with the structural differences of dioptric apparatus and retina (see above) the male eye would enjoy superior absolute visual sensitivity under dim conditions and a greater resolving power and ability to detect movement during the day.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Affecting Counterillumination As a Cryptic Strategy
    Reference: Biol. Bull. 207: 1–16. (August 2004) © 2004 Marine Biological Laboratory Propagation and Perception of Bioluminescence: Factors Affecting Counterillumination as a Cryptic Strategy SO¨ NKE JOHNSEN1,*, EDITH A. WIDDER2, AND CURTIS D. MOBLEY3 1Biology Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708; 2Marine Science Division, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34946; and 3Sequoia Scientific Inc., Bellevue, Washington 98005 Abstract. Many deep-sea species, particularly crusta- was partially offset by the higher contrast attenuation at ceans, cephalopods, and fish, use photophores to illuminate shallow depths, which reduced the sighting distance of their ventral surfaces and thus disguise their silhouettes mismatches. This research has implications for the study of from predators viewing them from below. This strategy has spatial resolution, contrast sensitivity, and color discrimina- several potential limitations, two of which are examined tion in deep-sea visual systems. here. First, a predator with acute vision may be able to detect the individual photophores on the ventral surface. Introduction Second, a predator may be able to detect any mismatch between the spectrum of the bioluminescence and that of the Counterillumination is a common form of crypsis in the background light. The first limitation was examined by open ocean (Latz, 1995; Harper and Case, 1999; Widder, modeling the perceived images of the counterillumination 1999). Its prevalence is due to the fact that, because the of the squid Abralia veranyi and the myctophid fish Cera- downwelling light is orders of magnitude brighter than the toscopelus maderensis as a function of the distance and upwelling light, even an animal with white ventral colora- visual acuity of the viewer.
    [Show full text]
  • RESEARCH ARTICLE Oxidative Stress, Photodamage and the Role of Screening Pigments in Insect Eyes
    3200 The Journal of Experimental Biology 216, 3200-3207 © 2013. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd doi:10.1242/jeb.082818 RESEARCH ARTICLE Oxidative stress, photodamage and the role of screening pigments in insect eyes Teresita C. Insausti, Marion Le Gall and Claudio R. Lazzari* Institut de Recherche sur la Biologie de l’Insecte, UMR 7261 CNRS – Université François Rabelais, Tours, France *Author for correspondence ([email protected]) SUMMARY Using red-eyed mutant triatomine bugs (Hemiptera: Reduvidae), we tested the hypothesis of an alternative function of insect screening pigments against oxidative stress. To test our hypothesis, we studied the morphological and physiological changes associated with the mutation. We found that wild-type eyes possess a great amount of brown and red screening pigment inside the primary and secondary pigment cells as well as in the retinular cells. Red-eyed mutants, however, have only scarce red granules inside the pigmentary cells. We then compared the visual sensitivity of red-eyed mutants and wild types by measuring the photonegative responses of insects reared in light:dark cycles [12h:12h light:dark (LD)] or constant darkness (DD). Finally, we analyzed both the impact of oxidative stress associated with blood ingestion and photodamage of UV light on the eye retina. We found that red-eyed mutants reared in DD conditions were the most sensitive to the light intensities tested. Retinae of LD- reared mutants were gradually damaged over the life cycle, while for DD-reared insects retinae were conserved intact. No retinal damage was observed in non-fed mutants exposed to UV light for 2weeks, whereas insects fed on blood prior to UV exposure showed clear signs of retinal damage.
    [Show full text]
  • Anatomy of the Regional Differences in the Eye of the Mantis Ciulfina
    J. exp. Biol. (i979). 80, 165-190 165 With 17 figures Printed in Great Britain ANATOMY OF THE REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN THE EYE OF THE MANTIS CIULFINA BY G. A. HORRIDGE AND PETER DUELLI Department of Neurobiology, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia (Received 8 August 1978) SUMMARY 1. In the compound eye of Ciulfina (Mantidae) there are large regional differences in interommatidial angle as measured optically from the pseudo- pupil. Notably there is an acute zone which looks backwards as well as one looking forwards. There are correlated regional differences in the dimensions of the ommatidia. 2. The following anatomical features which influence the optical perform- ance have been measured in different parts of the eye: (a) The facet diameter is greater where the interommatidial angle is smaller. This could influence resolving power, but calculation shows that facet size does not exert a dominant effect on the visual fields of the receptors. (b) The rhabdom tip diameter, which theoretically has a strong influence on the size of visual fields, is narrower in eye regions where the inter- ommatidial angle is smaller. (c) The cone length, from which the focal length can be estimated, is greater where the interommatidial angle is smaller. 3. Estimation of the amount of light reaching the rhabdom suggests that different parts of the eye have similar sensitivity to a point source of light, but differ by a factor of at least 10 in sensitivity to an extended source. 4. There is anatomical evidence that in the acute zone the sensitivity has been sacrificed for the sake of resolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Compound Eye Optics with Microscope and Microct Images
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.11.422154; this version posted December 12, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Title (<120 characters): Measuring Compound Eye Optics with Microscope and MicroCT Images 2 Article Type: Tools and Resources 3 Author Names and Affiliations: John Paul Currea1, Yash Sondhi2, Akito Y. Kawahara3, and Jamie 4 Theobald2 5 1Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, U.S.A. 6 2Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, U.S.A. 7 3Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, U.S.A. 8 Abstract (<150 words): 9 The arthropod compound eye is the most prevalent eye type in the animal kingdom, with an impressive 10 range of shapes and sizes. Studying its natural range of morphologies provides insight into visual 11 ecology, development, and evolution. In contrast to the camera-type eyes we possess, external 12 structures of compound eyes often reveal resolution, sensitivity, and field of view if the eye is 13 spherical. Non-spherical eyes, however, require measuring internal structures using imaging 14 technology like MicroCT (µCT). Thus far, there is no efficient tool to automate characterizing 15 compound eye optics. We present two open-source programs: (1) the ommatidia detecting algorithm 16 (ODA), which automatically measures ommatidia count and diameter, and (2) a µCT pipeline, which 17 calculates anatomical acuity, sensitivity, and field of view across the eye by applying the ODA.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside the Eye: Nature's Most Exquisite Creation
    Inside the Eye: Nature’s Most Exquisite Creation To understand how animals see, look through their eyes. By Ed Yong Photographs by David Liittschwager The eyes of a Cuban rock iguana, a gargoyle gecko, a blue-eyed black lemur, a southern ground hornbill, a red-eyed tree frog, a domestic goat, a western lowland gorilla, and a human “If you ask people what animal eyes are used for, they’ll say: same thing as human eyes. But that’s not true. It’s not true at all.” In his lab at Lund University in Sweden, Dan-Eric Nilsson is contemplating the eyes of a box jellyfish. Nilsson’s eyes, of which he has two, are ice blue and forward facing. In contrast, the box jelly boasts 24 eyes, which are dark brown and grouped into four clusters called rhopalia. Nilsson shows me a model of one in his office: It looks like a golf ball that has sprouted tumors. A flexible stalk anchors it to the jellyfish. “When I first saw them, I didn’t believe my own eyes,” says Nilsson. “They just look weird.” Four of the six eyes in each rhopalium are simple light-detecting slits and pits. But the other two are surprisingly sophisticated; like Nilsson’s eyes, they have light-focusing lenses and can see images, albeit at lower resolution. Nilsson uses his eyes to, among other things, gather information about the diversity of animal vision. But what about the box jelly? It is among the simplest of animals, just a gelatinous, pulsating blob with four trailing bundles of stinging tentacles.
    [Show full text]