Morphology of the reflecting superposition eyes of larval oplophorid shrimps

Gaten, E.; Herring, Peter J.

doi:10.1002/jmor.1052250103

Cited by 17 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…with rectilinear packing near the contact with the eyestalk (see in Luque et al, 2019a). In decapod crustaceans, the presence of two types of facets in the same eye is uncommon, with only a (Gaten and Herring, 1995;Gaten et al, 1998). Likewise, a fossil polychelidan lobster specimen from the Jurassic of France (Audo et al, 2019) has two facet shapes in the same eye, but whether they represent a true regionalization of the eye or an artefact of the packing is 660!…”

Section: Ommatidial Packing and Facet Shape In Fossil Podotreme Crabsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of crab eye structures and the utility of ommatidia morphology in resolving phylogeny

Luque

Allison

Bracken‐Grissom

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Image-forming compound eyes are such a valuable adaptation that similar visual systems have 20! evolved independently across crustaceans. But if different compound eye types have evolved independently multiple times, how useful are eye structures and ommatidia morphology for resolving phylogenetic relationships? Crabs are ideal study organisms to explore these questions because they have a good fossil record extending back into the Jurassic, they possess a great variety of optical designs, and details of eye form can be compared between extant and 25! fossil groups. True crabs, or Brachyura, have been traditionally divided into two groups based on the position of the sexual openings in males and females: the so-called 'Podotremata' (females bearing their sexual openings on the legs), and the Eubrachyura, or 'higher' true crabs (females bearing their sexual openings on the thorax). Although Eubrachyura appears to be monophyletic, the monophyly of podotreme crabs remains controversial and therefore requires 30! exploration of new character systems. The earliest podotremous lineages share the plesiomorphic condition of 'mirror' reflecting superposition eyes with most shrimp, lobsters, and anomurans (false crabs and allies). The optical mechanisms of fossil and extant podotreme groups more closely related to Eubrachyura, however, are still poorly investigated. To better judge the phylogenetic utility of compound eye form, we investigated the distribution of eye 35! types in fossil and extant podotreme crabs. Our findings suggest the plesiomorphic 'mirror'eyes-seen in most decapod crustaceans including the earliest true crabs-has been lost in several 'higher' podotremes and in eubrachyurans. We conclude that the secondary retention of larval apposition eyes has existed in eubrachyurans and some podotremes since at least the Early Cretaceous, and that the distribution of eye types among true crabs supports a 40! paraphyletic podotreme grade, as suggested by recent molecular and morphological phylogenetic studies. We also review photoreceptor structure and visual pigment evolution, currently known in crabs exclusively from eubrachyuran representatives. These topics are critical for future expansion of research on podotremes to deeply investigate the homology of eye types across crabs. 45!

show abstract

Section: Ommatidial Packing and Facet Shape In Fossil Podotreme Crabsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of crab eye structures and the utility of ommatidia morphology in resolving phylogeny

Luque

Allison

Bracken‐Grissom

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the past 3 decades, the models on cell proliferation and neuropil formation established in the studies of Elofsson and Dahl (Elofsson, 1969;Elofsson and Dahl, 1970) were the main sources of information on the embryonic development of the compound eyes in decapod crustaceans. More recently, the electronmicroscopic studies by Hafner and coworkers (Hafner et al, 1983(Hafner et al, , 1991Hafner and Tokarski, 1998) on pattern formation and ommatidial differentiation in the retina and a number of morphological studies dealing with the ontogenetic modifications of eye design in crustacean larvae (Meyer-Rochow, 1975;Nilsson, 1983;Fincham, 1984Fincham, , 1988Nilsson et al, 1986;Douglass and Forward, 1989;Cronin et al, 1995;Gaten and Herring, 1995;Harzsch and Dawirs, 1995/96) have contributed new facets to this picture. The goal of the present article was to ask how neurogenesis, neuropil formation, and apoptotic cell death in the crustacean visual system compare with these processes in insects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A new look at embryonic development of the visual system in decapod crustaceans: Neuropil formation, neurogenesis, and apoptotic cell death

et al. 1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, comparing the structure and development of the central nervous system in crustaceans has provided new insights into the phylogenetic relationships of arthropods. Furthermore, the structural evolution of the compound eyes and optic ganglia of adult arthropods has been discussed, but it was not possible to compare the ontogeny of arthropod visual systems, owing to the lack of data on species other than insects. In the present report, we studied the development of the crustacean visual system by examining neurogenesis, neuropil formation, and apoptotic cell death in embryos of the American lobster, Homarus americanus, the spider crab, Hyas araneus, and the caridean shrimp, Palaemonetes argentinus, and compare these processes with those found in insects. Our results on the patterns of stem cell proliferation provide evidence that in decapod crustaceans and hemimetabolous insects, there exist considerable similarities in the mechanisms by which accretion of the compound eyes and growth of the optic lobes is achieved, suggesting an evolutionary conservation of these mechanisms. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Neurobiol 39: 294–306, 1999

show abstract

“…Such lecithotrophic development is seen in other mesopelagic decapods (see Gaten & Herring, 1995) although in these cases, the newlyhatched juveniles bear eyes that already show evidence of the development of reflecting superposition optics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Apposition compound eyes of Spongicoloides koehleri (Crustacea: Spongicolidae) are derived by neoteny

Gaten¹

2007

J. Mar. Biol. Ass.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apposition compound eyes of Spongicoloides koehleri (Crustacea: Spongicolidae) are derived by neoteny Wedding shrimps, Spongicoloides koehleri, spend the adult phase of their life cycle within the cavity of a hexactinellid sponge. Although there is little light at the depths at which the sponges are found, the shrimps do not use the highly sensitive reflecting superposition optics commonly found in other shrimp-like decapods. Instead they have apposition eyes which are virtually free of shielding pigment. It is proposed that this is due to the paedomorphic retention of the larval optics through the process of neoteny.

show abstract

Morphology of the reflecting superposition eyes of larval oplophorid shrimps

Cited by 17 publications

References 20 publications

Evolution of crab eye structures and the utility of ommatidia morphology in resolving phylogeny

Evolution of crab eye structures and the utility of ommatidia morphology in resolving phylogeny

A new look at embryonic development of the visual system in decapod crustaceans: Neuropil formation, neurogenesis, and apoptotic cell death

Apposition compound eyes of Spongicoloides koehleri (Crustacea: Spongicolidae) are derived by neoteny

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About