Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Fossil insect eyes shed light on trilobite optics and the arthropod pigment screen

Nature volume 573, pages 122–125 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

This article has been updated

Abstract

Fossilized eyes permit inferences of the visual capacity of extinct arthropods1,2,3. However, structural and/or chemical modifications as a result of taphonomic and diagenetic processes can alter the original features, thereby necessitating comparisons with modern species. Here we report the detailed molecular composition and microanatomy of the eyes of 54-million-year-old crane-flies, which together provide a proxy for the interpretation of optical systems in some other ancient arthropods. These well-preserved visual organs comprise calcified corneal lenses that are separated by intervening spaces containing eumelanin pigment. We also show that eumelanin is present in the facet walls of living crane-flies, in which it forms the outermost ommatidial pigment shield in compound eyes incorporating a chitinous cornea. To our knowledge, this is the first record of melanic screening pigments in arthropods, and reveals a fossilization mode in insect eyes that involves a decay-resistant biochrome coupled with early diagenetic mineralization of the ommatidial lenses. The demonstrable secondary calcification of lens cuticle that was initially chitinous has implications for the proposed calcitic corneas of trilobites, which we posit are artefacts of preservation rather than a product of in vivo biomineralization4,5,6,7. Although trilobite eyes might have been partly mineralized for mechanical strength, a (more likely) organic composition would have enhanced function via gradient-index optics and increased control of lens shape.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Structure of compound eyes of fossil and extant crane-flies.
Fig. 2: Chemistry of ommatidial lenses of fossilized crane-flies.
Fig. 3: Chemistry of corneal facet walls of a fossilized crane-fly.

Data availability

The fossil crane-flies analysed in this study are permanently accessioned into the collections of Museum Salling, Fur Museum (Fur, Denmark) and Museum Mors, Mo-clay Museum (Nykøbing Mors, Denmark). Our comparative trilobite fossil samples are housed in the research collections of the Department of Geology, Lund University. All supporting data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Change history

  • 27 August 2019

    Owing to a technical error, this Letter was not published online on 14 August 2019, as originally stated, and was instead first published online on 15 August 2019. The Letter has been corrected online.

References

  1. Lee, M. S. Y. et al. Modern optics in exceptionally preserved eyes of Early Cambrian arthropods from Australia. Nature 474, 631–634 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Paterson, J. R. et al. Acute vision in the giant Cambrian predator Anomalocaris and the origin of compound eyes. Nature 480, 237–240 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, R. P., McCoy, V. E., McNamara, M. E. & Briggs, D. E. G. What big eyes you have: the ecological role of giant pterygotid eurypterids. Biol. Lett. 10, 20140412 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Towe, K. M. Trilobite eyes: calcified lenses in vivo. Science 179, 1007–1009 (1973).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gál, J., Horváth, G., Clarkson, E. N. K. & Haiman, O. Image formation by bifocal lenses in a trilobite eye? Vision Res. 40, 843–853 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schoenemann, B., Clarkson, E. N. K. & Horváth, G. Why did the UV-A-induced photoluminescent blue-green glow in trilobite eyes and exoskeletons not cause problems for trilobites? PeerJ 3, e1492 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Schoenemann, B. & Clarkson, E. N. K. Vision in fossilised eyes. Earth Environ. Sci. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 106, 209–220 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Land, M. F. & Nilsson, D.-E. Animal Eyes (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).

  9. Schoenemann, B., Pärnaste, H. & Clarkson, E. N. K. Structure and function of a compound eye, more than half a billion years old. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 13489–13494 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nilsson, D.-E. & Kelber, A. A functional analysis of compound eye evolution. Arthropod Struct. Dev. 36, 373–385 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vopalensky, P. & Kozmik, Z. Eye evolution: common use and independent recruitment of genetic components. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364, 2819–2832 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Clements, T. et al. The eyes of Tullimonstrum reveal a vertebrate affinity. Nature 532, 500–503 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ziegler, I. Genetic aspects of ommochrome and pterine pigments. Adv. Genet. 10, 349–403 (1961).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Struwe, G., Hallberg, E. & Elofsson, R. The physical and morphological properties of the pigment screen in the compound eye of a shrimp (Crustacea). J. Comp. Physiol. 97, 257–270 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lindgren, J. et al. Molecular preservation of the pigment melanin in fossil melanosomes. Nat. Commun. 3, 824 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. Glass, K. et al. Direct chemical evidence for eumelanin pigment from the Jurassic period. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 10218–10223 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pedersen, G. K. et al. Molerområdets geologi – sedimenter, fossiler, askelag og glacialtektonik. Geologisk Tidsskrift 2011, 41–135 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Freiwald, A. Insekten aus der Fur-Formation von Dänemark (Moler, ob. Paleozän/unt. Eozän?). 4. Tipulidae. Meyniana 42, 47–63 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Krzemiński, W. New fossil Tipuloidea (Diptera) from the Fur Formation of Denmark in the collection of the Natural History Museum in London. Polish J. Entomol. 70, 333–339 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Williams, D. S. Organisation of the compound eye of a tipulid fly during the day and night. Zoomorphologie 95, 85–104 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ito, S. et al. Usefulness of alkaline hydrogen peroxide oxidation to analyze eumelanin and pheomelanin in various tissue samples: application to chemical analysis of human hair melanins. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 24, 605–613 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Oakley, T. H. & Speiser, D. I. How complexity originates: the evolution of animal eyes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 237–260 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Needham, A. E. The Significance of Zoochromes (Springer, 1974).

  24. Ren, D., Shih, C., Gao, T., Yao, Y. & Zhao, Y. Silent Stories – Insect Fossil Treasures from Dinosaur Era of the Northeastern China (Science, 2010).

  25. Clarkson, E., Levi-Setti, R. & Horváth, G. The eyes of trilobites: the oldest preserved visual system. Arthropod Struct. Dev. 35, 247–259 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nilsson, D.-E. in Facets of Vision (eds Stavenga, D. G. & Hardie, R. C.) 30–73 (Springer, 1989).

  27. Speiser, D. I., Eernisse, D. J. & Johnsen, S. A chiton uses aragonite lenses to form images. Curr. Biol. 21, 665–670 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Alagboso, F. I., Reisecker, C., Hild, S. & Ziegler, A. Ultrastructure and mineral composition of the cornea cuticle in the compound eyes of a supralittoral and a marine isopod. J. Struct. Biol. 187, 158–173 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fabritius, H.-O. et al. Functional adaptation of crustacean exoskeletal elements through structural and compositional diversity: a combined experimental and theoretical study. Bioinspir. Biomim. 11, 055006 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ahlberg, P., Szaniawski, H., Clarkson, E. N. K. & Bengtson, S. Phosphatised olenid trilobites and associated fauna from the Upper Cambrian of Västergötland, Sweden. Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 50, 429–440 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Novellino, L., Napolitano, A. & Prota, G. Isolation and characterization of mammalian eumelanins from hair and irides. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1475, 295–306 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Butenandt, A., Schiedt, U. & Biekert, E. Über Ommochrome, III. Mitteilung: Synthese des Xanthommatins. Justus Liebigs Ann. Chem. 588, 106–116 (1954).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. d’Ischia, M. et al. Melanins and melanogenesis: methods, standards, protocols. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 26, 616–633 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Thiel, V. & Sjövall, P. in Principles and Practice of Analytical Techniques in Geosciences (ed. Grice, K.) 122–170 (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2015).

  35. Lindgren, J. et al. Skin pigmentation provides evidence of convergent melanism in extinct marine reptiles. Nature 506, 484–488 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lindgren, J. et al. Interpreting melanin-based coloration through deep time: a critical review. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 282, 20150614 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lindgren, J. et al. Soft-tissue evidence for homeothermy and crypsis in a Jurassic ichthyosaur. Nature 564, 359–365 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wakamatsu, K., Ito, S. & Rees, J. L. The usefulness of 4-amino-3-hydroxyphenylalanine as a specific marker of pheomelanin. Pigment Cell Res. 15, 225–232 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Carson, F. L. & Cappellano, C. H. Histotechnology: A Self Instructional Text (American Society of Clinical Pathologists, 2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M. Hofstedt collected specimen FUM-N-15451; C. Tell processed our extant tiger crane-fly samples; R. Hauff and G. Dyke provided comparative ink sacs from fossil squids; and C. Rasmussen prepared the histological sections, performed the Fontana–Masson staining, and assisted during the transmission electron microscopy analysis. Financial support for this project was provided by a Swedish Research Council Grant for Distinguished Young Researchers (642-2014-3773) to J.L.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Johan Lindgren, Martin Jarenmark, Carl Alwmark, Mats E. Eriksson, Paula Lindgren & Per Ahlberg

  2. Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Dan-Eric Nilsson

  3. Chemistry and Materials, RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Borås, Sweden

    Peter Sjövall

  4. Department of Chemistry, Fujita Health University School of Health Sciences, Toyoake, Japan

    Shosuke Ito & Kazumasa Wakamatsu

  5. Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

    Benjamin P. Kear

  6. Museum Salling, Fur Museum, Fur, Denmark

    Bo Pagh Schultz & René Lyng Sylvestersen

  7. Museum Mors, Mo-clay Museum, Nykøbing Mors, Denmark

    Henrik Madsen

  8. Department of Biological Sciences, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    James R. LaFountain Jr

  9. Department of Construction Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Stephen A. Hall

  10. Centre for Analysis and Synthesis, Department of Chemistry, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Irene Rodríguez-Meizoso

Authors
  1. Johan Lindgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dan-Eric Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Sjövall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Jarenmark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shosuke Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kazumasa Wakamatsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Benjamin P. Kear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bo Pagh Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. René Lyng Sylvestersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Henrik Madsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. James R. LaFountain Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Carl Alwmark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Mats E. Eriksson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Stephen A. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Paula Lindgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Irene Rodríguez-Meizoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Per Ahlberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.L. and D.-E.N. conceived the project. J.L., D.-E.N. and B.P.K. wrote the paper with contributions from J.R.L. Jr and P.A., and feedback from all authors. J.L. assembled the figures with input from all authors. B.P.S., R.L.S. and H.M. prepared and curated all fossil crane-flies. J.R.L. Jr and D.-E.N. provided comparative tiger crane-fly and sandy swimming crab samples, respectively. J.L. and D.-E.N. prepared the thin sections, and C.A., J.L. and D.-E.N. undertook the polarized light microscopic investigation. C.A., P.S. and J.L. conducted the FEG-SEM and transmission electron microscopy analyses, P.L. and C.A. performed the EBSD experiments, S.I. and K.W. carried out the AHPO and HI hydrolysis analyses, P.S. and J.L. performed the ToF-SIMS experiments, M.E.E. and S.A.H. assembled the X-ray computed microtomographic data and M.E.E. made the three-dimensional reconstructions, M.J. synthesized xanthommatin and purified both the Nephrotoma screening pigments and Taeniopygia pheomelanin, and I.R.-M. and M.J. performed the maturation experiments.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan Lindgren.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Peer review information Nature thanks Maria McNamara, Rana Sodhi and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Representative samples of fossilized crane-fly compound eyes.

a–d, Photographs (overview of specimen and enlargement of eyes, respectively) of specimen MHM-18a and MHM-18b (part and counterpart) immersed in Milli-Q water. Arrowheads in b and d indicate wrinkling along the perimeter of the optical surfaces. e, f, Photographs of specimen MHM-18-6a (part) immersed in Milli-Q water. g, h, Photographs of specimen FUM-N-15451 immersed in Milli-Q water (a–h, n = 23 fossils). i, FEG-SEM image and X-ray computed microtomographic rendering (inset; illustration is representative of six independently sampled datasets; the colour is artificial) of the external visual surface in specimen FUM-N-13923, showing convex ommatidial lenses. j, FEG-SEM image of the internal visual surface in FUM-N-13923. Ommatidial lenses are represented by concavities. k, Enlargement of a transversely sectioned cornea in specimen MHM-18-6a (for SEM EDS element maps; see Extended Data Fig. 2). l, Magnification of the area demarcated in k showing the granular composition of the facet wall (i–l, n = 4 fossils). Scale bars, 2 μm (l), 30 μm (inset of i, k), 100 μm (i, j), 200 μm (f), 300 μm (b, d, h), 1 mm (e, g), 2 mm (a, c).

Extended Data Fig. 2 FEG-SEM micrograph and single-element EDS maps from a fossilized crane-fly compound eye (specimen MHM-18-6a).

SEM EDS maps differentiating increased levels of carbon, with traces of nitrogen and sulfur, in the corneal facet walls (identified by increased colour intensity) versus calcium and oxygen enrichment (with minor amounts of magnesium) in the ommatidial lenses. Data are representative of three independent analyses. Scale bar, 50 μm.

Extended Data Fig. 3 EBSD analysis of calcified crane-fly ommatidial lenses.

a, Compound eye of specimen FUM-N-13923, indicating analysed section (horizontal white line). b, Semi-transparent ommatidial lenses and darkly pigmented corneal facet walls shown in oblique section. c, FEG-SEM micrograph of the fossilized cornea. d, e, Enlargements of the boxed areas in c. Dashed coloured lines delineate individual ommatidial lenses analysed with EBSD (d, e, n = 15 separate lenses). Pole figures (stereographic projection, upper hemisphere) illustrate the {0001} (c-axis) orientation of six representative calcite crystals. Note that the c-axis is aligned with the optical axis in all lenses (yellow asterisk denotes the fossil lens depicted in Fig. 2c). Scale bars, 200 μm (b, c), 300 μm (a).

Extended Data Fig. 4 ToF-SIMS images and spectra from a compound eye of a fossilized crane-fly (specimen MHM-18-6a).

a–d, Positive-ion images representing calcium carbonate (Ca2O+ m/z 96, Ca2O2+ m/z 112, Ca2O2H+ m/z 113, Ca3O2+ m/z 152 and Ca3O3+ m/z 168) (a) and a nitrogen-containing fragment (C3H8N+ m/z 58) (b), together with a two-colour overlay image of these ions (c) in which green represents the organic compound and red calcium carbonate, and the total ion image (d) with selected regions of interest (ROIs) marked in green (corneal facet walls) and red (ommatidial lenses). e, f, Positive-ion spectra generated from the ROIs indicated in d, representing corneal facet walls (e) and ommatidial lenses (f). g–j, Images of negative ions representing eumelanin (C4H− m/z 49, C3N− m/z 50, C3NO− m/z 66, C6H− m/z 73, C5N− m/z 74 and C8H− m/z 97) (g) and oxygen (O− m/z 16) (h), together with a two-colour overlay image of these ions (i) in which green represents eumelanin and red oxygen, and the total ion image (j) with selected ROIs marked in green (corneal facet walls) and red (ommatidial lenses). k, l, Negative-ion spectra generated from the ROIs indicated in j, representing corneal facet walls (k) and ommatidial lenses (l). Data are representative of six independent measurements.

Extended Data Fig. 5 PCA of ToF-SIMS images from a compound eye of a fossilized crane-fly (specimen MHM-18a).

Score image of principal component (PC)2 (inset), showing high scores for the corneal facet walls in specimen MHM-18a (Fig. 3), and a diagram comparing the positive loadings for PC2 (n = 4 analyses) with a synthetic eumelanin reference spectrum (n = 6 measurements). Note the close similarity between the distribution of the PC2 loadings and peak intensities in the eumelanin spectrum, which indicates that the chemical properties of the facet walls (bright areas in the PC2 score image) are directly comparable to this pigment. Negative PC2 loadings were obtained for O− and SiOx− ions, which represent the adjacent mineral matrix. The analyses included 141 negative-ion images at nominal masses between m/z 10 and m/z 150.

Extended Data Fig. 6 PCA comparing negative-ion ToF-SIMS spectra from the corneal facet walls in a fossil crane-fly with various reference materials.

a, Score plot from an analysis that includes all major eumelanin peaks in the mass range m/z 48–146 (Supplementary Table 3). b, Associated loadings from PC1 and PC2, with glyphs indicating the ion categories to which each peak is assigned. c, Bar graph comparing the added signal intensities from all peaks in the various ion categories (error bars are ±1 s.d.). In a–c, xanthommatin, n = 3 measurements; xanthommatin (matured), n = 3 measurements; Sepia eumelanin, n = 3 measurements; Sepia eumelanin (matured), n = 3 measurements; dihydroxyindole (DHI) eumelanin, n = 3 measurements; DHI eumelanin (matured), n = 3 measurements; dopamine (DA) eumelanin, n = 4 measurements; ink sac of a fossil squid from the Dorset coast, n = 3 measurements; ink sac of a fossil squid from the Posidonia Shale, n = 3 measurements; fossil crane-fly facet walls, n = 7 measurements.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Experimentally treated N. suturalis corneas.

a–i, Light microscopy images showing the visual appearance of the corneas (n = 1,300 sampled crane-flies) after the following sequential treatments: aqueous extraction with grinding (a), proteinase K and DTT (step 2; Supplementary Information) (b), protease and DTT (step 4) (c), chitinase (step 5) (d), proteinase K and DTT (step 6) (e), chitinase (step 7) (f), chitinase (step 9) (g), protease and DTT (step 11) (h) and heptane and HCl(aq) (i). Inset shows a FEG-SEM micrograph of the isolated corneal facet walls. All experiments were repeated twice independently with similar results. Scale bars, 30 μm (inset of i), 500 μm (a).

Extended Data Fig. 8 PCA comparing negative-ion ToF-SIMS spectra from N. suturalis screening pigments with various reference materials.

a, Score plot of an analysis that includes all major eumelanin and pheomelanin peaks in the mass range m/z 48–146 (Supplementary Table 3). b, Associated loadings from PC1 and PC2, with glyphs indicating the ion categories to which each peak is assigned. c, Bar graph comparing the added signal intensities from all peaks in the various ion categories (error bars are ±1 s.d.). In a–c, Nephrotoma sub-cornea (extract), n = 3 measurements; Nephrotoma facet walls (extract), n = 3 measurements; xanthommatin, n = 3 measurements; Sepia eumelanin, n = 3 measurements; Nephrotoma facet walls, n = 3 measurements; Taeniopygia pheomelanin, n = 3 measurements; cysteinylDOPA (cysDOPA) (1:1) pheomelanin, n = 3 measurements; DHI eumelanin, n = 3 measurements; cysteinyldopamine (cysDA) (1:1) pheomelanin, n = 4 measurements; dopamine (DA) eumelanin, n = 4 measurements; DOPA eumelanin, n = 3 measurements.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Histological sections through N. suturalis compound eyes stained with Fontana–Masson.

a, Untreated section. b, Section bleached with hydrogen peroxide. c, Bleached section stained with Fontana–Masson. Note darkening of the corneal cuticle in the facet walls, which indicates the presence of melanin. Images are representative of three independent experiments. Scale bar, 50 μm (c).

Extended Data Fig. 10 FEG-SEM and polarized light micrographs of trilobite, fossil crane-fly and extant decapod ommatidial lenses.

a, FEG-SEM micrograph of a holochroal eye (specimen LO 12437t) of the trilobite Telephina bicuspis (Middle Ordovician period, Norway). b, Enlargement of fractured ommatidial lenses (a, b, n = 3 fossils). c, Single-spot SEM EDS spectrum acquired from the lens marked by a yellow asterisk in b, showing carbon, oxygen and calcium intensities that are consistent with calcite (compare with Fig. 2b). Platinum and palladium peaks derive from the sample pre-treatment (coating). Data are representative of six independent measurements. d, Plane-polarized light microscopy section through ommatidial lenses in a holochroal eye (specimen LO 12439t) of the trilobite Nileus armadillo (Middle Ordovician period, Sweden). e, Equivalent cross-polarized light micrograph. f, Plane-polarized light microscopy section through ommatidial lenses in an eye (specimen LO 12438t) of T. bicuspis. g, Equivalent cross-polarized light micrograph. h, Plane-polarized light microscopy section through a second eye (specimen LO 12437t) of T. bicuspis. i, Equivalent cross-polarized light micrograph, showing calcite crystal growth beyond the preserved lenses (arrowheads; Supplementary Information). j, Plane-polarized light microscopy section through an ommatidial lens in a schizochroal eye (specimen LO 12440t) of the trilobite Phacops latifrons (Middle Devonian period, Germany). k, Equivalent cross-polarized light micrograph. l, Plane-polarized light microscopy section through ommatidial lenses in an eye of a fossil crane-fly (specimen FUM-N-13923). m, Equivalent cross-polarized light micrograph. Data in d–m are representative of three independent analyses. n, Cross-polarized light micrograph of calcite crystals in a compound eye of the extant sandy swimming crab, L. depurator (n = 3 specimens). Scale bars, 30 μm (l, n), 100 μm (d, f, h, j), 200 μm (b), 500 μm (a).

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains supplementary text Part A-F and includes supplementary tables S1-S3.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindgren, J., Nilsson, DE., Sjövall, P. et al. Fossil insect eyes shed light on trilobite optics and the arthropod pigment screen. Nature 573, 122–125 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1473-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1473-z

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing