Chunk versus point sampling: Visual imaging in a small insect

Science

Volumn 286, Issue 5442, 1999, Pages 1178-1180

  Buschbeck, Elke ^a   Ehmer, Birgit ^a   Hoy, Ron ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EYE; INSECT; LENS; NEUROANATOMY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA IMAGE; VISION; VISUAL FIELD;

ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; EYE; INSECTS; LENS, CRYSTALLINE; MALE; OPTIC CHIASM; PHOTORECEPTORS, INVERTEBRATE; VISION;

HEXAPODA; INSECTA; STREPSIPTERA; TRILOBITOMORPHA;

EID: 0033527771     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.286.5442.1178     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. R. K. Kinzelbach, in Handbuch der Zoologie IV/2/2, J. G. Helmcke, D. Starck, H. Wermuth, Eds. (de Gruyter, Bertin, ed. 2, 1971), pp. 1-68; K. Strohm, Zool. Anz. 36, 156 (1910); P. Rösch, Zeitschr. Naturwiss. 50, 97 (1913); H. F. Paulus, in Arthropod Phylogeny, A. P. Gupta, Ed. (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979), pp. 299-383; H. R. MacCarthy, J. Intomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia 88, 27 (1991).
2. R. K. Kinzelbach, in Handbuch der Zoologie IV/2/2, J. G. Helmcke, D. Starck, H. Wermuth, Eds. (de Gruyter, Bertin, ed. 2, 1971), pp. 1-68; K. Strohm, Zool. Anz. 36, 156 (1910); P. Rösch, Zeitschr. Naturwiss. 50, 97 (1913); H. F. Paulus, in Arthropod Phylogeny, A. P. Gupta, Ed. (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979), pp. 299-383; H. R. MacCarthy, J. Intomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia 88, 27 (1991).
3. R. K. Kinzelbach, in Handbuch der Zoologie IV/2/2, J. G. Helmcke, D. Starck, H. Wermuth, Eds. (de Gruyter, Bertin, ed. 2, 1971), pp. 1-68; K. Strohm, Zool. Anz. 36, 156 (1910); P. Rösch, Zeitschr. Naturwiss. 50, 97 (1913); H. F. Paulus, in Arthropod Phylogeny, A. P. Gupta, Ed. (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979), pp. 299-383; H. R. MacCarthy, J. Intomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia 88, 27 (1991).
4. R. K. Kinzelbach, in Handbuch der Zoologie IV/2/2, J. G. Helmcke, D. Starck, H. Wermuth, Eds. (de Gruyter, Bertin, ed. 2, 1971), pp. 1-68; K. Strohm, Zool. Anz. 36, 156 (1910); P. Rösch, Zeitschr. Naturwiss. 50, 97 (1913); H. F. Paulus, in Arthropod Phylogeny, A. P. Gupta, Ed. (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979), pp. 299-383; H. R. MacCarthy, J. Intomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia 88, 27 (1991).
5. R. K. Kinzelbach, in Handbuch der Zoologie IV/2/2, J. G. Helmcke, D. Starck, H. Wermuth, Eds. (de Gruyter, Bertin, ed. 2, 1971), pp. 1-68; K. Strohm, Zool. Anz. 36, 156 (1910); P. Rösch, Zeitschr. Naturwiss. 50, 97 (1913); H. F. Paulus, in Arthropod Phylogeny, A. P. Gupta, Ed. (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1979), pp. 299-383; H. R. MacCarthy, J. Intomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia 88, 27 (1991).
6. Male X. peckii were collected as late pupae within their wasp hosts near Ithaca, NY.
7. The heads of late pupae and adults were stained with osmium or reduced silver. We estimated the number of rhabdoms (or functional receptor units) from light microscopy examination of sections of the retina.
8. D.-E. Nilsson, in Facets of Vision, D. G. Stavenga and R. C. Hardie, Eds. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989), pp. 30-73.
9. The back focal distance (distance between focal plane and the back of the lens) was measured with the hanging drop method, using a cover slip-corrected oil immersion lens, and corrected for the refractive index of immersion oil. For details see M. Wilson, J. Comp. Physiol. 124, 297 (1978).
10. A. W. Snyder, J. Comp. Physiol. A 116, 161 (1977); A. W. Snyder, D. G. Stavenga, S. B. Laughlin, J. Comp. Physiol. A 116, 183 (1977). G. A. Horridge, Endeavour 1, 7 (1977).
11. A. W. Snyder, J. Comp. Physiol. A 116, 161 (1977); A. W. Snyder, D. G. Stavenga, S. B. Laughlin, J. Comp. Physiol. A 116, 183 (1977). G. A. Horridge, Endeavour 1, 7 (1977).
12. A. W. Snyder, J. Comp. Physiol. A 116, 161 (1977); A. W. Snyder, D. G. Stavenga, S. B. Laughlin, J. Comp. Physiol. A 116, 183 (1977). G. A. Horridge, Endeavour 1, 7 (1977).
13. M. F. Land, in Handbook of Sensory Physiology VII/6B, H. Autrum, Ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981), pp. 471-592.
14. The calculation is based on an average lens diameter of 65 μm and average inter-eyelet angle of 27°. Because there are on average 11 receptors across the diameter of the retina, the value for each receptor would be 2.8 (31 μm/11 receptors), a value that is comparable to DΔΦ values of conventional compound eyes.
15. D. Fordyce and T. W. Cronin, Paleobiology 19, 288 (1993).
16. -1 based on measurements by M. S. Bruno, S. N. Barnes, T. H. Goldsmith, J. Comp Physiol. A 120, 123 (1977).
17. J. Meixner, in Handbuch der Zoologie IV/2/2, T. Krumbach, Ed. (de Gruyter, Berlin, ed. 1, 1936), pp. 1349-1382.
18. Retinal receptor terminals were stained by applying dextran molecules conjugated to fluorescein (molecular weight 3000, lysine-fixable; Molecular Probes) to individual eyelets and were viewed with a Bio-Rad 600 confocal microscope.
19. S. R. Cajal and D. Sénchez, Trab. Lab. Invest. Biol. Univ. Madrid 13, 1 (1915).
20. Volumes were estimated by serial reconstruction. Outlines of neuropils were scanned in, measured in Adobe Photoshop, multiplied by section thickness, and the relative proportion of the summed volumes was calculated.
21. If each photoreceptor of X. peckii required its own lens, then the diameter of each lens would only be 6 μm (65 μm/11 receptors), resulting in a DΔΦ value of 0.24, and therefore diffraction would be limiting (8). A single-lens eye with a wide field of view, however, requires a very short focal length for a small insect and thus a very thick lens, which usually has pronounced spherical and chromatic aberrations. Thus, pooling the information of a number of simple-lens eyes with a restricted field of view ("chunk sampling") may be a good compromise.
22. E. J. Warrant and P. D. McIntyre, Prog. Neurobiol. 40, 413 (1993).
23. Y. Toh and A. Mizutani, Cell Tissue Res. 278, 125 (1994).
24. P. Duelli, Cell Tissue Res. 187, 417 (1994); N. J. Strausfeld and F. G. Barth, J. Comp. Neurol. 328, 43 (1993); N. J. Strausfeld, P. Weltzien, F. G. Barth, J. Comp. Neurol. 328, 63 (1993).
25. P. Duelli, Cell Tissue Res. 187, 417 (1994); N. J. Strausfeld and F. G. Barth, J. Comp. Neurol. 328, 43 (1993); N. J. Strausfeld, P. Weltzien, F. G. Barth, J. Comp. Neurol. 328, 63 (1993).
26. P. Duelli, Cell Tissue Res. 187, 417 (1994); N. J. Strausfeld and F. G. Barth, J. Comp. Neurol. 328, 43 (1993); N. J. Strausfeld, P. Weltzien, F. G. Barth, J. Comp. Neurol. 328, 63 (1993).
27. M. F. Land, J. Exp. Biol. 51, 443 (1969).
28. C. Gilbert, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 39, 23 (1994).
29. E. Wachmann, Z. Zellforsch. 123, 411 (1972).
30. The setup for image magnification measurements was as described in (5). The focal length f was calculated using the lens formula O/U = I/f, where O is object size, U is object distance, and I is image size. The acceptance angle is determined by f and the extension of the retina behind the lens.
31. We thank H. Bennet-Clark, C. Gilbert, W. Gronenberg, H. Howland, D. Papaj, W. Pix, J. Zeil, and all members of the Hoy lab for helpful discussions of the manuscript M. Land and W. Zipfel provided advice regarding optical measurements. Supported by NIH and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.