↓ Skip to main content

On the sighted ancestry of blindness – exceptionally preserved eyes of Mesozoic polychelidan lobsters

Overview of attention for article published in Zoological Letters, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the sighted ancestry of blindness – exceptionally preserved eyes of Mesozoic polychelidan lobsters
Published in
Zoological Letters, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40851-016-0049-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Denis Audo, Joachim T. Haug, Carolin Haug, Sylvain Charbonnier, Günter Schweigert, Carsten H. G. Müller, Steffen Harzsch

Abstract

Modern representatives of Polychelida (Polychelidae) are considered to be entirely blind and have largely reduced eyes, possibly as an adaptation to deep-sea environments. Fossil species of Polychelida, however, appear to have well-developed compound eyes preserved as anterior bulges with distinct sculpturation. We documented the shapes and sizes of eyes and ommatidia based upon exceptionally preserved fossil polychelidans from Binton (Hettangian, United-Kingdom), Osteno (Sinemurian, Italy), Posidonia Shale (Toarcian, Germany), La Voulte-sur-Rhône (Callovian, France), and Solnhofen-type plattenkalks (Kimmeridgian-Tithonian, Germany). For purposes of comparison, sizes of the eyes of several other polychelidans without preserved ommatidia were documented. Sizes of ommatidia and eyes were statistically compared against carapace length, taxonomic group, and outcrop. Nine species possess eyes with square facets; Rosenfeldia oppeli (Woodward, 1866), however, displays hexagonal facets. The sizes of eyes and ommatidia are a function of carapace length. No significant differences were discerned between polychelidans from different outcrops; Eryonidae, however, have significantly smaller eyes than other groups. Fossil eyes bearing square facets are similar to the reflective superposition eyes found in many extant decapods. As such, they are the earliest example of superposition eyes. As reflective superposition is considered plesiomorphic for Reptantia, this optic type was probably retained in Polychelida. The two smallest specimens, a Palaeopentacheles roettenbacheri (Münster, 1839) and a Hellerocaris falloti (Van Straelen, 1923), are interpreted as juveniles. Both possess square-shaped facets, a typical post-larval feature. The eye morphology of these small specimens, which are far smaller than many extant eryoneicus larvae, suggests that Jurassic polychelidans did not develop via giant eryoneicus larvae. In contrast, another species we examined, Rosenfeldia oppeli (Woodward, 1866), did not possess square-shaped facets, but rather hexagonal ones, which suggests that this species did not possess reflective superposition eyes. The hexagonal facets may indicate either another type of superposition eye (refractive or parabolic superposition), or an apposition eye. As decapod larvae possess apposition eyes with hexagonal facets, it is most parsimonious to consider eyes of R. oppeli as apposition eyes evolved through paedomorphic heterochrony. Polychelidan probably originally had reflective superposition. R. oppeli, however, probably gained apposition eyes through paedomorphosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 7%
Unknown 14 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 40%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 7 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 27%
Environmental Science 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2022.
All research outputs
#7,004,326
of 23,400,864 outputs
Outputs from Zoological Letters
#95
of 172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,766
of 358,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zoological Letters
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,400,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 358,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.