Compound <scp>E</scp>ye <scp>M</scp>iniaturization in <scp>L</scp>epidoptera: a comparative morphological analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Superposition and apposition compound eyes are commonly associated with moths and butterflies, respectively. However, recently intermediate eye designs, combining features of both apposition and superposition eyes were found in tiny insects. Here, we examine the eyes of 12 species of moth, ranging from 1.88 to 6.03 mm body size, by scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Correlations between body and eye sizes are discussed with regard to the eyes' functionality. Although all of the species shared an ommatidial organization characteristic of pterygote insects, three optical designs were found: (a) an apposition eye, (b) an eye resembling apposition eyes, but with a unique crystalline cone, and (c) an eye intermediate in structure between apposition and superposition eyes. Our comparisons also revealed a new type of basal matrix for the Lepidoptera. The results show that in most of the examined compound eyes (with the exception of the apposition eye of M icropterix aruncella ), a clear distinction between apposition and superposition eyes is not feasible. Due to functional morphological constraints as a consequence of miniaturization, evolutionary transformations from superposition into apposition optics may have occurred several times independently in various ‘microlepidopteran’ taxa. The P hyllonorycter medicaginella eye appears to illustrate this evolutionary scenario best.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".