Evolution of crab eye structures and the utility of ommatidia morphology in resolving phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Image-forming compound eyes are such a valuable adaptation that similar visual systems have 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 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 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 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 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".