Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26713243›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2015

Why did the UV-A-induced photoluminescent blue-green glow in trilobite eyes and exoskeletons not cause problems for trilobites?

Brigitte Schoenemann, Euan N K Clarkson, Gábor Horváth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brigitte SchoenemannDepartment of Animal Physiology and Institute of Biology Education (Zoology),University of Cologne , Cologne , Germany.
Euan N K ClarksonGrant Institute, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh , United Kingdom.
Gábor HorváthEnvironmental Optics Laboratory, Department of Biological Physics, Physical Institute,Eötvös Loránd University , Budapest , Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The calcitic lenses in the eyes of Palaeozoic trilobites are unique in the animal kingdom, although the use of calcite would have conveyed great advantages for vision in aquatic systems. Calcite lenses are transparent, and due to their high refractive index they would facilitate the focusing of light. In some respects, however, calcite lenses bear evident disadvantages. Birefringence would cause double images at different depths, but this is not a problem for trilobites since the difference in the paths of the ordinary and extraordinary rays is less than the diameter of the receptor cells. Another point, not discussed hitherto, is that calcite fluoresces when illuminated with UV-A. Here we show experimentally that calcite lenses fluoresce, and we discuss why fluorescence does not diminish the optical quality of these lenses and the image formed by them. In the environments in which the trilobites lived, UV-A would not have been a relevant factor, and thus fluorescence would not have disturbed or confused their visual system. We also argue that whatever the reason that calcite was never again used successfully in the visual systems of aquatic arthropods, it was not fluorescence.

Indexed as

ArthropodCalciteCambrian explosionCompound eyeLuminesceneOpticsPalaeozoicTrilobiteUV-radiationVision

Identifiers

PMID26713243
PMCPMC4690392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.