ArticleInsects2019
Optical Modelling and Phylogenetic Analysis Provide Clues to the Likely Function of Corneal Nipple Arrays in Butterflies and Moths.
Article in Insects, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seasonal Dimorphism in the Compound Eye Morphology ofInsects · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study of Crystallography and Defect Structure of Corneal Nipple Array inACS omega · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The lenses in compound eyes of butterflies and moths contain an array of nipple-shaped protuberances, or corneal nipples. Previous work has suggested that these nipples increase light transmittance and reduce the eye glare of moths that are inactive during the day. This work builds on but goes further than earlier analyses suggesting a functional role for these structures including, for the first time, an explanation of why moths are attracted to UV light. Using a phylogenetic approach and 3D optical modelling, we show empirically that these arrays have been independently lost from different groups of moths and butterflies and vary within families. We find differences in the shape of nipples between nocturnal and diurnal species, and that anti-glow reflectance levels are different at different wave-lengths, a result thereby contradicting the currently accepted theory of eye glow for predator avoidance. We find that there is reduced reflectance, and hence greater photon absorption, at UV light, which is probably a reason why moths are attracted to UV. We note that the effective refractive index at the end of the nipples is very close to the refractive index of water, allowing almost all the species with nipples to see without distortion when the eye is partially or completely wet and providing the potential to keep eyes dry. These observations provide a functional explanation for these arrays. Of special interest is the finding that their repeated and independent loss across lepidopteran phylogeny is inconsistent with the explanation that they are being lost in the 'higher', more active butterflies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.