Advertisement

Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 159–168 | Cite as

Butterfly optics exceed the theoretical limits of conventional apposition eyes

  • J. H. van Hateren
  • D. -E. Nilsson
Article
Received:

Abstract

Optical experiments on butterfly compound eyes show that they have angular sensitivities narrower than expected from conventional apposition eyes. This superior performance is explained by a theoretical model where the cone stalk is considered as a modecoupling device. In this model the Airy diffraction pattern of the corneal facet excites a combination of the two waveguide modes LP01 and LP02. When the two modes propagate through the cone stalk the power of LP02 is transferred to LP01 alone which is supported by the rhabdom. This mechanism produces a higher on-axis sensitivity and a narrower angular sensitivity than conventional apposition optics. Several predictions of the model were confirmed experimentally.

Keywords

Diffraction Pattern Theoretical Model Superior Performance Waveguide Mode Theoretical Limit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Born M, Wolf E (1965) Principles of optics. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Franceschini N (1975) Sampling of the visual environment by the compound eye of the fly: fundamentals and applications. In: Snyder AW, Menzel R (eds) Photoreceptor optics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 98–125Google Scholar
  3. Goodman JW (1968) Introduction to Fourier optics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Hateren JH van (1984) Waveguide theory applied to optically measured angular sensitivities of fly photoreceptors. J Comp Physiol A 154:761–771Google Scholar
  5. Horowitz BR (1981) Theoretical considerations of the retinal receptor as a waveguide. In: Enoch JM, Tobey FL Jr (eds) Vertebrate photoreceptor optics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 219–300Google Scholar
  6. Kuiper JW (1966) On the image formation in a single ommatidium of the compound eye in Diptera. In: Bernhard CG (ed) The functional organization of the compound eye. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 35–50Google Scholar
  7. Land MF, Osorio D, Nilsson D-E (1987) Ecological variation in the optical structure of butterfly eyes (in preparation)Google Scholar
  8. Li Y, Wolf E (1984) Three-dimensional intensity distribution near the focus in systems of different Fresnel numbers. J Opt Soc Am A 1:801–808Google Scholar
  9. Lim TK, Garside BK, Marton JP (1979) An analysis of optical waveguide tapers. Appl Phys 18:53–62Google Scholar
  10. Nelson AR (1975) Coupling optical waveguides by tapers. Appl Opt 14:3012–3015Google Scholar
  11. Nilsson D-E, Land MF, Howard J (1984) Afocal apposition optics in butterfly eyes. Nature 312:561–563Google Scholar
  12. Nilsson D-E, Land MF, Howard J (1987) Optical characteristics of the butterfly eye. J Comp Physiol A (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Pask C, Barrell KF (1980a) Photoreceptor optics I: Introduction to formalism and excitation in a lens-photoreceptor system. Biol Cybern 36:1–8Google Scholar
  14. Pask C, Barrell KF (1980b) Photoreceptor optics II: Application to angular sensitivity and other properties of a lensphotoreceptor system. Biol Cybern 36:9–18Google Scholar
  15. Smakman JGJ, Hateren JH van, Stavenga DG (1984) Angular sensitivity of blowfly photoreceptors: intracellular measurements and wave-optical predictions. J comp Physiol A 155:239–247Google Scholar
  16. Snyder AW (1970) Coupling of modes on a tapered dielectric cylinder. IEEE Trans Microwaves Theory Tech 18:383–392Google Scholar
  17. Snyder AW (1975) Photoreceptor optics-Theoretical principles. In: Snyder AW, Menzel R (eds) Photoreceptor optics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 38–55Google Scholar
  18. Snyder AW (1977) Acuity of compound eyes: Physical limitations and design. J Comp Physiol A 116:161–182Google Scholar
  19. Snyder AW, Love DJ (1983) Optical waveguide theory. Chapman and Hall, London New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Snyder AW, Laughlin SB, Stavenga DG (1977) Information capacity of eyes. Vision Res 17:1163–1175Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. van Hateren
    • 1
  • D. -E. Nilsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biophysics, Laboratory for General PhysicsUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyUniversity of LundLundSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options