Journal of Comparative Physiology A

, Volume 164, Issue 6, pp 751–762 | Cite as

The eyes of hyperiid amphipods: relations of optical structure to depth

  • M. F. Land


In many oceanic hyperiid amphipods the eyes are double structures, with a specialized upward-pointing region covering a narrow field of view. Inter-ommatidial angles were measured across the eyes of 10 species from different depth ranges. With increasing depth (decreasing light) there is a trend towards greater dorso-ventral asymmetry resulting in the separation of the two retinae and an increase in the size of the upper eye. The diameters (D) of the dorsal ommatidia increase with depth, and the inter-ommatidial angles (Δφ) decrease. There are no corresponding changes in the lower eyes. These features can be explained on the assumption that the upper eyes are used to detect small opaque targets against the downwelling light from the surface. In contrast to the resolution of grating-like targets, where the productD Δ φ should increase as light intensity decreases (the ‘eye-parameter’; Snyder 1979), the detection of single targets requires that the ratioD/Δ φ should increase in dim light. Amongst hyperiids this ratio does indeed show a 50-fold increase from surface-to deep-living species, whereas the eye-parameter hardly changes.


Retina Light Intensity Depth Range Intensity Decrease Single Target 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ball EE (1977) Fine structure of the compound eyes of the midwater amphipodPhronima in relation to behaviour and habitat. Tissue Cell 9:521–536Google Scholar
  2. Bowman TE, Gruner H-E (1973) The families and genera of Hyperiidea (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Smithsonian Contrib Zool 146:1–64Google Scholar
  3. Chun C (1896) Atlantis. Biologische Studien über pelagische Organismen. Zoologica (Stuttgart) 7:1–260Google Scholar
  4. Dietrich, W (1909) Die Facettenaugen der Dipteren. Z Wiss Zool 92:465–539Google Scholar
  5. Harbison GR, Biggs DC, Madin LP (1977) The associations of Amphipoda Hyperiidea with gelatinous Zooplankton. II. Associations with Cnidaria, Ctenophora and Radiolaria. Deep Sea Res 24:465–488Google Scholar
  6. Horridge GA (1978) The separation of visual axes in apposition compound eyes. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 285:1–59Google Scholar
  7. Jerlov NJ (1968) Optical oceanography. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Kirschfeld K (1974) The absolute sensitivity of lens and compound eyes. Z Naturforsch 29 c:592–596Google Scholar
  9. Kirschfeld K (1979) The visual system of the fly: physiological optics and functional anatomy as related to behaviour. In: Schmitt FO, Worden FG (eds) The neurosciences 4th study program. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, pp 297–310Google Scholar
  10. Land MF (1980) Eye movements and the mechanism of vertical steering in euphausiid Crustacea. J Comp Physiol 137:255–265Google Scholar
  11. Land MF (1981 a) Optics and vision in invertebrates. In: Autrum H (ed) Vision in invertebrates (Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VII/6 B). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 471–492Google Scholar
  12. Land MF (1981 b) Optics of the eyes ofPhronima and other deep-sea amphipods. J Comp Physiol 145:209–226Google Scholar
  13. Land MF (1984) Crustacea. In: Ali MA (ed) Photoreception and vision in invertebrates. Plenum, New York, pp 401–438Google Scholar
  14. Land MF (1989) Variations in the structure and design of compound eyes. In: Hardie RC, Stavenga DG (eds) Facets of vision. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 90–111Google Scholar
  15. Land MF, Burton FA, Meyer-Rochow VB (1979) The optical geometry of euphausiid eyes. J Comp Physiol 130:49–62Google Scholar
  16. Madin LP, Harbison GR (1977) The association of Amphipoda Hyperiidea with gelationous Zooplankton. I. Associations with Salpidae. Deep Sea Res 24:449–463Google Scholar
  17. Meyer-Rochow VB (1978) The eyes of mesopelagic crustaceans. II.Streetsia challengeri (Amphipoda). Cell Tissue Res 186:337–349Google Scholar
  18. Nilsson D-E (1982) The transparent compound eye ofHyperia (Crustacea): examination with a new method for analysis of refractive index gradients. J Comp Physiol 147:339–349Google Scholar
  19. Schneider L, Gogala M, Draslar K, Langer H, Schlecht P (1978) Feinstruktur und Schirmpigment-Eigenschaften der Ommatidien des Doppelauges vonAscalaphus (Insecta, Neuroptera). Cytobiologie 16:274–307Google Scholar
  20. Sherk TE (1978) Development of the compound eyes of dragonflies (Odonata). III. Adult compound eyes. J Exp Zool 203:61–80Google Scholar
  21. Snyder A (1979) Physics of vision in compound eyes. In: Autrum H (ed) Vision in invertebrates (Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VII/6 A). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 225–313Google Scholar
  22. Stavenga DG (1979) Pseudopupils of compound eyes. In: Autrum H (ed) Vision in invertebrates (Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VII/6 A). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 357–439Google Scholar
  23. Thurston MH (1976) The vertical distribution and diurnal migration of the Crustacea Amphipoda collected during the SOND cruise 1965. J Mar Biol Ass UK 56:383–470Google Scholar
  24. Zeil J (1983) Sexual dimorphism in the visual system of flies: the compound eyes and neural superposition in Bibionidae (Diptera). J Comp Physiol 150:379–393Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. F. Land
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations