Abstract
Ostracods are small, bivalved crustaceans living in all types of aquatic habitats. All non-marine species belong to the order Podocopida. They usually possess a simple optical system composed of three eyecups called naupliar eye. Phylogenetic data and morphological characteristics support the homology of naupliar eyes between ostracods and other crustacean groups. The photoreceptive system is formed by several specialised cells and can be approximated by a lens-mirror optical apparatus. In some cases, a transparent area of the calcitic carapace can form an additional lens. The visual stimuli are processed by the protocerebrum, possibly via monoaminergic neurons. The presence or absence of one or more specialised cells influence the function of the eyes, and, most likely, their evolution or loss are associated with the adaptation to different habitats. Podocopid ostracods may express long wavelength-sensitive rhabdomeric opsins and may possess nonvisual opsins. The few ethological experiments so far conducted demonstrate that non-marine ostracods might be capable of associative learning when trained with light or specific light wavelengths. This work will provide an overview of what is known and what remains to be further investigated about vision and how light cues affect the behaviour in non-marine ostracods.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The assertion that photoreception and vision are probably the most important modes by which animals belonging to a multitude of different evolutionary lineages explore their environment, modulate their behaviour and shape their learning processes, is surely obvious and widely shared. Light is an important environmental signal for almost all cellular organisms, and photoreceptors are present in bacteria, fungi, plants, and animals (Karniol et al., 2005). Despite the wide variety of molecules involved in the processes of photoreception and image formation in animals, the basic biochemical mechanisms show remarkable similarities (Porter et al., 2016). The appearance of eyes can be traced back to a very early stage of metazoan evolution, leading to the formation of visual systems of varying complexity (Land, 2014). The oldest evidence of a visual system is a compound eye of trilobites from the Cambrian (Schoenemann et al., 2017). It is precisely amongst Arthropoda that there is an extraordinary diversity of photoreceptors, optical mechanisms, and eye types, which in turn influence their behaviour and ecological functions (Yilmaz et al., 2022). Within this phylum, a large range of different visual systems can be specifically found in crustaceans (Palecanda et al., 2022).
The available information on the structural and physiological characteristics of the photoreceptive apparatuses in Ostracoda, a class of Crustacea, is largely related to marine species, whilst knowledge of these topics for non-marine species is still rather limited. Ostracods are small, bivalved crustaceans found in all types of aquatic habitats and also in semi-terrestrial environments. They are the most abundantly preserved arthropod group in the fossil record ranging from the Ordovician through to the Holocene, where they are present with their calcitic carapaces and very rarely also with preserved soft parts (Matzke-Karasz & Smith, 2022). According to the World Ostracoda Database, the global number of extant and extinct species of marine, non-marine ostracods amounts to over 45,000 (Huang et al., 2022). Living representatives belong to the subclasses Myodocopa and Podocopa (Horne et al., 2005). Myodocopa are exclusively marine and comprise planktonic and nekto-benthic species; Podocopa occur in marine, brackish and freshwater environments and are mostly benthic. For living non-marine ostracods, > 2300 subjective species are reported in four superfamilies: Cypridoidea, Cytheroidea, Darwinuloidea, and Terrestricytheroidea (Meisch et al., 2019). Adaptations to habitats with different ecological requirements could have probably shaped the morphology and evolution of the eye in distinct phylogenetic lineages of this subclass, as it has been hypothesised for the Copepoda, another highly diverse class of Crustacea (Steck et al., 2023). A comprehensive overview on morphology, ecology and behaviour of non-marine ostracods can be found in Smith et al. (2015).
We here present a review of studies on visual systems in non-marine ostracods, including information on their anatomical, biochemical and physiological characteristics. Special attention is paid to the adaptive significance of light-gathering ability in relation to ecological interactions and learning processes, and areas of ignorance that still need to be adequately addressed are also highlighted.
The photoreceptive systems of ostracods
Ostracods use different sensory systems to explore their environment and interact with other organisms (see Appendix S1). For what concerns sight, Myodocopa and Podocopa are characterised by different light-gathering organs. The photoreceptive system of Podocopa is characterised by naupliar eyes, which are often called "median", "frontal", or even "simple" eyes, and have similar characteristics in different crustacean groups (Elofsson, 1992). Myodocopa may have simple apposition compound eyes, both compound and naupliar eyes, or, more rarely, only naupliar eyes (Land, 1980; Land & Nilsson, 1990; Elofsson, 1992). In both subclasses, the absence of any eye structure or at least of the eye pigment is possible (e.g. in the marine suborders Cladocopina and Platycopina and many hypogean non-marine species).
The evolution of the current ostracod eyes and their diversification into compound and naupliar types is still under debate (see e.g., Fryer, 1996; Oakley & Cunningham, 2002; Dingle, 2003; Oakley, 2003; Elofsson, 2006; Hunt, 2007; Horne, 2010; Syme & Oakley, 2012; Oakley et al., 2013; Schoenemann & Clarkson, 2023).
Evidence suggests that Myodocopa are monophyletic and nested in other groups with different eye types, based on comparative studies using molecular data of some genes coding for ribosomal RNA (Oakley & Cunningham, 2002; Oakley, 2003; Elofsson, 2006), although previous studies found very different results (see e.g., Fryer, 1996). The naupliar eyes’ homology is supported by phylogenetic data and morphological features (Paulus, 1972, 1979, 2000; Bitsch & Bitsch, 2005).
Even if the debate on the homology of the two types of ostracod eyes is still open and research is ongoing, providing a complete overview of the topic is beyond the scope of this review (see Appendix S2 for further information). It is, however, of interest to confront the ostracod naupliar eyes, namely in non-marine podocopids, with those potentially homologous, such as the eyes of Branchiura, Copepoda, and Cirripedia (Elofsson, 1965, 1966; Oakley & Cunningham, 2002; Regier et al., 2005).
General morphology of naupliar eyes in ostracods
Structurally, the naupliar eye of Podocopa can be observed in different subtypes with little or conspicuous "variation on the theme". The literature is constellated with detailed research papers and reviews on the topic (Müller, 1894; Kesling, 1951; Fahrenbach, 1964; Hartmann, 1966; Tanaka, 2005; Elofsson, 1966, 2006).
Since the beginning of ostracod research in the eighteenth century, naupliar eyes have been illustrated as a black dot, incidentially indicating the anterior body half and thus defining the orientation of the animal (Fig. 1a). Ostracod naupliar eyes are located between the brain and the anterodorsal part of the body, near the bases of the antennulae (Fig. 1b,c), yet more or less detached from the protocerebrum (Elofsson, 1966, 1992, 2006). The ostracod naupliar eye is usually divided into three parts, two lateral and one median, each with a photoreceptor organ housed within a cup-shaped shielding pigment. The three eyecups are either fused together (Fig. 2), as observed in most freshwater Cyprididae (e.g. in genera Heterocypris, Cypridopsis, Herpetocypris, Eucypris, and Cypris), or more or less separated (Fig. 2), as found in e.g. Notodromas monacha (O.F. Müller, 1776) and the brackish-marine species Xestoleberis aurantia (Baird, 1838) (Vávra, 1891; Claus, 1892; Müller, 1894; Nowikoff, 1908; Schreiber, 1922; Rome, 1947; Kesling, 1951; Elofsson, 1966). When the cups are separated, their position depends on the degree of separation between the eyes. The general disposition entails an anterior ventral cup, often underdeveloped, and two dorso-lateral paired ones (Elofsson, 1966, 1992, 2006). Such organization of what are often called “frontal eyes”, is common amongst crustaceans in general, and it is most likely used for body orientation in relation to light, although image-forming cannot be excluded (Brusca & Brusca, 2002; Srinivasan & Zhang, 2004; Elofsson, 2006; Nilsson, 2009, 2013). Lüders (1909) advanced the hypothesis that median eyes, which are iridescent when lit by light, such as those of podocopid ostracods, may serve the role of coloration by reflecting the light, making the animal “glowing”. This hypothesis is discussed in Hartmann (1967). The specific conformation of the median eyes with separated cups is typical in ostracods and in a few other taxa, whilst some specific cells composing the eye are peculiar to Podocopa, with only a few similarities with Copepoda. For example, for copepods, see Steck et al. (2023), Elofsson (1969), Ong (1970), Fahrenbach (1964) and Dudley (1969); for podocopid ostracods, see Andersson & Nilsson (1981) and Meyer-Rochow (1999); finally, for a comparison between copepods and ostracods, see Elofsson (1966) and Kaji & Tsukagoshi (2010b). The axons often reach the protocerebral region independently, with the ventral eye axon group running along with the two lateral ones (Nowikoff, 1908; Elofsson, 2006). In Cyprididae, especially in non-marine representatives, Turner (1896) observed a single optic nerve that branches into three separate courses when approaching the eyes. However, Rome (1947) states that Turner was mistaken, after finding in Heterocypris incongruens (Ramdohr, 1808) that three completely separate nerves connect the naupliar eye with the thick anterio-median area of the protocerebrum (Fig. 3).
Each cup can be formed by several specialised cells: pigment cells, tapetal cells, retinal cells, which form two-celled microvillar rhabdoms, and lens cells (see below for a detailed description of these cell types). The number of cells for each type tends to vary amongst taxa. When the cups are not fused, specific types of lenses are formed by transparent regions of the carapace directly above the lateral cups. A schematic comparison of the anatomy of the two possible types of podocopid naupliar eyes (Fig. 4) illustrates that so-called cuticular lenses can occur additionally to the lenses within the eye cup; their characteristics will be described in more detail below.
An example of a non-marine ostracod whose median eyes are characterised by the presence of all the above-mentioned specialised cells, including highly refractive cuticular lenses of the lateral cups, is Notodromas monacha, a neustonic species (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). In Notodromas trulla Smith & Kamiya, 2014, from the A-7 instar onwards, the dorsolateral eyecups are separated, resembling those of the adults (Smith & Kamiya, 2014; Smith et al., 2022). Species in the subfamily Notodromadinae, such as the ones mentioned above, usually swim upside-down when feeding from the water surface (Smith & Kamiya, 2014). The existence of separate eyecups could be related to this lifestyle, as the transition from one diametrically opposite body position to the other—that is, from normal to upside down position—is a more complex behavioural pattern than simply swimming and requires a higher level of postural control (Fischer & Laforsch, 2018). In addition, the eyes are well positioned to detect predators approaching from beneath (Zhang et al., 2024). The hypodermal cells sometimes connect the eye stalk to the caparace, and, as seen in a Vargula species, may even produce a protective secretion for the eye (Huvard, 1990; Tanaka, 2005). The pigment and tapetal cells with the lens cells (if all present) create a sort of sandwich around the retinal sensory cells, with the pigment cells covering the space between the cups and connecting them (Fig. 5) (Müller, 1894). The retinal cells face downward, and their axons emerge from the oculus by moving outward and then bending inward towards the cerebrum (Elofsson, 1992). The presence or absence of one or more specialised cells influences the actual function for which the eyes are ultimately used. Most likely, the evolution and the loss of specific cells are consequences of the adaptation of an organism to its particular habitat, consistent with its phylogenetic and structural limitations (Seilacher, 1970). According to Hartmann (1967), smaller taxa have less developed eyes. Given the light scarcity, it is reasonable to imagine that deposit-feeders, subterranean species, and scavengers will rely more on chemoreception than photoreception (Hartmann, 1967; Speiser et al., 2013; Cronin & Feller, 2014; Glantz et al., 2014; Thiel & Watling 2015). An example of a podocopid genus with probably blind species is Typhlocypris, as embryos show eyes, whilst adults have reduced and depigmented eyes (Turner, 1896; Namiotko et al., 2014). In the literature, the number of specialised cells that compose the naupliar eye in podocopid ostracods does not always coincide (Vávra, 1891; Claus, 1892; Müller, 1894; Nowikoff, 1908; Rome, 1947; Kesling, 1951).
Pigment cells
The approximate number of pigment cells depends on the general anatomy of the visual system. When the ocelli are fused in one organ, three to five thick cells hold the eye together by filling the space between the cups (Fig. 5) (Elofsson, 2006). Conversely, when the cups are separated, roughly four pigment cells hold the eye together, forming a "Y" shape with the eyecups (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). The pigment cell organelles, such as mitochondria, glycogen granules and the endoplasmic reticulum are intermingled with dark-coloured electron-dense granules of different sizes, which are non-uniformly scattered but tend to mainly occupy the cell borders (Elofsson, 1969; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). The colour and chemical properties of granules suggest they are based on ommochromes, and their pigmentation can strongly differ between species (Fox & Vevers, 1960; Needham, 1974; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Nilsson, 2013). The specific function of such cells has yet to be entirely understood. However, in compound eyes, pigment cells work as protective shields for photoreceptors and rhabdomeres against excessive light intensity, as well as determining the angle of light acceptance for retinal cells (Stavenga, 1979; Hallberg & Elofsson, 1989; Douglas & Marshall, 1999).
Tapetal cells
These cells have little cytoplasmic content and a highly reflective ultra-structure originated by layers of anisotropic crystals arranged neatly parallel to each other and the strained cytoplasm but tangential to the cup curvature (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). Since the cells completely cover the eyecups, they create a highly reflective concave mirror-like stratum upon each cup (Fig. 6). The number of crystalline layers varies incredibly between taxa, but it is certainly more than ten. The specific composition of the crystals is rarely discussed in literature. Although the presence of guanine crystals in the tapetal cell body seems a reasonable explanation for the characteristics of tapetal cells, other hypotheses involve crystals of pteridines, analogues of guanine, and spheres of lipid or melanin, the latter found in fish and decapods (Land & Nilsson, 2002; Palmer et al., 2018). The function of the tapetal cells, fundamental components of the naupliar visual systems, is to collect and focus light on the sensory cells layer. The tapetal strata of the ventral cup and lateral cups can display significant differences in some taxa. For example, the tapetal cells of the ventral cup can contain more cytoplasm surrounding their spherical nuclei and a higher number of crystal layers (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). Thus, the cells appear thicker. Conversely, the tapetal cells covering the lateral cups can present oval nuclei disposed towards the borderline of the pigment cell layer (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). Similarities are found in the tapetum structure between ostracods and copepods (Fahrenbach, 1964; Dudley, 1969; Elofsson, 1969). In the ostracod naupliar eyes, two kinds of structural degeneration can be observed: one that lacks the reflective tapetum, which seems to disappear independently of the other eye cells, the second presenting degeneration in the pigment cells layer accompanied by underdevelopment of the retina, suggesting that they may form a developing ocular module (Kaji & Tsukagoshi, 2010). Tapetal cells show various degrees of degeneration in ostracods and may frequently disappear in species with reduced naupliar eyes, as those adapted to interstitial environments (Kaji & Tsukagoshi, 2010).
Retinal cells
Retinal cells are pear-shaped sensory cells (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). They arrange their long axis perpendicularly to the tapetum (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). The number of sensory cells varies dramatically amongst taxa. Hartmann (1967) provides a summary of the findings regarding the number of sensory cells—from six up to 40—observed in several species. It is worth mentioning that the genus Cypris has an exceptionally high number of retinal cells and a large brain (Elofsson, 2006). In some species of the genera Leptocythere and Loxoconcha the retinal cells are degenerated (Elofsson, 2006). The cytoplasm of the retinal cell is often described as the transparent area between rhabdoms (Tanaka, 2005). The retinal cell contents are mitochondria, endoplasmatic reticulum, Golgi bodies, vacuoles and granular material (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Huvard, 1990). Differences in electron density and size can be observed by comparing the cytoplasms of the ventral and lateral eyecups. Each cell is attached to a single axon, and then the axons of several cells group together. Cross-sections of the axon show mitochondria, smooth endoplasmatic reticulum and neurotubuli both in Podocopa (e.g., Notodromas) and Myodocopa (e.g., Vargula) (Fahrenbach, 1964; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Huvard, 1990). From different studies on the podocopids Notodromas monacha, Herpetocypris reptans (Baird, 1835) and Cypris pubera O.F. Müller, 1776, generally, a rhabdom consists of the apical portion of no more than two adjacent sensory cells. The rhabdom then consists of two horizontal microvillar rhabdomeres, one for each sensory cell (Nowikoff, 1908; Rome, 1947; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). Thus, whilst the rhabdoms are arranged perpendicularly to the tapetal cells layer, the microvilli lie on a plane parallel to the reflective tapetum (Elofsson, 1966; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). The microvilli are oriented perpendicularly to the incident light if the cells are close to the centre of the tapetum, or obliquely in its more peripheral parts. The alignment of microvilli does not have a consistent directional structure amongst all rhabdoms in the few literature reports for podocopid ostracods (see Eguchi & Waterman, 1976; Douglas & Marshall, 1999; Meyer-Rochow, 2001; Marshall & Cronin, 2011) and, therefore, polarised vision should be precluded (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). Similar structures have been observed in copepods, suggesting that they might serve for physiological functions such as membrane cycling (Elofsson, 1969; Eguchi & Waterman, 1976).
Lens cells
In some species, e.g., Heterocypris incongruens, the cells are positioned nearly outside the ocelli (Elofsson, 1966). The cup may contain one or more twisted cells that serve as a single lens as in the genus Leptocythere (Elofsson, 1966). Hartmann (1967) refers to two cells, whilst Nowikoff (1908) mentions three. When only one cell is present, it tends to be large, and half of its body is overabundant compared to the eyecup containing it, with the nucleus displaced toward the outer region (Elofsson, 2006). The cytoplasm is transparent, but its density can vary between the interior and outer areas of the cell (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Elofsson, 2006). In some cases, ventral and lateral lens cells show significant differences in electron density, with the former having the highest value (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). Lens cells, when present, have a surprisingly low refractive index (about 1.358–1.371), even lower in the ventral cup, at least in Notodromas monacha (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). The values of the refractive indexes of the lens cells are close to the ones of the retinal cells (approx. 1.35), but more importantly, of water (approx. 1.33) (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Tanaka, 2006). This observation suggests that, in general, lens cells play only a minor role in focusing light (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Tanaka, 2005, 2006). Instead, this lens possibly can improve the light-gathering efficiency of the overall eye, acting as a diffuser. Examples of similar structures exists in copepods, such as in the marine copepods Labidocera and Pontella, and in other taxa such as in the scallop Pecten (Land, 1965; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Ali, 2013). However, in the taxa mentioned above, the lens cells may have a higher refractive index or a refractive index gradient.
Cuticular lenses
The calcified cuticular carapace areas dorso-lateral to the two upper eyecups are formed like lenses (Fig. 7) that diffract the light towards the inside of the eyecup, possibly achieved by the arrangement of closely placed crystals parallel to the plane of the shell (Bonaduce & Danielopol, 1988). In support of this hypothesis, it was observed in the study by Tanaka et al. (2009) that the ultrastructure of the ocular tubercle of the fossil ostracod Primitiopsis planifrons Jones, 1887 is characterised by a prismatic layer perpendicular to the tangent of the curvature of the valves, a structure not found elsewhere in the valves. Only those upper, more laterally positioned cups, possess such calcified cuticular lenses, whilst the ventral cup does not. When the eyes are fused, the ocelli may be arranged a little more ventrally than when they are separated, so that the eyes receive the light simply by opening the valves (Fig. 8) (Bonaduce & Danielopol, 1988). There is little information on the existence and disposition of the crystals inside the calcified cuticular lens (Yamada, 2019). Cuticular lenses possess an exceptionally high refractive index, which in Notodromas range between 1.62 and 1.64, almost that of pure calcite (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Tanaka, 2005). The carapace outside cuticular lenses still preserves its role as a protecting shield (Benson, 1974; Tanaka, 2005). Due to their calcification, cuticular lenses are well preserved in fossil records, providing important paleo-evolutionary evidence for phylogenetic considerations in ostracods (Van Morkhoven, 1963; Benson, 1975, 1984; McKenzie & Peypouquet, 1984; Bonaduce & Danielopol, 1988; Kontrovitz & Myers, 1988; Puckett, 1991; Tanaka, 2006). The environment in which the organism lives strongly influences the permanence of certain vision-related traits. This hypothesis is coherent with the finding that deep-water species in the cytheroidean genera Cytheropteron (Cytheruridae), Palmoconcha (Loxoconchidae) and Cluthia (Leptocytheridae) lack cuticular lenses (Tanaka, 2005). In addition, the thickness of the carapace and the size of the animal are important in limiting the development of the cuticular lens (Hartmann, 1967; Bonaduce & Danielopol, 1988). Indeed, intuitively, the thinner and smaller the carapace, the more unlikely it is that the cuticular lens will develop. For example, littoral species of Xestoleberididae do not display any cuticular lens even if many species of the same family have well-developed lenses. In a fundamental work, Bonaduce & Danielopol (1988) discussed the differences in cuticular lens morphology between the marine representatives of the family Xestoleberididae and the non-marine subfamily Notodromadinae. Surprisingly, these two groups, although different phylogenetically and in terms of habitat preferences, show great similarities in cuticular lens structure, if present (Bonaduce & Danielopol, 1988). However, unlike in Xestoleberididae, Notodromas monacha and Notodromas persica Gurney, 1921, display a pronounced sexual dimorphism in the shape of the cuticular lenses: Notodromas males have slightly bi-convex lenses, whilst females have rounded lenses (Bonaduce & Danielopol, 1988).
A broad categorisation of naupliar eyes considers the existence of three groups: one where the three cups are fused to create a unique organ without any lens system, another with fused eyecups and lens cells, and a last one with separated cups and with both lens cells and cuticular lenses (Rome, 1947; Elofsson, 1966; Andersson, 1979; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Huvard, 1990). Then, as highlighted by Tanaka (2005), at least six different subtypes can be distinguished by considering the presence or absence of specialised cells and their morphology (see Supplementary table S1 for a summary of the naupliar eyes subtypes in non-marine ostracods). Most species studied by Tanaka (2005) are marine; nonetheless, the paper cites some examples of non-marine species and families with non-marine representatives.
A second classification characterises the cuticular lenses based on specific morphological parameters, calculated according to a model on naupliar eye geometrical optics (Tanaka, 2006). Different types of naupliar eyes are classified by studying the relationship between the standardised curvature of the outer part of the cuticular lens, the relative lens thickness, and the light-gathering ability of the rhabdoms. Most families containing non-marine species, such as hemicytherids, loxoconchids, cytherids, cytherurids, and possibly leptocytherids, limnocytherids, cytherideids and eucytherids, display a medium degree of gathering ability and significant variability in the remaining two morphological parameters, although the species considered by Tanaka (2006) are all marine. It seems that genera, families, or species living in habitats with high irradiance tend to occupy the lower-ranked ability level.
The categories presented above do not explicitly consider the morphotypes of naupliar eyes in the case of species with degeneration of specialised cell tissues. Moreover, in the embryonic stage, the pigment and sensory cells appear almost simultaneously and before the appearance of tapetal cells. These observations suggest that in the hierarchical development of the structure of the eyes, the sensory and pigment cells might belong to the same module (Kaji & Tsukagoshi, 2010).
Physics of the podocopid naupliar eyes
Like any other optical system, eyes are subject to unavoidable flows originating from light diffraction and the defects of the optical elements composing them, such as lenses (for details see Appendix S3). Moreover, in general, animal eyes face a certain level of trade-off between spatial resolution and light sensitivity, with the latter developed preferentially in organisms living in low-light environments; naupliar eyes do not deviate from this rule (Land & Nilsson, 2002).
Spatial resolution can be quantified in terms of inter-receptor angle, defined as the ratio between the distance of the centres of two adjacent rhabdoms, and the distance from the rhabdoms to the nodal point, which is often the centre of the optical elements, and here it is considered as such for simplicity (see Appendix S4). The distance thus defined is approximately the focal length (Land & Nilsson, 2002). Since the distance between rhabdom centres has a lower physical limit, the most efficient way to increase resolution is to increase the focal length of the lenses, which is particularly unfeasible for small eyes such as those of the majority of ostracod species (Land & Nilsson, 2002). The focal length in non-marine ostracods may vary greatly amongst species. It is hypothesised that for visual systems with short focal lengths of about 100 μm diffractions have the main role in inducing image blurring. For Notodromas monacha, Andersson & Nilsson (1981) estimated a focal length for the lateral cups of approximately 103 μm. However, this observation does not help in determining the resolution capacities of the eyes of Notodromas monacha.
The same authors also hypothesised that in Notodromas monacha the diameter of blurred pattern formed in the retina and derived by light diffraction, a phenomenon called the Airy disc, is around 0.5–0.7 µm, which is much smaller than the rhabdoms, which, in general, have a cross-sectional area of 100 µm2 (Turner, 1896; Rome, 1947; Elofsson, 1966; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981).
The shape, size, and disposition of the rhabdoms play a fundamental role in determining the resolution and light sensitivity of the eye (see Appendix S5). For example, in podocopid naupliar eyes, the receptors may work as lightguides (Warrant & McIntyre, 1993; see Appendix S6). The major problem originating from lightguide receptors causing the diminishing of spatial resolution is that there is a threshold for the angle of incident light below which the receptor of interest is not able to collect the light by total internal reflection, and other non-targeted receptors will absorb it (Warrant & Mclntyre, 1990, 1993). This typically occurs in receptors of organisms displaying an exceptional light sensitivity that, unfortunately, leads to a so-called light spread in the retina (Warrant & McIntyre, 1990, 1991, 1993). As possible solutions to the absorption of the "escaped" light from receptors other than the one of interest, arthropods and thus also crustaceans evolved rhabdom shields made of light-absorbing granules of pigments or rhabdoms with non-cylindrical shapes (Land, 1984; Warrant & McIntyre, 1991, 1993). There are no clear mentions to this aspect in the literature with regard to the ostracod naupliar eyes, but there are references to black granules inside the retinal cells of some Leptocythere species and to ovoid-like shaped rhabdoms in Notodromas (Elofsson, 1966; Andersson & Nilsson, 1981). Therefore, it cannot be dismissed that other non-marine ostracods have developed ways to reduce the scattering of light information.
Again, Andersson & Nilsson (1981) measured the light-rays acceptance angle of the rhabdoms of Notodromas monacha and concluded that they displayed a rounded-up angle of 0,17 rad for the lateral cups and 0,35 rad for the ventral one, respectively. We can compare these results to known receptor acceptance angles in other animals, for example, that of deep-sea isopod crustacean Cirolana, which is around 0,78 rad, that of the stomatopod Odontodactylus, 0,017 rad, that of the copepod Labidocera, 0,06 rad, or that of humans, which is on the order of 10–4 rad (Land & Nilsson, 2002). After Nilsson (2009, 2013), simple eyes composed of optical elements, such as mirrors and lenses, may have evolved for serving either behaviours requiring low- or high-resolution vision. It is often assumed that naupliar eyes can only serve as simple photoreceptors. However, many aspects about the functions of naupliar eyes in podocopid ostracods are still unknown. It is thus uncertain in which category to place the podocopid naupliar eyes according to Nilsson’s classification. A certain level of imaging is expected in Notodromas monacha, for which a detection angle below the low-resolution threshold of 0,52 rad has been measured, in favour of a slightly higher resolution (see Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Nilsson, 2013). Overall, the reported values seem to suggest a rather weak resolution power in Notodromas monacha and, consequently, the possibility for this ostracod to produce a poorly defined image on the retina (Land & Nilsson, 2002). Moreover, given the position of the retina compared to the tapetal cells layer, receptors first receive the unfocused light passing through the lens and then the focused rays collected by the mirror, forming an inevitably fuzzy image (Nilsson, 1990).
Conversely, such value of the receptor light-acceptance angle for Notodromas monacha implies a discretely high degree of light sensitivity. In general, the larger the acceptance angle of receptors and the size of the eye's aperture, the higher the sensitivity of the eyes (Land, 1981; Land & Nilsson, 2002; see Appendix S7).
The F-number is another useful measure of eye sensitivity, related to the inverse of the focal length and aperture of an optical system. The lower the F-number, the greater the performance in light gathering (see Appendix S7). Usually, in animal eyes, although not the rule, a low F-number increases the chance of severe aberrations and thus reduces the image quality. Notodromas monacha has a particularly low F-number of around 0.27 and thus should possess great light sensitivity (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Kontrovitz & Myers, 1988), compared to, for example, the eye of the scallop Pecten (Mollusca), which is around 0.6 (Land, 1965).
Nonetheless there is a maximum water depth below which even organisms with an exceptionally high degree of sensitivity cannot compensate for the scarcity of light. Kontrovitz & Myers (1988) proposed an expression for this limiting depth, considering as a model organism marine podocopid ostracods (Lythgoe, 1979; Kontrovitz & Myers, 1988). According to these authors, such expression has never been used to predict the visual limitations of non-marine ostracods. Also, as Kontrovitz & Myers (1988) state, below a measurable threshold, no further improvement in the eyes system can be made in order to gain light gathering ability (Benson, 1975; Lythgoe, 1979; Kontrovitz & Myers, 1988).
The visual system of podocopid ostracods comprises a combination of a mirror and one or two lenses. The fundamental optical element in such a system is the concave mirror formed by the tapetal layer. Its main role is directing the light toward the receptors. The reflecting properties of this optical element arise from the basic principle of refraction and light interference (Land, 1972; see Appendix S8).
For Notodromas monacha, the tapetal cell crystals appear optically anisotropic, particularly sensitive to light polarisation and thus potentially birefringent (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981), although birefringence does not relate to the perception of polarised light in terms of visual clue. The consequences of the birefringence of the tapetal cell crystals on the animal optics are not clear. Biological mirrors similar to the ones here described for ostracods are also observed in some other organisms, such as copepods (see Vaissière, 1961; Fahrenbach, 1964; Land, 1972, 1981).
The concave mirror may not be the only element to exploit internal periodic ultrastructures in order to induce transmission, refraction, and selective reflection of incident light. Carapace ultrastructure has been vastly studied for both, living myodocopid and podocopid ostracods, also in relation to the habitat characteristics (see, e.g., Yamada et al., 2005; Yamada, 2019). However, the ultrastructure of these transparent carapace windows in the vicinity of the eyes has only been described for Macrocypridina castanea (Brady, 1897), a planktonic deep-sea ostracod species, by Parker et al. (2019). The eye tubercles of some living podocopid ostracods have been vastly discussed, but the ultrastructure of the carapace has not been taken into consideration (Kontrovitz & Slack, 1995; Kontrovitz & Puckett, 1998).
Concave mirrors form the image in the direction of the retina and, if spherical-like, present an approximated focal length of half of their radius (see Appendix S9). To form a final image for the visual system, the initial image produced by the lens system works as an intermediate one, an object for the mirror element (Myers & Kontrovitz, 1988). The most straightforward approach to studying podocopid ostracod eyes is to consider the mirror-lens system as composed of thin lenses and simple concave hemispherical thin mirrors (see Fig. 9 for a schematic representation of lens-mirror optics in podocopid naupliar eye; see Appendix S9). In ventral cups, lens cells have a minor role in focusing the light into an image; thus, the convergence of light is affected by the spherical mirror alone. Without any lenses, the object is inevitably positioned in front of the eye, and the image has a distance approximately equal to, or greater than, half of the mirror radius (see Jenkins & White, 1957). Nevertheless, when considering both the thin lens and mirror approximation, the final image is positioned closer to the mirror concavity than in the lensless scenario. Therefore, the role of the lens is almost to compress the optical system, bringing the focal length of the whole lens-mirror apparatus closer to the mirror vertex.
In Myers & Kontrovitz (1988), another approximation to calculate the effective focal length of the lens-mirror system is applied (see Appendix S9). They consider a thick lens and mirror, forming a double lens system (Jenkins & White, 1957). As a result, they obtain an expression for the system focal length as a whole. With this approach, the authors show that the focal length of the system is both lower and upper bounded. Given the relationship between focal length and F-number, Myers & Kontrovitz (1988) then derive a realistic range of F-numbers for the podocopid naupliar eye. As a result, the F-number calculated by this approach is within 0.25–0.50, i.e., values which are surprisingly coherent with that actually measured for ostracods (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Myers & Kontrovitz, 1988). Tanaka (2006) made a further step forward by combining the thick-lens tapetum model of Kontrovitz and Myers (1988) with a computationally based investigation of the light-gathering abilities of the various podocopid eye types possessing cuticular lenses. This author then verified the results obtained through this approach with those of behavioural photostatic experiments in different microhabitats, demonstrating that the light-gathering ability of naupliar eyes is closely influenced by the shape of the cuticular lens, namely its thickness and external curvature.
Moreover, Andersson & Nilsson (1981) compared the results obtained by ray tracing of incidence 0 and 25 degrees from the optical axis with those obtained by applying the formula for refraction in spherical surfaces to the ventral and lateral lenses. Thus, the lens system is approximated as two media with different refractive indices, encountering the boundary throughout a spherical surface. An estimation of the focal length was then obtained as a function of the refractive indices and curvature of the surface. Andersson & Nilsson (1981) concluded, by deriving quantitative measurements, that the lens cells in the ventral cup do not contribute to the focus of the image, which is prerogative of the tapetum—the focal distance calculated resulted in at least a hundred times longer than the distance between the lens cell and the mirror. When applied to the lateral lenses, considering both cuticular and lens cells, the focal distance was twice as large as the distance from the tapetum, confirming that the lens system works as a pre-focus system.
Andersson & Nilsson (1981) also hypothesised that podocopid ostracods may possess stereoscopic vision—at least Notodromas monacha. The visual field of this species can be estimated to be around 100 degrees dorsoventrally for the lateral cups, and 150 degrees for the ventral one. Moreover, Notodromas monacha overlaps the visual fields of 35 degrees in the lateral cups, positioned at 25 degrees from the longitudinal axis. Finally, with the same approach, the angular resolution has been approximated at 25 degrees for the lateral cups and 40 for the ventral ones (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981).
Visual stimuli transduction in podocopid ostracods
The absorbance spectrum of a given visual pigment depends on the type of transmembrane opsin protein, its associated subgroup of guanine nucleotide-binding proteins, and the chromophore ligand molecule that composes the receptor (Rayer et al., 1990; Hunt et al., 2014).
It has been suggested that the ancestor of Pancrustacea had four to five groups of photoreceptors inherited from the arthropods' ancestor (Koyanagi et al., 2008; Kashiyama et al., 2009; Henze & Oakley, 2015). The groups of photoreceptors comprised one or two opsin clades sensitive to long wavelengths (LW1-LW2) two in the range of middle wavelengths (MW1-MW2), and one sensitive to short wavelengths (SW) (Henze & Oakley, 2015). The opsin clades then diversified into subclades or got lost with the evolution of the Pancrustacea (Henze et al., 2012; Henze & Oakley, 2015).
Several transcriptional, translational, and physiological studies have investigated colour vision in different representatives of Crustacea, suggesting that various taxa possess from monochromatic to true-colour vision (Goldsmith & Fernandez, 1968; Scott & Mote, 1974; Martin & Mote, 1982; Knight & Leggett, 1985; Hariyama et al., 1993; Smith et al., 1993; Marshall et al., 1996; Horch et al., 2002; Johnson et al., 2002; Dalal et al., 2003; Koyanagi et al., 2008; Kashiyama et al., 2009; Porter et al., 2009; Katti et al., 2010; Rajkumar et al., 2010; Colbourne et al., 2011; Henze et al., 2012; Derby & Thiel, 2014). However, information on the visual capability of ostracods is scarce even if they might represent an example in which extensive opsin diversification occurred within a class. The literature search shows that the only non-marine ostracod genus for which molecular studies on opsin expression are available is Heterocypris. Palecanda et al. (2022) analysed five RNA transcripts of Heterocypris incongruens and discovered that it expressed only long-wavelengths sensitive rhabdomeric opsins (r-opsins), here classified as belonging to the LW1 opsin clade. Moreover, Henze and Oakley (2015) inferred that the transcripts studied of a species in the genus Heterocypris expressed visual r-opsins sensitive to long wavelengths amongst those potentially perceived by crustaceans, belonging to the arthropod LW2 clade. The characteristic of r-opsin-based receptors is their transduction, typical of invertebrates (Rayer et al., 1990; Land & Nilsson, 2002; Nilsson, 2004, 2013; Hunt et al., 2014; see Appendix S10).
The r-type opsins in the arthropod long wavelength-sensitive clade seem to have a broad spectrum of absorbance, which is thought to be green-sensitive and extends to higher lengths (Porter et al., 2007; Hunt et al., 2014; Henze & Oakley, 2015; Yilmaz et al., 2022; Liénard et al., 2022).
The results of these studies concerning transcriptional investigations do not necessarily imply the translation of proteins into functional receptors (Henze & Oakley, 2015). It seems that Heterocypris has lost the capacity to express opsins in the medium-wavelength sensitivity clades (Henze & Oakley, 2015), but it is currently unknown whether this result is extendable to other Podocopa lineages. Furthermore, some species of Myodocopa have lost the LW2 opsin clade, leading to their blindness to long wavelength (Henze & Oakley, 2015; see Appendix S11). Another hypothesis is that Oligostraca lacks the MW1 clade of opsins (peak around 480 nm) and that ostracods, like most crustaceans, lack r-opsins sensitive to short wavelengths (Henze & Oakley, 2015). In the ancestral arthropod, such clade most likely created mainly UV-sensitive visual opsins (Henze & Oakley, 2015). No apparent reason has been provided as to why several crustaceans have lost SWs, but those that do still have them often show lysine residues similar to what should be bovine rhodopsin 90 glycine (Salcedo et al., 2003).
In crustacean groups with short-wavelength sensitivity, sensitivity tends to be absent in individuals without compound eyes. This is probably because SW-UV-sensitive opsins are often expressed in specialised receptors (R8 cells) only present in the ommatidia of some compound eyes (Marshall et al., 1999; Palecanda et al., 2022). Evidence supports the differential expression of opsins in the two visual systems, naupliar and compound eyes, most likely representing recent paralogous duplications (Henze & Oakley, 2015; see Appendix S11). Nonetheless, it must be taken into account that the expression of opsins does not trivially determine the spectral sensitivity of an organism (see Appendix S12).
In addition to visual opsins, there are several non-visual opsin clades whose function still needs to be wholly clarified in vertebrates and invertebrates (Velarde et al., 2005; Eriksson et al., 2013; Hunt et al., 2014; Battelle et al., 2016; Ni et al., 2017). The transcriptome of Heterocypris incongruens studied by Palecanda et al. (2022) presents three non-visual opsins, two RH7 opsins and one neuropsin. In arthropods, non-visual opsins are classified into the R-type Rh7 and arthropsins, the C-type (ciliary opsins) pteropsins, and finally, peropsins and neuropsins (Hunt et al., 2014; Palecanda et al., 2022). The latter is often expressed in podocopid ostracods, specifically in their neuronal tissue (Henze & Oakley, 2015; Brandon et al., 2017; Nagata et al., 2018; Palecanda et al., 2022).
Non-visual opsins are frequently expressed extraocularly (Palecanda et al., 2022). It is hypothesised that both, neuropsins and Rh7 opsins may play a role as photoreceptors maintaining a circadian rhythm, as observed in Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 (Kistenpfennig, 2012; Henze & Oakley, 2015; Battelle et al., 2016; Cronin & Bok, 2016; Senthilan & Helfrich-Förster, 2016; Ni et al., 2017; Sakai et al., 2017; Liénard et al., 2022; Palecanda et al., 2022).
Both, Rh7 opsins and neuropsins are considered bistable opsins that create particularly sensitive UV-SW photopigments and, after being excited, can return to their initial resting state (Koyanagi & Terakita, 2008; Yamashita et al., 2010; Kojima et al., 2011; Matsuyama et al., 2012; Koyanagi et al., 2013; Hunt et al., 2014; Cronin & Bok, 2016; Sakai et al., 2017; Liénard et al., 2022; Palecanda et al., 2022).
Podocopid ostracod brain
When the light stimulus causes excitation of receptors, signals reach the central nervous system, which in the Podocopa comprises a circum-oesophageal collar of fused ganglia, the latter subdivided into protocerebrum, deuterocerebrum and triterocerebrum, and a ventral chain of ganglia (Rome, 1947; Hartmann, 1966). For a more detailed description of the central nervous systems and nerve cells in non-marine ostracods, see e.g. Claus (1891, 1895), Turner (1896), Lüders (1909), Hanström (1928, 1931), Hartmann (1967). The protocerebrum is the cerebrum part that elaborates the visual stimuli through the optic nerves (Dahl, 1965; Elofsson, 1992). The axons reach from the sensory cells to a single glomerular neuropil slightly separated from the protocerebrum (Elofsson, 1966, 1992, 2006). The position of the protocerebrum is always perpendicular to the axis spanning the length of the ostracod dorsally (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Huvard, 1990). Overall, if the eyes are somewhat non-efficient or degraded, a specific neuronal compensation may occur once the information is processed in the brain (Andersson & Nilsson, 1981; Elofsson, 2006). Hanström (1928, 1931) hypothesised that the protocerebrum and deutocerebrum had developed from the same primordial brain, in analogy with what observed in polychaetes—see Hartmann (1967) for a discussion on this subject.
Weygoldt (1961) showed that five large cells are present in the protocerebrum of Cyprideis torosa (Jones, 1850) using chrome-hematoxylin to stain the cells. By studying the anatomy of Heterocypris incongruens, Aramant & Elofsson (1976) proposed that the brain of ostracods may use monoamine neurotransmitters to transmit and elaborate information. Specifically, Aramant & Elofsson (1976) used a fluorescence histochemical technique to create fluorophores from biogenic monoamines present in the organism and artificial chemical compounds (Falck & Owman, 1965). They found a fluorophore in the protocerebrum of Heterocypris incongruens. The fluorophore emitted weakly in the naupliar eyes and strongly in the neuropile. At the same time, complex fluorescent patterns were observed in the deutocerebrum and tritocerebrum. A second fluorophore was conspicuously present, scattered amongst the deutocerebrum and other brain areas. Fluorescence was also present along the ventral nerve cord, lip nerve and fibres of antennae. The presence of neurotransmitters of the family of indolamines or catecholamines has been hypothesised (Elofsson et al., 1968; Welsh, 1972; Aramant & Elofsson, 1976). Aramant & Elofsson (1976) suggested that the abundance of deutocerebral monoaminergic neurons results from the preferential use of the olfactory sense over the visual one. However, it must be taken into account that this hypothesis emerges from the study of only one species, namely Heterocypris incongruens. For this reason, future research should be extended to different species to draw general conclusions on neuronal processing in non-marine ostracods.
Photoreception and learning in non-marine ostracods
In podocopid ostracods, it is reasonable to hypothesise recognition mechanisms involving sensory capacities to optimise the energy required for mate searching and reduce the reproductive costs, the latter being exceptionally high in amphigonic non-marine species, given the production of giant spermatozoa (Matzke-Karasz, 2005; López‐Fernández et al., 2007; Schmit et al., 2013). However, in amphigonic species, copulation of males with other males, non-conspecific females or even with grains of sand has also been observed (Horne & Martens, 2000, pers. observation). Nonetheless, Eucypris virens (Jurine, 1820) recognise sexual partners precisely in mixed populations, where parthenogenetic and sexual females coexist (Horne et al., 1998; Schmit et al., 2013). Overall, several peculiar behaviours in approaching partners are well documented in non-marine ostracods (Danielopol, 1980; Danielopol & Horne, 1996; Smith & Kamiya, 2007; Mesquita-Joanes et al., 2012). Although mate recognition is most likely achieved by direct contact, the exact mechanism is unknown and may vary from species to species leaving some space for hypotheses (Danielopol, 1980; Horne et al., 1998; Martens, 2000; Schmit et al., 2013). Auditive signals per se have been discarded in Ostracoda (Martens, 2000). Other possible mate recognition mechanisms involve chemical clues, such as the release of pheromones (Horne et al., 1998). In the case of Eucypris virens and other freshwater species, communication via chemical stimuli is unlikely since the populations usually have high densities of individuals (Schmit et al., 2013); consequently, under these conditions, dissolved chemical signals might be efficient only in certain cases, for example as an alarm in risk situations, but hardly as a means of recognising potential mates. Possible visual mate recognition in Podocopa, contrarily to Myodocopa, is often overlooked since their visual abilities, especially of non-marine ostracods, are thought to be primitive (McGregor & Kesling, 1969; Cohen & Morin, 1990; Horne et al., 1998; Horne & Martens, 2000; Zhang et al., 2024), and so there is no definitive evidence against or in favour of the role of vision in mate recognition in non-marine ostracods. Similarly, there are no known generalisable differences in perception between taxa depending on the environment they inhabit (Oakley & Huber, 2004). For example, species in the genus Notodromas not only display the already mentioned sexual dimorphism in the visual apparatus, but they also have distinct morphological features between sexes, as larger or more pigmented carapaces in females (De Deckker, 1979; Horne et al., 1998). This genus of non-marine ostracods is currently the only one for which optical mate recognition has been hypothesised (Horne et al., 1998).
Other examples of evident sexual dimorphism are present in several limnocytherids and candonids, and generally are a common feature of sexually reproducing organisms (Meisch, 2000; Smith et al., 2015). Nonetheless, sexual dimorphism can originate for different reasons than mate recognition, such as sexes differences in daily activity and diet (Speiser et al., 2013; Arenz et al., 2018) or brood care (Smith et al., 2015). For example, despite sexual dimorphism, epigean candonids are considered nearly blind, with very reduced, red-pigmented eyes, thus making it unlikely that morphological differences between genders play a role in partner recognition (Turner, 1896).
Non-marine ostracods, related to their lifestyle and habitat, show remarkable differences in swimming ability and motility (Hartmann, 1966; Mbahinzireki et al., 1991), as well as in dietary alternatives, being generalists, either omnivorous, detritivorous or scavengers (Liperovskaya, 1948; Margalef, 1953; De Deckker, 1983; Stepien & Brusca, 1985; Fryer, 1997; Vannier et al., 1998; Meisch, 2000; Danielopol et al., 2002; Schmit et al., 2007; Smith & Delorme, 2010; Ottonello & Romano, 2011; Mesquita-Joanes et al., 2012). Coloured carapaces are typical of non-marine ostracods inhabiting littoral and sublittoral environments, whilst interstitial species display depigmented carapaces and reduced photoreceptive systems. Cypridopsis vidua (O.F. Müller, 1776), whose valves have a “zebra” pattern with dark brown bands, uses the macroalga Chara as a hiding place from predators to survive by quickly reacting to chemical cues indicating the predators' presence (Mbahinzireki et al., 1991). Integrating chemical, photoreceptive and other senses stimuli in order to detect predators and mates is considered quite a rule rather than an exception amongst animals (Acquistapace et al., 2005). Therefore, we cannot exclude that similar integration may also occur in non-marine ostracods with light-gathering apparatuses. Non-marine ostracods seem to rely on olfactory cues when harvesting food (Roca et al., 1993; Uiblein et al., 1994, 1996; Vannier et al., 1998; Mesquita-Joanes et al., 2012; Vandekerkhove et al., 2012; Miličić et al., 2015). Moreover, they show a preference for some food sources compared to others (Liperovskaya, 1948; Schmit et al., 2007). Throughout behavioural experiments, it has been observed that both Eucypris virens and Heterocypris incongruens feed preferentially on spinach (Schmit et al., 2007; Miličić et al., 2015). Cypridopsis vidua preferentially searches for Chara sp., whilst Notodromas monacha feeds from neustonic protists (Benzie, 1989; Roca et al., 1993; Uiblein et al., 1994, 1996; Kiss, 2004; Schmit et al., 2007; Karanovic, 2012). Overall, it is believed that in ostracods, vision does not participate in the feeding process (Land & Nilsson, 1990; Vannier et al., 1998; Miličić et al., 2015). Nonetheless, food preferences can also be determined by innate colour preferences. Colour preferences are generated when the visual signal immediately leads to motor control. So far, no studies have been conducted on these aspects for ostracods.
Non-marine ostracods seem to be capable of reacting to their preferential light components, as shown through phototaxis experiments. In Barcelo & Calkins (1979), a species of the freshwater genus Cypris, within three possible chambers, i.e. dark (non-illuminated), illuminated, and irradiated only with UV-B, show a statistically relevant preference towards the UV-B one, swimming horizontally towards it. Nonetheless, in a second experiment, no preferential vertical swimming heading to the most illuminated region of the column is observed for any of the irradiation types. Moreover, in both experiments, the survival rate of Cypris, irradiated by the UV-B light, is exceptionally high compared to the other taxa. The preferential choice of the UV-B chamber is surprising since ostracods are thought to lack the opsins that can make them sense UV (Henze & Oakley, 2015). However, the choice may not be related to colour vision. On the contrary, the relatively high tolerance of Cypris for UV can be explained by the characteristics of ostracod carapaces, which seem to protect the animal by absorbing up to 80% of the UV radiation and avoiding cellular damages – except for Heterocypris incongruens whose valves have a lower absorption rate (Van Den Broecke et al., 2012). The high tolerance for UV may be connected to the specific lifestyle, reproductive mode and carapace coloration of the different ostracod species (Van Den Broecke et al., 2012). A higher UV-tolerance is to be expected in species living in very shallow water bodies with high degrees of UV-light penetration. In water bodies of greater depth, active swimmers dwelling in the water column will have to be more UV-tolerant than fully benthic species.
The role of photoreception and vision in associative learning processes, confirmed by experiments in vertebrates, crustaceans and molluscs, is probably also important in other groups of animals characterised by simple neuronal systems (Bielecki et al., 2023). The degree of colour vision, light perception, and image formation an organism displays can be related to cognitive capabilities, associations, and learning (Marshall et al., 2015; Kelber, 2016; Kelber et al., 2003; Kelber & Osorio, 2010). Intuitively, colour learning and preference may have represented significant evolutionary assets (Kelber & Jacobs, 2016).
Previous studies on learning abilities of non-marine ostracods did not consider visual capabilities. An example of the latter behaviour is Cypridopsis vidua, which can undergo a decision-making process to balance harvesting and predation avoidance (Roca et al., 1993). Moreover, behavioural experiments on non-marine ostracods are generally very few, and are conducted on a limited number of species, such as Darwinula stevensoni (Brady & Robertson, 1870), Eucypris virens and Heterocypris incongruens (Kohler & McPeek, 1989; Roca et al., 1993; Rossi & Menozzi, 1993; Baltanás et al., 2000; Gandolfi et al., 2001; Van Doninck et al., 2003; Schmit et al., 2007; Miličić et al., 2015; Bieszke et al., 2020).
The first behavioural study concerning light stimuli perceptions in non-marine ostracods probably is that of Applewhite & Morowitz (1966). In the experiments, both sexes of Cyclocypris forbesi Sharpe, 1897 preferred dark environments and learned how to avoid light by solving a light-guided maze. Additionally, Cyclocypris forbesi displayed associative capabilities of classical pseudo-conditioning by closing its valves when illuminated by a light source passing through a blue ground glass filter associated with later electrical shocks. This type of learning has also been confirmed for other invertebrates (Perry et al., 2013; Hawkins & Byrne, 2015; Nargeot & Bedecarrats, 2017). Fischer & Laforsch (2018) showed that both Heterocypris incongruens and Notodromas monacha, when grown in microgravity, cannot adapt to use light sources to orientate in the new condition. Finally, the only ethological experiments combining colour perception and learning in non-marine ostracods are those conducted by Romano et al. (2022). They used miniaturised analytical systems to assess whether Heterocypris incongruens can display associative operant conditioning. Miniaturised devices had previously been employed to assess the phototactic abilities of other crustaceans, but never in terms of conditioning (Cartlidge et al., 2016). In the experiments, Heterocypris incongruens was first trained to associate a light colour, either green or yellow, with a source of food or stress (increased salinity). One individual at a time was placed in a miniaturised micro-arena and was forced to choose between two possible chambers differently organized in three different treatments. In each of the three treatments, Heterocypris incongruens could either enter in, respectively, i) a chamber with the light of the colour with which it was trained (correct colour) or in a dark chamber, ii) a chamber with a different light colour from that with which it was trained or in a dark chamber, iii) a chamber with a light of the correct colour or in a chamber with a light of different colour. Romano et al. (2022) showed that when trained for rewards, Heterocypris incongruens significantly chose the correct light when possible and otherwise chose the light of different colour rather than the dark chamber. Conversely, when trained to avoid stressors, Heterocypris incongruens chose the chamber with no light and did not display preferences when both lights are on. Since the light colours used in the experiments are always green or yellow, Heterocypris incongruens can distinguish at least one of these colours. However, ostracods have never been tested for object recognition and discrete and continuous quantity perception, especially in terms of learning.
Conclusive remarks and open questions
The morphology and ultrastructure of naupliar eyes and cerebra in ostracods is well documented. Nonetheless, the references mainly focus on marine podocopid species, and only limited information exists on non-marine ones. Most studies on non-marine podocopid naupliar eyes refer to species in the superfamily Cypridoidea, such as, for example, species in the genera Heterocypris, Cypridopsis, Herpetocypris, Eucypris, Cypris, Cypria, Cyclocypris and Notodromas. Regarding the superfamily Cytheroidea, there are some references to non-marine species in the genus Xestoleberis. Otherwise, works on the naupliar eyes in the superfamily Cytheroidea consider marine representatives of the families Leptocytheridae, Hemicytheridae, Cytheruridae and Loxoconchidae, which, in general, also contain non-marine species. As far as we know, no records on the morphology of naupliar eyes exist for the family Darwinulidae, the only living representatives of the superfamily Darwinuloidea.
Cuticular lenses in living non-marine podocopid ostracods have been described by in-depth morphological investigations only for genera in the family Notodromatidae. However, such structures are present in other ostracod taxa. For example, cuticular lenses are observed in different families of Cytheroidea (i.e., hemicytherids, loxoconchids, cytherids, cytherurids, xestoleberidids, paradoxostomatids, hemicytherids, leptocytherids, limnocytherids and cytherideids), containing mostly marine species but with several non-marine representatives as well. In podocopid ostracods with fused eyes and without cuticular lenses, a transparent region of the carapace above the eyes is often observed.
Podocopid naupliar eyes can be approximated to a mirror-lens visual system. The reflective properties of the concave biological mirror are derived from the basic principle of refraction and interference of light. Imperfections of optical systems lead to aberrations, whilst image blurring due to light diffraction is always present. Optical models describing naupliar eyes of non-marine ostracods and their efficiency often refer to Notodromas. In this genus, the role of aberrations and diffraction on image formation is known, and sensitivity and resolution of the eye have been quantified by calculating the F-number, i.e., image brightness index and the light ray’s acceptance angle of receptors. Podocopid ostracods seem to be particularly adapted for dim habitats, having a particularly low range of F-number, estimated theoretically. However, as already mentioned, careful investigations combining theoretical, computational, and experimental approaches show that, when the cuticular lens is present, its shape strongly influences the light-gathering ability of the podocopid naupliar eye. Moreover, despite the seemingly poor resolution power, Notodromas monacha can produce a modest image on the retina. In other podocopid species, the arrangement and structure of receptors are often ignored, although they are fundamental units in defining the resolution of an eye. Rhabdom shields or non-cylindrical rhabdoms can limit the degree to which light escapes from the receptor, which would otherwise lead to a loss of resolution. Both structures may be present in podocopid naupliar eyes, but they are rarely mentioned in relation to their role. Overall, simple eyes using mirror optics like those described for non-marine podocopid ostracods may serve behaviours requiring a moderately low resolution. A more comprehensive knowledge of which cells and lens types are present or absent in different non-marine species would lead to a better understanding of the degree of visual capacity to be expected, also depending on environmental and phylogenetic constraints.
Another area of research where only a small amount of information is available on non-marine podocopid ostracods is that of opsin expression and, therefore, the possibility of colour vision. In fact, the only evidence of opsin expression concerns Heterocypris incongruens, which expresses, amongst the known crustacean opsins, the r-opsins in the clade sensitive to long wavelengths in the visible spectrum. Generally, it is hypothesised that most crustaceans lack r-opsins sensitive to short wavelengths. Moreover, Heterocypris incongruens also possesses nonvisual opsins, whose roles are still debated. The expression of opsins must be considered of primary importance as much as the anatomy of the eyes, as knowledge of both is indispensable for obtaining well-founded information on the significance and use of vision in animal life. The expression of genes coding for multiple visual opsins is not merely linked to colour vision. Their actual transcription and translation are not guaranteed, and a particular distribution of opsin proteins between receptors may have purposes other than colour vision. It would certainly represent a major milestone to map the expression of opsins in species of non-marine ostracod from different phylogenetic lineages, and in relation to their habitats and behavioural adaptations. Opsin expression could be related to specific light perception requirements, intrinsically connected to phenotypic traits. For example, species in the genus Notodromas show not only sexual dimorphisms in the cuticular lenses of their visual apparatuses, but also distinct morphological differences in the carapace between sexes; however, no records of opsin expression in this genus exists. Vision and the ability to perceive colours can be tested through ethological experiments, which would intuitively complement, along with anatomical and molecular analyses, the study of the visual abilities of an organism through a multidisciplinary approach. For example, it has been shown that some non-marine species in the genus Cypris can react to wavelength in the UV range by positive phototaxis, which is unexpected since non-marine ostracods seem not to perceive radiation within this spectral range. Unfortunately, from the results of this review, there is no study in the literature on non-marine ostracod species that has combined structural and molecular aspects with behavioural descriptions.
Finally, non-marine ostracods show learning abilities, exhibiting associative learning of the classical type and operant conditioning when trained with light stimuli. The processes of learning and conditioning in non-marine ostracods have so far been described in two species belonging to the superfamily Cypridoidea, in two articles published fifty years apart. The first study showed that Cyclocypris forbesi learned to close its valves when illuminated by a light source associated with successive electric shocks. The second study demonstrated that Heterocypris incongruens, when trained to associate a light colour with a source of food or stress, chose the light that led towards the food or away from the stress. At present, it is impossible to determine whether these capabilities are present in other species of the same superfamily or in other non-marine podocopid superfamilies. Intuitively, the ability to learn mediated by visual stimuli is an outstanding adaptive advantage for survival and enhanced resource utilisation. Since some podocopid ostracods possess eyes, which can be described by simple optical models, possibly express different opsins, and learn to associate light stimuli to behaviours and even choose accordingly, it is surprising how little research has been devoted to investigating the role of these characteristics as a whole from an evolutionary and adaptive point of view. For these reasons, we do hope that future work will shed light on the importance of photoreception in non-marine ostracods and its potential benefits in the exploration of their habitat (e.g., search for food, use of shelters, detection of predators, recognition of mates, etc.) and for learning processes.
References
Acquistapace, P., L. Calamai, B. A. Hazlett & F. Gherardi, 2005. Source of alarm substances in crayfish and their preliminary chemical characterization. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83: 1624–1630.
Ali, M. A., 2013. Photoreception and vision in invertebrates, Vol. 74. Springer, Berlin:
Andersson, A., 1979. Cerebral sensory organs in ostracodes (Crustacea). Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Zoology, University of Lund.
Andersson, A. & D.-E. Nilsson, 1981. Fine structure and optical properties of an ostracode (Crustacea) nauplius eye. Protoplasma 107: 361–374.
Applewhite, P. B. & H. J. Morowitz, 1966. The micrometazoa as model systems for studying the physiology of memory. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 39: 90–105.
Aramant, R. & R. Elofsson, 1976. Distribution of monoaminergic neurons in the nervous system of non-malacostracan crustaceans. Cell and Tissue Research 166: 1–24.
Arenz, A. L., T. Tran, K. H. Koyama, A. M. Marin Gomez & A. S. Rivera, 2018. Sexually dimorphic eye-loss driven by ecological selection in an ostracod crustacean: support for the reproductive role hypothesis. Integrative and Comparative Biology 58: 431–440.
Baird, W., 1835. List of Entomostraca found in Berwickshire. Transactions of the Berwickshire Naturalists’ Club 1: 95–100.
Baird, W., 1838. The natural history of the British Entomostraca. Part IV. Magazine of Zoology and Botany 2: 132–144.
Baltanás, A., M. Otero, L. Arqueros, G. Rossetti & V. Rossi, 2000. Ontogenetic changes in the carapace shape of the non-marine ostracod Eucypris virens (Jurine) In: Horne, D.J. & K. Martens (eds), Evolutionary Biology and Ecology of Ostracoda (Theme 3 of the 13th International Symposium on Ostracoda (ISO97)). Hydrobiologia 419: 65–72.
Barcelo, J. A. & J. Calkins, 1979. Positioning of aquatic microorganisms in response to visible light and simulated solar UV-B irradiation. Photochemistry and Photobiology 29: 75–83.
Battelle, B. A., J. F. Ryan, K. E. Kempler, S. R. Saraf, C. E. Marten, W. C. Warren, P. J. Minx, M. J. Montague, P. J. Green, S. A. Schmidt, L. Fulton, N. H. Patel, M. E. Protas, R. K. Wilson & M. L. Porter, 2016. Opsin repertoire and expression patterns in horseshoe crabs: evidence from the genome of Limulus polyphemus (Arthropoda: Chelicerata). Genome Biology and Evolution 8: 1571–1589.
Benson, R. H., 1974. The role of ornamentation in the design and function of the ostracode carapace. Geoscience and Man 6: 47–57.
Benson, R. H., 1975. Morphological stability in Ostracoda. Bulletin of American Paleontology 65: 13–46.
Benson, R. H., 1984. Estimating greater paleodepths with ostracodes, especially in past thermospheric oceans. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 48: 107–141.
Benzie, J. A. H., 1989. The distribution and habitat preference of ostracods (Crustacea: Ostracoda) in a coastal sand-dune lake, Loch of Strathbeg, north-east Scotland. Freshwater Biology 22: 309–321.
Bielecki, J., S. K. D. Nielsen, G. Nachman & A. Garm, 2023. Associative learning in the box jellyfish Tripedalia cystophora. Current Biology 33: 4150–4159.
Bieszke, B., L. Namiotko & T. Namiotko, 2020. Life history traits of a temporary water ostracod Heterocypris incongruens (Crustacea, Ostracoda) are affected by power frequency (50 Hz) electromagnetic environmental pollution. The European Zoological Journal 87: 148–155.
Bitsch, C. & J. Bitsch, 2005. Evolution of eye structure and arthropod phylogeny. In Jenner, S. R. A. & F. R. Schram (eds), Koenemann CRC Press, Crustacea and arthropod relationships. New York: 185–214.
Bonaduce, G. & D. L. Danielopol, 1988. To see and not to be seen: The evolutionary problems of the Ostracoda Xestoleberididae. In: Hanai, T., N. Ikeya & K. Ishizaki (eds), Evolutionary Biology of Ostracoda, its Fundamentals and Applications. Developments In Palaeontology and Stratigraphy 11. Kodansha Scientific, Tokyo, pp. 375–398.
Brady, G. S. & D. Robertson, 1870. I. - The Ostracoda and Foraminifera of Tidal Rivers. With an analysis and descriptions of the Foraminifera, by Henry B. Brady, FLS. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 6: 1–33.
Brandon, C. S., M. J. Greenwold & J. L. & Dudycha, 2017. Ancient and recent duplications support functional diversity of Daphnia opsins. Journal of Molecular Evolution 84: 12–28.
Brusca, R. C., & G. J. Brusca, 2002. Invertebrates (2nd ed.), Sinauer Associates Incorporated, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 936 pp.
Cartlidge, R., O. Campana, D. Nugegoda & D. Wlodkowic, 2016. Optofluidic technology for monitoring rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus responses to regular light pulses. In: Hutchinson, M. R. & E. M. Goldys (eds) SPIE BioPhotonics Australasia (Vol. 10013: p. 100132B). International Society for Optics and Photonics, Adelaide, Australia.
Claus, C., 1891. Das Medianauge der Crustaceen. Arbeiten Aus Dem Zoologischen Institute der Universität Wien und der Zoologischen Station in Triest 9: 225–270.
Claus, C., 1892. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Süßwasser-Ostracoden. I. Über den Körper- und Gliedmassenbau der Cypriden nebst Bemerkungen über einzelne innere Organe derselben. Arbeiten Aus Dem Zoologischen Institute der Universität Wien und der Zoologischen Station in Triest 10: 147–216.
Claus, C., 1895. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Süßwasser-Ostracoden. II. Arbeiten Aus Dem Zoologischen Institute der Universität Wien und der Zoologischen Station in Triest 11: 17–48.
Cohen, A. C. & J. G. Morin, 1990. Patterns of reproduction in ostracodes: a review. Journal of Crustacean Biology 10: 184–212.
Colbourne, J. K., M. E. Pfrender, D. Gilbert, W. K. Thomas, A. Tucker, T. H. Oakley, ... & J. L. Boore, 2011. The ecoresponsive genome of Daphnia pulex. Science 331(6017) 555–561.
Cronin, T.W. & K. D. Feller, 2014. Sensory ecology of vision in crustaceans. In: Derby, C. & M. Thiel (eds), The natural history of the crustacea, vol. 3: crustacean nervous systems and their control of behavior. New York Oxford University Press. p. 235–262
Cronin, T. W. & M. J. Bok, 2016. Photoreception and vision in the ultraviolet. Journal of Experimental Biology 219: 2790–2801.
Dahl, E., 1965. Frontal organs and protocerebral neurosecretory systems in Crustacea and Insecta. General and Comparative Endocrinology 5: 614–617.
Dalal, J. S., R. N. Jinks, C. Cacciatore, R. M. Greenberg & B. A. Battelle, 2003. Limulus opsins: diurnal regulation of expression. Visual Neuroscience 20: 523–534.
Danielopol, D. L., 1980. Sur la biologie de quelques Ostracodes Candoninae épigés et hypogés d’Europe. Bulletin Du Muséum National D’histoire Naturelle, Paris 2: 471–506.
Danielopol, D. L. & D. J. Horne, 1996. Some observations on the sexual behaviour and the morphology of the male copulatory appendages in Metacypris cordata (Ostracoda, Timiriaseviinae). In Keen, M. (ed), Proceedings 2nd European Ostracodologists Meeting, Glasgow 1993 British Micropalaeontological Society, London: 171–174.
Danielopol, D. L., E. Ito, G. Wansard, T. Kamiya, T. M. Cronin & A. Baltanás, 2002. Techniques for collection and study of Ostracoda. Geophysical Monograph-American Geophysical Union 131: 65–98.
De Deckker, P., 1974. Australocypris, a new ostracod genus from Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 22: 91–104.
De Deckker, P., 1979. Comparative morphology and review of Australian Notodromadinae Kaufmann 1900. Senckenbergiana Biologica 59: 417–463.
De Deckker, P., 1983. Notes on the ecology and distribution of non-marine ostracods in Australia. Hydrobiologia 106: 223–234.
Derby, C. & M. Thiel, 2014. Nervous systems and control of behavior, The Natural History of the Crustacea. Oxford University Press, New York:, 263–292.
Dingle, R. V., 2003. Some palaeontological implications of putative, long-term, gene reactivation. Journal of the Geological Society 160: 815–818.
Douglas, R. H. & N. J. Marshall, 1999. A review of vertebrate and invertebrate ocular filters. In Archer, S. N., M. B. A. Djamgoz, E. R. Loew, J. C. Partridge & S. Vallerga (eds), Adaptive Mechanisms in the Ecology of Vision Springer, Dordrecht: 95–162.
Dudley, P. L., 1969. The fine structure and development of the nauplius eye of the copepod Doropygus seclusus Illg. La Cellule 68: 5–42.
Eguchi, E. & T. H. Waterman, 1976. Freeze-etch and histochemical evidence for cycling in crayfish photoreceptor membranes. Cell and Tissue Research 169: 419–434.
Elofsson, R., 1965. The nauplius eye and frontal organs in Malacostraca (Crustacea). Sarsia 19: 1–54.
Elofsson, R., 1966. The nauplius eye and frontal organs of the non-Malacostraca (Crustacea). Sarsia 25: 1–128.
Elofsson, R., 1969. The ultrastructure of the nauplius eye of Sapphirina (Crustacea: Copepoda). Zeitschrift Für Zellforschung und Mikroskopische Anatomie 100: 376–401.
Elofsson, R., 1992. To the question of eyes in primitive crustaceans. Acta Zoologica 73: 369–372.
Elofsson, R., 2006. The frontal eyes of crustaceans. Arthropod Structure & Development 35: 275–291.
Elofsson, R., T. Kauri, S. O. Nielsen & J. O. Strömberg, 1968. Catecholamine-containing nerve fibres in the hind-gut of the crayfish Astacus astacus L. (Crustacea, Decapoda). Experientia 24: 1159–1160.
Eriksson, B. J., D. Fredman, G. Steiner & A. Schmid, 2013. Characterisation and localisation of the opsin protein repertoire in the brain and retinas of a spider and an onychophoran. BMC Evolutionary Biology 13: 1–10.
Fahrenbach, W. H., 1964. The fine structure of a nauplius eye. Zeitschrift Für Zellforschung und Mikroskopische Anatomie 62: 182–197.
Falck, B. & C. Owman, 1965. A detailed methodological description of the fluorescence method for the cellular demonstration of biogenic monoamines. Acta Universitatis Lundensis, Sectio II 7: 1–23.
Fischer, J. & C. Laforsch, 2018. The influence of gravity and light on locomotion and orientation of Heterocypris incongruens and Notodromas monacha (Crustacea, Ostracoda). npj Microgravity 4: 1–9.
Fox, H. M. & G. Vevers, 1960. Nature of animal colours, Sidgwick and Jackson, London:, 246.
Fryer, G., 1996. Reflections on arthropod evolution. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 58: 1–55.
Fryer, G., 1997. The Horse-Trough Ostracod Heterocypris Incongruens. Naturalist 122: e136.
Gandolfi, A., E. Todeschi, V. Rossi & P. Menozzi, 2001. Life history traits in Darwinula stevensoni (Crustacea: Ostracoda) from Southern European populations under controlled conditions and their relationship with genetic features. Journal of Limnology 60: 1–10.
Glantz, R., C. Derby & M. Thiel, 2014. Visual systems of crustaceans. In Derby, C. D. & M. Thiel (eds), The Natural History of Crustacea, Vol. 3. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 206–234. Nervous Systems and Their Control of Behaviour.
Goldsmith, T. H. & H. R. Fernandez, 1968. Comparative studies of crustacean spectral sensitivity. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Physiologie 60: 156–175.
Hallberg, E. & R. Elofsson, 1989. Construction of the pigment shield of the crustacean compound eye: a review. Journal of Crustacean Biology 9: 359–372.
Hanström, B., 1928. Vergleichende Anatomie des Nervensystems der wirbellosen Tiere: Unter Berücksichtigung seiner Funktion, Julius Springer, Berlin:
Hanström, B., 1931. Neue Untersuchungen über Sinnesorgane und Nervensystem der Crustaceen. I. Zeitschrift Für Morphologie und Ökologie der Tiere 23: 80–236.
Hariyama, T., Y. Tsukahara & V. B. Meyer-Rochow, 1993. Spectral responses, including a UV-sensitive cell type, in the eye of the isopod Ligia exotica. Naturwissenschaften 80: 233–235.
Hartmann, G., 1966. Ostracoda. In: Dr. H. G. Bronns Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. 5. Band: Arthropoda, I. Abteilung: Crustacea 2. Buch, IV. Teil. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Geest & Portig K.-G., Leipzig, pp. 1–216.
Hartmann, G., 1967. Ostracoda 2. Lieferung. In: Dr. H. G. Bronns Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. 5. Band: Arthropoda, I. Abteilung: Crustacea 2. Buch, IV. Teil. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Geest & Portig K.-G., Leipzig, pp. 217–408.
Hawkins, R. D. & J. H. Byrne, 2015. Associative learning in invertebrates. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 7: a021709.
Henze, M. J., K. Dannenhauer, M. Kohler, T. Labhart & M. Gesemann, 2012. Opsin evolution and expression in arthropod compound eyes and ocelli: insights from the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. BMC Evolutionary Biology 12: 1–16.
Henze, M. J. & T. H. Oakley, 2015. The dynamic evolutionary history of pancrustacean eyes and opsins. Integrative and Comparative Biology 55: 830–842.
Horch, K., M. Salmon & R. Forward, 2002. Evidence for a two pigment visual system in the fiddler crab, Uca thayeri. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 188: 493–499.
Horne, D. J., D. L. Danielopol & K. Martens, 1998. Reproductive behaviour. In Martens, K. (ed), Sex and parthenogenesis: evolutionary ecology of reproductive modes in non-marine ostracods Backhuys Publishers, Leiden: 157–196.
Horne, D. J. & K. Martens (eds), 2000. Evolutionary biology and ecology of Ostracoda. Hydrobiologia 419: 1–197.
Horne, D. J., I. Schön, R. J. Smith & K. Martens, 2005. What are Ostracoda? A cladistic analysis of the extant superfamilies of the subclasses Myodocopa and Podocopa (Crustacea: Ostracoda). In: Koenemann, S. & R.A. Jenner (eds), Crustacea and arthropod relationships. Crustacean issues. Vol. 16: Taylor & Francis; Boca Raton, pp. 249–273.
Horne, D. J., 2010. Talking about a re-evolution: blind alleys in ostracod phylogeny. Journal of Micropalaeontology 29: 81–85.
Huang, H. H. M., M. Yasuhara, D. J. Horne, V. Perrier, A. J. Smith & S. N. Brandão, 2022. Ostracods in databases: State of the art, mobilization and future applications. Marine Micropaleontology 174: 102094.
Hunt, G., 2007. Morphology, ontogeny, and the phylogenetics of the genus Poseidonamicus (Ostracoda: Thaerocytherinae). Journal of Paleontology 81: 607–631.
Hunt, D. M., M. W. Hankins, S. P. Collin & N. J. Marshall (eds). 2014. Evolution of visual and non-visual pigments. Vol. 4: Springer, Boston.
Huvard, A. L., 1990. Ultrastructural study of the naupliar eye of the ostracode Vargula graminicola (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Zoomorphology 110: 47–51.
Jenkins, F. A. & H. E. White, 1957. Fundamentals of optics. Indian Journal of Physics 25: 265–266.
Johnson, M. L., E. Gaten & P. M. Shelton, 2002. Spectral sensitivities of five marine decapod crustaceans and a review of spectral sensitivity variation in relation to habitat. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 82: 835–842.
Jones, T. R., 1850. Description of the Entomostraca of the Pleistocene beds of Newbury, Copford, Clacton and Grays. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 2(6): 25–28.
Jones, T. R., 1887. Notes on some Silurian Ostracoda from Gothland. Privately published. Stockholm 1–8.
Jurine, L., 1820. Histoire des Monocles, qui se trouvent aux environs de Genève, I-XVI 1–260: Genève/Paris.
Kaji, T. & A. Tsukagoshi, 2010. Heterochrony and modularity in the degeneration of maxillopodan nauplius eyes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 99: 521–529.
Karanovic, I., 2012. Recent freshwater ostracods of the world: Crustacea, Ostracoda, Podocopida. Springer Science & Business Media 608 pp.
Karniol, B., J. R. Wagner, J. M. Walker & R. D. Vierstra, 2005. Phylogenetic analysis of the phytochrome superfamily reveals distinct microbial subfamilies of photoreceptors. Biochemical Journal 392: 103–116.
Kashiyama, K., T. Seki, H. Numata & S. G. Goto, 2009. Molecular characterization of visual pigments in Branchiopoda and the evolution of opsins in Arthropoda. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26: 299–311.
Katti, C., K. Kempler, M. L. Porter, A. Legg, R. Gonzalez, E. García-Rivera, D. Dugger & B. A. Battelle, 2010. Opsin co-expression in Limulus photoreceptors: differential regulation by light and a circadian clock. Journal of Experimental Biology 213: 2589–2601.
Kelber, A., M. Vorobyev & D. Osorio, 2003. Animal colour vision - behavioural tests and physiological concepts. Biological Reviews 78: 81–118.
Kelber, A. & D. Osorio, 2010. From spectral information to animal colour vision: experiments and concepts. Proceedings of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences 277: 1617–1625.
Kelber, A., 2016. Colour in the eye of the beholder: receptor sensitivities and neural circuits underlying colour opponency and colour perception. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 41: 106–112.
Kelber, A. & G. H. Jacobs, 2016. Evolution of color vision. In: Kremers, J., C. R. Baraas & N. J. Marshall, Human color vision. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 317–354.
Kesling, R. V., 1951. The morphology of ostracod molt stages. Illinois Biological Monographs 21: 1–114.
King, R. L., 1855. On Australian Entomostracans. Papers & Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 3: 56–75.
Kiss, A., 2004. Field and laboratory observations on the microhabitat and food selection as well as predator avoidance of Notodromas monacha (Crustacea: Ostracoda). Revista Española De Micropaleontología 36: 147–156.
Kistenpfennig, C., 2012. Rhodopsin 7 and Cryptochrome-circadian photoreception in Drosophila. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Würzburg.
Knight, D. & L. M. W. Leggett, 1985. Six spectral sensitivity classes in crab visual interneurons. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 157: 235–245.
Kohler, S. L. & M. A. McPeek, 1989. Predation risk and the foraging behavior of competing stream insects. Ecology 70: 1811–1825.
Kojima, D., S. Mori, M. Torii, A. Wada, R. Morishita & Y. Fukada, 2011. UV-sensitive photoreceptor protein OPN5 in humans and mice. PloS One 6: e26388.
Kontrovitz, M. & J. H. Myers, 1988. Ostracode eyes as paleoenvironmental indicators: physical limits of vision in some podocopids. Geology 16: 293–295.
Kontrovitz, M. & J. M. Slack, 1995. Ocular shell structures in some loxoconchid Ostracoda. Micropaleontology 41: 369–374.
Kontrovitz, M. & T. M. Puckett, 1998. Ocular shell structures in some Cretaceous trachyleberid Ostracoda. Micropaleontology 44: 201–206.
Koyanagi, M., T. Nagata, K. Katoh, S. Yamashita & F. Tokunaga, 2008. Molecular evolution of arthropod color vision deduced from multiple opsin genes of jumping spiders. Journal of Molecular Evolution 66: 130–137.
Koyanagi, M. & A. Terakita, 2008. Gq-coupled rhodopsin subfamily composed of invertebrate visual pigment and melanopsin. Photochemistry and Photobiology 84: 1024–1030.
Koyanagi, M., E. Takada, T. Nagata, H. Tsukamoto & A. Terakita, 2013. Homologs of vertebrate Opn3 potentially serve as a light sensor in nonphotoreceptive tissue. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 4998–5003.
Land, M. F., 1965. Image formation by a concave reflector in the eye of the scallop, Pecten maximus. The Journal of Physiology 179: 138–153.
Land, M. F., 1972. The physics and biology of animal reflectors. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 24: 75–106.
Land, M. F., 1980. Compound eyes: old and new optical mechanisms. Nature 287(5784): 681–686.
Land, M. F., 1981. Optics and vision in invertebrates. Handbook of Sensory Physiology 6: 471–592.
Land, M. F., 1984. Crustacea. In Ali, A. M. (ed), Photoreception and vision in invertebrates Plenum Press, New York: 401–438.
Land, M. F., 2014. The eye: a very short introduction, Vol. 388. Oxford University Press, Oxford:
Land, M. F. & D.-E. Nilsson, 1990. Observations on the compound eyes of the deep-sea ostracod Macrocypridina castanea. Journal of Experimental Biology 148: 221–233.
Land, M. F. & D.-E. Nilsson, 2002. Animal Eyes, Oxford University Press, Oxford:
Liénard, M. A., W. A. Valencia-Montoya & N. E. Pierce, 2022. Molecular advances to study the function, evolution and spectral tuning of arthropod visual opsins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377: 20210279.
Liperovskaya, E. S., 1948. On the feeding of freshwater ostracods. Zoologicheskie Zhurnal 27: 125–136.
López-Fernández, C., A. Baltanás, J. De la Torre & J. Gosálvez, 2007. Drosophila melanogaster and Eucypris virens giant spermatozoa as visualized by cell inclusion in microgels. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part a: Ecological Genetics and Physiology 307: 140–144.
Lüders, L., 1909. Gigantocypris agassizii (Müller). Zeitschrift Für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie 92: 103–148.
Lythgoe, J. N., 1979. The ecology of vision, Clarendon, Oxford:
Margalef, R., 1953. Los crustáceos de las aguas continentales ibéricas, Instituto Forestal de Investigaciones y Experiencias, Madrid:
Marshall, N. J., J. P. Jones & T. W. Cronin, 1996. Behavioural evidence for colour vision in stomatopod crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 179: 473–481.
Marshall, J., J. Kent & T. W. Cronin, 1999. Visual adaptations in crustaceans: spectral sensitivity in diverse habitats. In Archer, S. N., M. B. A. Djamgoz, E. R. Loew, J. C. Partridge & S. Vallerga (eds), Adaptive Mechanisms in the Ecology of Vision Springer, Dordrecht: 285–327.
Marshall, J. & T. W. Cronin, 2011. Polarisation vision. Current Biology 21: R101–R105.
Marshall, J., K. L. Carleton & T. Cronin, 2015. Colour vision in marine organisms. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 34: 86–94.
Martens, K., 2000. Factors affecting the divergence of mate recognition systems in the Limnocytherinae (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Hydrobiologia 419: 83–101.
Martin, F. M. I. & Mote, 1982. Color receptors in marine crustaceans: a second spectral class of retinular cell in the compound eyes of Callinectes and Carcinus. Journal of Comparative Physiology 145: 549–554.
Matsuyama, T., T. Yamashita, Y. Imamoto & Y. Shichida, 2012. Photochemical properties of mammalian melanopsin. Biochemistry 51: 5454–5462.
Matzke-Karasz, R., 2005. Giant spermatozoon coiled in small egg: fertilization mechanisms and their implication for evolutionary studies on Ostracoda (Crustacea). Journal of Experimental Zoology 304: 129–149.
Matzke-Karasz, R. & R. J. Smith, 2022. A review of exceptional preservation in fossil ostracods (Ostracoda, Crustacea). Marine Micropaleontology 174: 101940.
Mbahinzireki, G., F. Uiblein & H. Winkler, 1991. Microhabitat selection of ostracods in relation to predation and food. Hydrobiologia 222: 115–119.
McGregor, D. L. & R. V. Kesling, 1969. Copulatory adaptations in ostracods. Part II. Adaptations in living ostracods. Contributions from the Museum of Geology, University of Michigan 22: 221–239.
McKenzie, K. J. P. & Peypouquet, 1984. Oceanic palaeoenvironment of the Miocene Fyansford Formation from Fossil Beach, near Mornington, Victoria, interpreted on the basis of Ostracoda. Alcheringa 8: 291–303.
Meyer-Rochow, V. B., 1999. Photoreceptor ultrastructure in the Antarctic mussel shrimp Acetabulastoma (Crustacea; Ostracoda) a parasite of Glyptonotus antarcticus (Crustacea; Isopoda). Polar Biology 21: 66–170.
Meyer-Rochow, V. B., 2001. The crustacean eye: dark/light adaptation, polarization sensitivity, flicker fusion frequency, and photoreceptor damage. Zoological Science 18: 1175–1197.
Miličić, D. M., A. P. Majstorović, S. B. Pavković-Lučić & T. T. Savić, 2015. Behaviour and food selection of Heterocypris incongruens (Ostracoda). Crustaceana 88: 1097–1110.
Müller, G. W., 1894. Die Ostracoden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. Fauna und Flora Des Golfes Von Neapel 21: 1–404.
Mulisch, M. & U. Welsch (eds), 2010. Romeis Mikroskopische Technik., 18th ed. Spektum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg.
Myers, J. H. & M. Kontrovitz, 1988. Geometrical optics of some ostracod eyes. Evolutionary Biology of Ostracoda, its Fundamentals and Applications. In: Hanai, T., N. Ikeya & K. Ishizaki (eds), Developments in Palaeontology and Stratigraphy 11: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Ostracoda, Kodansha Scientific, Tokyo, pp. 187–193.
Nagata, T., M. Koyanagi, R. Lucas & A. Terakita, 2018. An all-trans-retinal-binding opsin peropsin as a potential dark-active and light-inactivated G protein-coupled receptor. Scientific Reports 8: 1–7.
Nagler, C., J. Geist & R. Matzke-Karasz, 2014. Revision of the genus Tanycypris (Ostracoda, Cypricercinae) with the description of Tanycypris alfonsi n. sp., and an identification key to the genus. Zootaxa 3821: 401–424.
Namiotko, T., D. L. Danielopol, C. Meisch, M. Gross & N. Mori, 2014. Redefinition of the genus Typhlocypris Vejdovský 1882 (Ostracoda, Candonidae). Crustaceana 87: 952–984.
Nargeot, R. & A. Bedecarrats, 2017. Associative learning in invertebrates. In Byrne, J. H. (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Invertebrate Neurobiology Oxford University Press, Oxford: 537–558.
Needham, A. E., 1974. The Significance of Zoochromes, Springer, Berlin:
Ni, J. D., L. S. Baik, T. C. Holmes & C. Montell, 2017. A rhodopsin in the brain functions in circadian photoentrainment in Drosophila. Nature 545: 340–344.
Nilsson, D.-E., 1990. From cornea to retinal image in invertebrate eyes. Trends in Neurosciences 13: 55–64.
Nilsson, D.-E., 2004. Eye evolution: a question of genetic promiscuity. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 14: 407–414.
Nilsson, D.-E., 2009. The evolution of eyes and visually guided behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences 364: 2833–2847.
Nilsson, D.-E., 2013. Eye evolution and its functional basis. Visual Neuroscience 30: 5–20.
Nowikoff, M., 1908. Über die Wirkung des Schilddrüsenextrakts und einiger anderer Organstoffe auf Ciliaten. Archiv Für Protistenkunde 11: 309–325.
Oakley, T. H., 2003. The eye as a replicating and diverging, modular developmental unit. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 623–627.
Oakley, T. H. & C. W. Cunningham, 2002. Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 1426–1430.
Oakley, T. H. & D. R. Huber, 2004. Differential expression of duplicated opsin genes in two eye types of ostracod crustaceans. Journal of Molecular Evolution 59: 239–249.
Oakley, T. H., J. M. Wolfe, A. R. Lindgren & A. K. Zaharoff, 2013. Phylotranscriptomics to bring the understudied into the fold: monophyletic Ostracoda, fossil placement, and pancrustacean phylogeny. Molecular Biology and Evolution 30: 215–233.
Ong, J. E., 1970. The micromorphology of the nauplius eye of the estuarine calanoid copepod, Sulcanus conflictus Nicholls (Crustacea). Tissue and Cell 2: 589–610.
Ottonello, D. & A. Romano, 2011. Ostracoda and Amphibia in temporary ponds: who is the prey? Unexpected trophic relation in a mediterranean freshwater habitat. Aquatic Ecology 45: 55–62.
Palecanda, S., T. Iwanicki, M. Steck & M. L. Porter, 2022. Crustacean conundrums: a review of opsin diversity and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377: 20210289.
Palmer, B. A., A. Hirsch, V. Brumfeld, E. D. Aflalo, I. Pinkas, A. Sagi, S. Rosenne, D. Oron, L. Leiserowitz, L. Kronik, S. Weiner & L. Addadi, 2018. Optically functional isoxanthopterin crystals in the mirrored eyes of decapod crustaceans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 2299–2304.
Parker, A. R., B. P. Palka, C. Purslow, S. Holden, P. N. Lewis & K. M. Meek, 2019. Transparency in the eye region of an ostracod carapace (Macrocypridina castanea, Myodocopida). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 377: 20180267.
Paulus, H. F., 1972. Die Feinstruktur der Stirnaugen einiger Collembolen (Insecta, Entognatha) und ihre Bedeutung für die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten 1. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 10: 81–122.
Paulus, H. F., 1979. Eye structure and the monophyly of the Arthropoda. In Gupta, A. P. (ed), Arthropod Phylogeny Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York: 299–383.
Paulus, H. F., 2000. Phylogeny of the Myriapoda-Crustacea-Insecta: a new attempt using photoreceptor structure. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 38: 189–208.
Perry, C. J., A. B. Barron & K. Cheng, 2013. Invertebrate learning and cognition: relating phenomena to neural substrate. Wires Cognitive Science 4: 561–582.
Popper, A. N., M. Salmon & K. W. Horch, 2001. Acoustic detection and communication by decapod crustaceans. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 187: 83–89.
Porter, M. L., T. W. Cronin, D. A. McClellan & K. A. Crandall, 2007. Molecular characterization of crustacean visual pigments and the evolution of pancrustacean opsins. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24: 253–268.
Porter, M. L., M. J. Bok, P. R. Robinson & T. W. Cronin, 2009. Molecular diversity of visual pigments in Stomatopoda (Crustacea). Visual Neuroscience 26: 255–265.
Porter, M. L., N. W. Roberts & J. C. Partridge, 2016. Evolution under pressure and the adaptation of visual pigment compressibility in deep-sea environments. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 105: 160–165.
Puckett, T. M., 1991. Absolute paleobathymetry of Upper Cretaceous chalks based on ostracodes-evidence from the Demopolis Chalk (Campanian and Maastrichtian) of the northern Gulf Coastal Plain. Geology 19: 449–452.
Rajkumar, P., S. M. Rollmann, T. A. Cook & J. E. Layne, 2010. Molecular evidence for color discrimination in the Atlantic sand fiddler crab, Uca pugilator. Journal of Experimental Biology 213: 4240–4248.
Rayer, B., M. Naynert & H. Stieve, 1990. Phototransduction: different mechanisms in vertebrates and invertebrates. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology b: Biology 7: 107–148.
Regier, J. C., J. W. Shultz & R. E. Kambic, 2005. Pancrustacean phylogeny: hexapods are terrestrial crustaceans and maxillopods are not monophyletic. Proceedings of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences 272(1561): 395–401.
Roca, J. R., A. Baltanás & F. Uiblein, 1993. Adaptive responses in Cypridopsis vidua (Crustacea: Ostracoda) to food and shelter offered by a macrophyte (Chara fragilis). Hydrobiologia 262: 27–131.
Romano, D., G. Rossetti & C. Stefanini, 2022. Learning on a chip: towards the development of trainable biohybrid sensors by investigating cognitive processes in non-marine Ostracoda via a miniaturised analytical system. Biosystems Engineering 213: 162–174.
Rome, R., 1947. Herpetocypris reptans Baird (Ostracode), étude morphologique et histologique: I. Morphologie Externe Et Système Nerveux. Cellule 51: 51–152.
Rossi, V. & P. Menozzi, 1993. The clonal ecology of Heterocypris incongruens (Ostracoda): life-history traits and photoperiod. Functional Ecology 7: 177–182.
Sakai, K., K. Tsutsui, T. Yamashita, N. Iwabe, K. Takahashi, A. Wada & Y. Shichida, 2017. Drosophila melanogaster rhodopsin Rh7 is a UV-to-visible light sensor with an extraordinarily broad absorption spectrum. Scientific Reports 7: 7349.
Salcedo, E., L. Zheng, M. Phistry, E. E. Bagg & S. G. Britt, 2003. Molecular basis for ultraviolet vision in invertebrates. Journal of Neuroscience 23: 10873–10878.
Schmit, O., G. Rossetti, J. Vandekerkhove & F. Mezquita, 2007. Food selection in Eucypris virens (Crustacea: Ostracoda) under experimental conditions. Hydrobiologia 585: 135–140.
Schmit, O., I. Fukova, J. Vandekerkhove, Y. Michalakis, R. Matzke-Karasz, G. Rossetti, K. Martens & F. Mesquita-Joanes, 2013. Mate recognition as a reproductive barrier in sexual and parthenogenetic Eucypris virens (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Animal Behaviour 85: 977–985.
Schoenemann, B. & E. N. K. Clarkson, 2023. The median eyes of trilobites. Scientific Reports 13: 3917.
Schoenemann, B., H. Pärnaste & E. N. K. Clarkson, 2017. Structure and function of a compound eye, more than half a billion years old. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114: 13489–13494.
Schreiber, E., 1922. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Morphologie, Entwicklung und Lebensweise der Süßwasser-Ostracoden. Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung Für Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere 43: 485–539.
Scott, S. & M. I. Mote, 1974. Spectral sensitivity in some marine Crustacea. Vision Research 14: 659–663.
Seilacher, A., 1970. Arbeitskonzept zur Konstruktions-Morphologie. Lethaia 3: 393–396.
Senthilan, P. R. & C. Helfrich-Förster, 2016. Rhodopsin 7-the unusual rhodopsin in Drosophila. PeerJ 4: e2427.
Simpson, S. D., A. N. Radford, E. J. Tickle, M. G. Meekan & A. G. Jeffs, 2011. Adaptive avoidance of reef noise. PLoS One 6: e16625.
Smith, A. J. & L. D. Delorme, 2010. Ostracoda. In Thorp, J. H. & A. P. Covich (eds), Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates (Aquatic Ecology) Elsevier, London: 725–771.
Smith, A. J., D. J. Horne, K. Martens & I. Schön, 2015. Class Ostracoda. In Thorp, J. H. & A. P. Covich (eds), Thorp and Covich’s freshwater invertebrates. Ecology and general biology, Vol. 1, 4th ed. Academic Press, New York: 757–780.
Smith, R. J., P. Deckker & T. Kamiya, 2022. The ontogeny of two species of the family Notodromadidae (Cypridoidea, Ostracoda, Crustacea) taxonomic and palaeogeographic significance. Zootaxa 5094: 351–395.
Smith, R. J. & T. Kamiya, 2007. Copulatory behaviour and sexual morphology of three Fabaeformiscandona Krstić 1972 (Candoninae, Ostracoda, Crustacea) species from Japan, including descriptions of two new species. Hydrobiologia 585: 225–248.
Smith, R. J. & T. Kamiya, 2014. The freshwater ostracod (Crustacea) genus Notodromas Lilljeborg 1853 (Notodromadidae) from Japan: taxonomy, ecology and lifestyle. Zootaxa 3841: 239–256.
Smith, W. C., D. A. Price, R. M. Greenberg & B. A. Battelle, 1993. Opsins from the lateral eyes and ocelli of the horseshoe crab, Limulus polyphemus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 90: 6150–6154.
Speiser, D. I., R. I. Lampe, V. R. Lovdahl, B. Carrillo-Zazueta, A. S. Rivera & T. H. Oakley, 2013. Evasion of predators contributes to the maintenance of male eyes in sexually dimorphic Euphilomedes ostracods (Crustacea). Integrative and Comparative Biology 53: 78–88.
Srinivasan, M. V. & S. Zhang, 2004. Visual motor computations in insects. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27: 679–696.
Stavenga, D. G., 1979. Pseudopupils in compound eyes. In Autrum, H. (ed), Handbook of Sensory Physiology, vol. VII/7A. Springer, Berlin: 357–439.
Steck, M., K. C. Theam & M. L. Porter, 2023. The Cornucopia of Copepod Eyes: The Evolution of Extreme Visual System Novelty. In Buschbeck, E. & M. Bok (eds), Distributed Vision: From Simple Sensors to Sophisticated Combination Eyes, Springer Series in Vision Research Springer, Cham: 223–266.
Stepien, C. A. & R. C. Brusca, 1985. Nocturnal attacks on nearshore fishes in southern California by crustacean zooplankton. Marine Ecology Progress Series 25: 91–105.
Syme, A. E. & T. H. Oakley, 2012. Dispersal between shallow and abyssal seas and evolutionary loss and regain of compound eyes in cylindroleberidid ostracods: conflicting conclusions from different comparative methods. Systematic Biology 61: 314–336.
Tanaka, G., 2005. Morphological design and fossil record of the podocopid ostracod naupliar eye. Hydrobiologia 538: 231–242.
Tanaka, G., 2006. Functional morphology and light-gathering ability of podocopid ostracod eyes and the palaeontological implications. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 147: 97–108.
Tanaka, G., D. J. Siveter & A. R. Parker, 2009. The visual system and paleoecology of the Silurian ostracod Primitiopsis planifrons. Journal of Paleontology 83: 414–421.
Thiel, M. & L. Watling (eds), 2015. Lifestyles and Feeding Biology. The Natural History of Crustacea. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, New York.
Turner, C. H., 1896. Morphology of the nervous system of Cypris. Journal of Comparative Neurology 6: 20–50.
Uiblein, F., J. R. Roca & D. L. Danielopol, 1994. Experimental observations on the behaviour of the ostracode Cypridopsis vidua. Internationale Vereinigung Für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen 25: 2418–2420.
Uiblein, F., J. R. Roca, A. Baltanas & D. L. Danielopol, 1996. Tradeoff between foraging and antipredator behaviour in a macrophyte dwelling ostracod. Archiv Für Hydrobiologie 137: 119–133.
Vaissière, R., 1961. Morphologie et histologie comparées des yeux des crustacés copépodes. Archives De Zoologie Expérimentale Et Générale 100: 1–125.
Vandekerkhove, J., T. Namiotko, E. Hallmann & K. Martens, 2012. Predation by macroinvertebrates on Heterocypris incongruens (Ostracoda) in temporary ponds: impacts and responses. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 181: 39–47.
Van Den Broecke, L., K. Martens, V. Pieri & I. Schön, 2012. Ostracod valves as efficient UV protection. Journal of Limnology 71: 119–124.
Van Doninck, K., I. Schön, F. Maes, L. De Bruyn & K. Martens, 2003. Ecological strategies in the ancient asexual animal group Darwinulidae (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Freshwater Biology 48: 1285–1294.
Van Morkhoven, F. P. C. M., 1963. Post-Palaeozoic Ostracoda. Their Morphology, Taxonomy, and Economic Use, Elsevier, New York:
Vannier, J., K. Abe & K. Ikuta, 1998. Feeding in myodocopid ostracods: functional morphology and laboratory observations from videos. Marine Biology 132: 391–408.
Vávra, W., 1891. Monographie der Ostracoden Böhmens. Archiv der Naturwissenschaftlichen Landesdurchforschung Von Böhmen 8: 1–116.
Velarde, R. A., C. D. Sauer, K. K. Walden, S. E. Fahrbach & H. M. Robertson, 2005. Pteropsin: a vertebrate-like non-visual opsin expressed in the honey bee brain. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 35: 1367–1377.
Warrant, E. J. & P. D. McIntyre, 1990. Limitations to resolution in superposition eyes. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 167: 785–803.
Warrant, E. J. & P. D. McIntyre, 1991. Strategies for retinal design in arthropod eyes of low F-number. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 168: 499–512.
Warrant, E. J. & P. D. McIntyre, 1993. Arthropod eye design and the physical limits to spatial resolving power. Progress in Neurobiology 40: 413–461.
Welsh, J. H., 1972. Catecholamines in the invertebrates. Catecholamines 33: 79–109.
Weygoldt, P., 1961. Zur Kenntnis der Sekretion im Zentralnervensystem der Ostracoden Cyprideis litoralis (Podocopa, Cytheridae) und Cypris pubera (Podocopa, Cypridae). Zoologischer Anzeiger 166: 69–79.
Yamada, S., A. Tsukagoshi & N. Ikeya, 2005. Carapace formation of the podocopid ostracode Semicytherura species (Crustacea: Ostracoda). Lethaia 38: 323–332.
Yamada, S., 2019. Ultrastructure and cuticle formation of the carapace in the myodocopan ostracod exemplified by Euphilomedes japonica (Crustacea: Ostracoda). Journal of Morphology 280: 809–826.
Yamashita, T., H. Ohuchi, S. Tomonari, K. Ikeda, K. Sakai & Y. Shichida, 2010. Opn5 is a UV-sensitive bistable pigment that couples with Gi subtype of G protein. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 22084–22089.
Yilmaz, A., N. Hempel de Ibarra & A. Kelber, 2022. High diversity of arthropod colour vision: from genes to ecology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377: 20210273.
Zhang, J., M. Yasuhara, C.-L. Wei, S. Y. Tian, K. K. T. Aye, L. Gemery, T. M. Cronin, P. Frenzel & D. J. Horne, 2024. Sight and blindness: The relationship between ostracod eyes, water depth, and light availability in the Arctic Ocean. Limnology and Oceanography. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.12584.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Peter Frenzel (Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany) provided useful bibliographic references.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Parma within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Handling editor: Luigi Naselli-Flores
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bellavere, E., Matzke-Karasz, R., Romano, D. et al. Structure and functional implications of photoreceptive systems in non-marine ostracods: a review. Hydrobiologia (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-024-05587-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-024-05587-2