Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:04:06.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VIII.—On the Schizochroal Eyes of Three Species of Reedops (Trilobita: Phacopidae) from the Lower Devonian of Bohemia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

Euan N. K. Clarkson
Euan N. K. Clarkson
Affiliation:
Grant Institute of Geology, University of Edinburgh.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

Bohemian specimens of the phacopacean trilobites Reedops cephalotes (Hawle and Corda,) R. sternbergi (Hawle and Corda) and R. bronni (Barrande) have very well preserved schizochroal eyes. The sizes and distribution patterns of the eye lenses were studied and in R. sternbergi and R. bronni the angular bearings of all the lenses were measured, giving the visual range of the whole eye.

The internal anatomy of the eyes was also investigated, mainly from cut and polished sections. In many respects their morphology was comparable with that described previously in the Silurian and Devonian phacopaceans Phacops latifrons (Bronn) and Ananaspis communis (Barrande). The intralensar structures, however, are unlike those of P. latifrons and A. communis but bear a strong resemblance to the intralensar bowls of the Ordovician Zeliszkellinae, an early group believed to have been ancestral both to dalmanitaccan and post-Ordovician phacopacean stocks.

A brief history of the evolution of schizochroal eyes is given, some distinctive evolutionary trends are noted and the relationship of the structural pattern in Reedops is discussed with reference to that in other Phacopina.

Type
Research Article
Information
Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of The Royal Society of Edinburgh , Volume 68 , Issue 8 , 1969 , pp. 183 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Alberti, H., 1965. “Reedops Rud. and E. Richter 1925 aus dem Rhenischen Schiefergebirge (Kellerwald) und Harz (Trilobitae, Unter—bis Mitteldevon)”, Fortschr. Geol. Rheinld Westf., 9, 97–118.Google Scholar
Barrande, J., 1852. Système Silurien de Centre de la Bohême, Iere partie, 1, 1–935. Prague and Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckmann, H., 1951. “Zur Ontogenie der Sehflache grossäugiger Phacopiden”, Paläont. Z., 24, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, A. S., 1951. “On the compound eye of an unusually large trilobite from the Bokkeveld Beds south of Steytlerville, Cape Province”, S. Afr. J. Sci., 47, 162–164.Google Scholar
Campbell, K. S. W., 1968. “Trilobites of the Henryhouse Formation, Oklahoma”, Bull. Okla. Geol. Surv., 115, 1–68, Pl. 1–19.Google Scholar
Chlupáč, I., 1966. “The Upper Devonian and Lower Carboniferous trilobites of the Moravian Karst”, Sb. Geol. Ved (Paleont.) Praha., 7, 1–144.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M., 1889. “The structure and development of the visual area in the trilobite Phacops rana Green”, J. Morph., 2, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K., 1966 a. “Schizochroal eyes and vision of some Silurian acastid trilobites”, Palaeontology, 9, 1–29.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K., 1966 b. “Schizochroal eyes and vision in some phacopid trilobites”, Palaeontology, 9, 464–487.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K., 1967 a. “Fine structure of the eye in two species of Phacops”, Palaeontology, 10, 603–616.Google Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K., 1967 b. “Environmental significance of eye-reduction in trilobites and Recent arthropods”, Mar. Geol., 5, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, E. N. K., 1968. “Structure of the eye of Crozonaspis struvei”, (Trilobita, Dalmanitidae, Zeliszkellinae), Senckenberg. Leth., 49, 383–391.Google Scholar
Cowie, J. W. et al. , 1967. “Arthropoda; Protarthropoda, and Trilobitomorpha”. In The Fossil Record, Ch. 18, 479–497. Geol. Soc. Lond.Google Scholar
Denison, R. H., 1941. “The soft anatomy of Bothriolepis”, J. Paleont., 15, 553–561.Google Scholar
Erben, H. K., 1958. “Blinding and extinction in certain Proetidae (Tril.)”, J. Palaeont. Soc. India., 3, 82–104.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, T. H., 1964. “The Visual System of Insects”. In Rockstein, M., Physiology of Insects, Pt 1, Ch. 10, 397–462. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harrington, H. J., 1959. “Trilobita”, Treat. Invert. Palaeont., 0, Arthropoda 1.Google Scholar
Hawle, I., and Corda, A. J. C., 1847. “Prodrom einer Monographie der Böhmischen Trilobiten”, Rozpr. Mat.— Přír. K. České Spol. Náuk., 5, 117–292.Google Scholar
Henry, J-L., 1968. “Crozonaspis struvei n. g. n. sp., Zeliszkellinae (Trilobite) de l'Ordovicien moyen de Bretagne”, Senckenberg. Leth., 49, 367–381.Google Scholar
Lindström, G., 1901. “Researches on the visual organs of the trilobites”, K. Svenska VetenskAkad. Handl., 34, 1–89.Google Scholar
Richter, R., and Richter, E., 1925. “Unterlagen zum Fossilium Catalogus Trilobitae, III”, Senckenbergiana, 7, 239–244.Google Scholar
Rickards, R. B., 1965. “Two new genera of Silurian phacopid trilobites”, Palaeontology, 7, 541–551.Google Scholar
Rome, D. R., 1936. “Note sur la microstructure de l'appareil tégumentaire de Phacops (Ph.) accipitrinus maretiolensis R. and E. Richter”, Bull. Mus. Roy. Hist. Nat. Belg., 12, (31), 1–7.Google Scholar
Struve, W., 1958. “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Phacopacea (Trilobita) 1. Die Zeliszkellinae”, Senckenberg. Leth., 39, 165–220.Google Scholar
Struve, W., 1962. “Einige Trilobiten aus dem Ordovizium von Hessen und Thuringen (Phacopina, Asaphina)”, Senckenberg. Leth., 43, 151–180.Google Scholar
Svoboda, J. et al. , 1966. Regional Geology of Czechoslovakia. Part I. The Bohemian Massif, 1–668. Prague.Google Scholar
Waterman, T. H. et al. , 1961. The Physiology of Crustacea, 1 and 2. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Whittington, H. B., 1966. “Phylogeny and Distribution of Ordovician Trilobites”, J. Paleont., 40, 696–737.Google Scholar