I'm never afraid to admit I'm wrong. And in the interest of knowledge learned here being correct I concede that you are right and I am wrong. Some Trilobites had compound eyes. So sorry about that pal.
I wondere if he'll be gratious about it?
Here's a bit of bumf on those eyes -
Trilobites developed one of the first advanced visual systems in the animal kingdom. The majority of trilobites bore a pair of compound eyes (made up of many lensed units). They typically occupied the outer edges of the fixigena (free cheeks) on either side of the glabella, adjacent to the facial sutures. At least one suborder of trilobites, the Agnostina, are thought to be primarily eyeless. None have ever been found with eyes. In contrast, a few secondarily eyeless species (in which a clear evolutionary trend toward reduced eye size with eventual disappearence of eyes altogether) have developed within several groups, even those known for large, well-developed eyes (e.g., Phacopina).
The advantage of good eye design*
Compound eyes in living arthropods such as insects are very sensitive to motion, and it is likely that they were similarly important in predator detection in trilobites. It has also been suggested that stereoscopic vision was provided by closely spaced, but separate eyes. Vertebrate lenses (such as our own) can change shape (accomodate) to focus on objects at varying distances. Trilobite eyes, in contrast, had rigid, crystalline lenses, and therefore no accomodation. Instead, an internal doublet structure (two lens layers of different refractive indices acting in combination) corrected for focusing problems that result from rigid lenses. The shapes of some trilobite lenses, in fact, match those derived by optical scientists over 300 million years later to answer similar needs. Compare, for example, the optical designs of the 17th century physicists Descartes and Huygens shown below, with those of two trilobite species. The result is that, even without the benefit of accomodation, the rigid trilobite doublet lens had remarkable depth of field (that is, allowed for objects both near and far to remain in relatively good focus) and minimal spherical aberration (distortion of image).
Descartes' lens design for minimal aberration (above left) is found in the lens of the trilobite Crozonaspis (right)
Light ray paths (yellow) entering the lens from the left come into focus a short distance to the right of the lens (blue).
In the eye of Crozonaspis, an intralensar body (white) further corrects focus after passing through the outer lens layer (blue).
Huygens' lens design for minimal aberration (above left) is found in the lens of the trilobite Dalmanitina (right)
both images ©1999, 2000 by S. M. Gon III, modified from Clarkson and Levi-Setti 1975
* I use the term "design" as a lead-in to the parallels between the optic designs of humans and the remarkably evolved morphology of trilobites. Trilobites provide some superb examples of evolution in action (see "loss of eyes" below). Trilobites make it quite clear that evolution of eyes occurs, and that one does not need to evoke "intelligent design" by a creator to explain them. To do so detracts from the idea of an omniscient being. It would have God tinkering with many flawed and suboptimal "designs" and never developing a perfect one. Who would want to worship a god like that? I mention this because this page has been used (without my permission) by people espousing "intelligent design" to the public, and I want it to be clear that I do not share those opinions, nor need that flawed argument to underpin my faith. Evolution is a remarkable and well-documented process, and breakthroughs in our understanding of its intricacies occur every year. Evolution is not in conflict with religious belief. Ignorance and intolerance damage the benefits of faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three types of trilobite eyes
There are three recognized kinds of trilobite eyes: holochroal, schizochroal, and abathochroal. The first two are the major types, with the great majority of trilobites bearing holochroal eyes, and the distinctive schizochroal eye a recognized innovation of the Phacopida. Holochroal eyes are characterized by close packing of biconvex lenses beneath a single corneal layer that covers all of the lenses. These lenses are generally hexagonal in outline and range in number from one to more than 15,000 per eye! Schizochroal eyes on the other hand are made up of a few to more than 700 relatively large, thick lenses, each covered by a separate cornea. Each lens is positioned in a conical or cylindrical mounting and is separated from its neighbors by sclera (cuticular exoskeleton material) that extends deeply, providing an anchor for the corneal membrane, which extends downward into the sclera, where it is called intrascleral membrane.The abathochroal eye is seen in only a few Cambrian trilobites and is somehat similar to the schizochroal eye, but differs in some important respects: the sclera is not thick, and the corneal membrane does not extend downward, but ends at the edge of the lens. The table below illustrates and contrasts the characters of the three eye types.
Holochroal eye
from Clarkson 1975 Schizochroal eye
from Levi-Setti 1993 Abathochroal eye
from Zhang & Clarkson 1990
found in nearly all Orders
few to very many lenses (to >15,000!)
lenses typically small, numerous
one corneal layer covers all lenses
lenses in direct contact with others
no sclera between lenses
corneal membrane covers surface only found in some Phacopida only
typically fewer lenses (to ca 700)
lenses much larger, fewer
each lens bears an individual cornea
lenses separated from each other
sclera between lenses very deep
corneal membrane extends into sclera found in Cambrian Eodiscina only
few lenses (to ca 70)
lens size small, not numerous
each lens bears an individual cornea
lenses separated from each other
interlensar sclera not deeper than lenses
corneal membrane ends at lens margin
cross section reveals:
no sclera between lenses (blue)
single cornea (pink) covers all lenses
corneal membrane on surface only
cross section reveals:
sclera (brown) between lenses very deep
one cornea (pink) per lens (blue)
corneal membrane extends into sclera
cross section reveals:
sclera (brown) not deeper than lenses
one cornea (pink) per lens (blue)
corneal membrane ends at lens edge
Platyantyx
had holochroal eyes
Reedops
had schizochroal eyes
Pagetia
had abathochroal eyes
How did schizochroal eyes evolve?
All early trilobites (Cambrian), had holochroal eyes and it would seem hard to evolve the distinctive phacopid schizochroal eye from this form. The answer is thought to lie in ontogenetic (developmental) processes on an evolutionary time scale. Paedomorphosis is the retention of ancestral juvenile characteristics into adulthood in the descendent. Paedomorphosis can occur three ways: Progenesis (early sexual maturation in an otherwise juvenile body), Neoteny (reduced rate of morphological development), and Post-displacement (delayed growth of certain structures relative to others). The development of schizochroal eyes in phacopid trilobites is a good example of post-displacement paedomorphosis. The eyes of immature holochroal Cambrian trilobites were basically miniature schizochroal eyes. In Phacopida, these were retained, via delayed growth of these immature structures (post-displacement), into the adult form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variation in trilobite eyes
As with other aspects of the trilobite body, there was a huge variation of size and form among trilobite eyes, which in many cases seems related to the ecological life style of different species. The figures below show some of these variations. Many of the earliest trilobite eyes were cresentic, such as those of the Corynexochid Polypleuraspis. A conical section of schizochroal eyes gave species such as Phacops an excellent field of vision. In some trilobites, such as the free-swimming pelagic trilobite Opipeuter, the eyes were so large that they dominated the cephalon, providing a 360 degree visual field. Specialized forms, such as Agnostus, seem to have been entirely blind. Others, such as the Trinucleoid Cryptolithus were bottom feeders with a large, pitted sensory fringe, and eyes were reduced or lost. In species moving through a benthic layer of loose debris or algal growth, eyes raised above the body on stalks could peer about for danger, such as in the strange Russian Asaphoid Neoasaphus (left). Species living on the bottom in deeper waters would have little or no need for eyes at all, and species with reduced eyes, such as Trimerus and secondarily lost eyes, such as Conocoryphe are the result.
Polypleuraspis
cresentic eyes
Phacops
schizochroal eyes
Opipeuterella
large holochroal eyes
Agnostus
primarily eyeless
Cryptolithus
secondarily eyeless
Neoasaphus
stalked eyes
Trimerus
reduced eyes
Conocryphe
secondarily eyeless
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolutionary Loss of Eyes
Although eyes are normally an extremely important survival feature, there are situations under which loss of eyes might occur. For example, trilobites that took advantage of deep-water benthic (bottom-feeding) habitats where light was dim or lacking might have gradually lost their eyes without suffering an adaptive disadvantage. Such eyeless trilobite assemblages are called atheloptic. Such evolutionary trends are repeatedly seen in a variety of trilobite orders, and two examples are shown below. In both cases, these are Devonian trilobites that started with ancestors bearing large, functional eyes. In one sequence, eyes of a Phacopid clade were lost, and facial sutures associated with eyes were also reduced and marginalized. In the other example, involving a Proetid clade, eyes were also reduced and lost, but the basic facial suture pattern was retained. In the figures below (after Fortey & Owens 1999), the eyes are shown in blue and facial sutures in red.
The image to the left is a remarkable multiple of Conocoryphe sulzeri, a secondarily eyeless ptychopariid from the Czech Republic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ancestral Phacops species had large eyes and typical phacopid proparian facial sutures
The proetid Pterocoryphe had large eyes associated with opisthoparian sutures.
Eyes large and typical
Reduction of eyes and a migration forward on the cephalon is seen in the descendant Cryphops.
Greatly reduced eye size marked the genus Pteroparia, descendant of Pterocoryphe.
Eyes reduced in size
Eventually the eyes were lost althogether and the sutures were left along the anterior margin of the cephalon in the genus Trimerocephalus.
Although the eyes are entirely lost in this Pteroparia species, the facial suture patterns are largely unchanged.
Eyes lost entirely
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devonian trilobite with an eyeshade
In September 2003 Fortey and Chatterton reported on a remarkable trilobite: Erbenochile erbeni, a Moroccan acastoid with an extremely well-developed schizochroal eye borne on tall, columnar palpebral lobes, rimmed with an eyeshade. This is another recent documentation of a remarkable development of the optical organs in trilobites.