University of Groningen
Light on the moth-eye corneal nipple array of butterflies
Stavenga, DG; Foletti, S; Palasantzas, G; Arikawa, K
Published in:
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences
DOI:
10.1098/rspb.2005.3369
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2006
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Stavenga, DG., Foletti, S., Palasantzas, G., & Arikawa, K. (2006). Light on the moth-eye corneal nipple
array of butterflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 273(1587),
661-667. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3369
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 07-06-2020
Proc. R. Soc. B (2006) 273, 661–667
doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3369
Published online 6 December 2005
Light on the moth-eye corneal nipple array
of butterflies
D. G. Stavenga1,*, S. Foletti1,2,†, G. Palasantzas2 and K. Arikawa3
1
Department of Neurobiophysics, and 2Department of Applied Physics, Materials Science Centre,
University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
3
Graduate School of Integrated Science, Yokohama City University, Yokohama, Japan
The outer surface of the facet lenses in the compound eyes of moths consists of an array of excessive
cuticular protuberances, termed corneal nipples. We have investigated the moth-eye corneal nipple array of
the facet lenses of 19 diurnal butterfly species by scanning electron microscopy, transmission electron
microscopy and atomic force microscope, as well as by optical modelling. The nipples appeared to be
arranged in domains with almost crystalline, hexagonal packing. The nipple distances were found to vary
only slightly, ranging from about 180 to 240 nm, but the nipple heights varied between 0 (papilionids) and
230 nm (a nymphalid), in good agreement with previous work. The nipples create an interface with a
gradient refractive index between that of air and the facet lens material, because their distance is distinctly
smaller than the wavelength of light. The gradient in the refractive index was deduced from effective
medium theory. By dividing the height of the nipple layer into 100 thin slices, an optical multilayer model
could be applied to calculate the reflectance of the facet lenses as a function of height, polarization and angle
of incidence. The reflectance progressively diminished with increased nipple height. Nipples with a
paraboloid shape and height 250 nm, touching each other at the base, virtually completely reduced the
reflectance for normally incident light. The calculated dependence of the reflectance on polarization and
angle of incidence agreed well with experimental data, underscoring the validity of the modelling. The
corneal nipples presumably mainly function to reduce the eye glare of moths that are inactive during the day,
so to make them less visible for predators. Moths are probably ancestral to the diurnal butterflies, suggesting
that the reduced size of the nipples of most butterfly species indicates a vanishing trait. This effect is extreme
in papilionids, which have virtually absent nipples, in line with their highly developed status. A similar
evolutionary development can be noticed for the tapetum of the ommatidia of lepidopteran eyes. It is most
elaborate in moth-eyes, but strongly reduced in most diurnal butterflies and absent in papilionids.
Keywords: eye reflectance; multilayer theory; refractive index gradient; butterfly evolution
1. INTRODUCTION
Insects have facetted, compound eyes, consisting of
numerous anatomically identical units, the ommatidia.
The eyes are classified according to the optical system that
is used to efficiently focus light onto the light-sensitive
parts of the photoreceptors. In apposition eyes, employed
by butterflies, a facet lens together with its crystalline cone
channels light into a fused rhabdom, a long, cylindrical
structure, which contains the photoreceptors’ visual
pigment molecules. In optical superposition eyes, used
by moths, light reaches the photoreceptive rhabdom via
several facet lenses (Exner 1891, 1989; Nilsson 1989).
Moths thus realize a much higher light sensitivity than
butterflies, allowing a nocturnal instead of diurnal lifestyle
(Warrant et al. 2003).
Well over four decades ago, Bernhard & Miller (1962)
discovered that the outer surface of the facet lenses in
moth-eyes consists of an array of cuticular protuberances
termed corneal nipples (Bernhard & Miller 1962;
Bernhard et al. 1965; Miller 1979). The optical action of
the corneal nipple array is a severe reduction of the
reflectance of the facet lens surface. Accordingly, it
increases the transmittance, and therefore the initial
interpretation of the nipple array was that it helps to
enhance the light sensitivity of the light-craving moths
(Miller 1979). In other words, the corneal nipple array
functions as an impedance matching device that improves
vision. However, although the nipple array considerably
reduces the reflectance of a smooth facet lens surface,
from about 4 to less than 1%, this means only a very minor
transmittance increase, from 96 to more than 99%.
A more adequate consideration hence could be that
moths are inactive in the daytime and therefore are
vulnerable for predation. A moth with large, glittering
eyes will be quite conspicuous, and therefore its visibility is
reduced by the eye reflectance decreasing corneal nipple
arrays (Miller 1979). This latter camouflage hypothesis
seems to be plausible, but direct experimental proof has so
far not been obtained.
Further research demonstrated that corneal nipple
arrays are widespread among insects. In a comparative
survey, Bernhard et al. (1970) inspected the corneal facet
lenses of 361 insect species. They distinguished three
classes of nipple arrays, depending on the height of the
nipples. The corneas of class I have minor protrusions, less
than 50 nm high, class II corneas have low-sized nipples,
* Author for correspondence (D.G.Stavenga@rug.nl).
†
Present address: Department of Condensed Matter Physics,
Weizmann Institute, Rehovot 76100, Israel.
Received 2 September 2005
Accepted 13 October 2005
661
q 2005 The Royal Society
662 D. G. Stavenga and others
Corneal nipple array of butterfly eyes
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(c)
Figure 1. Corneal nipple arrays in the peacock (Inachis io), a
nymphalid butterfly, as revealed by SEM. (a) The complete
eye. (b) The nipple array in one facet lens. (c) Detail, showing
the local arrangement of domains with highly ordered nipple
arrays. The scale bar is in (a) 500, (b) 5 and (c) 2 mm.
with height between 50 and 200 nm, and class III corneas
have full-sized nipples, with amplitude about 250 nm.
Full-sized nipples were only found among the Trichoptera
and Lepidoptera. The distribution over the three classes of
the Trichoptera investigated was 5 : 5 : 5 (15 species in
total). The distribution for the 170 lepidopteran species
other than rhopalocerans (butterflies) was 42 : 26 : 102,
and for the Hesperiidae 7 : 2 : 1, Papilionidae 10 : 0 : 0,
Pieridae 2 : 8 : 1, Lycaenidae 0 : 11 : 2 and Nymphalidae
1 : 9 : 20. The Papilionidae, where the corneal nipples are
virtually non-existent, differed remarkably from the
Nymphalidae, which have large or full-sized nipples. The
latter feature is difficult to reconcile with the functional
interpretations given for the moths, because the members
of both Papilionidae and Nymphalidae are generally only
active at bright light conditions and also advertise
themselves with conspicuous colourations.
The optical properties of moth-eyes have received
considerable biological as well as physical interest (Wilson
& Hutley 1982; Parker et al. 1998). The operation of a
moth-eye surface may be understood most easily in terms
Proc. R. Soc. B (2006)
Figure 2. Corneal nipple arrays in the nymphalid Polygonia
c-aureum (a) and the lycaenid Pseudozizeeria maha (b),
showing differences in nipple height and shape. Bar, 500 nm.
of a surface layer in which the refractive index varies
gradually from unity to that of the bulk material (Wilson &
Hutley 1982). The insight that nipple arrays can strongly
reduce surface reflectance has been widely technically
applied, e.g. in window panes, cell phone displays and
camera lenses (rev. Palasantzas et al. 2005; for further
information and explanatory figures, see, for example
http://www.funktionale-oberflaechen.de/english/a1_ent_f.
html, http://www.ntt-at.com/products_e/motheye/, http://
www.motheye.com/Index.swf ). In fact, some moth
species (e.g. Cephonodes hylas) apply nipple arrays to
reduce the reflectance of their scaleless and transparent
wings (Yoshida et al. 1997).
In the course of our studies of butterfly vision, we have
investigated the corneal nipple arrays of a number of
butterfly species. We present novel data, calculate the
reflectance for a number of nipple geometries using a
simple multilayer modelling approach, and discuss the
relevance of nipple arrays for vision and visibility.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
(a) Experimental animals
Butterflies of the families Papilionidae, Pieridae, Lycaenidae
and Nymphalidae were captured in the Netherlands, Taiwan,
Japan and Uganda. Two nymphalid species (Bicyclus anynana
and Heliconius melpomene) were obtained from a laboratory
culture maintained by Prof. P. Brakefield (Leiden University).
The investigated eyes of dead butterflies were often slightly
deteriorated, but the nipple structures appeared to be
unaffected (see Bernhard et al. 1970).
(b) Electron microscopy
The corneal nipple arrays were studied by standard scanning
electron microscopy (SEM, Philips XL30 ESEM), using
palladium sputtering of heads severed from dead specimens
(figures 1 and 2). For transmission electron microscopy
(TEM), isolated eyes were prefixed overnight at 4 8C in 2%
Corneal nipple array of butterfly eyes
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Figure 3. Corneal nipple arrays in the nymphalids Bicyclus
anynana and Polygonia c-aureum (a,b), the pierid Pieris rapae
(c), the lycaenid Pseudozizeeria maha (d ) and the papilionid
Papilio xuthus (e). Bar, 500 nm.
glutaraldehyde and 2% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 M sodium
cacodylate buffer (CB, pHZ7.4). After being washed with
CB briefly, the tissues were postfixed in 2% osmium tetroxide
in CB for 2 h at room temperature. The tissues were then
dehydrated with a graded series of acetone and embedded in
Epon. Ultrathin sections cut with a diamond knife were
observed with a transmission electron microscope ( JEM
1200EX, JEOL Tokyo Japan) without staining (figure 3).
(c) Atomic force microscopy
An atomic force microscope (AFM, Dimension 3100) was
used in tapping mode, to avoid sample damage, on a few
butterfly species. Sputtered as well as non-sputtered corneas
yielded reliable results, confirming the estimates obtained by
SEM, but only when the nipples were low-or medium-sized.
AFM on full-sized nipple arrays appeared to be problematic,
presumably due to the high aspect ratio of the nipple arrays.
(d) Optical modelling
The reflectances of three types of nipple arrays, with cone,
paraboloid and Gaussian-shaped nipples, were calculated
with a multilayer model. A coordinate system was used with
Proc. R. Soc. B (2006)
D. G. Stavenga and others
663
Z-axis perpendicular to the corneal surface, so that the nipple
array troughs were at zZ0 and the nipple peaks at zZh. The
z-coordinate relative to the peak value, h, is zZz/h, and the
distance r to the nipple axis relative to the distance of two
adjacent nipples, d, is rZr/d. The three nipple types then are
described by zZ1Kr/p (cone), zZ1K(r/p)2 (paraboloid), and z Z expðK4 ln 2ðr =pÞ2 Þ (Gaussian), with the
condition that zR0 for all r; the parameter p determines
the width of the nipple. The nipple lattice is assumed to be
hexagonal (figures 1 and 2), and thus the area taken up by a
nipple equals AnZO3d2/2. The area of the cone and
paraboloid at their base, where zZ0 (or rZp) is pp2, and
this area equals An when the width parameter p equals
p0ZO(O3/2p)Z0.53. Applane
at level z contains a fraction
ffiffiffi
2
2
f ðz ÞZ pr =An Z 2pr = 3 of corneal material, with refractive
index nc, and the remaining fraction, 1Kf(z), then is air,
with refractive index 1. Because the distance of the nipples is
small with respect to the wavelength of light, light propagation is governed by the effective refractive index of the
nipple array, which can be calculated from effective medium
theory (Bruggeman 1935). At height z, the effective
refractive index, ne(z), then is nc Z ½g C ðg 2 C 8nc Þ1=2 1=2 =2,
with g Z ð3f K1Þn2c K3f C 2. We note here that for
ncZ1.52 (Vogt 1974), ne( f ) is well approximated by
ne Z ½ fnqc C ð1Kf Þ1=q , with qZ2/3, and that this function
yields values that only slightly deviate from values given by the
simple weighting formula ne Z fnc C ð1Kf Þ. In the case of
paraboloid nipples, the volume fraction is therefore very
approximately a linear function of z, and consequently the
refractive index profile of the nipple array is then very
approximately a linear function of z. The corneal reflectance
was calculated from the refractive index gradient by first
dividing the transition layer of the nipples, between zZ0 and
h, in 100 layers with thickness h/100, and calculating the
effective refractive index value for each layer. The stack of 100
layers then can be treated as a multilayer system where the
layers have different refractive indices. The reflectance of such
a system can be calculated with a matrix multiplication
procedure for a stack of thin layers (Macleod 1986). The
calculations were performed for five nipple heights: 50, 100,
150, 200 and 250 nm.
3. RESULTS
The set of facet lenses of a butterfly eye, the cornea, is
approximately a hemisphere (figure 1a). The convex outer
surface of the facet lenses of a peacock (Inachis io) consists
of protuberances, the corneal nipples, which locally are
arranged in a highly regular, hexagonal lattice (figure 1b,c).
The nearest-neighbour distance of the nipples, d, is about
210 nm, and their height, h, is ca 200 nm.
The dimensions of the nipples, estimated by SEM,
TEM as well as AFM, appeared to vary among the
butterfly species (figures 2–4; table 1). The five investigated papilionid species, having facet lenses with an
average diameter of 29G3 mm, had very minor nipples,
with height less than or equal to 30 nm. When visible, the
nipples were arranged in an irregular pattern with distance
dZ235G10 nm. The non-papilionid species had clear
nipples arranged regularly in a hexagonal pattern, in
domains with a diameter of roughly 2 mm (about 10 nipple
distances; figure 1). The nipple distance was 200G20 nm
in the (small-sized) lycaenids, with facet lens diameter
19G2 mm (figure 2b, 3d and 4), and 210G10 nm in the
664 D. G. Stavenga and others
Corneal nipple array of butterfly eyes
µm
1.5
1.0
0.5
Figure 4. AFM image of the nipple array in a facet lens of
the lycaenid Pseudozizeeria maha. The nipple distance is
dZ170G10 nm and the height is hZ130G15 nm.
Table 1. Dimensions of the corneal nipple array of butterflies.
(Average values of measurements by SEM, TEM and AFM. D,
facet diameter; d, nipple distance; h, nipple height; n.d., not
determined. Errors: DDZ3 mm, DdZ10 nm, DhZ10 nm.)
Papilionidae
Graphium sarpedon
Papilio memnon
Papilio protenor
Papilio xuthus
Pachliopta aristolochiae
Pieridae
Pieris rapae
Anthocharis cardamines
Lycaenidae
Everes argiades
Pseudozizeeria maha
Narathura japonica
Nymphalidae
Inachis io
Heliconius melpomene
Bicyclus anynana
Mycalesia francisca
Polygonia c-aureum
Polygonia c-album
Euphaedra sp.
Euxanthe wakefieldii
Charaxes fulvescens
D (mm)
d (nm)
h (nm)
28
31
33
25
26
230
n.d.
240
230
235
30
(10
20
20
20
22
24
210
215
210
170
17
21
17
215
180
200
140
120
90
23
27
23
28
29
24
35
28
30
210
205
205
205
200
215
215
220
205
200
180
210
130
190
165
160
230
40
(larger) nymphalids, where the facet lens diameter was
26G3 mm (figure 1, 2a and 3a,b). The nipple height, h,
was in the pierid species 185G20 nm (figure 3c), in the
lycaenids 120G20 nm (figure 2b, 3d and 4), and in the
nymphalids 180G30 nm (figure 1, 2a and 3a,b), except
for one species with hz40 nm (see table 1).
The shape of the nipples appeared to be somewhat
variable and, therefore, we performed reflectance calculations for a few model shapes, a cone, paraboloid and
Gaussian bell, respectively (figure 5), assuming a hexagonal nipple lattice. The height was increased from 50 to
250 nm in steps of 50 nm. Two nipple widths, given by the
parameter p, were taken: pZ0.40 (figure 5) and 0.53; for
the latter value the cone and paraboloid nipples have a
base area equal to that of the lattice unit cell (see §2).
Incident light faces a gradually increasing effective
Proc. R. Soc. B (2006)
refractive index, from neZ1 at zZ1 to neZ1.52 at zZ0
(Vogt 1974). The cone and paraboloid-shaped nipples
have a base area smaller than that of the lattice unit cell
when pZ0.40 (figure 5a), and hence the effective
refractive index value suddenly jumps to 1.52 at zZ0
(figure 5b).
A thin-film multilayer model was used to calculate the
reflectance of the three types of nipple array for normally
incident light. The data of the effective refractive index
profiles for the three nipple shapes, the two widths and the
five heights yielded the reflectance spectra of figure 6.
When the nipples are small, with height 50 nm, the
refractive index gradient is steep, and accordingly the
reflectance approximates the value of 0.043, predicted by
the Fresnel equations for light in air normally incident on a
medium with refractive index 1.52. The reflectance
decreases with increasing nipple height, becoming minimal
when the height is about 250 nm. The height-induced
changes in the reflectance somewhat depend on the
wavelength, especially for the non-touching nipples
(figure 6a,c,e). The strongest reduction in reflectance occurs
for paraboloid nipples with pZ0.53 that is for nipples that
approximately touch each other in the troughs (figure 6d ).
At normal incidence the degree of polarization is
irrelevant. The reflectance, however, depends on the
polarization when the angle of incidence is non-zero.
Figure 7a,b show how the reflectance for 500 nm light
depends on the angle of incidence for different nipple
heights, that is for TE (s-) polarized and TM (p-)
polarized light, respectively. The nipples were taken here
to be touching paraboloids (cf. figure 6d ). Again, for low
nipples the angle dependence of the reflectance approximates that predicted by the Fresnel equations for a smooth
surface. The reflectance for TE waves decreases monotonically with nipple height at all angles of incidence.
A similar reduction occurs for TM waves when the angle
of incidence is smaller than ca 508, but the reflectance for
TM waves hardly changes at angles above 508. Qualitatively very similar angle and polarization dependences of
the reflectance follow from calculations for the other
nipple shapes. No striking differences occurred for
wavelengths within the visible range.
4. DISCUSSION
We investigated the corneal nipple arrays on the facet
lenses of 19 species of butterflies with SEM, TEM and
AFM (table 1). The nipple distance is, generally, about
210 nm. Slightly lower values occur in small facets, with
diameter around 20 mm, and larger distances correlate
with large facets, around 30 mm. The nipples are created
during growth by secretions from regularly spaced
microvilli in the corneagenous cells (Gemne 1971).
Possibly the number of microvilli per ommatidium is
about constant, resulting in a larger separation of the
nipples in the bigger facet lenses.
The nipple height is much more variable. Bernhard
et al. (1970) classified the nipples in classes I–III, with
heights h!50 nm, 50 nm!h!200 nm, and hO200 nm,
respectively. According to that classification, the distribution of the five investigated papilionid species was
5 : 0 : 0, of the two pierids 0 : 1 : 1, of the three lycaenids
0 : 3 : 0 and of the nine nymphalids 1 : 5 : 3. The
corresponding values obtained by Bernhard et al. (1970)
Corneal nipple array of butterfly eyes
(a) 1.0
D. G. Stavenga and others
665
(b) 1.0
cone
relative amplitutude
paraboloid
Gaussian
0.5
0.5
0
0
–0.6
– 0.3
0
0.3
relative distance
0.6
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
refractive index
1.5
Figure 5. Three model nipple types with a cone, paraboloid and Gaussian-bell shape, and the resulting effective refractive index.
(a) The amplitude of the three types of nipples relative to the peak value, z, shown as a function of the distance relative to the
distance of two adjacent nipples, r. The boundary value for the width parameter, p0Z0.53 (see §2), is given by vertical, dotdashed lines. For the nipples shown in (a), pZ0.40. (b) Effective refractive index values at level z for arrays of the three nipples
of (a); note that the relative amplitude, z, is the independent variable here; the refractive index is the dependent variable. When
z!0, the refractive index is that of the facet lens medium, ncZ1.52, and when zO1 the refractive index is 1, that of air. The
refractive index for 0!z!1 follows from effective medium theory (see §2). Paraboloid nipples yield a nearly linear refractive index
gradient. Cone and paraboloid nipple arrays with pZ0.40 yield an effective refractive index jump at zZ0 from 1.29 to 1.52.
Proc. R. Soc. B (2006)
(a)
0.04 cone
(b)
h (nm)
50
100
150
200
250
0.02
0
(c)
0.04 paraboloid
reflectance
are 10 : 0 : 0 (papilionids), 2 : 8 : 1 (pierids), 0 : 11 : 2
(lycaenids), and 1 : 9 : 20 (nymphalids). The distribution
that we obtained for the nymphalids was close to the
boundary of 200 nm, which according to Bernhard et al.
(1970) should not be taken as very sharp. We, therefore,
conclude that our data are in good agreement with those of
the earlier workers.
Using microwave models, Bernhard et al. (1965)
experimentally demonstrated the strong reflectance
reduction by a nipple array with cone-shaped nipples.
The optical properties of moth-eye antireflection surfaces
in the visible wavelength range have been firstly investigated on nipple arrays produced in photoresist by Wilson &
Hutley (1982). The early work has induced many technical
applications, known as ‘moth-eye’ arrays, which are widely
applied for glare reduction as well as transmittance
enhancement (review Palasantzas et al. 2005). Recently,
Yoshida et al. (1997) investigated the effect of the nipple
array discovered on the scaleless wings of a hawkmoth. The
reflectance of the native wing was ca 1.5%, but removing
the nipples by scraping resulted in a distinct reflectance
increase to 4%, showing that the nipple array on the wings
indeed functions as an impedance matching system.
A similar prominent nipple array exists in cicada wings
(SEM, Wagner et al. 1996; AFM, Watson & Watson 2004).
Although several theoretical treatises have been given
for the effect of specific nipple profiles on the reflectance
for light at normal incidence (e.g. Southwell 1991),
quantitative data can be easily obtained by treating the
nipple array as an interface with a gradient effective
refractive index. The reflectance of such a medium can be
straightforwardly calculated with matrix multiplication
procedures for thin-film multilayers. It thus appeared that
the precise shape of the nipples is rather unimportant for
the reduction of the reflectance, that the nipple width plays
a secondary role, and that the height of the nipples is the
crucial factor (figure 6). An extreme reduction to nearly
zero is realized by tall paraboloids, touching each other at
(d )
0.02
0
(e)
0.04 Gaussian
(f)
0.02
0
300 400 500 600 700
wavelength (nm)
300 400 500 600 700
wavelength (nm)
Figure 6. Reflectance of nipple arrays with the three types of
nipples for normally incident light. The spectra were calculated
with a model multilayer, consisting of 100 layers with thickness
h/100, where h is the height of the cone (a,b), paraboloid (c,d ) or
Gaussian-shaped (e, f ) nipples. The height was varied from 50
to 250 nm in steps of 50 nm. The width parameter p was taken
to be 0.40 (a,c,e) or 0.53 (b,d, f ). The reflectance for 50 nm high
nipples approximates the value 0.043, predicted by the Fresnel
equations, at the longer wavelengths. The reflectance is strongly
reduced at nipple heights of ca 250 nm, notably when the
nipples are paraboloids.
666 D. G. Stavenga and others
(a) 0.3
(b)
TE
reflectance
Corneal nipple array of butterfly eyes
TM
0.2
l = 500 nm
0.1
0
0
30
h (nm)
50
100
150
200
250
60
90 0
30
angle of incidence (˚)
60
90
Figure 7. Dependence of the reflectance on polarization and
angle of incidence. The corneal nipples were assumed to be
paraboloids that touch each other at their base ( pZ0.53; see
figure 6d ), and the nipple height was varied from 50 to
250 nm. The light wavelength was 500 nm. (a) The
reflectance of TE (s-) polarized light is strongly reduced
with increasing nipple height. (b) With TM (p-) polarized
light, the strong reflectance reduction only occurs at angles of
incidence below 508.
the base (figure 6d ). This situation is well approximated
by the classical moth cases (Bernhard & Miller 1962;
Bernhard et al. 1965).
A system of regular, radial ridges was reported to exist
in the corneal surface of the tiny moth Leucoptera coffeella
by Meyer-Rochow & Stringer (1993). They also found the
same arrangement of microridges in the strongly curved
facets of ‘other species of tiny flying insects’, with spatial
dimensions similar to those of the nipple arrays of the
larger insects. Parker et al. (1998) provided further data for
extant flies as well as for an Eocene dolichopodid fly. The
latter authors reproduced the ridge structures in photoresist and thus demonstrated a severe reflectance
reduction of light incident over a large range of angles of
incidence, to about 608, especially for TE waves. The
reported results correspond well with the calculations of
figure 7. Many extant dolichopodid flies have facet lenses
with minor nipples, however, and in fact have in the distal
region of the facet lens alternating layers of high and low
refractive index material (Bernard & Miller 1968). The
multilayer structure acts as a spectrally selective reflector,
which possibly functions to improve colour discrimination
(Trujillo-Cenóz 1972; Stavenga 2002a). Extant brachyceran flies have facet lenses with front surface curvature
slightly smaller than the lens diameter (Stavenga et al.
1990). The maximal angle of incidence is then at most
408. The reflectance for light incident at this extreme angle
does not severely deviate from that for normal incidence
(figure 7), causing some doubt about the effect of the
corneal ridges of flies. Furthermore, the corneal facets of
the tiny insects investigated by Meyer-Rochow & Stringer
(1993) and Parker et al. (1998) are remarkably flat in the
centre and, therefore, reflectance reduction will there be
minimal. Nevertheless, in some cases the facets appear to
be very strongly curved at the lens periphery, so that the
ridge structures could serve as an effective impedance
matching device there. This may indeed be an important
factor in mosquitoes, which have about 200 nm high,
hexagonally packed nipples (Brammer 1970) in a virtually
Proc. R. Soc. B (2006)
hemispherical facet surface (Land et al. 1997). All the
same, the resulting light sensitivity increase due to the
corneal corrugations in dipterans will presumably be no
more than a few per cent. This could still be useful, of
course, as several mechanism are known that enhance the
sensitivity of insect eyes by only a small amount, e.g. the
afocal optics of butterfly eyes compared to the conventional focal optics (van Hateren & Nilsson 1987), the
tapetum basal to the butterfly rhabdom (Stavenga,
unpublished work), or the sensitizing pigment in fly eyes
(Stavenga 2004).
Nipple-like structures have been encountered in several
insects that are evolutionary ancestral to moths and
butterflies; for instance, Thysanura (Parker et al. 1998),
Collembola (Bernhard et al. 1970; Barra 1971) and
Trichoptera (Bernhard et al. 1970), and their presence
hence must be considered a potential property of all insect
facet lenses. We temporarily conclude that the most likely
biological function of the nipple arrays is glare reduction,
especially in the scaleless, transparent wings. An additional
consequence of the nipple arrays in insect corneal facet
lenses will be a slight improvement of the transmittance,
which cannot be disadvantageous (Miller 1979). Neither
of both functions seems to be crucial for butterfly eyes,
however, as numerous species have low nipples or even
have completely discarded them, as for example all known
papilionids. This raises again the question of which eye
type is ancestral in the Lepidoptera, and inextricably
linked to this is the question whether the first moths were
diurnal or crepuscular/nocturnal (Warrant et al. 2003).
The most likely evolutionary scenario for the corneal
nipple arrays of butterflies is that the diurnal butterflies
descended from nocturnal moths (Yack & Fullard 2000;
Grimaldi & Engel 2005; Wahlberg et al. 2005). Most
nymphalids, considered to be the least evolved butterflies,
thus have retained the full-grown nipples of the moths, but
the highly developed papilionids have completely lost the
nipple trait.
A similar reasoning can be erected for the lepidopteran
tapetum. Moth-eyes have extremely well developed
tapeta, created by tracheoles that surround the fat
rhabdoms. They form efficient reflectors that enhance
light sensitivity as well as visual acuity (Warrant et al.
2003). Most diurnal butterflies have an intricate tapetal
reflector proximally to each ommatidial rhabdom, which is
formed by tracheoles, as in moths. The function of the
tapetum is that light which travelled through the length of
the rhabdom and reached the proximal end without
having been absorbed is reflected back into the rhabdom,
so having another chance of absorption. The diurnal
butterflies thus feature a unique remnant of the extensive
moth tapetum. The tapetal reflector is fully absent in
papilionids, however, presumably because the gain in
sensitivity is very slight. We recently found that this loss of
tapetum also has occurred in certain pierids. The orange
tip, Anthocharis cardamines, as well as the yellow tip,
Anthocharis scolymus, appear to lack the tracheolar
tapetum (Stavenga & Arikawa, unpublished work).
The hypothesis that butterflies developed from nocturnal moths runs somewhat counter to the view that the
optical superposition eyes of nocturnal moths gradually
developed from the afocal apposition eyes of diurnal
butterflies (Nilsson et al. 1988). It may be too early yet to
decide (Warrant et al. 2003), but we note that recently
Corneal nipple array of butterfly eyes
studied nocturnal bees have not developed optical superposition eyes. The only major modification is a huge
increase of the rhabdom diameter, whereas the apposition
optics is essentially unchanged (Greiner et al. 2004).
As a final remark, we note that the corneal nipples of
butterflies have a favourable consequence for optical
studies on butterfly eyes. Epi-illumination of butterfly
eyes with tracheolar tapeta reveals beautiful eye shines,
which can be studied with large aperture optics when using
an adequate set-up (Stavenga 2002b). Background light
due to the reflecting facet lens surfaces is in many species
appreciably suppressed by the corneal nipple arrays.
We thank H. Bron for technical assistance, B. J. Hoenders and
J. Th. M. de Hosson for discussions, and the editor and two
anonymous referees for valuable criticisms. Financial support
was provided by the EOARD to D.G.S.
REFERENCES
Barra, I. A. 1971 Les photorécepteurs des collemboles, étude
ultrastructurale. I. L’appareil dioptrique. Z. Zellforsch. 117,
322–353. (doi:10.1007/BF00324808)
Bernard, G. D. & Miller, W. H. 1968 Interference filters in the
corneas of Diptera. Invest. Ophthalmol. 7, 416–434.
Bernhard, C. G. & Miller, W. H. 1962 A corneal nipple
pattern in insect compound eyes. Acta Physiol. Scand. 56,
385–386.
Bernhard, C. G., Miller, W. H. & Møller, A. R. 1965 The
insect corneal nipple array. Acta Physiol. Scand. 63(Suppl.
243), 1–25.
Bernhard, C. G., Gemne, G. & Sällström, J. 1970
Comparative ultrastructure of corneal surface topography
in insects with aspects on phylogenesis and function.
Z. Vergl. Physiol. 67, 1–25. (doi:10.1007/BF00298117)
Brammer, J. D. 1970 Ultrastructure of the compound eye of a
mosquito Aedes aegypti L. J. Exp. Zool. 175, 181–196.
(doi:10.1002/jez.1401750207)
Bruggeman, D. A. G. 1935 Berechnung verschiedener
physikalischer Konstanten von heterogenen Substanzen.
I. Dielektrizitätskonstanten und Leitfähigkeiten der
Mischkörper aus isotropen Substanzen. Ann. Phys. 24,
636–679.
Exner, S. 1891 Die Physiologie der facittirten Augen von Krebsen
und Insecten. Leipzig: Deuticke.
Exner, S. 1989 The physiology of the compound eyes of insects and
crustaceans (translated by R. C. Hardie). Berlin: Springer.
Gemne, G. 1971 Ontogenesis of corneal surface ultrastructure in nocturnal Lepidoptera. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 262,
343–363.
Greiner, B., Ribi, W. A. & Warrant, E. J. 2004 Retinal and
optical adaptations for nocturnal vision in the halictid bee
Megalopta genalis. Cell Tissue Res. 316, 377–390. (doi:10.
1007/s00441-004-0883-9)
Grimaldi, D. & Engel, M. S. 2005 Evolution of the insects.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hateren, J. H. & Nilsson, D.-E. 1987 Butterfly optics exceed
the theoretical limits of conventional apposition eyes. Biol.
Cybern. 57, 159–168. (doi:10.1007/BF00364148)
Land, M. F., Gibson, G. & Horwood, J. 1997 Mosquito eye
design: conical rhabdoms are matched to wide aperture
lenses. Proc. R. Soc. B 264, 1183–1187. (doi:10.1098/
rspb.1997.0163)
Macleod, H. A. 1986 Thin-film optical filters. Bristol: Adam
Hilger.
Meyer-Rochow, V. B. & Stringer, I. A. N. 1993 A system of
regular ridges instead of nipples on a compound eye that
has to operate near the diffraction limit. Vision Res. 33,
2645–2647. (doi:10.1016/0042-6989(93)90223-J )
Proc. R. Soc. B (2006)
D. G. Stavenga and others
667
Miller, W. H. 1979 Ocular optical filtering. In Handbook of
sensory physiology vol. VII/6A, (ed. H. Autrum),
pp. 69–143. Berlin: Springer.
Nilsson, D.-E. 1989 Optics and evolution of the compound
eye. In Facets of vision (ed. D. G. Stavenga & R. C. Hardie),
pp. 30–73. Berlin: Springer.
Nilsson, D.-E., Land, M. F. & Howard, J. 1988 Optics of the
butterfly eye. J. Comp. Physiol. A 162, 341–366. (doi:10.
1007/BF00606122)
Palasantzas, G., De Hosson, J. Th. M., Michielsen, K. F. L. &
Stavenga, D. G. 2005 Optical properties and wettability of
nanostructured biomaterials: moth-eyes, lotus leaves and
insect wings. In Handbook of nanostructured biomaterials
and their applications in biotechnology, vol. 1: Biomaterials
(ed. H. S. Nalwa), pp. 273–301. Stevenson Ranch, CA:
American Scientific Publishers.
Parker, A. R., Hegedus, Z. & Watts, R. A. 1998 Solarabsorber antireflector on the eye of an Eocene fly (45 Ma).
Proc. R. Soc. B 265, 811–815. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1998.
0385)
Southwell, W. H. 1991 Pyramid-array surface-relief structures producing antireflection index matching on optical
surfaces. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 8, 549–553.
Stavenga, D. G. 2002a Colour in the eyes of insects. J. Comp.
Physiol. A 188, 337–348. (doi:10.1007/s00359-002-0307-9)
Stavenga, D. G. 2002b Reflections on colourful butterfly eyes.
J. Exp. Biol. 205, 1077–1085.
Stavenga, D. G. 2004 Visual acuity of fly photoreceptors in
natural conditions-dependence on UV sensitizing pigment
and light-controlling pupil. J. Exp. Biol. 207, 1703–1713.
(doi:10.1242/jeb.00949)
Stavenga, D. G., Kruizinga, R. & Leertouwer, H. L. 1990
Dioptrics of the facet lenses of male blowflies Calliphora
and Chrysomia. J. Comp. Physiol. A 166, 365–371. (doi:10.
1007/BF00204809)
Trujillo-Cenóz, O. 1972 The structural organization of the
compound eye in insects. In Handbook of sensory physiology
vol. VII/2, (ed. M. G. F. Fuortes), pp. 5–62. Berlin:
Springer.
Vogt, K. 1974 Optische Untersuchungen an der Cornea der
Mehlmotte Ephestia kühniella. J. Comp. Physiol. 88,
201–216. (doi:10.1007/BF00695407)
Wagner, T., Neinhuis, C. & Barthlott, W. 1996 Wettability
and contaminability of insect wings as a function of their
surface sculptures. Acta Zool. 77, 213–225.
Wahlberg, N. et al. 2005 Synergistic effects of combining
morphological and molecular data in resolving the
phylogeny of butterflies and skippers. Proc. R. Soc. B
272, 1577–1586. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2005.3124)
Warrant, E. J., Kelber, A. & Kristensen, N. P. 2003 Eyes and
vision. In Handbook of zoology, Vol. IV, Part 36, Lepidoptera,
moths and butterflies, Vol. 2: Morphology, physiology and
development (ed. N. P. Kristensen), pp. 325–359. Berlin,
New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Watson, G. S. & Watson, J. A. 2004 Natural nano-structures
on insects—possible functions of ordered arrays characterized by atomic force microscopy. Appl. Surf. Sci. 235,
139–144. (doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2004.05.129)
Wilson, S. J. & Hutley, M. C. 1982 The optical properties of
‘moth eye’ antireflection surfaces. Opt. Acta 29, 993–1009.
Yack, J. E. & Fullard, J. H. 2000 Ultrasonic hearing in
nocturnal butterflies. Nature 403, 265–266. (doi:10.1038/
35002247)
Yoshida, A., Motoyama, M., Kosaku, A. & Miyamoto, K.
1997 Antireflective nanoprotuberance array in the transparent wing of a hawkmoth, Cephonodes hylas. Zool. Sci. 14,
737–741.