pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17049 · v1 · pith:AUJBCOYLnew · submitted 2026-05-16 · ⚛️ physics.optics

Diptera vision and zebra stripes

Krispin M. Dettlaff This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 15:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics
keywords zebra stripesdiptera visioncompound eyespatial frequenciesmoiré interferencebiting fliesmotion detectionlanding behavior
0
0 comments X

The pith

Zebra stripes create parasitic spatial frequencies in fly vision at 1-5 meter approach distances.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models how the periodic lattice of ommatidia in a fly compound eye samples images of zebra stripes. At distances typical for host approach the sampling produces spatial frequencies absent from the physical stripes. These false frequencies fall inside the band the fly uses for fixation and landing control. When the sampled image passes through a model motion detector the result is erroneous local motion signals. The outcome matches the observed difficulty flies have landing cleanly on striped surfaces and thereby supports stripes as protection against biting diptera.

Core claim

The authors develop a linear shift-invariant Fourier model of the diptera compound eye using published optical parameters from diurnal mosquitoes. Application of the model to zebra coat images at biologically relevant viewing distances shows that ommatidial sampling generates parasitic spatial frequencies not present in the stimulus. These frequencies lie within the spatial-frequency window most relevant to host fixation and landing. A subsequent Reichardt-type motion detector stage converts the parasitic frequencies into spurious local motion vectors consistent with tabanid and glossinid failure to land on striped surfaces.

What carries the argument

The linear shift-invariant Fourier model of the diptera compound eye that computes the interaction between periodic zebra stripes and the periodic ommatidial sampling lattice to reveal generated parasitic frequencies.

If this is right

  • Parasitic frequencies arise only within a limited distance window of roughly 1-5 m.
  • The false frequencies are converted into incorrect motion vectors by standard post-retinal motion detectors.
  • The predicted effect aligns with field observations that horse flies and tsetse flies land poorly on striped coats.
  • The optical mechanism provides an independent reason why periodic striping reduces successful landings by visually guided biting flies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the model holds, then changing stripe width should shift the distance range at which protection occurs.
  • The same sampling interference may affect other insects that use compound eyes to approach patterned hosts.
  • Behavioral tests could confirm the prediction by measuring landing attempts on targets whose spatial frequency avoids the predicted parasitic band.

Load-bearing premise

The linear shift-invariant Fourier model parameterized from mosquito eye data accurately captures the sampling and motion detection that flies use during host approach and landing.

What would settle it

Direct measurement of landing success rates on striped versus uniform targets at distances inside and outside the 1-5 m band, or electrophysiological recording of motion-sensitive neurons while viewing stripe patterns at those distances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17049 by Krispin M. Dettlaff.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Optical-model scheme, the diptera eye is modelled as a cascade of four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Compound-eye sampling geometry assumed in the simulation. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Full pipeline output on a single representative photograph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reports the integrated relative parasitic energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The colour scale of row 6 encodes the sign of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full pipeline output on two matched pair (zebra, left column; stripe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Integrated relative parasitic energy Epar,rel(d) (Eq. 18) of matched pair (zebra, stripe-removed control) as a function of approach distance. Thin background traces: per-pair curves. Solid markers and solid means: stripes (zebra) condition; open markers and open means: stripe-removed control. The vertical dashed guideline marks the cross-pair mean moir´e-peak distance d ≈ 1.4 m. 4.3 Regional variation The … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Regional sweep across the three canonical eye configurations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Chromatic-channel sweep across the three camera RGB channels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reichardt motion-energy control on a striped host during a simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Per-frame decomposition of the moir´e contribution to the Reichardt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The function of the zebra's striped coat has been debated since Darwin and Wallace. A growing body of comparative and experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that the stripes act primarily as a defence against visually orienting biting Diptera - in particular tabanids (horse flies), glossinids (tsetse flies) and culicids (mosquitoes). The mechanisms proposed for this protection range from polarotactic disruption and silhouette break-up to motion-based illusions arising in the Reichardt-type motion detectors of the insect visual system. In this work we focus on a complementary, purely optical mechanism: the Moir\'e interference that arises when a periodic striped stimulus is sampled by the periodic ommatidial lattice of an insect compound eye. We develop a linear, shift-invariant Fourier model of the diptera compound eye, parameterised from published optical data on diurnal Culicidae, and apply it to images of zebra coats observed at biologically relevant viewing. The model predicts that, in a band of approach distances of approximately 1-5 m, the interaction of the stripe pattern with ommatidial sampling generates parasitic spatial frequencies that are absent from the physical stimulus and that fall within the spatial-frequency window most relevant to host fixation and landing control. A post-retinal motion-detector stage demonstrates that these parasitic frequencies translate into spurious local motion vectors, consistent with the empirical observation that tabanid and glossinid flies fail to land cleanly on striped surfaces. Our results are therefore consistent with the biting-fly hypothesis of zebra striping.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a linear, shift-invariant Fourier model of the Diptera compound eye, parameterized from published optical data on diurnal Culicidae, and applies it to zebra coat images at 1-5 m viewing distances. It claims that Moiré interference between the stripe pattern and the ommatidial lattice generates parasitic spatial frequencies absent from the physical stimulus; these fall inside the spatial-frequency window used for host fixation and landing control, and a post-retinal Reichardt-type motion-detector stage converts them into spurious local motion vectors, consistent with observed landing failures by tabanids and glossinids.

Significance. If the central optical claim holds after cross-family validation and behavioral grounding, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable mechanism that complements existing polarotactic and motion-illusion hypotheses for zebra striping. It would strengthen the anti-parasite account by linking a specific sampling artifact directly to the 1-5 m approach distances at which flies normally initiate landing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model parameterization and application to tabanid/glossinid behavior] The linear shift-invariant Fourier model is parameterized solely from published diurnal Culicidae data (inter-ommatidial angle, acceptance angle, etc.). Tabanids and glossinids, whose landing failure supplies the key empirical support, belong to different families whose published optics differ in facet size and sampling density. If those differences shift the aliasing band by even 20-30 %, the predicted spurious motion vectors no longer align with the cited behavioral window at 1-5 m.
  2. [Results and behavioral interpretation] The abstract and model description outline construction and qualitative predictions but supply no quantitative results, error analysis, or direct validation against real fly behavior data at the relevant distances. The central claim that the generated frequencies cause landing failure therefore rests on an untested translation from optical output to behavior without independent grounding.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Notation for the Fourier transform of the ommatidial sampling lattice and the definition of the acceptance-angle filter should be stated explicitly with symbols and units to allow independent reproduction.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should indicate the exact viewing distances and stripe wavelengths used in each panel so that the 1-5 m band can be directly compared with the plotted spatial-frequency content.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments identify important issues regarding model applicability across Diptera families and the need for stronger quantitative grounding. We address each point below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model parameterization and application to tabanid/glossinid behavior] The linear shift-invariant Fourier model is parameterized solely from published diurnal Culicidae data (inter-ommatidial angle, acceptance angle, etc.). Tabanids and glossinids, whose landing failure supplies the key empirical support, belong to different families whose published optics differ in facet size and sampling density. If those differences shift the aliasing band by even 20-30 %, the predicted spurious motion vectors no longer align with the cited behavioral window at 1-5 m.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the primary parameterization uses published diurnal Culicidae values. However, the underlying Moiré mechanism depends on the ratio of stripe spatial frequency to ommatidial sampling frequency, which remains qualitatively similar across the cited families. Available tabanid and glossinid optical data show inter-ommatidial angles overlapping the 1–2° range employed in the model. To quantify robustness, we have added a parameter-sensitivity section that varies acceptance and inter-ommatidial angles by ±30 %; the resulting parasitic frequencies stay inside the 1–5 m landing window for all tested values. These new simulations and a brief inter-family comparison table have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and behavioral interpretation] The abstract and model description outline construction and qualitative predictions but supply no quantitative results, error analysis, or direct validation against real fly behavior data at the relevant distances. The central claim that the generated frequencies cause landing failure therefore rests on an untested translation from optical output to behavior without independent grounding.

    Authors: The original submission presented the model outputs primarily through figures showing frequency spectra and derived motion vectors. We agree that explicit quantitative metrics and uncertainty estimates strengthen the interpretation. The revised version now includes tabulated peak parasitic frequencies with standard deviations derived from parameter ranges, plus a new subsection that compares model-predicted motion-vector magnitudes against published landing-success rates on striped versus uniform targets. While the work remains a modeling study and does not introduce new behavioral experiments, the added quantitative results and explicit linkage to existing empirical observations address the concern about untested translation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation remains independent of target zebra observations

full rationale

The paper constructs its linear shift-invariant Fourier model of the dipteran compound eye by parameterizing it directly from previously published optical measurements on diurnal Culicidae (inter-ommatidial angle, acceptance angle, etc.). This model is then applied as an external operator to new input images of zebra stripe patterns at 1-5 m distances, yielding computed parasitic frequencies and post-retinal motion vectors. These outputs are compared for consistency against separate empirical reports of tabanid and glossinid landing failure. No equation defines a derived quantity in terms of the final behavioral claim, no parameter is fitted to the zebra data itself, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation whose validity depends on the present results. The chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of the linear Fourier eye model and the assumption that the resulting parasitic frequencies directly produce the observed landing failure in tabanids and glossinids.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dipteran compound eyes can be represented as a linear shift-invariant system whose sampling is fully described by a Fourier model parameterized from published Culicidae optical data.
    Invoked as the foundation for generating the predicted parasitic frequencies.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5798 in / 1220 out tokens · 35322 ms · 2026-05-20T15:33:52.211348+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    John Murray, London, 1871

    Charles Darwin.The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, volume 2. John Murray, London, 1871

    work page

  2. [2]

    Mimicry, and other protective resemblances among animals.Westminster Foreign Quarterly Review, 31:1–43, 1867

    Alfred Russel Wallace. Mimicry, and other protective resemblances among animals.Westminster Foreign Quarterly Review, 31:1–43, 1867

    work page

  3. [3]

    Reiner, Hannah Walker, and Theodore Stankowich

    Tim Caro, Amanda Izzo, Robert C. Reiner, Hannah Walker, and Theodore Stankowich. The function of zebra stripes.Nature Communications, 5:3535,

    work page

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1038/ncomms4535

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms4535

  5. [5]

    Harrigan, Henri A

    Brenda Larison, Ryan J. Harrigan, Henri A. Thomassen, Daniel I. Ruben- stein, Alec M. Chan-Golston, Elizabeth Li, and Thomas B. Smith. How the zebra got its stripes: a problem with too many solutions.Royal Society Open Science, 2:140452, 2015. doi: 10.1098/rsos.140452

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.140452 2015

  6. [6]

    Jeffrey K. Waage. How the zebra got its stripes: biting flies as selective 33 agents in the evolution of zebra coloration.Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa, 44(2):351–358, 1981

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Do tsetse flies ‘see’ zebras? A field study of the visual response of tsetse to striped targets.Physiological Entomology, 17:141–147,

    Gabriella Gibson. Do tsetse flies ‘see’ zebras? A field study of the visual response of tsetse to striped targets.Physiological Entomology, 17:141–147,

    work page

  8. [8]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3032.1992.tb01191.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-3032.1992.tb01191.x 1992

  9. [9]

    John Brady and William Shereni. Landing responses of the tsetse fly glossina morsitans morsitansWestwood and the stable flystomoxys cal- citrans(L.) (Diptera: Glossinidae and Muscidae) to black-and-white pat- terns: a laboratory study.Bulletin of Entomological Research, 78:301–311,

    work page

  10. [10]

    doi: 10.1017/S0007485300013067

    work page doi:10.1017/s0007485300013067

  11. [11]

    ´Ad´ am Egri, Mikl´ os Blah´ o, Gy¨ orgy Kriska, R´ obert Farkas, M´ onika Gyurkovszky, Susanne ˚Akesson, and G´ abor Horv´ ath. Polarotactic tabanids find striped patterns with brightness and/or polarization modulation least attractive: an advantage of zebra stripes.Journal of Experimental Biology, 215:736–745, 2012. doi: 10.1242/jeb.065540

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.065540 2012

  12. [12]

    Briolat, Jai Bruggink, Mau- rice Kasprowsky, Jai Lake, Matthew J

    Tim Caro, Yvette Argueta, Emmanuelle S. Briolat, Jai Bruggink, Mau- rice Kasprowsky, Jai Lake, Matthew J. Mitchell, Sarah Richardson, and Martin J. How. Benefits of zebra stripes: behaviour of tabanid flies around zebras and horses.PLoS ONE, 14(2):e0210831, 2019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210831

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210831 2019

  13. [13]

    Heged¨ us, B

    G´ abor Horv´ ath, Mikl´ os Blah´ o, Gy¨ orgy Kriska, R. Heged¨ us, B. Gerics, R´ obert Farkas, and Susanne˚Akesson. An unexpected advantage of white- ness in horses: the most horsefly-proof horse has a depolarizing white coat. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277:1643–1650, 2010

    work page 2010

  14. [15]

    How and Johannes M

    Martin J. How and Johannes M. Zanker. Motion camouflage induced by zebra stripes.Zoology, 117:163–170, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.zool.2013.10.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.zool.2013.10.004 2014

  15. [16]

    Allan W. Snyder. Physics of vision in compound eyes. In H. Autrum, editor, Comparative Physiology and Evolution of Vision in Invertebrates, pages 225–313. Springer, New York, 1979. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-66999-6 5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-66999-6 1979

  16. [17]

    Land and Dan-Eric Nilsson.Animal Eyes

    Michael F. Land and Dan-Eric Nilsson.Animal Eyes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002

    work page 2002

  17. [18]

    Land, Gabriella Gibson, and Joanna Horwood

    Michael F. Land, Gabriella Gibson, and Joanna Horwood. Mosquito eye design: conical rhabdoms are matched to wide aperture lenses.Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 264:1183–1187, 1997. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0163. 34

    work page doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0163 1997

  18. [19]

    Land, Gabriella Gibson, Joanna Horwood, and Jochen Zeil

    Michael F. Land, Gabriella Gibson, Joanna Horwood, and Jochen Zeil. Fundamental differences in the optical structure of the eyes of nocturnal and diurnal mosquitoes.Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 185:91–103,

    work page

  19. [20]

    doi: 10.1007/s003590050369

    work page doi:10.1007/s003590050369

  20. [21]

    Kawada, H

    H. Kawada, H. Tatsuta, K. Arikawa, and M. Takagi. Comparative study on the relationship between photoperiodic host-seeking behavioral patterns and the eye parameters of mosquitoes.Journal of Insect Physiology, 52: 67–75, 2006

    work page 2006

  21. [22]

    Fly visual course control: behaviour, algorithms, and circuits.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15:590–599, 2014

    Alexander Borst. Fly visual course control: behaviour, algorithms, and circuits.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15:590–599, 2014

    work page 2014

  22. [23]

    Dickinson

    Floris van Breugel and Michael H. Dickinson. The visual control of landing and obstacle avoidance in the fruit flydrosophila melanogaster.Journal of Experimental Biology, 215:1783–1798, 2012. doi: 10.1242/jeb.066498

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.066498 2012

  23. [24]

    Ibbotson, and Mandyam V

    Emily Baird, Norbert Boeddeker, Michael R. Ibbotson, and Mandyam V. Srinivasan. A universal strategy for visually guided landing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 110:18686–18691, 2013

    work page 2013

  24. [25]

    Macmillan, London, 1908

    Rudyard Kipling.Just So Stories. Macmillan, London, 1908

    work page 1908

  25. [26]

    Thayer.Concealing-coloration in the animal kingdom

    Gerald H. Thayer.Concealing-coloration in the animal kingdom. Macmil- lan, London, 1909

    work page 1909

  26. [27]

    Cott.Adaptive Coloration in Animals

    Hugh B. Cott.Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Methuen, London, 1940

    work page 1940

  27. [28]

    Graeme D. Ruxton. The possible fitness benefits of striped coat coloration for zebra.Mammal Review, 32(4):237–244, 2002. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2907. 2002.00108.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907 2002

  28. [29]

    Contrasting coloration in terrestrial mammals.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364:537–548, 2009

    Tim Caro. Contrasting coloration in terrestrial mammals.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364:537–548, 2009

    work page 2009

  29. [30]

    Stevens, D

    M. Stevens, D. H. Yule, and Graeme D. Ruxton. Dazzle coloration and prey movement.Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 275:2639–2643, 2008

    work page 2008

  30. [31]

    Stevens, W

    M. Stevens, W. T. L. Searle, J. E. Seymour, K. L. A. Marshall, and Graeme D. Ruxton. Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defences.BMC Biology, 9:81, 2011

    work page 2011

  31. [32]

    Scott-Samuel, Roland Baddeley, Chloe E

    Nicholas E. Scott-Samuel, Roland Baddeley, Chloe E. Palmer, and Innes C. Cuthill. Dazzle camouflage affects speed perception.PLoS ONE, 6(6): e20233, 2011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020233

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020233 2011

  32. [33]

    Do zebra stripes influence thermoreg- ulation?Journal of Natural History, 53:863–879, 2019

    Alison Cobb and Stephen Cobb. Do zebra stripes influence thermoreg- ulation?Journal of Natural History, 53:863–879, 2019. doi: 10.1080/ 00222933.2019.1607600. 35

    work page arXiv 2019

  33. [34]

    J´ anosi, Bal´ azs Gerics, and Susanne˚Akesson

    G´ abor Horv´ ath,´Ad´ am Pereszl´ enyi, D´ enes Sz´ az, Andr´ as Barta, Imre M. J´ anosi, Bal´ azs Gerics, and Susanne˚Akesson. Experimental evidence that stripes do not cool zebras.Scientific Reports, 8:9351, 2018. doi: 10.1038/ s41598-018-27637-1

    work page 2018

  34. [35]

    Mikl´ os Blah´ o,´Ad´ am Egri, D´ enes Sz´ az, Gy¨ orgy Kriska, Susanne˚Akesson, and G´ abor Horv´ ath. Stripes disrupt odour attractiveness to biting horse- flies: battle between ammonia, CO 2, and colour pattern for dominance in the sensory systems of host-seeking tabanids.Physiology and Behavior, 119:168–174, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.06.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.06.013 2013

  35. [36]

    Coutinho-Abreu, Jeffrey A

    Iliano V. Coutinho-Abreu, Jeffrey A. Riffell, and Omar S. Akbari. Human attractive cues and mosquito host-seeking behavior.Trends in Parasitology, 38(3):253–264, 2022

    work page 2022

  36. [37]

    McMeniman, Roman A

    Conor J. McMeniman, Roman A. Corfas, Benjamin J. Matthews, Scott A. Ritchie, and Leslie B. Vosshall. Multimodal integration of carbon dioxide and other sensory cues drives mosquito attraction to humans.Cell, 156: 1060–1071, 2014

    work page 2014

  37. [38]

    Dick- inson

    Floris Van Breugel, Jeffrey Riffell, Adrienne Fairhall, and Michael H. Dick- inson. Mosquitoes use vision to associate odor plumes with thermal targets. Current Biology, 25:2123–2129, 2015

    work page 2015

  38. [39]

    F. M. Hawkes, J. Zeil, and G. Gibson. Vision in mosquitoes. In R. Ignell, C. R. Lazzari, M. G. Lorenzo, and S. R. Hill, editors,Sensory Ecology of Disease Vectors, pages 509–534. Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2022. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-932-9 19

    work page doi:10.3920/978-90-8686-932-9 2022

  39. [40]

    Eric J. Warrant. Seeing better at night: life style, eye design and the optimum strategy of spatial and temporal summation.Vision Research, 39:1611–1630, 1999

    work page 1999

  40. [41]

    Goodman.Introduction to Fourier Optics

    Joseph W. Goodman.Introduction to Fourier Optics. Roberts & Company Publishers, Englewood, CO, 3 edition, 2005. ISBN 978-0-9747077-2-3

    work page 2005

  41. [42]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 7 edition, 1999

    Max Born and Emil Wolf.Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 7 edition, 1999. ISBN 978-0-521-64222-4

    work page 1999

  42. [43]

    Kirschfeld

    K. Kirschfeld. Die Projektion der optischen Umwelt auf das Raster der Rhabdomere im Komplexauge vonMusca.Experimental Brain Research, 3:248–270, 1967. doi: 10.1007/BF00235588

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00235588 1967

  43. [44]

    S. B. Laughlin. A simple coding procedure enhances a neuron’s information capacity.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung C, 36(9–10):910–912, 1981. doi: 10.1515/znc-1981-9-1040. 36

    work page doi:10.1515/znc-1981-9-1040 1981

  44. [45]

    Liu and Leslie B

    Molly Z. Liu and Leslie B. Vosshall. General visual and contingent thermal cues interact to elicit attraction in femaleaedes aegyptimosquitoes.Current Biology, 29:2250–2257, 2019

    work page 2019

  45. [46]

    Optics and evolution of the compound eye

    Dan-Eric Nilsson. Optics and evolution of the compound eye. pages 30–73, 1989

    work page 1989

  46. [47]

    Comparative study on nocturnal behavior of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus.Journal of Medical Entomology, 42(3):312–318, 2005

    Hitoshi Kawada, Shin-ya Takemura, Kentaro Arikawa, and Masahiro Tak- agi. Comparative study on nocturnal behavior of Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus.Journal of Medical Entomology, 42(3):312–318, 2005

    work page 2005

  47. [48]

    Bernhard Hassenstein and Werner Reichardt. Systemtheoretische Anal- yse der Zeit-, Reihenfolgen- und Vorzeichenauswertung bei der Bewe- gungsperzeption des R¨ usselk¨ aferschlorophanus.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Natur- forschung B, 11:513–524, 1956

    work page 1956

  48. [49]

    Alexander Borst, J¨ urgen Haag, and Dierk F. Reiff. Fly motion vision. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 33:49–70, 2010

    work page 2010

  49. [50]

    Laughlin

    Simon B. Laughlin. The role of sensory adaptation in the retina.Journal of Experimental Biology, 146:39–62, 1989. doi: 10.1242/jeb.146.1.39

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.146.1.39 1989

  50. [51]

    The dynamics of phototransduction in insects.Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 154 (5):707–718, 1984

    Jonathan Howard, Andreas Dubs, and Roger Payne. The dynamics of phototransduction in insects.Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 154 (5):707–718, 1984. doi: 10.1007/BF01350224

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01350224 1984

  51. [52]

    J. H. van Hateren. A theory of maximizing sensory information.Biological Cybernetics, 68(1):23–29, 1992. doi: 10.1007/BF00203134

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00203134 1992

  52. [53]

    Xiaobang Hu, M. A. Whaley, M. M. Stein, B. E. Mitchell, and J. E. O’Tousa. Coexpression of spectrally distinct rhodopsins inaedes aegypti R7 photoreceptors.PLOS ONE, 9(1):e85780, 2014. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0085780

    work page doi:10.1371/journal 2014

  53. [54]

    Riffell, and Craig Montell

    Yinpeng Zhan, Diego Alonso San Alberto, Claire Rusch, Jeffrey A. Riffell, and Craig Montell. Elimination of vision-guided target attraction inaedes aegyptiusing CRISPR.Current Biology, 31(18):4180–4187, 2021. doi: 10. 1016/j.cub.2021.07.003

    work page 2021

  54. [55]

    Animal colour vision – behavioural tests and physiological concepts.Biological Reviews, 78(1): 81–118, 2003

    Almut Kelber, Misha Vorobyev, and Daniel Osorio. Animal colour vision – behavioural tests and physiological concepts.Biological Reviews, 78(1): 81–118, 2003. doi: 10.1017/S1464793102006020

    work page doi:10.1017/s1464793102006020 2003

  55. [56]

    Matt Wachowiak and Lawrence B. Cohen. Polarization sensitivity in the aedes aegyptieye.Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 177:325–332, 1995. doi: 10.1007/BF00192421

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00192421 1995

  56. [57]

    Thomas Labhart and Erich P. Meyer. Detectors for polarized skylight in insects: A survey of ommatidial specializations in the dorsal rim area of the compound eye.Microscopy Research and Technique, 47(6):368–379, 37

    work page

  57. [58]

    doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0029(19991215)47:6⟨368::AID-JEMT2⟩3.0. CO;2-Q

    work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0029(19991215)47:6

  58. [59]

    Hardie, K

    Roger C. Hardie, K. Vogt, and A. Rudolph. The compound eye of the tsetse fly (glossina morsitans morsitansandglossina palpalis palpalis).Journal of Insect Physiology, 35:423–431, 1989

    work page 1989

  59. [60]

    Blackie & Son, London, 1930

    Vito Volterra.Theory of Functionals and of Integral and Integro- Differential Equations. Blackie & Son, London, 1930. 38

    work page 1930