Light bathes our planet, splashing off the mountaintops, flooding the deserts, tundra, savanna and forests, and seeping as deep as 1,000 meters into the ocean. Bacteria, plants, animals and all kinds of living things have evolved different ways to detect and respond to light. Despite their familiarity and prevalence, eyes are not essential.

Biologists have known for several decades that some eyeless animals perceive light. Likewise, some animals with eyes—even rather sophisticated eyes—rely on other body parts to see. Exactly how organisms sense light without eyes has, in many cases, remained mysterious. In recent years, with the help of new tools like genome sequencing, scientists have discovered light-sensitive cells and proteins in unexpected places, and have established that creatures once thought to be blind can in fact see. Light-reactive proteins cover the ends of a sea urchin's feet, for example, possibly turning the spiky animal's whole body into a compound eye. Similarly, tiny jellyfish-like hydras can sense light with their stinging tentacles. And although nematodes live in darkness underground, some of their neurons respond to light, helping them wriggle away from danger.

View a slide show of animals that see without eyes.

These new insights are changing how biologists understand the evolution and function of vision. Two important questions are when light-sensitive proteins first evolved and in what ways animals originally used these proteins. Another question is whether complex eyes evolved many times in different groups of animals or if later generations inherited and tinkered with a single primitive eye archetype. Although biologists do not yet have definitive answers to these inquiries, it's already clear that vision and light-detection are older, more diverse and more widespread than researchers previously realized. Here are six striking examples of animals that have surprised researchers with eyeless sight.

SEA URCHINS
Sea urchins respond to light in various ways: they might change color, twitch their spines or move toward or away from light. Scientists have known as much for a long time, but they were never certain how urchins detect light, because no known species has eyes of any kind. Their best guess was that the net of nerves enveloping an urchin's body included some diffuse light-sensitive tissue. The remarkable truth is that sea urchins have a much more organized visual system than anyone expected.

When researchers sequenced the genome of the purple sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), they were surprised to discover a number of genes important for the development of the vertebrate retina—the thin sheet of light-sensitive tissue that lines the back of our eyes. Maria Arnone of the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn in Italy and her colleagues revealed that the ends of an urchin's tubular feet are pockmarked with opsins, the same light-sensitive proteins our own eyes depend on. When certain wavelengths of light hit an opsin protein, it changes shape, triggering a chemical cascade that opens tiny gates in cell walls called ion channels. Depending on the animal, this sequence of molecular events results in a reflexive behavior—like moving toward or away from light—or informs the nervous system about some aspect of vision. A sea urchin's hundreds of feet may act as one giant compound eye, allowing them to see just as well as a horseshoe crab or nautilus, both of which have genuine, if primitive, eyes.

HYDRAS
Hydras, tiny relatives of jellyfish, look like dandelion seeds: they have thin tubular bodies crowned with slender tentacles. They usually cling to weeds, stinging and eating even tinier aquatic invertebrates that swim by, such as water fleas (daphnia). Like sea urchins, hydras also respond to light even though they lack eyes. When scientists sequenced the genome of Hydra magnipapillata, they found plenty of opsin genes.

Recently, scientists confirmed that hydras have opsins in their tentacles, specifically in their stinging cells, known as cnidocytes. David Plachetzki of the University of California, Davis, and his colleagues showed that hydras respond not only to touch and chemicals, but also to changes in the light in their immediate environment. Hydras sting with greater force in dim light than in bright light, perhaps because they have evolved to recognize shadows as signs of prey or predators—the more they fire in the presence of a shadow, the likelier they are to hit their targets.

Hydras belong to one of the oldest groups of animals on the planet, the Cnidarians. Although hydras do not have eyes, other members of their family have simple eyes called ocelli. Box jellyfish have remarkably sophisticated eyes with lenses and retinas. The fact that hydras, which evolved much earlier than most Cnidarians, can detect light with their tentacles suggests that the origins of vision stretch further back in time than anyone realized. Later, jellyfish and other animals may have modified these existing, primitive visual systems to form more complex eyes.

SQUIDS, CUTTLEFISHES AND OCTOPUSES
Octopuses have large eyes and humongous occipital lobes—the parts of the brain that process vision. These wily, squishy marine masters of disguise can match the texture, color and patterns of almost anything in their environment. But they cannot see color—at least not with their eyes. The octopus eye is technically color-blind. So is the eye of the cuttlefish, a related mollusk.

Roger Hanlon of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass., and his colleagues recently discovered that cuttlefishes actively express opsin genes throughout their skin, particularly in their fins and underbellies. And Desmond Ramirez of the University of California, Santa Barbara, has detected opsin genes in octopus skin. Octopus, squid and cuttlefish skin is also peppered with chromatophores—elastic sacks of pigment that expand and retract, allowing the mollusk to change its color. Other cells called iridophores and leucophores make the skin more or less reflective. Hanlon and his colleagues propose that opsins work with chromatophores, iridophores and leucophores in an unknown way to detect and mimic the color of nearby objects.

C. ELEGANS
Caenorhabditis elegans—tiny worm-like nematodes—live in complete darkness in the soil, so scientists assumed they could not perceive or respond to light. When X. Z. Shawn Xu of the University of Michigan and his colleagues shined beams of bright light at the nematodes' heads, however, they stopped inching forward and reversed direction. When the researchers flashed light at the tail or body of a nematode moving in reverse, the creature began wriggling forward instead. By annihilating various neurons in the nematodes' heads with a laser, Xu and his colleagues identified four cells without which C. elegans cannot perceive light. The researchers propose that avoiding light is an adaptation that helps nematodes stay in the soil, out of which they will not survive long (unless scientists keep them alive in the lab).

In later work, Xu and his team showed that the light-sensitive neurons in nematodes do not depend on opsins. Rather, they use LITE-1, a protein that functions as a taste receptor in invertebrates. A separate team of scientists discovered that neurons in fruit fly larvae detect light with a protein highly related to LITE-1. Like nematodes, it's advantageous for fly larvae to remain in the shadows, unexposed to harsh light and predators.

SWALLOWTAIL BUTTERFLIES
Japanese yellow swallowtail butterflies can see with their rear ends. More specifically, they have two light-sensitive neurons called photoreceptors on their abdomens, right next to their genitals. Kentaro Arikawa, now at The Graduate University for Advanced Studies in Japan, discovered that these light detectors are essential for swallowtail butterfly sex and reproduction. When yellow swallowtails mate, they precisely align their genitals while facing away from one another. Usually, the butterflies successfully complete their mating dance about 66 percent of the time. When Arikawa and his colleagues destroyed the photoreceptors on males' abdomens with heat, or covered the eyelets with black mascara, the insects mated successful only 23 to 28 percent of the time.

In a related study, Arikawa and his team ablated or painted the photoreceptors on pregnant females' abdomens and released the butterflies into a cage with a potted lemon tree. The insects successfully laid eggs on leaves 14 percent of the time, much lower than their usual 81 percent success rate. Together the evidence suggests that male swallowtail butterflies rely on light-detection to cozy up to females during mating and that female swallowtails depend on their hindsight to confirm that they have properly extended their ovipositor—the organ with which they attach eggs to leaves.

SCORPIONS
Scorpions instinctively avoid light. During the day, the eight-legged arachnids seek shelter beneath rocks, in underground crevices or in people's boots. At night they emerge to hunt small insects. Scorpions detect light, and may even perceive images, with two main eyes atop their heads as well as up to five pairs of nearby smaller eyes. Recently, scientists investigated whether scorpions can detect light with their skin as well. The answer is a preliminary yes.

Most scorpion species have a dark, waxy exoskeleton that looks like black or amber armor in daylight. If certain wavelengths of ultraviolet light strike a scorpion, however, it glows an eerie neon turquoise because of fluorescent molecules in its cuticle. Biologists have speculated that this fluorescence might help scorpions lure prey or warn predators to stay away; alternatively, the sheen might be an inevitable physical property of scorpion skin that offers no adaptive benefit.

Douglas Gaffin of the University of Oklahoma exposed 40 scorpions from Texas to both green light and UV light. Half the time the animals wore tiny aluminum foil eye patches; the other half their eyes were unobstructed. The scorpions were much less active under green light when their eyes were covered compared with when they were unmasked, but they were similarly active under UV light regardless of whether their eyes were exposed. One interpretation of this pattern is that scorpions change their behavior in response to UV light even when they cannot see with their eyes because their skin detects UV on its own. Another possibility is that scorpions somehow perceive the green light from their armor's turquoise fluorescence. Using its entire body to sense light, rather than its eyes alone, might improve a scorpion's chances of finding shelter during the day.

13 Comments

1. 1. fastfurnishings 06:08 PM 8/20/12

   This reminds me that many creationist say things like "how can something as complex as the human eye come about by chance? Thus, there must have been a divine creator." I always thought that was a funny argument. I wonder if they are still using that argument as support for creationism.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Stanchev in reply to fastfurnishings 10:25 PM 8/20/12

   They are. I agree, Logically it's a terrible argument. Creationist tend to use the general argument that oh, since something is complex, that means it was designed on the faulty basis that complex things can only be designed by intelligence since in our daily lives we see that the complex things we use were designed by humans.
   
   I always love those slide shows and articles about curiosities in certain species. It's amazing what sort of things arise with natural selection.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. IslandGardener 04:54 AM 8/21/12

   What gets me about the examples that 'creationists' choose to 'prove' their belief that all living species appeared out of nowhere in one day is that they are almost all taken from... 'The Origin of Species'!
   (All online now - see http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html.)
   But of course (sadly, like some biologists, who are often ignorant of scientific history) the 'creationists' have usually never read anything Darwin wrote, let alone tried to understand it, let alone read any biological research since.
   Darwin specifically mentions complex structures like eyes as a challenge to his theory in Chapter 6 - but he then plausibly discusses how they might have arisen. And the evidence since has shown he was basically right.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Bill_Crofut 10:13 AM 8/21/12

   This creationist would like to attack the evolutionary problem that is the eye, not by quoting Darwin (which seems to be politically incorrect on this web page) but by quoting a late French zoologist:
   
   We know absolutely nothing about the evolution of the eye of the vertebrate, and embryology is of little help. The problem is to know whether random mutations could have given rise to an organ requiring, because of its complexity, a considerable number of data for its elaboration. The number of mutations must have been enormous for adequate ones to occur at a given point, by chance and to enable the organ to function. We need not belabor the diversity of the transparent parts, on the relationships between the intraocular fluid (aqueous humor) and the venous system...among others. The complexity of the retina, of the sheaths, etc., need not detain us either; all this is extremely well known, but we must say that no recent publication inspired by Darwinism even mentions it.
   
   [Prof. Pierre-P. Grassé. 1977. EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. New York: ACADEMIC PRESS, p. 105]
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. PeterT 06:58 PM 8/21/12

   Bill_Crofut has evidently never heard of Richard Dawkins.
   
   He has published a straight-forward evolution of the vertibrate eye. Yes, humans, eagles, horses, bats, snakes and fish ALL have exactly the same eye architecture. Details vary. Check out wiki "eye."
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Bill_Crofut 01:32 PM 8/22/12

   Bill Crofut has indeed heard of Prof. Richard Dawkins:
   
   "There is nothing original in the objections deployed by [creationist] books, just the old favourites ("The eye is too complicated to have evolved by blind 'chance'", and the rest) that Darwin himself raised - and demolished."
   
   [1985. What was all the fuss about? NATURE Vol. 316, p. 683]
   
   He's also heard of Prof. Pierre-P. Grassé:
   
   We know absolutely nothing about the evolution of the eye of the vertebrate, and embryology is of little help. The problem is to know whether random mutations could have given rise to an organ requiring, because of its complexity, a considerable number of data for its elaboration. The number of mutations must have been enormous for adequate ones to occur at a given point, by chance and to enable the organ to function. We need not belabor the diversity of the transparent parts, on the relationships between the intraocular fluid (aqueous humor) and the venous system...among others. The complexity of the retina, of the sheaths, etc., need not detain us either; all this is extremely well known, but we must say that no recent publication inspired by Darwinism even mentions it.
   
   [1977. EVOLUTION OF LIVING ORGANISMS: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. New York: ACADEMIC PRESS, p. 105]
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. doug_pdq 04:54 PM 8/22/12

   Vision is an amazing thing. The way we think of it is likely much more mental/nervous system than simply what appears to be correctly arranged optics. But we marvel how complex and great the eye is, because what we see impresses our intelligence so much. Might it be that we are not so bright and impressing our senses is actually pretty easy, like the games we play with babies or watching a cat chase a laser dot. Our marvelous vision is quite limited to a narrow slice of the spectrum. Some other animals and maybe plants sense further in either direction than our eyes. Some insects and maybe birds see further into the UV and pit vipers 'see' the IR signature or image of warm prey. Eagles and kin can see as if they were looking through a telescope or binoculars. All eyes are not the same and all are not equal. When we or Darwin or Dawkins are amazed, or not, it may reflect more on our mental stage of development and/or knowledge than on the actual observation. I too love these slide shows showing unusual development and structures that will provide grist for future study. What do these organisms sense with these opsins? How is it integrated into their 'minds'? If we dare call these primitive nervous systems, or lack thereof, minds. What do they see? I find these sorts of questions much more interesting than arguments for or against intelligent design.
   And these are the kinds of questions science is designed to find answers to. It is axiomatic that you can't prove a negative, so why waste the time or effort?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. Bill_Crofut 11:12 AM 8/23/12

   doug_pdq,
   
   You’ll get no argument from me.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. EdgarManhattan 04:21 PM 8/25/12

   I don't understand how this can be so surprising to researchers. Humans detect infrared light with our skin, and there is plenty of evidence that many other animal species do the same. It's no great leap to imagine light-sensitive skin cells which detect wave lengths other than infrared.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. Spin-oza 01:45 PM 8/27/12

    IT's never fails... a "creationist" trolling on Sciam.
    Creationism is beyond bogus in any context of evidence-based rationality... aka scientific inquiry... having no evidence to support such absurdities as "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent design".
    It lies palsied and atrophied in the great shadow of the proverbial mountain of evidence which fully supports the edifice of evolution from many diciplines... genetics being the proverbial icing on the cake that Darwin knew nothing about.
    
    ALL that aside, the evolution of the human eye is absolutely obvious to any but the most "blinded by faith" to the facts. There is just about every anatomical model in extant species... as well as the entire range of evolutionary adaptations in living Mollusks alone. From the basic photoreceptors in Limpets... to the Nautilus's invaginated eye with a liquid cavity and optic nerve... to the Murex with it's refractive lens... to the wonderfully complex eye of cepholopods (e.g. Octopus).
    
    Further, the evolution of the human eye has been nicely worked out by Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson. Interestingly, the anatomy of the human eye is less than "ideal" with it's proverbial "blind spot" due to the exit of the optic nerve throught the retina... and the vasculature above the retinal, photo-sensitive cells. The cepholopod retina does not suffer these "design flaws"... LOL!
    THE final point about creationism/ID is the proponents of such nonsense have been caught red-handed in our courts being dishonest in their means to undermine evolution in the science class.
    But then again, knowing the history of the patchwork, so-called canonical bible... the redactions and interpolations... the authoritarianism of the early church fathers wherby any means justified their ends... sometimes brutal suppression of competing sects... Inqusitions... that these decptive methods continue today should surprise no one.
    NOW... Mr. Creationist... tell us again about how the sequence of events in the bible-creation-myths work... the (Olive) Garden... Adam n' his rib spawin' all Homonids... Noah's lil' boat... ZZZzzz...
    Oh... and if humans are so intelligently designed... why are there like... um... encyclopedic volumes of human medical ailments from congenital anomalies to myriad diseases of every organ system... and up to 30% spontaneous abortive loss during the very basic act of reproduction... not to mention a heap o' ailments primarily due to our upright posture?
    NEXT!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. American Muse 08:27 PM 8/27/12

    Loved Spin-oza's piece!
    
    Plant's perceive light too. It's called phototrophism.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. Spin-oza in reply to American Muse 01:11 PM 8/28/12

    Thanks Muse. It seems our creationist-troll seems to be utterly speechless or... is plying thier sullied wares... St. Elsewhere:-)
    Cheers to all who humbly accept our place in this stunning, inexorably evolving Cosmos, free of the blinders and delusions of stale religious dogma!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. Bill_Crofut 11:37 AM 8/30/12

    Spin-oza (comment 10),
    
    Re: "NOW... Mr. Creationist... tell us again about how the sequence of events in the bible-creation-myths work... the (Olive) Garden... Adam n' his rib spawin' all Homonids... Noah's lil' boat... ZZZzzz.."
    
    Since that narrative will obviously put you to sleep, allow me to try another approach:
    
    Re: "...[T]he evolution of the human eye has been nicely worked out by Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson."
    
    Please check out comment 6.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this