cyclops
Part of speech: noun
Morphological type: simple
Topics: biology
hobbies
horology
human-sciences
lifestyle
mysticism
mythology
natural-sciences
philosophy
sciences
zoology
Etymology: Borrowed from Latin cyclōps, from Ancient Greek Κύκλωψ (Kúklōps, “Cyclops ['round eyes']”). The sense for copepods is a semantic loan from translingual Cyclops.
Inflected forms:
form: cyclops
pos: noun
tags: plural
form: cyclopes
pos: noun
tags: plural
form: cyclopses
pos: noun
tags: plural
form: Cyclops
pos: noun
tags: alternative
form: Kyklops
pos: noun
tags: alternative
Senses:
gloss: A one-eyed giant from Greek and Roman mythology.
pos: noun
tags: Greek
Roman
gloss: A one-eyed creature of any species.
pos: noun
examples: Look at just about any vertebrate and you’ll see two eyes looking back at you. Falcons circling overhead have two eyes, just like hammerhead sharks roving through the ocean. Scientists have long puzzled over how the vertebrate eye first evolved. A pair of new studies suggest a strange beginning: Our invertebrate ancestors 560 million years ago were cyclopes, with a single eye at the top of their head, scientists now propose, that only later split in two. Charles Darwin fretted a lot about the exquisite complexity and sophistication of the vertebrate eye as he developed his theory of evolution. “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder,” he confided to his friend, the American botanist Asa Gray, in 1860. Somehow evolution had produced the eye from many parts, such as the lens and retina, through tiny changes through the generations. Darwin couldn’t say for sure what that sequence of changes was. But he was encouraged by the diversity of simpler eyes among invertebrates. Some are mere lumps of pigment that detect light; others are simple cups lacking lenses. “When I think of the fine known gradations,” Darwin wrote to Gray, “my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Yet opponents of evolution continued to cast doubt on the idea that eyes could evolve. Even in the 1990s, creationists claimed that natural selection would need many billions of years to produce an eye — far more time than life has existed on Earth. Dan-E. Nilsson, a neurobiologist at Lund University in Sweden, grew so annoyed by these claims that he estimated how long it would actually take for a patch of light-sensitive cells to evolve into an image-forming eye. […] In 1994 he and Susanne Pelger, a colleague at Lund, concluded that an image-forming eye could evolve in just a few hundred thousand years. […] The model only addressed how the shape of eyes evolved. In actuality, many other changes occurred along the way. New proteins had to emerge that could bend light in the lens, for example, while others absorbed light in the retina. In 1994, scientists didn’t know enough about those microscopic details to develop a hypothesis for how they evolved as well. Three decades later, that’s no longer the case. “There’s lots of molecular data now that we can use that is extremely powerful,” Dr. Nilsson said. He and other vision experts have now joined forces to develop a hypothesis for how vertebrate eyes evolved. […] They and their colleagues unveiled their detailed scenario for the evolution of vertebrate eyes on Monday in the journal Current Biology.
gloss: A person with only one working eye.
pos: noun
tags: derogatory
gloss: Any copepod in the genus Cyclops.
pos: noun
gloss: A small magnifying lens in the crystal of a watch to aid in reading the date.
pos: noun
Derived words: biclops
cyclopamine
cyclopean
Cyclopean
Cyclopean architecture
cyclopess
cyclopia
cyclopic
cyclops girl
cycloptic
Translations: