Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Time and again, whenever a population [of Mexican tetra fish] was swept into a cave and survived long enough for natural selection to have its way, the eyes disappeared. "But it's not that everything has been lost in cavefish . . . Many enhancements have also happened." . . . Studies have found that cave-dwelling fish can detect lower levels of amino acids than surface fish can. They also have more tastebuds and a higher density of sensitive cells alongside their bodies that let them sense water pressure and flow. . . .

Killing the processes that support the formation of the eye is quite literally what happens. Just like non-cave-dwelling members of the species, all cavefish embryos start making eyes. But after a few hours, cells in the developing eye start dying, until the entire structure has disappeared. [Developmental biologist Misty] Riddle thinks this apparent inefficiency may be unavoidable. "The early development of the brain and the eye are completely intertwined-they happen together," she says. That means the least disruptive way for eyelessness to evolve may be to start making an eye and then get rid of it. . . .

It's easy to see why cavefish would be at a disadvantage if they were to maintain expensive tissues they aren't using. Since relatively little lives or grows in their caves, the fish are likely surviving on a meager diet of mostly bat feces and organic waste that washes in during the rainy season. Researchers keeping cavefish in labs have discovered that, genetically, the creatures are exquisitely adapted to absorbing and storing nutrients. . . .

Fats can be toxic for tissues, [evolutionary physiologist Nicolas] Rohner explains, so they are stored in fat cells. "But when these cells get too big, they can burst, which is why we often see chronic inflammation in humans and other animals that have stored a lot of fat in their tissues." Yet a 2020 study by Rohner, Krishnan and their colleagues revealed that even very well-fed cavefish had fewer signs of inflammation in their fat tissues than surface fish do. Even in their sparse cave conditions, wild cavefish can sometimes get very fat, says Riddle. This is presumably because, whenever food ends up in the cave, the fish eat as much of it as possible, since there may be nothing else for a long time to come. Intriguingly, Riddle says, their fat is usually bright yellow, because of high levels of carotenoids, the substance in the carrots that your grandmother used to tell you were good for your...eyes.

"The first thing that came to our mind, of course, was that they were accumulating these because they don't have eyes," says Riddle. In this species, such ideas can be tested: Scientists can cross surface fish (with eyes) and cavefish (without eyes) and look at what their offspring are like. When that's done, Riddle says, researchers see no link between eye presence or size and the accumulation of carotenoids. Some eyeless cavefish had fat that was practically white, indicating lower carotenoid levels. Instead, Riddle thinks these carotenoids may be another adaptation to suppress inflammation, which might be important in the wild, as cavefish are likely overeating whenever food arrives.

Which one of the following best explains why the "apparent inefficiency" is "unavoidable"?

Solution

✅ Correct Option: 1

The correct answer is option 1. Riddle explains that the "apparent inefficiency" of starting to make an eye and then destroying it is unavoidable because "the early development of the brain and the eye are completely intertwined -- they happen together." This means that cavefish embryos must begin eye formation just as surface fish do, since halting it earlier would disrupt brain development. Option 1 directly reflects this reasoning: cavefish resemble non-cave-dwelling variants in their early developmental stages, which is precisely why the eye-building process cannot simply be skipped from the outset.

Option 2 is wrong (out of scope). The scarcity and inconsistency of food in caves is discussed elsewhere in the passage in connection with fat storage and nutrient absorption, but it has nothing to do with why embryonic eye development must begin before being halted. This conflates two separate topics.

Option 3 is wrong (keyword trap). The passage does mention sensory enhancements such as additional tastebuds, but these compensatory gains are discussed as separate evolutionary outcomes, not as the reason the developmental inefficiency is unavoidable. The question asks specifically about the embryological constraint Riddle identifies.

Option 4 is wrong (reversed). The passage states that cells in the developing eye "start dying" as a genetically programmed process of natural selection, not that the absence of light in caves directly kills the eye cells. This option misidentifies the cause by attributing it to an environmental trigger rather than to the developmental entanglement of brain and eye formation.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question