Talk:Bird vision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Good article

This is a good article. It should be nominated for good article status. --Darx9url (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but a bit premature yet I think jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a bit more time. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture issues

The rod/cone picture doesn't display properly for me in thumb mode (i.e. if I click on it, I can see it fine, but in thumb mode, it's just a question mark...) I'm using Safari, so that may be the issue, but perhaps it needs to be converted somehow? Also, the Cape Petrel picture bumps the references over to the right if one's default pix size is set to 300px (which I always do to test). MeegsC | Talk 18:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why the rod/cone should be a problem, it's in other articles, does it display OK in them (it's fine in FF3)? I don't have any answers if it doesn't, perhaps Shyamal can help? My default is 180px. I would hope that the addition of more text would help with the petrel image. jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Okay, it's even stranger than I thought. If I change the px size to 400px it displays perfectly. (I noticed that that's what it's set at in one of the other articles it's attached to.) But at 300px, it's just a question mark. For me, it displays properly in all the other articles that use it—even those where it's used in an infobox at the top of the page. Weird! MeegsC | Talk 08:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had transient problems like this it usually has to do either with some lag between the wikimedia commons server and the language wikipedias or the browser cache. Best is to try clearing the cache or take a peek with an alternate web-browser. Shyamal (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

Some more subheadings might help. "Comparative anatomy", and "Ultraviolet light", and many other are possibilities for a separate heading. Snowman (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, very much making this up as we go, not like just following the standard format for species articles. jimfbleak (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting topic, and the comparative anatomy is particularly interesting. At the present time, to me, the article seems to contain ambiguities in the basic anatomy and physiology sections. I have edited some parts, and I guess that it is going to be a mammoth task to polish this article. More subheadings might help to simplify some of the long sections. Snowman (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fovea illustrations

The eye diagrams seem to be asymmetrical; could the caption indicate which eye (left or right)? Snowman (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The source has six images derived from five original sources. They are rescaled to same size, and all have nasal side to the right, temporal to the left. The bifoveal pigeon and two raptors are clearly showing the same eye, which I assume to be the left (or mirrored to appear so). The chick, owl, and shearwater I'm not sure, given my limited knowledge of the subject. In particular, the shearwater has maximum density on the nasal side, all others on temporal side. I'm reluctant to label without being sure. jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me from looking at the image of the owls eye the nasal side is on the viewers right hand side and the temporal retina is on the left side. I think that it must be like this so that fovea receives light from the central vision in both the left and right eye. If the owls retina is similar to a human eye it is a right eye. I am not so sure about the birds with two foveas in each retina, and it seems to me odd that the fovea of the Manx Shearwater is on the opposite side to that shown on the other diagrams. Is the optic disc (or blind spot) shown in the original diagrams? Do you have anything on the light microscopy or electron microscopy of the pecten? When you say nasal side, I assume that you referring to the anatomy of the retina; nasal field of view would be the opposite. I think that , the retina diagrams are rather meaningless without being sided. Snowman (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they are right eyes, that's fine with me. It's not necessarily the case that the Shearwater is anomalous. Since it's an adaptation to look close to the bird's bill rather than, as for the others, a more distant focus, the fovea might me differently positioned. the cell density difference is also small; the fovea of the Manx has 21.5 thousand per sq mm, but the horizontal streak has 17 thousand. No other features are shown apart from the cell densities and pecten. I've not even looked for anything else on the pecten yet. The nasal/temporal is anatomical, not field of view. I don't agree that the images are meaningless. They show specialisations for particular ways of life. jimfbleak (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that anatomical drawings should be sided. In the Manx Shearwater, the nasal field (ie seeing the beak) would form an image on the temporal side of the eye. In the diagram this would be on the side where the fovea in not. If the book says that the anatomical nasal side of the eye is is to the right (from the viewers point of view), then they are right eyes. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll change ref jimfbleak (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either "Right eye" should be written on the images or "Right eye" should be in the captions. Snowman (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin

I heard on the radio that the Robin has got a relatively large eye for its body size, which is associated with it being one of the first birds to sing in the dawn chorus. Is this correct? Snowman (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is what correct? It's certainly one of the first birds to sing, but I don't know if either it has a relatively large eye (assume compared to other birds) or whether it's been shown to be the reason. Given the psychopath territorial behaviour of the species, I would expect to be up at dawn anyway. Also, you can sing territorial songs in near darkness without moving around much jimfbleak (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, added this now jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sea birds filter

It seems to me the sea bird droplets function as filters for the reflection of the sky against the water and the blue seawater and also the skylight itself, which will improve the perception of the prey, which is one of the most important functions of the birds vision. There is no reference of the statement done in this article, which makes it hard to check. Viridiflavus (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is supported by references. The content on http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/207/7/1229 Nathan S. Hart (2004) Microspectrophotometry of visual pigments and oil droplets in a marine bird, the wedge-tailed shearwater Puffinus pacificus: topographic variations in photoreceptor spectral characteristics Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 1229-1240 has some ideas on the patterns although they point out here that there is more transparent oil droplets along the central horizontal streak which is suggested to be related to compensating for lower light capture (shearwaters fish in low-light). Shyamal (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Robin picture caption

The European Robin picture caption on this page currently reads: "The European Robin has relatively large eyes, and starts to sing early in the morning." Is that last clause about singing early in the morning really relevant for an article about bird vision? --Mikhailovich (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

birds without relatively large eyes are less able to cope with half-light and do not sing so early jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Better positioned lenses."

The statement that birds & mammals have better positioned lenses compared to reptiles feels as if it needs more explanation, even if it's cited - the article on eye lenses provided no clear explanation for what a "better positioned" lens is, and nothing I've found even remotely hints to this. The statement is so insanely vague that it seems to be nothing more than a meaningless footnote. --174.126.1.133 (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... "better" is usually a problem word. No good sources at the moment, but perhaps this refers to a larger area of acuity on the retina or the muscle system involved in the "Accommodative Apparatus" http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/full/45/3/740 http://people.csail.mit.edu/fredo/ArtAndScienceOfDepiction/Essay/ken.pdf Shyamal (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is essentially to mean birds & mammals have a better resolving power than reptiles have? Or is there more to it than that? That seems to be what is hinted to in the articles, but it still seems vague and as you said, a "problem" word with "better" being thrown in. --174.126.1.133 (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest eyes?

Don't squid have the largest eyes, compared to body size, of all animals? Also, I can see the sun move, I used to watch it as a child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.186.196 (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External link

I'm not sure if the following "cyberbook" would be suitable as an 'External link' (the section needs to be created). This seems to be a good source of info. If deemed appropriate, please add.

  • Dr. Robert G. Cook; editor (2001). Avian Visual Cognition (cyberbook). Tufts University; In cooperation with Comparative Cognition Press. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

(Note:  "All copyrights for the individual chapters are retained by the authors. All other material in this book is copyrighted by the editor, unless noted otherwise.")  —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The copyright notice is irrelevant, since cannot copy any text unless it is PD, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a source. The authors seem to have appropriate academic credentials. The weakness is that the publication does not appear to be peer reviewed. My guess is that it would be acceptable for most articles, but might be challenged at
WP:FAC. that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be accepted, but bound to be more questions asked. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I added it; feel free to remove it, if deemed improper. —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Field of View

I don't think the term "field of view" is used in the context of human or animal vision. I have changed the two occurrences to "visual field" (one in the 2nd figure caption and one referring to Güntürkün). Strasburger (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bird vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acuity

Given that there are several mentionings in the article how bird acuity is often superior to that of humans, it is odd that there is not a single actual value for acuity stated. Someboy please add. Strasburger (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Often superior' seems to be an overstatement. I'm not an expert on the subject, but from what I can tell healthy human vision acuity in daylight can be as good as 0.4 minutes of arc with average people managing about 1.0 minute of arc. G. R. Martin's 'The Sensory Ecology of Birds' has a helpful appendix which gives acuity for 46 species of birds. Of those, 32 are reported as having acuity worse than 1 minute of arc, 10 are in the healthy human range of 0.4 to 1.0 and just four (the Indian Vulture, Griffon Vulture, Egyptian Vulture and Wedge-tailed Eagle) were better than 0.4. These are all large birds in the Accipitridae family. Bird visual acuity is generally very good relative to their overall body size, but absolute size of the eyeball puts some strict limits on resolution, so smaller animals are at an inherent disadvantage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.237.189 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Would be a good addition to the article. Strasburger (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Sight

Left loose with vision just aware. Awake the right to notice a stare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Young3Star (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that means. Delete? Strasburger (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being theropod dinosaurs, the avian eye resembles that of other reptiles

I think this should be reworded or rewritten. I don't think birds are dinosaurs, although they are descended from dinosaurs. Seems like an important distinction to me, any body agree? (see https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/theropoda.html) The oft cited source can be found here: https://www.bio.psy.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/papers/Sensory_physiology_Vision_2000.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oadys (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source to Güntürkün's paper. It might be added in the references. There is nothing in Güntürkün's paper that talks about dinosaurs, ciliary muscles, accommodation, comparison to reptiles etc. The statement in question comes out of thin air it seems. Strasburger (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the source in the internet archive. Yes, out of thin air is an apt phrase! Oadys (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found (and added) a source for the first part of the statement, called the therepod dinosaur hypothesis.Strasburger (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bird_vision&oldid=1199284297"