Talk:Eye/Archive 1

Avian eye

I would like a bit on the avian eye (perhaps separate) specifically its ability to detect UV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.32.128.73 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 March 2004 (UTC).

Evolution

"The eye is an organ which has evolved..." Evolved? POV. - SamE 13:47, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you think evolution/science is not NPOV?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.253.29.164 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 26 November 2004 (UTC).

Evolution is a theory... yes, it is widely accepted, but the proper term for it is "theory of evolution"... Popular opinion does not NPOV make.--'Net 05:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is no more a theory than "economics" is a theory. The "theory of evolution" refers to Darwin's theory for how, specifically, evolution occurred. That it occurred is not in question, at least not among educated people. - jessica—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.76.199 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

I'm educated, and I don't see it. You can only 'assume' evolution to be true. Especially the evolution of the eye. This section on the eye purports to 'explain' the evolution of the eye, but just lists a series of assumptions. Ironically, it skips over explaining the evolution of the method of detecting photons in the first place, the very foundation of the eye. All that is touched on is the 'morphological' evolution of the eye from a starting point of an eye-spot. From the article: "...as the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race"..." You can provide all the references you want, but this statement shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of the current Theory of Evolution, it's shocking. Or else it's puposely deceitful. "Arms Race"? This implies that one intelligent designer is attempting to out do another intelligent designer. Either evolution is unguided, or it's not. The idea that the genes of one animal know about the genes of another animal is ludicrous. Why would genes try harder because they got eaten? How do they know they're being eaten? How do they start trying harder? It doesn't matter how good a predator is. The chances of another species developing an advance in their vision capabilities through RANDOM mutation are no better after some other species has had an advancement than it was before. Besides, the whole point of evolution is that it is supposed to work within a species, NOT ACROSS species. ("Descent with modification" Anyone recall this?) Assinine idiocy like this is written in favor of evolution every day by so-called 'educated' people, and the kool-aid drinkers of evolution don't even see it. They just gulp it down. 24.153.223.151 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Jay

Surely, it takes more than a few people who disagree to make something POV. Some people think the moon landing was a fake or that the earth is really flat, or that Elvis is still alive, but saying the earth is spherical and that we went to the moon and giving the date of Elvis' death is not POV. A minority of religious fundamentalists might disagree with evolution, but there is no real controversy among serious scientists or genuinely educated people. Evolution is the foundation of all of modern biology so, no, it is not POV to talk about it as a fact, which is as solid as any other facts on Wikipedia. --Daniel 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Evolution is the foundation of all of modern biology" ?? This is the most moronic statement on here. Entire college level biology textbooks mention evolution not at all, except for maybe a closing chapter. Evolution attempts to explain origins. It's a side-car to biology. In practice, it does little in day to day biology. Take away evolution and biology continues. The truth is that the diagram included in the Evolution section is speculation. Even if every person in the world accepts Evolution to be true, the diagram is still unfounded speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.198.144.175 (talk) 08:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How a complex structure like the eye could have evolved is a difficult question for the theory of evolution, since intermediate forms would presumably have been of little use, and light-sensitive organs are present in a variety of different creatures without any clear evolutionary link

This is nonsense, looks like a creationist trying to make a point -> NPOV violation.reddish 11:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's nonsense at all, I agree with Netcrusher—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmorgan1228 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Yes, absolute nonsense. Intermediate forms are all over the animal kingdom. There are light-sensitive cells up to the eyes of birds of prey which are far superior to our own, and many eyes in between. The evolutionary links have been modeled and demonstrated many times. That's why I'm removing the paragraph. Beetlenaut 09:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

May be making a point, however, for NPOV, equal voice must be given to both... factions, evolutionist and creationist, unless any section about the origins of anything on the entire wiki are to be censored. --'Net 05:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmorgan1228 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

I see no place for creationism on a science-based article. But, if other factions are to be included, you're right all beliefs should be included. Including, for example, those who follow the flying spaghetti monster religion. PJ, Feb 2006.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philjohnston (talk • contribs) 08:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC).

Actually people just need to look at the evidence from both sides and realize that there *is* support scientifically for Creationism. I think it's all in how the evidence is interpereted...hence the benefit of presenting BOTH sides and letting people make up their own minds.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmorgan1228 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

The evolution of the eye, for those who believe in evolution, is hard to imagine. To a layperson without specific knowledge of genetics it looks utterly amazing. Without a lens it would be useless, without the retina too, without the sclera, without the .. . Point is, this is an issue that should be adressed. If so many intermediate forms exist, please name them. Ec5618 09:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why an eye without a lens will be useless? How about pin-hole eyes? Why an eye without a retina will be useless? How about a patch of light-sensitive cells? Please, you are straw-man attacking the Creationist-defined evolution of eyes, which is a direct jump from nothingness into complex eyes. No, it did not happen that way. Go read "The View from Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins, it will address all your question regarding lens, retina, sclera......and intermediate forms. And the evolution of the eye, for me, is completely logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.189.47.158 (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, but not impossible : see falsifiability and also irreducible complexity. Crucial to understanding evolutionary theory is the realisation that all forms are intermediary! PJ, Feb 2006.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philjohnston (talk • contribs) 08:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC).

For a good explanation on the evolution of the eyes, you can checkout at How the Mind Works. Fred Hsu 22:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Please add 'cow eyes'

i was wondering if someone could post a page about cows eyes. i would like to know how they are different from human eyes. i once did a project on cows eyes and i had to disect one once...ewwww!...anyway, it would be helpful if we could see the differences in the parts and other stuff (like position, color, location, etc.) when you compare it to a human's eye. thanks to whoever does this. bye.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libra girl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 May 2004 (UTC).

ipRGCs

Not So Different After All: Mysterious Eye Cells Adapt To Light http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2005-06/05-059.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.184.72.26 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

Argh! Someone should go slap those fuckers upside the head for their incredibly bad choice of name. Rods, cones, ipRGCs. Nice. Really rolls off the tongue. Graft 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Aren't there rules about using profanities? I'm sure it's unneccesary, come-on people!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.71.166 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

Err. If there are, it would be pretty hard to write entries like fuck, or maybe list of sexual positions. As to whether it's "unnecessary", you're entitled to your opinion. It's no less necessary than any other set of words in the English language. Graft 17:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV? This is what is written beneath a image in this article: "The human eye is said to be the window to the soul." Is that really NPOV, wouldnt it be more NPOV to say "Some say the eye is the window to the soul", or something like that, instead of the current "IS said to be..", it sounds to me almost as fact, or atleast as there are many people that say so. It sounds a little bit religious (ie not NPOV). - magnus—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.253.29.164 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 November 2004(UTC). --

Plenty of people say it... and it's not religious; I don't think it refers to "soul" in the *insert religion brand-name here* sense. - jessica the friendly atheist—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.76.199 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC).

Whether it's religious or not, and whether its true or not, and whether souls are real or not, and whether its metaphorical or not, are all completely irrelevant. The only question is this: is it indeed a fact that the human eye **IS SAID TO BE** the window to the soul. If people, in fact, do say this to a substantial degree that it is a common saying, then it is a factual statement. There may be people who disagree with that statement, but for there to be a POV issue here, they would have to disagree with the statement "that people make that statment". Almost no one would say such a thing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DT Strain (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC).

Error

"As we age we gain this ability to adjust the focus. Such a condition is known as presbyopia." This should be lose, not gain, right? It is old people that tend to need reading glasses to correct for this presbyopia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.150.236.108 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 July 2004 (UTC).

I just fixed it. Thank you for pointing out the error. -- PFHLai 14:15, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Eye disambiguation

I really think that there is a lot that can be written in and around the subject of the 'eye'. The page as it stands doesn't seem quite general enough. Perhaps a new entry entitled "Human Eye" could be formed to differentiate the entry from more general discussion of the 'eye'. I'm new to Wikipedia- can anybody comment on how to do this...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Si morgan (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 July 2004 (UTC).

Welcome to Wikipedia, Si morgan. I suggest that you visit Wikipedia:Community Portal to find out how to get involved in building new articles. Happy editing.  :-)

-- PFHLai 14:09, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

P.S. We all sign our messages with "~~~~". The signature, time & date will appear automatically.

Sounds like a good idea. The article really is getting quite long, and it would be quite useful to only cover generic eyes here with more detail in other articles. Luke Stodola 06:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I'm looking for info on insect eyes, but this article is mainly about human eyes. What could also be done is say near the beginning that this article is about human eyes, with a link to another, more general article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.247.75 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC).

---

Now that this page isn't a COTW candidate, I think some expansion along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science would be helpful. The subject headings on that Wikiproject are recommendations only; don't feel pressured to conform exactly to the model. See brain for how the wikiproject works on an anatomy article. Sayeth 14:02, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article shown in a television program.

An older version of this article was shown during a description of Wikipedia on go_open, see Wikipedia:Press_coverage#December. — Jeandré, 2004-12-11t18:22z

That Crusty Stuff

Could anyone add something about that crusty stuff one gets during sleep? Not sure if it's better on this page or the sleep page, but I couldn't find reference to it on either, nor could I find much about it searching the rest of the web; and it seems like it doesn't even have a proper name. Melodia Chaconne 9 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

(Hi- I'm not sure where to put this in the eye section, but I was wondering too, so I checked it out. The crusty stuff around your eyes when you wake up is made of tears mixed with a little sweat and oil =) if anyone could please add that in)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.150.22 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

I'm not sure what name non-British people may assign to this, but the hard, yellow substance sometimes found around the eyes shortly after waking is called "sleep" here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.71.166 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

I've only heard it referred to as 'sleep' as well(Texas).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.239.234 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

I know it as the sand from the Sandman (folklore).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Abbe (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC).

I know this is about a year too late, but the proper name for it is rheum. Kafziel 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Growth of eyes

I have heard that eyes don't change size as you grow. Is this true or an urban legend? Ben Arnold 9 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)

I think it's partially true. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I think that eyes grow, but not as fast as the rest of your body. You know, like how babies have different proportions than adults? Their heads are much bigger, etc. So, I think that a baby's eyes are much bigger proportional to their body, then their body grows to, say, 4 or 5 times the baby's length, and the eyes increase their size by 50%. Sure, they're growing, but it doesn't look like it. If there are any knowlegible people reading this, feel free to prove me wrong. If I am wrong.Twilight Realm 22:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

to correct you- I have been doing a science project concerning vision and have found something that disagrees with your hypothesis. In the book: Photographic Atlas of the Body (produced by Firefly Books Ltd., 2004) it gives a picture of a foetal eye and explains that the eye starts to form during the 3rd week of foetal developement and by the 5th month that the retina lens and other major structures are formed. It goes on to say : 'At birth, the baby's eye is alreasy 2/3 the size of an adults, but growth and development continue until puberty.' So what you have said seems right by reason, but the aforementioned information gives you the scientific answer. -ToPete--68.12.114.47 04:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

New Picture

I have seen much better pictures of an eye, ones that show the detail of the iris, etc. The current one should be replaced.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.247.75 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC).

I agree that one is mediocre.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.86.113.202 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

Any chance of putting up a picture of the famous National Geographic Afghani woman's eyes? Warning large picture. [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.229.7 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC).

Copyright issues on that one, I think. vLaDsINgEr 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Have you ever noticed when you close your eyes that you can see different shapes? what is that ?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.60.177.17 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC).

I've always been under the impression that was just the effect of pressure on the eyeball, and subsequent random neural stimulation. -- Ec5618 22:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The name for that phenomenon is phosphenes. Someone could add that to the article or I might at some point. 68.49.1.207 06:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Somebody deleted my cleanup suggestion; however, this person did not revise the article at all. Many of the sentences in this article are awkwardly worded, and the article as a whole is a little disorganized. I don't see how anyone can disagree with this fact. For example, in the second paragraph, no commas are used when introducing appositives (and they are all nonessential appositives). Indeed, no punctuation other than peroids is used at all. The result is an article that simply looks like a heap of text. As for awkwardness, Let's consider the following: "The eye, including its structure and mechanism, has fascinated scientists and the public in general since ancient times." I would propose a revision like "The eye has fascinated many, since ancient times. Both laymen and scientists have speculated as to its structure and mechanics". "Public in general" is certainly redundant.

I might perform this cleanup myself when I have time.User:128.135.103.205 22:11, 20 October 2005

• I agree. The article is completely disorganized and contains much redundant information that should be farmed out to other sub-articles. I wholeheartedly support reinsertion of the cleanup tag. AED 22:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'm going to have a go at cleaning and copyediting this entire article. Killdevil 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Question recently posted in the main article

An anonymous editor posted this recently. I've removed it from the article and placed it here.

Pointing a fast blinking LED lamp onto a closed eyelid (for comfort and safety) produces a plaid, snowflake, or oriental rug like pattern, the pattern seems to change with speed about 5 to 20 or more flashes per second. Could this be indicting the refresh rate and refresh pattern of the eye. This was first noticed as a child being driven past a woods where the sun filtered through and made a plaid pattern on my closed eyelids. Very puzzeling at the time.

--Idont Havaname 21:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Varieties of eyes

If anyone wants to use the following information I've gathered from various web sources to update the "Varieties of eyes section" or start another article by the same name, be my guest. I'm going to take a break from it! AED 07:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

---

---

There exists in nature a wide variety of eyes, ranging from a small grouping of light-sensitive cells to highly complex structures (in some groups of arthropods, molluscs, and vertebrates) capable of registering clear images. [2].

Image-forming eyes

• Image-forming eyes: There are generally recognized eight different types of eyes within the Animal Kingdom that are capable of forming images [3] [4] [5][6][7]. Image-forming eyes are subdivided into different types: single-chambered eyes, often misleadingly called "simple eyes", and compound eyes [8]. Species: Image-forming eyes are found only among vertebrates (primates, such as humans), mollusks, (cephalopods, such as octopi and squid; bivalves, such as clams), and arthropods [9].

• Single-chambered eyes (also known as single-aperature eyes): Single-chambered eyes have a single optical system and are subdivided into three different types: camera-type eyes, concave mirror eyes, and pinhole eyes.

• Camera-type eyes (also known as single lens camera eyes or lens camera eyes or camera eyes or single-lens eyes or simply lens eyes): Camera-type eyes work similar to cameras in that they have a single internal lens that helps to focus light as an inverted image on the photoreceptor layer. This type of eye is optimized to provide a high resolution, large field of view, focusing ability, color detection and a very large dynamic range to see both in the bright sunshine and in the dark night [10]. Species: Camera-type eyes are found in vertebrates and in two groups of molluscs, octopus and squid [11], as well as a few annelids, some spiders and insect larvae [12]. Jumping spiders have eight of them, each pair with slightly different functions [13]. Fact check: annelids, spiders, and insect larvae may have a single corneal lens.
• Concave mirror eyes: Concave mirror eyes use not a lens but rather the reflection off of a concave survace to focus light. Species: Concave mirror eyes are found in some mollusks (the scallop Pecten), where they allow the eye to see moving objects, and there is a modified form in a few deep-sea crustaceans [14].

• Pinhole eyes or pinhole camera eyes: Pinhole eyes form images without lenses by passing light through narrow aperture [15]. Species: Pinholes eyes are found in the primitive cephalopod Nautilus and the abalone Haliotis [16].

• Compound eyes: Compound eyes are composed of many light-sensitive elements, each having its own refractive system and each forming a portion of an image [17]. Compared with single-aperature eyes, they have poor resolution, but a very large view angle, polarization, or fast movement detection often make up for the lack of resolution [18]. Compound eyes are typically classified as either apposition eyes, that form multiple inverted images, or superposition eyes, that form a single erect image[19]. In the superposition compound eye each rhabdom (light sensitive unit) receives light through many ommatidial facets, while in the apposition compound eye every rhabdom receives light from a single facet[20]. Species: Compound eyes are found in a large number of arthropods, including various species of insects, crustaceans, centipedes, and millipedes [21] as well as a few species of annelids and mollusks [22]. Trilobites, an extinct class of arthropods, also utilized various types of compound eyes. A combination of both types of compound eyes is used in some insects [23]. The various types of compound eyes (apposition and all three superposition types) are present in all crustacean classes except Copepoda [24].

• Apposition eyes: Apposition eyes consist of an array of individual units with a single lens and photoreceptor called ommatidia. Each ommatidium gathers light from a small part of the visual field [25]. This type of eye allows for reasonably high resolution but low sensitivity[26]. There are two types of apposition eyes: the typical apposition eye and the neural superposition eye. Species: Apposition eyes are found in Drosophila, many diurnal insects, shallow-water and terrestrial crabs, lower crustacea, and the Limulus horseshoe crab [27][28] [29].

• Apposition eye (typical)

• Neural superposition eye, or schizochroal eyes: Neural superposition eyes are identical to the typical apposition eye in that each lens forms an image on the rhabdom, but the images are combined in the brain. Species: Neural superposition eyes are found in Strepsiptera and dipteran flies [30].

• Superposition eyes or clear zone eyes: In superposition eyes, the light from multiple facets combines on the surface of the photoreceptor layer to form a single erect image of the object. Compared to apposition eyes, the superposition eye is much more light sensitive [31] [32][33]. In these types of eyes, the dioptric apparatus and the rhabdom layer are separated by an unpigmented clear zone. This permits, in theory, the superposition of light from a number of corneal facets onto a single rhabdom [34]. There are three types of superposition eyes: refracting superposition eyes, reflecting superposition eyes, or parabolic superposition eyes. Many ommatidia contribute to a deep-lying erect image [35]. Species: Superposition eyes are found in nocturnal insects such as neuropteran flies and moths as well as deep-water crustaceans and crabs [36][37][38].

• Refracting superposition eyes: Refracting superposition eyes have lenses which are spherical in shape, causing the light to be bent into fewer convergence points on the retina, creating a much higher quality image[39]. Species: Refracting superposition eyes are found in insects, including the Hummingbird hawkmoth, and euphausid crustaceans (krill) [40][41].

• Reflecting superposition eyes: In reflecting superposition eyes, the lenses are rectangular in shape, so light is not bent through each of them, rather it is reflected creating multiple convergence points on the retina [42]. Species: Reflecting superposition eyes are found only in most long-bodied decapod crustaceans such as crayfish, lobsters, and shrimp [43][44][45].

• Parabolic superposition eyes: In parabolic superposition eyes, the ommatidia are shaped much like lightbulbs, with the larger end facing outward. Light is processed in a similar fashion as with the refracting superposition eye, however, not to such a precise degree [46]. Species: Parabolic superposition eyes are found in swimming crabs and hermit crabs [47][48].

Light detecting eyes (Section still needs work, fact-checked, etc.)

• Light-detecting eyes (also called simple eyes, but not to be confused with the camera eye)

• Ocellus - the 'simple' eye of adult and nymphal insects, typically three in a triangle on the vertex, with one median and two lateral ocelli; the stemma of some holometabolous larvae [49]. Species: see Wiki article; found in a great variety of invertebrate animals, including flatworms, annelid worms (such as the earthworm), mollusks, crustaceans, and insects [50].

Some of the simplest eyes, called ocelli, can be found in animals like snails, who can not actually "see" in the common sense.

• Dorsal ocellus
• Lateral ocellus, also known as a Stemma - the 'simple' eye of many larval insects, sometimes aggregated into a more complex visual organ [51]; a simple eye in some insect larvae. It is also called a lateral ocellus [52] Species: various insect larvae [53]; caterpillars [54]; caterpillar of the moth, Trabala vishnou Lefebur [55].
• Eye spot
• Bolwig's organ - "the larval eye"

---

Focusing

I was wondering if somebody could elaborate how our eyes focus. I believe that the focal length of the lenses change, the eye balls rotate so that images on bothe retinas are more or less same. What I am not sure about if the distance of the lens from the retina also change. Any reference will also help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.89.84.86 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC).

No. The distance from the lens to the retina is constant. Abnormalities in that distance result in the lens focusing beyond or before the plane of the retina, resulting in myopia or hyperopia. Graft 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

naked eye acuity

maybe this point belongs to "visual_acuity" article, but in any case, none of them refers to the average accepted "naked-eye" limits of human beings: what is accepted size of particles as invisible to human eye? (microscope needed to see them)

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.130.20.3 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Summary style

Are there any objections to writing this article in summary style? The eye and its role in visual perception are complex enough that it doesn't make sense to elaborate on every structure's anatomy, histology, cytology, evolution, development, variation from species to species, and function, or all the various types of pathology that can affect the eye. An entire article on ocular development could be created from the section entitled "Evolution of eyes", so I may start there. -AED 06:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

external links

Thoughts on whether the link to the Eyes page at http://kennethomura.tripod.com is appropriate for inclusion? --Lukobe 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot find the link from the websit given it is here:Asian Eyes -- Dark Tichondrias 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This website should be here even though it specifically deals with a specific type of eyes. The specificity of this website adds to the page as a whole by giving an in depth coverage of its topic. It is similar to having a website whose specificity is about tear ducts on Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. It greatly adds to the information provided because it goes into depth in a specific aspect of the human eye which this page cannot go into depth about. Removing it from Wikipedia, would be very detrimental to Wikipedia being a comprehensive provder of free knowledge.Dark Tichondrias 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT! READ THIS!

Isn't there too many images of the eye on this page? I recon we should cut down on some of them as some of them are unnecessary.Comment written by Dark Hummingbird 11:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I Like having lots of images. The more the merrier--E-Bod 20:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The more images, the better! As long the images are relevant to the article itself! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

images ruleZ! --Procrastinating@^talk2me 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is it?

Has anyone ever noticed, especially when you look at the sky, the things that float around and follow the movement of your eyes? Is this something dangerous inside the eyeball?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.97.195 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

I remember going to the optometrist and asking the same question. If you stare at a netural background (a clear blue sky or a perfectly blank wall) then you will see floaters. Hope that helps. --Sam nead 05:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

That's nothing special. I have it sometimes too. It's just particles or dusts near your eye floating.

This is not an internet forum, by the way. (Wikimachine 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC))

Floaters are usually miniscule pieces of protein casting a shadow on certain areas of one's eye. They are usually harmless but if there is a sudden abundance of them they can be a sign of something serious (if this happens see a optometrist as soon as possible).

True or False??

122.167.184.227 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)The Human Eyes is the only organ that does not grow in the the lifespan. The size is the same throughout122.167.184.227 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This should be a simple question but I cannot find the answer anywhere on the internet.

Does the human eye grow during our development. Ie. Is my eye ball size the same at 25 years of age as it was when I was born?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.193.176.115 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC).

This is an interesting question but I am surprised that all these "so called" eye experts have not answered this seemingly simple and straight-forward question?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.193.176.115 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

You need to improve your google skills. The eye does grow during the course of your life - the infant eye is about 75% of the adult eye in size. Graft 08:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What about looking at the sun. Is it dangerous? Feynman was apparently the only person who looked at the first nuclear explosion with naked eyes - he could not find anything in the literature suggesting that was a bad idea. Any comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.40.19 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

Reading Vs. Vision?

I've heard that reading in dim lighting, or reading too closely at a book does not have any relationship with poor eye sight. Is this true or false? And how is it possible that eye sight is worsened by doing so? 70.72.220.218 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Leo

Vestigial eyes

Shouldn't this article discuss vestigial eyes (i.e., ones that are useless in the species) as well? -Silence 20:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been working on a new article for the last few days, that will be a daughter article to this one, on the eye's evolution. I'll move it to articlespace as soon as I've finished reworking a few later aspects and adding more references and info. I'm also badly in need of some images of the various stages of the evolution of eyes, so if anyone has or can make any (especially free-use ones!), I'd greatly appreciate it. -Silence 09:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's up. Evolution of the eye. -Silence 03:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Photos

Why must we have 3 or 4 individual pictures of a human eye, where 2 of them just say "The Human Eye" or something to that effect? Jay Kay 07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We obviously do not have too many photos. We have too many photos clustered near the top of the page. They should be spread out throughout the rest of the page; the majority of the article is completely unillustrated. -Silence 07:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Eventhough they are not clustered now I still think 3 pictures of the human eye is too many 194.83.140.31 09:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of 3-4 human eye photos, I'd really like to see them being racially diverse. Overall, I think this article is missing out on the variations of the eye between races, and how they may have evolved to become what they are. Eyelid shapes are one of the distinct feature between races after all, so I think this article should cover this better in an own section. -- Northgrove 23:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a nice image, which was an illustration on how the human eye "sees" things, before the information reaches the brain. It displayed the mirroring, noise, different densitites, etc etc... I believe it would be good to put it in here. It did have one mistake that should be fixed - the fovea doesn't contain cells that detect color.

Here it is: http://www.eyeforum.info/index.php?topic=4.msg4#msg4

In case there are problems with that image, I'm trying to figure out how to make a program that would do it for me, procedurally... Then, I could release one with a nice license. Or someone could go ask the author - I won't do it myself, because I don't know if the image would be OK for the page.

--Darkuranium (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"People famous for their eyes"

I removed this list from the article (Ec5618):

• David Bowie (his eyes each have a different eye color)
• Cartoon characters (several of them, most notably in the cartoons of Tex Avery, have eyes who can pop out of their sockets when they're afraid or surprised)
• The cyclops, giants from Greek Mythology who had only one eye. In the story of Oddyseus Oddyseus gauges the eyes out of one of these giants.
• Bette Davis (made famous in Kim Carnes' song "Bette Davis Eyes" from 1981)
• Moshe Dayan (had only one eye)
• Marty Feldman
• God (According to the Bible He sees everything.)
• Hypnosers
• Leela in Futurama
• The Little Watchbird, character to prevent children from doing things behind other peoples back.
• Oedipus (gauged his eyes out when he discovered he married his mother)
• Samson or Simpson, biblical character whose eyes are gauged out by soldiers.
• Jean-Paul Sartre (was cross-eyed
• Voyeurs
• The Wolf in Little Red Riding Hood (his eyes are mentioned in the fairy tale)

We may be able to write a relevant list of people famous for their eyes, but 'cartoon characters', 'God', 'Hypnosers' and 'Wolf' are hardly prime examples of people. And if anything, Moshe Dayan didn't 'have one eye', he lost an eye. -- Ec5618 12:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Forced blurring

I can make my eyesight blurry at my own discretion. Does anyone have any idea of why I can do it, or what causes it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.3.210 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 August 2006(UTC).

You are using your accomodation (focussing ability caused by the lens changing shape) to focus back and forth. It happens automatically, but we can control it. If you are making a distant object go blurred, you have instructed your eyes to focus on a near object, and the opposite if you are making a near object blurred.

Enjoy it while it lasts - you will gradually lose the ability to do this from around 40yrs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.5.6.97 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

FPS

Huh... I do not really know how to form the question, so let me describe what I'm looking for. How many frames per second does the eye/brain process? I'm sure most of you have come across a movie/video clip with images changing very, very quickly. My question would be, how fast would they have to be changing in order for the brain not to be able to comprehend and process them correctly (so it would start to 'drop frames', so to speak)? Years ago I have come across a figure of 62 to 64 FPS, but I guess it varies with age and the general health of the eyes. Although, I guess it'd be difficult to measure, because we don't have direct access to the brain, so I'm thinking perhaps the person controlled would later on have to be asked to describe all the images he'd seen, or at least briefly name them before the information gets lost (as it's probably stored in short term memory). It's just morbid curiosity on my part, any input is welcome, if anybody'd have any ideas. Thanks in advance. --Ouro 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would check out Persistence of vision and Flicker fusion threshold to see if you can find the answer there. -AED 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Informative and enlightening, thank you very much! --Ouro 08:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Smooth Pursuit Movement

OK, Wikipedia, lets talk.

You just spat out this at me: "Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Eye, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Please don't try to distort facts. Wikipedian patrollers can distinguish between the two.(Wikimachine 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC))"

This was apparently because I tried to (I think) correct thie Smooth Pursuit Section of the eye article. It currently says that when moving in the opposite direction of a moving plane, it would appear to be moving very slowly or standing still. Call me crazy, but I would think that would be the case when you're moving in the same direction as the moving plane.

If this is a common misperception (and edit), perhaps that needs to be addressed in the article, rather than rapping the knuckles of would-be good samaritans as a knee-jerk reaction. -- C. Hopkins, --63.64.174.130 02:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. It must have been another user long before you, then. It was just my effort to counter vandalisms that tweak words here and there & in result distort facts. You could have protested on my talk page. Sorry again. (Wikimachine 03:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Photoreceptor cells do not generate action potentials

"The opsin in both opens ion channels on the cell membrane which leads to the generation of an action potential (an impulse which will eventually get to the visual cortex in the brain)."

- Well, what is written is not wrong, because in the end, action potentials are generated, but by the ganglion cells. But not by the photoreceptors iirc. They respond to light with gradual hyperpolarisation, at least thats what I learned. Maybe it would help to state this more clearly, with the current text some people might assume that the action potentials are generated in the photoreceptor.

Cheers, 192.124.26.250 12:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Thomas

Drawing needs work

The fancy SVG of the eye with hyperlinks in it has a couple of problems. Vitreous Humour is misspelled. And the text is rendered very tiny for some reason (the SVG itself seems to have bigger text). Can someone who understands this stuff please work on it? Dicklyon 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Black under eyes?

I've tried googling but can't find what I'm after, trying to find the wiki page for it if it exists. What is it called when you wake up without enough sleep for instance, and under your eyes it is all black? Cheers. Rothery 23:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Eyes Circles/Dark Circles --70.55.37.90 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Eye Color?

Is there any science fact or speculation about why eyes are different colors? Are blue eyes better at seeing features in fog and/or ice and snow? Are brown eyes better at blocking UV rays in sunnier regions?Landroo 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Acuity

This part is full of math errors:

- 1 degree at 1meter is 17.45mm, not 8.7mm.

- If human acuity is 12CPD, then it translates to 17.45mm / 12 ~= 1.5mm at 1 meter, or resolving of 1.5mm/2 = 0.75mm features.

- If a horse acuity is 17CPD, it translates to 17.45 / 17 ~= 1mm at 1 meter, or resolving of 0.5mm features.

57.74.168.33 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Human Eye

I would like to have a link to my website on the human eye added to your list of External Links on this page, if you feel that my site is applicable. My site is titled "Anatomy, Physiology & Pathology of the Human Eye" and this is the address:

http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye

Thanks. Ted Montgomery, Optometric Physician tmont714 Tmont714 22:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ted, thanks for bringing it up here instead of just adding it. Looks interesting. The top part doesn't display right in my Firefox on Mac. Dicklyon 22:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I will have to check out why my eyesite page at http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye does not appear correctly on the Firefox browser...was not aware of that. Tmont714 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ted, where do the pseudo-isochromatic charts on your site come from? References would be helpful. Dicklyon 01:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Dick, a reference to Dr. Ishihara, designer of the pseudoisochromatic plates at my eye site, now is present near the top of that page. Tmont714 07:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's completely useless. It's nice to know who designed the tests, but I bet in 1960 he didn't decide what sRGB values you should use to convey them digitally. What I'm wondering is whether there's a source for your digital test charts, whether they've been validated on a calibrated sRGB display, etc. In particular, whether you created them yourself or copied them, where and how. Dicklyon 15:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

posterior compartment vs. posterior chamber

The 5th image down on the Eye (or Human Eye) page, in the "Anatomy of the mammalian eye" section, has 30 numbers around it pointing to parts of the eye. Below that image, each number is defined.

Item #1 reads "posterior chamber" but this is incorrect. It should read "posterior compartment"; it is the portion of the interior of the eye located behind the lens.

The "anterior compartment" is located in front of the lens and the zonules attached to it; it is divided into the "posterior chamber" (between the lens/zonules and the iris) and the "anterior chamber" (between the iris and the cornea). Item #6 is correct; it is pointing to the anterior chamber.

Firefox browser

Dicklyon, thanks for notifying me that the eye homepage (http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye) at my website did not look right when using the Firefox browser. It took awhile, but I finally was able to juggle things around until the title now appears as it should with Firefox (at least, it does with the version of Firefox that I downloaded today). I would have been unaware of this without your comment.  :-) Tmont714 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool Eye Facts

I've deleted most of the trivia section. The reasoning behind each particular point I removed is stated below.

• Are the most complex organs a human possesses except for the brain.

  Complex how? Kidneys are very complex. This is a completely subjective determination

• Are composed of more than two million working parts.

  Meaning cells? That strikes me as low and is only a function of volume anyway

• Can process 36,000 bits of information every hour.

  This comes out to 10 bits/s, which strikes me as ridiculously low.

• Contribute towards 85% of your total knowledge.

  How would one measure this? I am not aware of any way to quantify knowledge. If someone has a reliable citation for this, I'm happy to see it.

• Utilize 65% of all the pathways to the brain.

  Clearly not true. Think about the relative size of the optic-nerve and spinal cord.

• Can instantaneously set in motion hundreds of muscles and organs in your body.

  Vague

• In a normal life-span, will bring you almost 24 million images of the world around you.

  Assuming a lifespan of 72 years, this comes out to 38 images a minute, which seems too low.

• The external muscles that move the eyes are the strongest muscles in the human body for the job that they have to do. They are 100 times more powerful than they need to be.

  Also a rediculus claim. They need to be strong enough to move the eyes as rapidly as they are moved as frequently, as they are moved, without fatiguing. They are exactly as strong as they need to be.

• The eye is the only part of the human body that can function at 100% ability at any moment.

  This doesn't mean anything. Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but what does it mean to "function at 100% ability at any moment"?

--Selket ^Talk 00:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. IceDragon64 20:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

cataract surgery

what is so beneficial about cataract surgery

In Culture

Shouldn't there be a section of the article (or, if necessary, an entirely new article) dedicated to eyes in folklore and culture? Eyes are widely used in mythology, for example: the medusa's petrifying gaze, the cyclops' monocular vision, the gaze-or, alternately, breath-of the cockatrice and basilisk, Argus Panoptes-the hundred eyed servant of Hera, legends of the "evil eye", Odin- the one eyed Norse "overgod", a vampires ability to control people by looking into their eyes, just to name a few.

Eyes are also featured prominently in many proverbs and sayings, for example: "if looks could kill..." or receiving "a look that could crack stone", giving someone the "stinkeye" or "evil eye", having food left on your plate when "your eyes are bigger than your stomach", "the eyes are windows into the soul", giving someone "puppy dog eyes" or "bambi eyes" to get what you want, to "catch someones eye", to "turn a dry eye", or to "undress someone with your eyes". The list goes on and on. In addition, the afore-mentioned examples are all in the english language; there are no doubt hundreds, if not thousands, of expressions in other languages that make use of the eyes.

Appeal for new articles

Can anyone who knows about eye anatomy write stub articles on the central retinal vein and the bulbar sheath? This is to fill in the redlinks at Template:POTD/2007-07-12. At the moment, retinal vein redirects to superior ophthalmic vein, but I think this is wrong. The superior ophthalmic vein, as far as I can make out, is the equivalent of the opthalmic artery, though there is also the inferior ophthalmic vein. I suspect retinal vein should redirect to central retinal vein, which would be the equivalent of the central retinal artery. But some expert help would be greatly appreciated here. Bulbar sheath might be easier or harder, as it appears to 'merely' be the connective tissue sheath around the eye - should be enough for a stub. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Eyes in Culture

I am going to add how people see eyes as a symbol of a particular culture. For example, in mating or lookism or love - people tend to find eyes as beautiful or facinating. Particularly, the males, like females to have eyes that shimmer - a form of physical attrativness. If you have a problem go to my talk page. LOTRrules 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; just be sure to cite your sources. Dicklyon 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look for some refernces and sources, it may take a while - but just to let you know I will find them - I've read them somewhere... LOTRrules 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eyes only evolved once?

Right now, the article says "all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye evolved some 540 million years ago".

I don't have access to any of the papers that claim that modern eyes only evolved once, but I do have something that John Maynard Smith wrote a few years prior in response to a Stephen Jay Gould book:

"In Gould's 'replay from the Cambrian' experiment, I would predict that many animals would evolve eyes, because eyes have in fact evolved many times, in many kinds of animal." -- From "Taking a Chance on Evolution", New York Review of Books, May 14 1992, pages 234-236

The article at present makes no mention of that eyes may have evolved numerous times in now-extinct lineages. Which is a pretty major, encyclopedia-worthy fact if true. So my question is, did the later study determine that Maynard Smith's claim was WRONG? Bueller 007 14:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the apparently different claims are just based on nuance. A "proto-eye" means the basic genetic machinery underlying the visual system (e.g. opsins) is common to all eyes. But the complex physical eyes themselves evolved independently - only the most rudimentary parts of the eye are shared. Evolution of the eye goes into more detail and gives more references. Graft | talk 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How much colours eye can recognise?

I read (1972) that about 7,000,000 colours. Maybe something changed? ${\sqrt[{3}]{7000000}}\approx 191$. So human dynamic range is about 1:191. For comparison, display has 256 brightnes levels.

And did you read that those 7,000,000 colours are arranged in a Euclidean cube, too? Dicklyon 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

He means we see in three color channels, so the dynamic range for each protein is 191 colors. Not necessarily true, of course, since proteins don't operate by bits. I'd imagine the dynamic range for reds and greens is an order of magnitude higher than for blues (but I'm just guessing). Graft | talk 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Each Group of animals

Although it is fair enough that the human eye dominates the article, as it does in most Wiki articles on body parts, I hope it can be expanded to cover consistantly all the major groups of animals- or a breakoff to a seperate page for each. In particular I would like to see reptiles in here. Also, in the part which refers to the different frequencies viewable by other animals, I would like to see more examples of different animals which see in other frequencies- e.g. I heard somewhere that goldfish see in the widest range of frequencies- some indication of why these frequencies have developed would be good. IceDragon64 21:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Frame Rate

I accessed this article to find out what the visible "frame rate" of the human eye was but found no mention of this, nor did the frame rate article mention this important fact. I did a search and found the following quote, but it didn't come from a good enough source to be considered usable, but having this in both articles would improve the quality of both articles.

"The human eye operates at about 60Hz (about 24 fps) while a bird's eyes rate is above 100Hz." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Toth (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Equivalent resolution

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html this one looks like a really good article about the human eye, and the guy seems legit, unfortunately I'm too lazy like to edit anything myself, but maybe you'll find this information useful. PS. I think there should be a separate article for "The Human eye" 200.88.230.243 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That page has been discussed before, most of the info there is wrong (check the sources cited in the wiki article, which clearly contradict what is said in that page). nehalem (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The maths in the equivalent resolution is incorrect - the spatial resolution decreases dramatically even outside the central 1 degree. 203.173.226.175 (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Eye Dr

Strange dots in my field of vision

When my pression drop i begin to see floating dots of random colors, sometimes they concentrate to the point to obstruct my vision, whats the name of that? 189.28.199.207 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to read the article Floater, though colored ones are not mentioned there. Hordaland (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lunaretinia

The section Lunaretinia was added today/yesterday (depending on time zone). Google has never heard of the word. Tho it's been marked for ref needed, it probably should be deleted quite soon, if no ref is added.

It replaces the Cuisine section which had been marked for ref needed for a half a year. The info there was likely correct (?), but it sure needed/needs a ref. --Hordaland (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

== Minor vand

citation needed -- I don't think so....

Equivalent resolution

A maximum resolution of the human eye in good light of 1.6 minute of arc per line pair will correspond to 1.25 lines per minute of arc. Assuming two pixels per line pair (one pixel per line) and a square field of 120 degrees, this would be equivalent to approximately 120×60×1.25 = 9000 pixels in each of the X and Y dimensions, or about 81 megapixels.[citation needed]

==========================

This is obvious from the statement made; do the math. There is no claim being made here of the resolution of the, in fact. Some stipulations of assumptions are made which given simple geometry and math yield the given result. There were citations for the sources of the assumptions.

You may not accept the figures given (I don't have a 120 degree visual field). Provide your own assumption. Then... Do the Math.

The fact that anyone can provide figures and do the math is the problem, not the solution. If we're going to discuss this, it should be based on sourced numbers and a sourced analysis. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an estimate of the size that would have an image of the whole visual scene, not a resolution of the eye as a camera. The resolution of the eye could never be higher than the total number of ganglion cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.154.152 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

explain how light passes through the eye

i would like to know how light passes through the eye includig the following words in the explanation of how light passes through the eye and they are; retina, fovea,les,and choroid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.53.81 (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not understanding your question(s) too well. Light doesn't pass clear through the eye, of course, but it passes through the front parts of the eye. You ask specifically about the retina, fovea and choroid, all of which are explained quite nicely in the present article and each of which also has its own article. What are you actually asking about? --Hordaland (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

section: Spectral response

Somebody competent please take a look. I don't know what's true or not, but addressing the info to "you" isn't good. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed most of it, and added a ref for the relevant bit. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image placement

I added the image of my eye in the overview section. I'm quite happy with the clarity/quality of the image, would it be worth moving further up the page to where the cataract picture is? Or maybe the diagram, but maybe not, as an eye is the entire eye, this picture just shows the retina and white area along with eyelashes, lids, etc. If it could be made bigger or moved to be more useful somewhere, that'd be great. Let me know what you think, feel free to do whatever you want with it. Thanks! Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 06:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Largest eye vs. rest of body size ratio

In Eye#Dimensions please also mention the largest (and smallest) ratio of eye to rest of body. E.g.,Simosyrphus grandicornis' seem pretty big. And are there any creatures that are "all eyes"? Jidanni (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Eye opening/closing effect on EEG

I just heard on the Skeptics Guide that a) eyes are dipoles and b) they roll up when you close them, these two effects together causing a spike on an EEG. This spiked my interest, so I'm wondering things like ‘Why are yes dipoles? Is that necessary or a side-effect of something else?’ and ‘Why do your eyes roll up? Is it a (sub)conscious thing or something mechanical?’ and I wonder if Wikipedia has some articles on the subject. Is there anyone who can give me some pointers? Shinobu (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a book. 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Generalisation

This article was far to focussed on the human and mammalian eye. It should present an overview with an appropriate weighting to all types of eye, so I've moved in-depth discussion pertinent only to the smaller groups to mammalian eye and human eye. It's possible that small amounts of information do have a home in this article but please do be very selective in what you move back here. In the meantime I'm working on improving the coverage of other eye types. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that entrainment and circadian rhythms are still mentioned in the lead, but only there. I almost feel that both this article and Evolution of the eye should be named vision or sight instead of eye, as photosensitivity (and eyespots, eyepatches, eyes) surely served other purposes long before image-forming sight came along? I hope you'll emphasize this more in your continuing work on this/these article(s). Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'll try to address that bias - when I get the opportunity! The problem with making too much of other functions of light detection is that then the article has to deal with algal/bacterial eyespots... does its scope then extend to photosensitivity in plants? I guess I'll have to rein things in as much as I can. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't even go look at Photoperiodism or Photosensitivity. The former has entirely unreasonably been taken over by the botanists and the latter is just weird compared to what I'd expect to find there. But, yes, the first photosensitivity must have been photosynthesis? --Hordaland (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Infrared detection may have led to photosynthesis, if the earliest life evolved round hot vents - see Nisbet & Fowler cited at Microbial mat -- Philcha (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to Hordaland's advice, I had a look (what a surprise!): Photoperiodism is too botanical, ignores e.g. jellyfish' up-and-down cycle; Photosensitivity needs to be split & replaced with a disambig page. -- Philcha (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this paragraph:

"It is not only the shape of the eye that may be affected by lifestyle. Eyes can be the most visible parts of organisms, and this can act as a pressure on organisms to have more transparent eyes at the cost of function."

It may be just me, of course. But whatever this is supposed to mean should be worded more clearly or expanded on -- or the paragraph deleted. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand it. Perhaps Smith609 will give us a quote from the source to help explain it; or rephrase it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If an eye is too reflective, it will attract the attention of predators. This means that eyes may have to be made more transparent, perhaps by reducing their refractive index; this will make them function worse as eyes. They'll be less able to make out their predators, but at least their predators won't be able to see them! Does that make sense? (And can you think how to explain that in the article?) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "If an eye is too reflective, it will attract the attention of predators. This risk can be reduced if the eye becomes more transparent, at the cost of reducing its visual efficiency"? -- Philcha (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that what the source is trying to say? Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Philcha's suggestion is well put and accurate. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pit eyes

The main eyes of spiders are pit ocelli, form images and those of jumping spiders swivel to track prey - see Arthropod#Senses -- Philcha (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Color vs. colour

Until Smith609's edits over the last month, this article was consistently American English. I've restored that. See WP:ENGVAR. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry - I hadn't checked before editing. Give me a nudge if I slip again! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

When the word was first introduced into the text of this article by OldakQuill on 22 April 2005, it was spelt "colour". Over the next year and a half, much new material was added, some using the spelling "color" and some using the original spelling "colour". Eventually there were more instances of "color" than of "colour" and so, on 15 November 2006, AED converted the entire article to "color".

It seems then that "colour" rather than "color" is the spelling used by the first major contributor, OldakQuill, and so, according to WP:ENGVAR, we should convert the entire article to "colour". Shall I do it? The Stickler (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not like colour/color is the only difference between Br and Am English. One should carefully read the entire article looking for other spellings and usages (sometimes is/are, was/were, and others) before making a final decision. (That's if one has the expertise and wants to spend the time on that. I personally don't.) --Hordaland (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If the article has been maintained in American English since 2006, it would be hard to make the case that the policy would have us convert back to what it was before that long ago. That is, the first sentence seems to dominate in "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." Dicklyon (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Two-Dimensional Sight

Do some creatures see in two dimensions, as opposed to us who see in three dimensions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackshatt (talk • contribs) 10:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some birds, rabbits, fishes and others which have eyes on opposite sides of their heads do? Interesting question. - Hordaland (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fish probably. OTOH some birds bob their heads while moving, and this may enable their brains to build 3-D images although their eyes can only capture 2-D ones. -- Philcha (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed; some creatures only see in one dimension! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, and what would that mean? That they can see horizontal movement but not vertical? Or the other way 'round? What creatures? - Hordaland (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I forget exactly what the organisms were; if I recall correctly the reference is the Land & Fernald (1992) referenced in the article (ref 1 at time of writing). From my recollection, they are filter feeders, and are thought to use their eyes to assess the rate at which plankton is "raining" past them; they can only see the "spot" immediately in front of them. However, any organism with the capacity to do so (i.e. an advanced enough eye and an adequate brain) will see in three dimensions; even those without binocular vision. The brain uses cues such as perspective, parallax, degree of "fog", and size to estimate distance in addition to binocular cues; consequently our depth perception is diminished but does not disappear when we close one eye (See Depth_perception). Would fish be able to perform their complex shoaling and predator avoidance behaviour if they could not tell how far away their neighbours were? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for very interesting reply! - Hordaland (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Visual Alignment

I have a theory that masking elements provide us with horizontal or vertical alignment/reference elements:

The eye takes approximately 20-30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness and become ten thousand to one million times more sensitive than at full daylight. In this process, the eye's perception of color changes as well. However, it takes approximately five minutes for the eye to adapt to bright sunlight from darkness. This is due to cones obtaining more sensitivity when first entering the dark for the first five minutes but the rods take over after five or more minutes.

The shadow fall created by this masking elements creates a transition area/line on the Retina where our view crosses over from non covered/less sensitive to covered sensitive areas. This way we have a cross-over area/line that can be seen as a linear and/or volumetric marker. Giving us alignment. The eyelids provide a nearby the eye area for creating such a transition area but the Epicanthic fold creates a more global area, westerners have a similar alignment area but in a vertical way thanks to their more prominent nasal intersection.

Masking and diffraction of light creates creates a 'blurred' area, providing the peripherial area of our eyes with an area where the viewer has less visual grip on linear elements and movement. This transition between sharp and blurred is a reference / alignment area.

A small reflection of this alignment in our Visual pathway: Light falls into the Retina, onto the LGN (relay system), onto the Primary visual Cortex (image processing) and this part of the brain has a tendency to prefer horizontal and/or vertical lines because of this types of lines provides the shortest connectivity formations. So Vertical or Horizontal shadow areas in line with the directional lines we see provide us with an alignment tool.

For an overview check these topics on my site:

1. Different alignment gives a different view

2. Visual Grid and the Origin of Ocular Dominance Patterns in V1

3. Animals Overview

best,

Michel sharp (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Eye Image

Consider comparing the two following images, and possibly replace if necessary? I'm not sure which is better for the article.. One looks faded/blurry, the other looks over-sharpened.. and . Looking for another opinion here.. Thanks! Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for a human eye in this general article, the schematic diagram of the vertebrate eye is sufficient. I've changed the top images back to what they were couple weeks ago.

Human eye and Mammalian eye have their own articles. - Hordaland (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Placental Mammals Clarification

"With a few exceptions (snakes, placental mammals), most organisms ..." Does "placental mammals" mean placental mammals while they are in the womb or placental mammals for their whole life? 203.129.33.32 (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, a placental mammal is "any member of the mammalian group (cohort Placentalia) characterized by the presence of a placenta, which facilitates exchange of nutrients and wastes between the blood of the mother and that of the fetus. The placentals include all living mammals except marsupials and monotremes." [56] Woodcutterty (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

background:dimgray; color:#ffffff;"

An IP just changed "background:dimgray; color:#ffffff;" to "background:dimgray; color:#000000;"

I have no idea which is right/wrong. Someone check please. - Hordaland (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Creationist Perspective"

Having this paragraph as the first after the overview is a nonsensical example of WP:UNDUE: is this article about the eye, or is to be used as yet another platform to expound creationism? Although the eye provides an important example, having "The Evolutionist Perspective" so high up the page is little better. Suggest demoting both paragraphs, shortening them and using the WP:SS process to refer to the separate, well-furnished articles on these topics. And what's wrong with the title of the subsidiary article—"Evolution of the eye"— that it can't be used for the section here? "Evolutionists' perspective" introduces unnecessary controversy to what should be a factual examination of the topic. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just compared the equivalent "creationist" information on Conservapedia's "Eye" article. It's actually better balanced, with respect to the rest of the piece, than the material here. Now how did that happen? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention any creationist perspective. It has nothing to do with this article! - Hordaland (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New, long section on the retina

The article is 59 kilobytes long. A new and long (about 1780 words) section on the retina has recently been added to the end of the article, all apparently from one and the same book (presently ref #40), by a new user. No reference to our article Retina. No wikilinks (until I added a couple). I have two concerns:

1. Suspending Good Faith for an instant, one can wonder if this all is original writing or not. If it is original writing, it is a considerable piece of work and the new editor should not be discouraged.
2. Shouldn't the information, or most of it, be moved to (merged into) the article Retina?

- Hordaland (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Retina essay

This addition is an essay-style piece about the retina. It's in the wrong style, it isn't referenced and it's on the wrong page. The big problem, however, is that it's a WP:COPYVIO from Physiology of Sensory Sytems, here. Suggest a revert. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I couldn't find the exact formulations at Google books in the book given as ref, but the article you found does indeed appear to be the source. (It's in itself a usable source!) I'll revert. - Hordaland (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies for starting a new topic rather than continuing your discussion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Visual acuity

The text "For example, if each pattern is 1.75 cm " should say "For example, if each pattern is 17.5 cm" otherwise the angle obtained is just 0,1 degree instead of 1 degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.87.60.62 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Color or colour

Can we pick one and stick with it? I'm changing all to "color" (defying my own preference) as it has a 75/25 majority. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody's busily changing back to colour. There's also fibres/fibers, behavior/behaviour. We really ought to pick one and stick with it. --Hordaland (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, should we stick to American or British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiayangchang (talk • contribs) 10:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

More recently, British spellings seem to have become more common. Looking at the history, excluding the first stub versions (first with molluscs, then with mollusks), early versions are inconsistent (for example, center alongside humour). However, after the first major expansion of the article by OldakQuill, British spellings (including -ise, as in maximise) prevail ([57]). Past efforts for spelling standardization, both American→British ([58] [59]) and British→American ([60] [61]), seem to have been short-lived and have only focused on color/colour variation, leaving other spellings unaffected (for example, behavior/behaviour, center/centre, fiber/fibre, humor/humour, and mollusc/mollusk). Particularly based on this version, I have standardized the spelling to British English throughout. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; here's hoping it sticks. Hordaland (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Robotic eye?

Why is Robotic Eye listed as a section herein that is empty, where Mammalian eyes and other animal eyes are listed in a "See Also?" Seems to me that if the section is here with nothing in it then it shouldn't be here at all, but there should be some talk going on about it. I am gonna nuke it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.183.154.31 (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

what are the 5 senses and describe this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.125 (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that at night is visible only specular highlights of material?

Is it possible, that since specular lighting have white-gray color, there is not possible to recognize color in dark place? I mean, what if at night seeing objects only in gray scale is because of objects specularity of gray light? I mean, object is barely recognized only from specular light and thus don't have color. Specular light of object is more shiny wan color. And if there is at least [little bit] more light, then color [of object] is possible to recognize.

Another reason why in dark hard distinguish colours is that for example orange color have stronger red and weaker green and in dark green color is under threshold of visibility and red is visible yet, so orange looks like red in dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versatranitsonlywaytofly (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Versatranitsonlywaytofly, the real reason that we do not see colour at low light levels is that the cone cells that our eyes see colour with are much less sensitive to light than the rod cells that we see with at night. This is described elsewhere on Wikipedia. We see the specular highlights in colour if they are bright enough to excite our cone cells. DJMcC (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Another possible cause of reduced colour in specular "highlights" is that often, the reflected light spectrum is dominated by the refractive index, n, of the reflecting medium, not by the extinction coefficient, k. Usually, n is less wavelength-dependent than k. Hence less colour, even when light levels are high enough for cone vision. DJMcC (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

superposition, apposition

These two words need to be better defined, thanks. Or, rather, what is super and what is ap (beside), to what. --Hordaland (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Do eyes grow?

        Do eyes grow? well do they?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.77.16 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 

Yes, according to the NIH: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2246098/ "The mean maximum axial lengths in the neonatal and adult human eye are approximately 17 and 23.8 mm respectively. Most of the post-natal growth of the eye occurs within the first three years with posterior segment expansion accounting for over 90% of post-natal growth." Of course, it doesn't grow in proportion to the rest of the body, but it does grow. The growth of the lens along with that of the posterior chamber allows continued focussing ability. DJMcC (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "vitreous chamber", not "posterior chamber". DJMcC (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment on "Eye Evolution" section in main article, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Eye#Evolution

"The thin overgrowth of transparent cells over the eye's aperture,..." This really needs changing, because it implies that vertebrate eyes evolved in the same way as cephalopod eyes, with a "pin-hole camera" stage, like a nautiloid. The truth may be otherwise: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3143066/ "These protochordates had ciliary photoreceptors with a ciliary opsin and a hyperpolarizing response, and were able to regenerate 11-cis retinal in darkness." Thus, they lent themselves to the evolution of scotopic eyes, as appropriate to a later group of fish being forced up from deep, dark water by geological and climatic change. This sharply distinguishes them from early cephalopods, which inhabited well-lit, surface waters, had rhabdomeric opsins, and could regenerate 11-cis retinal merely by exposure to a second photon, because plenty of photons were available. This avoided any requirement to chemically regenerate it, allowing a simpler retina than that of vertebrates, but also denying the photoreceptors the possibility of any protection against cumulative photo-oxidative damage. DJMcC (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC) My comment above was intended to have a title of its own, not to be a continuation of whether eyes grow. Sorry for the missing headline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJMcC (talk • contribs) 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC) DJMcC (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

The section on Eye evolution says that the monophyletic theory of eye evolution is now accepted as fact. But the article Evolution of the eye says the opposite - namely that only visual pigments have evolved onces whereas eyes in different species have evolved separately. I came here after reading Dawkins' the ancestor's tale where he uses the eye as an example of an organ that is highly likely to evolve separately through convergent evolution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, the opsins (used as visual and non-visual pgments) evolved only once, but imaging eyes using those opsins evolved independently many times, from non-imaging eyes. Thus, imaging eyes are not monophyletic, even though opsins are. DJMcC (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Pupula Duplex

For some reason, there is a section on the mythical condition "pupula duplex" in this article. It is not very informative, presents legend as fact, and even contains an emoticon (o.O, to be specific). Thirtysilver (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

And, in addition, was unsourced. Deleted. --Hordaland (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename this article to Eye (biology), for the purpose of disambiguation

I suggest that this article be renamed to Eye (biology), so that the page Eye will redirect to Eye (disambiguation). The word eye has many different meanings in the English language, so it's possible that other editors could mistakenly create a link to this page while believing that the link was not about eyes in the context of biology. (e. g, The [[eye]] of a hurricane is at the center of the hurricane.) Jarble (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nutrients section - wrong title and wrong placement

I'm primarily working on paleontology, in particular trilobites. I have a couple of observations, that I feel not up to to perform myself, so I hope someone would be able to consider what could be done.

• I was browsing the Eye article to see if there was any explanation about the Optimum Compound Eye Design Theory of Snyder, A.W. (1977). Acuity of compound eyers: physical limitations and design Journal of Comparative Physiology A 116:161-182 and Snyder, A.W., Stavenga, D.G. and Laughlin, S.B. (1977). Spatial information capacity of compound eyes Journal of Comparative Physiology A 116:183-207. Regrettably the theory is not explained or even mentioned. The relevance for me is the application of the theory on the compound eyes of the trilobites Carolinites and Pricyclopyge, two articles that I hope to create some day, and Cyclopygidae.
• It stikes me that the subsection Nutrients is not aptly named as it describes the anatomy of the vertebrate eye. It seems to me it would be better placed as part of the section on Spherical lensed eye.
• The untitled paragraph on ocelli of insects, although being single lensed, seems out of place in the section Spherical lensed eye. I guess it is much more a facetted eye reduced to one lens. I think it may be preferable to raise the para to subsection level and create an internal link in the section on Compound eyes.
  

Again, I hope someone will consider the above. - Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Some images in section "Additional images" are too vague.

I note that the first two images in this section depict the structure of the retina as being a single neural layer. I regard this as insufficient. A reference to, eg, the diagrams in http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-i-foundations/simple-anatomy-of-the-retina/ would be better, perhaps.

Compound eye "growth"

"Compound eyes, in arthropods at least, grow at their margins by the addition of new ommatidia."

Is there any support for this (dubious) claim? The citation given actually doesn't provide support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.84.173 (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations of eye types

In my opinion, the article would benefit from illustrations of how the different eye types function. The subtypes of non-compound and compound eyes (pit eyes, spherical lensed eye, apposition eyes, etc.) are not easily ditsinguishable based on the text alone, partly because there are so many subtypes. I don't have any such illustrations, unfortunately, but would like to point out that they would be highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fargetv (talk • contribs) 07:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Calliphora vomitoria Portrait.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Calliphora vomitoria Portrait.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 31, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Compound eyes on a blue bottle fly. Unlike simple eyes, which have a single concave photoreceptive surface, compound eyes consist of a number of individual lenses (called ommatidia) laid out on a convex surface; this means that they point in slightly different directions. Compound eyes provide a wide field of view and can detect fast movement, but have low resolution.Photograph: JJ Harrison

The brain flips the inverted image?

Under Compound eyes/Other, it says: "each eyelet ... produces an inverted image; those images are flipped over and combined in the brain to form one unified image".

I can't check the reference as it's behind a paywall, but this doesn't sound right. Regardless of the type of eye, there is no reason for the brain to "flip over" an inverted image. The representation of the image inside the brain is an abstract data pattern that has no need to be oriented in the same way as the outside world, if it even has an "orientation". --Heron (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed by removing a very few words. --Hordaland (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"This capitulates the function of the eye."

This use of the word "capitulate" quite odd and difficult to understand. In what sense is it even technically appropriate?

"Capitulate" means to stop resisting. That doesn't make any sense in the context of this article.

I'm not even sure enough of the intent of the author to suggest an alternate wording.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I looked at the ref (abstract only) and the word isn't there. If the sentence doesn't make sense to anyone, there's no reason to have it. Deleted. --Hordaland (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A lens and retina in single-celled plankton

Gregory S. Gavelis et al.: Eye-like ocelloids are built from different endosymbiotically acquired components. Nature 523, 2015, S. 204–207, doi:10.1038/nature14593 (free full text).

--Rainald62 (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Date for eye origin

One part of this article says the eye evolved 540 mya, referenced to three technical research papers on genetics, another part says in the Cambrian 600 mya (even though the Cambrian started 542 mya) referenced to a book written by a psychologist. The second one should definitely go. Right now I'm trying to figure out if proper eyes date to the first bilaterians (probably not) or to the most recent common ancestors of bilaterians and cnidarians (possibly). Zyxwv99 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is accurate

The article states that the eye has monophyletic origins among all animals but I don't think that's correct. The genes may be monophyletic but I'm pretty sure the structure we call an eye evolved independently among vertebrates and invertebrates. The article should be changed to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.150.124 (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

See also the three-and-a-half year old comment, by the apparently inactive user:DJMcC, in the section entitled Contradiction above. There s/he states that

"the opsins (used as visual and non-visual pgments[SIC]) evolved only once, but imaging eyes using those opsins evolved independently many times, from non-imaging eyes. Thus, imaging eyes are not monophyletic, even though opsins are."

That sounds reasonable to me and it definitely should be clarified in the article. I don't feel safe doing it. Someone with expertise should please take a look!

--Hordaland (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

See Evolution of the eye#One origin or many? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I read up on this a while back. Eyes evolved more than once, but not many times. Plants, fungi and sponges have light-sensitive structures called "eyes" by the scientists who study them, but only in a very restricted sense of "eye." The simplest organism with a true eye is Warnowiaceae, a dinoflagellate (closely related to animals).

Of the five major branches of the animal kingdom, two are eyeless (porifera=Sponge and Placozoa), two others are known to have eyes (Cnidaria and Bilateria), while one may or may not have eyes (Ctenophora=comb jellies).

Two genes have been identified in each of two closely related species (one of them is Mnemiopsis leidyi) of comb jellies that fit the pattern for possible type II (animal) opsin genes. Eight have been eliminated as not coding for opsins. Two have been expressed in vitro as opsins with peak sensitivities around 500 nm. In vivo one opsin was expressed through the early embryonic stage. At this point, it is too soon to tell if any comb jellies have eyes.

Which brings us to the two remaining branches of the animal kingdom known to have eyes. Cnidaria includes jellyfish, corals, and sea anemones. Bilateria is all other animas not previously mentioned except some unclassified species. Bilateria is divided into two branches: protostomes (molluscs, arthropods, and annelid worms) and deuterostomes (echinoderms, hemichordates, and chordates).

There seems to be a general sense that eyes did not evolve more than twice in Bilateria, once in protostomes and once in deuterostomes. There is also a sense that all bilaterian eyes may have evolved from a common ancestral eye, except that's about a 50/50. It is also widely accepted that cnidarian eyes (e.g., Box jellyfish) share a common ancestry with bilaterian eyes. However, the common ancestral organ may not have been an eye. Instead, it may have been something like a Rhopalium or "ear-eye."

The jellyfish ear-eye is coded for by a gene that looks like a mix of PAX6 (eyes) and PAX4 (ears). People born with a defect in either gene can be born both blind and deaf. The "ear" in the jellyfish is an organ of balance (statolith), but in other animals it has evolved into the middle ear (organ or hearing). In fish it also evolved into the lateral line system (senses pressure waves). Besides an rgan of balance, the rhopalium also contains a complex camera eye and some simpler eyes.

So this part of the mystery is still unresolved for now.

Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

External links

Please remove the "Anatomy of the eye – flash animated interactive." link.

As per Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, sites that rely on plugins should be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.127.39.131 (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That link is very relevant, and I'm putting it back. On the same guideline, Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media, you can read: "Where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, either as a direct link or embedded within an HTML page, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given", so I'll make it more explicit. Frlara (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eye. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001225326/http://www.suss-microoptics.com/downloads/Publications/Miniaturized_Imaging_Systems.pdf to http://www.suss-microoptics.com/downloads/Publications/Miniaturized_Imaging_Systems.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130209164014/http://www4.lu.se/upload/GreinerThesis.pdf to http://www4.lu.se/upload/GreinerThesis.pdf

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eye. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305204517/http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/octopus-insect.html to http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/octopus-insect.html

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eye. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041123010008/http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/gronenberg/nrsc581/eyedesign/visualacuity.pdf to http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/gronenberg/nrsc581/eyedesign/visualacuity.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915061324/http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Eye has been nominated for discussion

Category:Eye, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requeshckkkt on 11 January 2021

2001:D08:1205:1B78:D4A7:24EC:56A4:22ED (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpgjhpjm 14:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Please change "panel" to "layer"

"In most vertebrates and some molluscs, the eye works by allowing light to enter and project onto a light-sensitive layer of cells, known as the retina, at the rear of the eye."

edit: changing "panel" of cells to "layer" of cells to describe the retina.

Retina Wikipedia page directly states it as a layer of cells in the first sentence. Junkinthebrain (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Seems someone has changed it, but they also changed "at the rear of the eye" to "at the end of the eye". Would you say that's incorrect? DesertPipeline (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging User:Junkinthebrain. Please can you get back to me on this? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)