Discover the Fascinating One-Eyed Animal: Facts and Myths

  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Animal
In summary, redundancy of eyes seems to occur when there is a difference in the external environment.
  • #36
My book "The Deep" is at home, but there's a picture of a fish which lives along the transition zone and has one giant eye looking down (where it's dark) and another small eye looking up (where it's bright). So, it has two eyes but does not have binocular vision.

I would think having a single eye is a disadvantage- no redundancy. If it failed, the animal would be blind.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #37
If I remember correctly, there's a shrimp that lives around deep-sea vents that has a single eye on it's back.
 
  • #38
I'm curious as to at what evolutionary point a light-sensing organ qualifies as an eye. Does it have to have a lens? A pupil? Focusing muscles? :confused:
 
  • #39
Danger said:
I'm curious as to at what evolutionary point a light-sensing organ qualifies as an eye. Does it have to have a lens? A pupil? Focusing muscles? :confused:

Exactly, that's why i thought it was weird. I'm pretty sure it was only light-sensing. Perhaps bio-luminescent prey? There was concern as to weather the bright lights on the submarine blinded the critters for life. Also, if they are shrimp, they would have had shallow water ancestors. IE, they wouldn't have evolved on the ocean floor.
 
  • #40
Danger said:
I'm curious as to at what evolutionary point a light-sensing organ qualifies as an eye. Does it have to have a lens? A pupil? Focusing muscles? :confused:

I would think an eye has more function that a simple sensor- imaging versus detecting. For example, plants exhibit phototropism, but nobody would (seriously) claim plants can see.

so an eye must have some optical element- a curved surface- in addition to at least one detector element.
 
  • #41
Andy Resnick said:
I would think an eye has more function that a simple sensor- imaging versus detecting. For example, plants exhibit phototropism, but nobody would (seriously) claim plants can see.

so an eye must have some optical element- a curved surface- in addition to at least one detector element.

The simplest then, would most likely have been a pin-hole eye
 
  • #43
Did not read the whole thred .. but some simple cell organisms have only one light sensing detector ... Euglena Viridis if I recall it right.
 
  • #44
Andy Resnick said:
I would think having a single eye is a disadvantage- no redundancy. If it failed, the animal would be blind.

Though, if the ancestor of an animal with a single eye had been blind, there's no reason to really think there was any disadvantage to only having one eye, or losing that one eye as long as there was no loss of their other sensory organs. There are cave-dwelling species that are relatives of more surface-dwelling species, and either lack eyes or lack functional eyes.

On the other hand, the eye is an extension of the nervous system and the optic nerves are just one of many paired nerves extending from the brain and spinal cord, so it very well could be that there are not examples of organisms with only one eye, because the eye evolved after a developed brain with two hemispheres and paired nerves had already evolved.

A single, fused eye, might be less likely since the optic cups form so early in embryonic development that any mutation or disruption of development at that stage that might lead to fusion of the eyes may also be embryonically lethal since that's a pretty critical stage for nervous system development in general.
 
  • #45
Loren Booda said:
My guess is that a universal minimum of two eyes provides evolutionary redundancy for all-important vision in case of an accident.

Organisms must be symmetric in order to efficiently store the genetic code, so a one-eyed organism would need it's eye in the center. However, since it does not cost any additional genetic storage space, two eyes are better because they allow

a) wider field of view
b) depth triangulation (eg, stereo vision)
c) placement of eye outside of the symmetry plane
d) sight redundancy in case one eye is damaged

Given that no additional coding is required, and the benefits are substantial, I cannot see any reason why a 1-eyed organism would persist in a competitive ecosystem.
 
  • #46
Moonbear said:
Though, if the ancestor of an animal with a single eye had been blind, there's no reason to really think there was any disadvantage to only having one eye, or losing that one eye as long as there was no loss of their other sensory organs. There are cave-dwelling species that are relatives of more surface-dwelling species, and either lack eyes or lack functional eyes.

On the other hand, the eye is an extension of the nervous system and the optic nerves are just one of many paired nerves extending from the brain and spinal cord, so it very well could be that there are not examples of organisms with only one eye, because the eye evolved after a developed brain with two hemispheres and paired nerves had already evolved.

A single, fused eye, might be less likely since the optic cups form so early in embryonic development that any mutation or disruption of development at that stage that might lead to fusion of the eyes may also be embryonically lethal since that's a pretty critical stage for nervous system development in general.

Good points- I hadn't considered the eye in context of the nervous system. The retina is part of the brain, after all!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top