User talk:See2115

This is See2115's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." [1] Woodcutterty (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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:

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.
Shouldn't the information, or most of it, be moved to (merged into) the article Retina?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ([2]). Past efforts for spelling standardization, both American→British ([3] [4]) and British→American ([5] [6]), 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Comment on "Eye Evolution" section in main article, http://en.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.