|WikiProject Biology||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
ok... two eyes... better field of view than one... but if the opposite to binocular vision is monocular vision - ie like a rabbit... 360 degrees field of view... even better? kevin 184.108.40.206 15:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to think of the evolution of frontal dispalced conjugate ocular systems as a cost-benefit. The cost of frontally displaced eyes is most definitely a reduction of field compared to species capable of indepedent eye movements. The benfits however outweigh the loss of field. These include improved detection and stereoscopic localization which from an ecological viewpoint is much more beneficial to a gatherer/ hunter specie than improve field by itself.
I agree, the 'better field of view' is only better relative to a homo sapien [or any homo species, most monkeys and apes] who has lost an eye, or is born a cyclops. Rabbits, iguana's or any other species that has sideways facing eyes is at a distinct advantage in that they has a 300+ field of view. This is a predatorial disadvantage to us, we can't see behind. So, what are the benefits? That is how this article should go, if you are discussing advantages.
"Binocular summation means that the detection threshold for a stimulus is lower with two eyes than with one."
- No. A threshold is the intensity of a stimulus for detection. Lower thresholds mean better sensitivity. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion of the evolutionary benefits of binocular vision is grossly oversimplified and probably wrong in several respects. It's not the distance between the eyes, but whether they face forward or not. Sperm whales have enormous distance between their eyes AND they are predators, but they don't have binocular vision. Fruit eating monkeys have binocular vision...Why? Do brachiators have stereoscopic vision so they can locate the next branch before they let go of the last? We need a more sophisticated discussion here.
- I'd have to agree with Eperotao; probably the main reason for the development of binocular vision would be for manipulations with the hands, closeby. Ofcouse this is speculation, mind you, but I reckon it's the most convincing argument. --[[User:Alugtigheid|Arthur Lugtigheid]] (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm deleting the section on this guy. As far as I can tell, he apears to be a "theorist" with little to no actual scientific research backing up his claims. This is based on a the contents of this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Pretty short of refs as an article, and misses some key issues such as the historical developemnt of the theories, etc. No need for a total rewrite, but a 50% rewrite is needed. History2007 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
"Evolution of Binocular Vision" by J.D. Pettigrew has some excellent descriptions of how binocular vision functions in mammals vs. birds, also touches on the historical development of theories mentioned by History2007 above. Could be a useful reference in the article's rewrite.Pedestrian65 (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
What's with all the red links in this article? I've never seen so many on a wikipedia page!
The lead attempts to appeal to neurological researcher Manfred Fahle. I know nothing about neurobiology and have not heard of this guy but, as a general principle, mentioning the opinions of specific people is typically only appropriate if that person is especially authoritative in their field (e.g. quoting Charles Darwin in relation to evolution). I'm doubt Fahle rises to this level, much as I am sure he is capable researcher. As such, not only does it seem inappropriate to name him in the article, but I wonder if it is appropriate to state his conclusions as facts unless those conclusions reflect a broad scientific consensus (again, this is not my area so I would not presume to say one way or another).