Early vision was colourful 28 Oct 20074 Oct 2017 UPDATED: To give some of my colleagues at the University of Queensland some link love, it is being reported that they have sequenced the Queensland lungfish (currently under threat by a proposed dam) opsin genes, showing that they see in ultraviolet and visible light, as well as having the ability to see in dim and bright light. The paper is now accessible at BMC Evolutionary Biology. The conclusion drawn from this is that early land dwelling vertebrates saw in colour, which is probably true, but not, I think, because the lungfish is a “living fossil that dates back 400 million years”. It is a modern species that is the last example of a group that dates back that long. So it may be that it has derived colour vision. However, if the sequences are similar (homologous) to those in other vertebrates, the most parsimonious explanation is they both get these genes from a common ancestor. It’s also worth noting that our ancestors probably had only two receptors, one of which duplicated to give us green light reception. Humans have a very poor colour spectrum compared to some others – say the mantis shrimp, which has 7 receptors that evenly cover the spectrum from visible to ultraviolet. We, on the other hand have two receptors that haven’t differentiated much from each other: Human vision Mantis shrimp (stomatapod) vision Evolution Species and systematics
Ecology and Biodiversity 12 Days to Species publication 3 Feb 2018 Due 15 February! Details here Read More
Biology The difference between population concepts and “population thinking” 8 Jan 201224 Nov 2022 The late Ernst Mayr is remembered for many things, but a number of his historical and philosophical claims are unravelling. The very clever and perspicacious Rutgers geneticist, Jody Hey, has published a paper in the Quarterly Review of Biology on one of these. Jody is a very good reader of… Read More
Evolution Nature makes no leaps… 26 Jan 2008 Reacting to Jerry Coyne’s guest blog on The Loom, Brian Switek at Laelaps discusses, among other things, the objection to Darwin’s theories that Huxley put forward, both in personal correspondence and in print: The only objections that have occurred to me are 1st that you have loaded yourself with an… Read More
Jeez, Wilkins. > We, on the other hand have two receptors that haven’t > differentiated much from each other: Green looks COMPLETELY different from red, mate. Get a grip. Jason
Jason, Tell that to a friend of mine who is R-G colorblind. When his wife was really P’d he would show up at work dressed like Ronald McDonald, and have no idea why people stared. fusilier James 2:24
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.