Open the tool

How does the crab-eating frog see?

The crab-eating frog (Fejervarya cancrivora) is a amphibian in the order Anura. Its eyes belong to the vision type Amphibian motion detector.

Measured in this species: colour and night vision. Measured colour or sharpness: a measured receptor set or acuity in this species; other dials come from relatives or group defaults. Every value below carries its evidence level and sources; nothing is typed by hand.

See your photo as the crab-eating frogThis species is part of the full catalogue in the tool (full unlock). Your photo stays on your device.

What stands out

The six dials

Evidence levels: how the tiers work. "Measured" means a value measured in this species; "Estimated" values come from a close relative or an eye-size formula.

Vision values for the crab-eating frog (Fejervarya cancrivora), catalogue-v1
DialValueEvidenceSources
ColourColour receptors
2 receptor classes: 433 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 502 nm (MWS (green))
measured in this species
Measured (not re-verified)[1]
SharpnessAcuity
2.8 cycles per degree
median of 1 relatives in order Anura: Lithobates pipiens
Group default[2]
Field of viewNo value in the catalogue.
Sharp zones (foveas)No value in the catalogue.
Night visionActivity pattern
nocturnal
mode of 2 rows (of 2 rows): nocturnal
Measured (not re-verified)[3][4]
Rods vs cones
rod-dominated
nocturnal -> rod-dominated; crepuscular / cathemeral / mixed -> mixed; diurnal -> cone-dominated
Derived[3][4]
Motion (flicker fusion)Flicker fusion frequency
16.9 Hz
median of 2 relatives in order Anura: Rhinella marina, Lithobates clamitans
Group default[5][6]

Related animals

More amphibians: all amphibians with measured vision data.

Sources

  1. Murphy MJ, Westerman EL. 2022. Evolutionary history limits species' ability to match colour sensitivity to available habitat light. Proc R Soc B 289:20220612. Electronic supplementary Table S1. doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.0612
  2. Caves EM, Fernandez-Juricic E, Kelley LA (2024) Ecological and morphological correlates of visual acuity in birds. J Exp Biol 227(2): jeb246063. Supplementary Table S1.. doi.org/10.1242/jeb.246063
  3. Anderson SR, Wiens JJ. 2017. Out of the dark: 350 million years of conservatism and evolution in diel activity patterns in vertebrates. Evolution 71:1944-1959. Dryad doi:10.5061/dryad.fg700. doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fg700
  4. Moura et al. 2024. A phylogeny-informed characterisation of global tetrapod traits addresses data gaps and biases. PLoS Biol 22:e3002658. TetrapodTraits v3.0.1.. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22536349
  5. Inger R, Bennie J, Davies TW, Gaston KJ. 2014. Potential biological and ecological effects of flickering artificial light. PLoS ONE 9(5): e98631. Table 3. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098631
  6. Lafitte A, Sordello R, Legrand M, Nicolas V, Obein G, Reyjol Y. 2022. A flashing light may not be that flashy: A systematic review on critical fusion frequencies. PLoS ONE 17(12): e0279718. S10 File (CFF database). doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279718
  7. Healy K, McNally L, Ruxton GD, Cooper N, Jackson AL. 2013. Metabolic rate and body size are linked with perception of temporal information. Animal Behaviour 86:685-696. Table 1. doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.06.018

Every value cites its sources (all sources). Data: catalogue-v1, built 2026-09-29. Accuracy notes: how accurate is this?