See Like Animals Open the tool
Menu

How does the tiger-striped leaf frog see?

Callimedusa tomopterna · order Anura · Amphibians

The tiger-striped leaf frog has one cone type, so no colour vision in daylight.[1] Its sharpest vision resolves 2.8 cycles per degree, against 63.75 for people in this dataset.[6] The tiger-striped leaf frog stops seeing flicker at 16.9 Hz, against 60 Hz for people.[24][25]

See your photo as a tiger-striped leaf frog sees it: unlock all animals, €4.99Try a free animalOne-time payment. Your photo stays on your device.
  • 1colour receptor classMeasured
  • 2.8cycles per degree (sharpness)Estimated
  • 16.9hertz flicker fusion (motion)Estimated

The tiger-striped leaf frog (Callimedusa tomopterna) is an amphibian in the order Anura. Its eyes belong to the vision type Amphibian motion detector: low sharpness, eyes tuned to dim light and a strong response to moving objects. 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.

This is a simulation built from published eye measurements, not what the animal experiences.

Method: How we know what animals see (the See Like Animals vision engine) · Sources · Last updated . Every value below carries its evidence level and sources; nothing is typed by hand.

What the tiger-striped leaf frog sees: colour receptors

Tiger-striped leaf frog colour receptor peaks, 300 to 700 nmTiger-striped leaf frog: 1 receptor peak at 589 nm; you: 3 at 421.5, 532, 558.4 nm. ultraviolet300400500600700
Tiger-striped leaf frog: 589 nmPeople: 421.5, 532, 558.4 nmWavelength in nanometres

What does a tiger-striped leaf frog's vision look like?

The tiger-striped leaf frog has one cone type, so no colour vision in daylight.[1] Fine detail is blurred to what 2.8 cycles per degree can resolve.

Can the tiger-striped leaf frog see colour?

Not in daylight: the tiger-striped leaf frog has one cone type, so it sees brightness but no hue.[1]

How far can the tiger-striped leaf frog see?

Distance depends on the size of what is seen, so sharpness is the measure. The tiger-striped leaf frog resolves 2.8 cycles per degree, against 63.75 for people in this dataset, so a detail must be about 22.8 times larger, or that much closer, for it to make it out as well as a person.[6]

Can the tiger-striped leaf frog see in the dark?

The catalogue records activity pattern: nocturnal and rods vs cones: rod-dominated. Night mode in the tool uses these traits by a stated engine rule, not a measured sensitivity.[13][14][1][15]

Does the tiger-striped leaf frog see in slow motion?

The tiger-striped leaf frog stops seeing flicker at 16.9 Hz, against 60 Hz for people in this dataset. So fast motion looks choppier to it than to people, not slower.[24][25]

What stands out

  • It has one receptor class for colour, so it sees brightness but no hue.
  • Its sharpest vision resolves 2.8 cycles per degree: the finest stripe pattern it can tell apart from grey.
  • It stops seeing flicker at 16.9 Hz, against 60 Hz for people in this dataset, so fast motion looks choppier to it.[26][24]
  • Activity pattern: nocturnal.

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. The last column gives the values for people from the same catalogue.

Vision values for the tiger-striped leaf frog (Callimedusa tomopterna), catalogue-v1
DialValueEvidenceSourcesPeople
ColourColour receptors
1 receptor class: 589 nm (LWS (long))
measured in this species
Measured[1]Colour receptors: 3 receptor classes: 421.5 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 532 nm (MWS (green)), 558.4 nm (LWS (long)) Measured (not re-verified)[2][3][4][5]
SharpnessAcuity
2.8 cycles per degree
median of 1 relatives in order Anura: Lithobates pipiens
Group default[6]Acuity: 63.75 cycles per degree Measured[7][8]
Field of viewNo value in the catalogue.Binocular overlap: 122.5° Measured[9][10]
Total field of view: 200° Measured (not re-verified)[11]
Blind area behind the head: 160° Derived[11]
Eye placement: frontal Derived[9][10]
Sharp zones (foveas)No value in the catalogue.Number of foveas: 1 Measured[12]
Fovea type: fovea Measured[12]
Night visionActivity pattern
nocturnal
mode of 4 rows (of 4 rows): nocturnal
Measured (not re-verified)[13][14][1][15]Activity pattern: diurnal Measured (not re-verified)[14][16][17][2][18][19][20][15]
Pupil shape: vertical Group default[21][22]
Reflective layer (tapetum): no Measured[23]
Rods vs cones: cone-dominated Derived[14][16][17][2][18][19][20][15]
Rods vs cones
rod-dominated
nocturnal -> rod-dominated; crepuscular / cathemeral / mixed -> mixed; diurnal -> cone-dominated
Derived[13][14][1][15]
Motion (flicker fusion)Flicker fusion frequency
16.9 Hz
median of 2 relatives in order Anura: Rhinella marina, Lithobates clamitans
Group default[24][25]Flicker fusion frequency: 60 Hz Measured[26][24]

Related animals

The same tulips as a northern leopard frog sees them.Northern leopard frogAmphibian motion detector

More amphibians: all amphibians with measured vision data. Same eye type: Amphibian motion detector.

Sources

  1. Schott RK, Fujita MK, Streicher JW, Gower DJ, Thomas KN, Loew ER, et al. (28 authors, last Bell RC). 2024. Diversity and evolution of frog visual opsins: spectral tuning and adaptation to distinct light environments. Mol Biol Evol 41:msae049.. doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msae049
  2. Longcore T. 2023. A compendium of photopigment peak sensitivities and visual spectral response curves of terrestrial wildlife to guide design of outdoor nighttime lighting. Basic Appl Ecol 73:40-50. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2023.09.002. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8432720
  3. Kirwan J. luxR 0.1.1: Underwater Light Analysis and Visual Ecology (R-universe), data species_sensitivities. github.com/JohnKirwan/luxR
  4. Müller B, Glösmann M, Peichl L, Knop GC, Hagemann C, Ammermüller J (2009) Bat eyes have ultraviolet-sensitive cone photoreceptors. PLoS ONE 4:e6390
  5. Thermal Activation and Photoactivation of Visual Pigments (2004)
  6. 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
  7. Kirk EC, Kay RF 2004. The evolution of high visual acuity in the Anthropoidea. In Anthropoid Origins, Table 1 (behavioural acuity). doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8873-7_20
  8. Veilleux CC, Kirk EC 2014. Visual acuity in mammals. Brain Behav Evol 83:43, Supplementary Table 1 (cleaned CSV in Evo-M1-Trait-Data). doi.org/10.1159/000357830
  9. Heesy CP 2004. On the relationship between orbit orientation and binocular visual field overlap in mammals. Anat Rec 281A:1104, Table 1. doi.org/10.1002/ar.a.20116
  10. Heffner RS, Heffner HE 1992. Visual factors in sound localization in mammals. J Comp Neurol 317:219, Table 1 (via Evo-M1 sensory merge). doi.org/10.1002/cne.903170302
  11. species_v1:Campbell & Green 1965
  12. Kopania EEK, Clark NL. 2025. Mammalian retinal specializations for high acuity vision evolve in response to both foraging strategies and morphological constraints. Evolution Letters 9: qrae072. Supplementary Tables S1-S2.. doi.org/10.1093/evlett/qrae072
  13. Oliveira et al. 2017. AmphiBIO, a global database for amphibian ecological traits. Sci Data 4:170123.. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4644424.v5
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Borges R, Johnson WE, O'Brien SJ, Gomes C, Heesy CP, Antunes A (2018) Adaptive genomic evolution of opsins reveals that early mammals flourished in nocturnal environments. BMC Genomics 19:121
  17. Wilman et al. 2014 EltonTraits 1.0, MamFuncDat.txt. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3559887.v1
  18. Maor R, Dayan T, Ferguson-Gow H, Jones KE. 2017. Temporal niche expansion in mammals from a nocturnal ancestor after dinosaur extinction. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1:1889-1895. Supplementary Table 1. doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0366-5
  19. Jones KE et al. 2009. PanTHERIA: a species-level database of life history, ecology, and geography of extant and recently extinct mammals. Ecology 90:2648. Ecological Archives E090-184. doi.org/10.1890/08-1494.1
  20. Schmitz L, Motani R. 2011. Science 332:705-708, SOM. doi.org/10.1126/science.1200043
  21. Banks MS, Sprague WW, Schmoll J, Parnell JAQ, Love GD. 2015. Science Advances 1:e1500391. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500391
  22. Cervino NG et al. 2021. A closer look at pupil diversity and evolution in frogs and toads. Proc R Soc B 288:20211402. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.15112050.v1
  23. Guareschi BLV, Sallum JMF, Salles MV, de Moraes JGO, Bortolini M, Cray C, Moore BA, da Rosa CC, Montiani-Ferreira F. 2025. GUCY2D-Associated Retinopathy: A Comparative Study Between Humans and German Spitz Dogs. Veterinary sciences 12(9):879. doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12090879
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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). Values were extracted from these works and converted (units, medians, derived values); changes are ours, and the listed sources do not endorse this site. Data: catalogue-v1, built 2026-09-29. Accuracy notes: how accurate is this? Method: how we know.