See Like Animals Open the tool
Menu

How does the cut-throat finch see?

Amadina fasciata · order Passeriformes · Birds

The cut-throat finch has four colour channels, including ultraviolet (369.5, 448, 500 and 563 nm).[1][2] Its sharpest vision resolves 6.206 cycles per degree, against 63.75 for people in this dataset.[6] Both eyes see the same 35° in front of it.[9][10] The cut-throat finch stops seeing flicker at 55 Hz, against 60 Hz for people.[28]

See your photo as a cut-throat finch sees it: unlock all animals, €4.99Try a free animalOne-time payment. Your photo stays on your device.
  • 4colour receptor classesMeasured
  • 6.206cycles per degree (sharpness)Estimated
  • 35°seen by both eyesEstimated
  • 55hertz flicker fusion (motion)Estimated

The cut-throat finch (Amadina fasciata) is a bird in the order Passeriformes. Its eyes belong to the vision type UV songbird, parrot and hummingbird: four cone types including a true ultraviolet cone, coloured oil droplets and fast motion vision. 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 cut-throat finch sees: colour receptors

Cut-throat finch colour receptor peaks, 300 to 700 nmCut-throat finch: 4 receptor peaks at 369.5, 448, 500, 563 nm; you: 3 at 421.5, 532, 558.4 nm. ultraviolet300400500600700
Cut-throat finch: 369.5, 448, 500, 563 nmPeople: 421.5, 532, 558.4 nmWavelength in nanometres

What does a cut-throat finch's vision look like?

The cut-throat finch has four colour channels, including ultraviolet (369.5, 448, 500 and 563 nm).[1][2] Fine detail is blurred to what 6.206 cycles per degree can resolve.

Can the cut-throat finch see colour?

Yes. The cut-throat finch has four colour channels, including ultraviolet (369.5, 448, 500 and 563 nm); people have 3.[1][2]

How far can the cut-throat finch see?

Distance depends on the size of what is seen, so sharpness is the measure. The cut-throat finch resolves 6.206 cycles per degree, against 63.75 for people in this dataset, so a detail must be about 10.3 times larger, or that much closer, for it to make it out as well as a person.[6]

Can the cut-throat finch see in the dark?

The catalogue records activity pattern: diurnal and rods vs cones: cone-dominated. Night mode in the tool uses these traits by a stated engine rule, not a measured sensitivity.[17][2][18]

Does the cut-throat finch see in slow motion?

The cut-throat finch stops seeing flicker at 55 Hz, against 60 Hz for people in this dataset. So motion looks about the same speed as it does to people.[28]

What stands out

  • It has 4 colour receptor classes, including ultraviolet; people have 3.
  • Its sharpest vision resolves 6.206 cycles per degree: the finest stripe pattern it can tell apart from grey.
  • Both eyes see the same 35° in front of it (binocular overlap), where depth is judged best.
  • It stops seeing flicker at 55 Hz, against 60 Hz for people in this dataset, so fast motion looks about the same.[29][30]
  • Activity pattern: diurnal.

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 cut-throat finch (Amadina fasciata), catalogue-v1
DialValueEvidenceSourcesPeople
ColourColour receptors
4 receptor classes: 369.5 nm (UVS), 448 nm (SWS (blue)), 500 nm (MWS (green)), 563 nm (LWS (long))
measured in this species
Measured[1][2]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]
Ultraviolet
yes: at least one receptor peaks in the ultraviolet		Measured
SharpnessAcuity
6.206 cycles per degree
allometry (Aves): log10(acuity_cpd) = intercept + slope * log10(eye_axial_length_mm); slope 0.9017, intercept 0.1397, R2 0.453, n 99 (fitted in this script; fitted range [4.36, 39.81] mm); eye_axial_length_mm 5.3 mm
Estimated[6]Acuity: 63.75 cycles per degree Measured[7][8]
Field of viewBinocular overlap
35°
median of 26 relatives in order Passeriformes: Baeolophus bicolor, Corvus albus, Corvus brachyrhynchos, Corvus corax, Corvus corone, Corvus frugilegus
Group default[9][10]Binocular overlap: 122.5° Measured[11][12]
Total field of view: 200° Measured (not re-verified)[13]
Blind area behind the head: 160° Derived[13]
Eye placement: frontal Derived[11][12]
Sharp zones (foveas)Number of foveas
1
median of 29 relatives in order Passeriformes: Cardinalis cardinalis, Passerina cyanea, Cyanocitta cristata, Junco hyemalis, Melospiza melodia, Melozone crissalis
Group default[14][15]Number of foveas: 1 Measured[16]
Fovea type: fovea Measured[16]
Fovea type
single central fovea (displaced dorso-temporally from retinal centre)		Group default[14][15]
Night visionActivity pattern
diurnal
mode of 3 rows (of 3 rows): diurnal; not_nocturnal
Measured (not re-verified)[17][2][18]Activity pattern: diurnal Measured (not re-verified)[19][20][21][2][22][23][24][18]
Pupil shape: vertical Group default[25][26]
Reflective layer (tapetum): no Measured[27]
Rods vs cones: cone-dominated Derived[19][20][21][2][22][23][24][18]
Rods vs cones
cone-dominated
nocturnal -> rod-dominated; crepuscular / cathemeral / mixed -> mixed; diurnal -> cone-dominated
Derived[17][2][18]
Motion (flicker fusion)Flicker fusion frequency
55 Hz
median of 1 relatives in family Estrildidae: Taeniopygia guttata
Estimated[28]Flicker fusion frequency: 60 Hz Measured[29][30]

Other senses

  • magnetoreception: NOT RENDERED (no agreed visual percept) (Group default)

Related animals

The same tulips as an European starling sees them.European starlingUV songbird, parrot and hummingbirdThe same tulips as a house sparrow sees them.House sparrowUV songbird, parrot and hummingbirdThe same tulips as an American tree sparrow sees them.American tree sparrowUV songbird, parrot and hummingbirdThe same tulips as a brown-headed cowbird sees them.Brown-headed cowbirdUV songbird, parrot and hummingbirdThe same tulips as a chipping sparrow sees them.Chipping sparrowUV songbird, parrot and hummingbirdThe same tulips as a dark-eyed junco sees them.Dark-eyed juncoUV songbird, parrot and hummingbird

More birds: all birds with measured vision data. Same eye type: UV songbird, parrot and hummingbird.

Sources

  1. Lind O, Mitkus M, Olsson P, Kelber A. 2014. Ultraviolet vision in birds: the importance of transparent eye media. Proc R Soc B 281:20132209. Table 1. doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2209
  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. Ausprey I.J. & Ritland S. 2024. Eye morphology contributes to the ecology and evolution of the avian tree of life [Dataset]. Dryad. Digitised Table 7 of Ritland S. 1982, The allometry of the vertebrate eye, PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Paper: Ausprey 2024 J Anim Ecol doi:10.1111/1365-2656.14141. doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3xsj3txq7
  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. Tyrrell LP, Moore BA, Loftis C, Fernandez-Juricic E 2017 (data 2017). The hawk-eyed songbird: retinal morphology, eye shape, and visual fields of an aerial insectivore. Am Nat 189(6). Dryad doi:10.5061/dryad.n7140.. doi.org/10.1086/691404
  10. Tyrrell LP, Fernandez-Juricic E 2017. Avian binocular vision: it's not just about what birds can see, it's also about what they can't. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0173235. S1 Table.. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173235
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. species_v1:Campbell & Green 1965
  14. Moore BA, Tyrrell LP, Pita D, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Fernandez-Juricic E 2017. Does retinal configuration make the head and eyes of foveate birds move? Sci Rep 7: 38406. Appendix 1.. doi.org/10.1038/srep38406
  15. Rodrigues T, Matter MM, Chiodini A, et al. 2026. Foveal vision in fast-flying birds hunting on the wing. bioRxiv 2026.06.05.730304. doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.05.730304
  16. 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
  17. Wilman H, Belmaker J, Simpson J, de la Rosa C, Rivadeneira MM, Jetz W. 2014. EltonTraits 1.0: species-level foraging attributes of the world's birds and mammals. Ecology 95:2027. BirdFuncDat.txt. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3559887.v1
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Wilman et al. 2014 EltonTraits 1.0, MamFuncDat.txt. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3559887.v1
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Schmitz L, Motani R. 2011. Science 332:705-708, SOM. doi.org/10.1126/science.1200043
  25. Banks MS, Sprague WW, Schmoll J, Parnell JAQ, Love GD. 2015. Science Advances 1:e1500391. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500391
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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

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.