Open the tool

How does the horse see?

The horse (Equus caballus) is a mammal in the order Perissodactyla. Its eyes belong to the vision type Grazing ungulate panorama: 2 cones, horizontal visual streak, near-panoramic field with a rear blind spot, narrow binocular zone; reindeer add UV lens transmission.

Measured in this species: colour, sharpness, field of view, foveas and night vision. Measured core: measured values on at least 3 of the 6 dials. Every value below carries its evidence level and sources; nothing is typed by hand.

Sample scene drawn in code: a face with red lips, a green shirt, red and green apples, flowers and a colour strip, as a person sees it.
The sample scene as a person sees it.
The same sample scene rendered by the See Like Animals engine for the horse's eyes, using the values in the table below.
The same scene rendered for the horse (60° field of view, daylight).
See your photo as the horseThis 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 horse (Equus caballus), catalogue-v1
DialValueEvidenceSources
ColourColour receptors
2 receptor classes: 428 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 539 nm (MWS (green))
measured in this species
Measured[1]
SharpnessAcuity
20.2 cycles per degree
median of 2 behavioural rows (method priority rule)
Measured[2][3]
Field of viewBinocular overlap
42.5°
median of 2 rows (eyes-at-rest rows preferred)
Measured[4][5]
Total field of view
350°
species-v1.csv
Measured (not re-verified)[6]
Blind area behind the head
10°
blind area = 360 - total field
Derived[6]
Eye placement
lateral
frontal if binocular overlap >= 60 deg, else lateral
Derived[4][5]
Sharp zones (foveas)Number of foveas
0
fovea_present / area_centralis_type (retinal topography; count 1 = fovea present, 0 = none)
Measured[7]
Fovea type
area centralis, horizontal streak		Measured[7]
Night visionActivity pattern
cathemeral
mode of 8 rows (of 9 rows): arrhythmic/cathemeral; cathemeral; diurnal; mesopic; mixed (nocturnal/crepuscular, cathemeral, crepuscular or diurnal/crepuscular)
Measured (not re-verified)[8][9][10][1][11][12][13][14][15]
Pupil shape
horizontal		Estimated[16]
Reflective layer (tapetum)
yes		Measured[17][18]
Rods vs cones
mixed
nocturnal -> rod-dominated; crepuscular / cathemeral / mixed -> mixed; diurnal -> cone-dominated
Derived[8][9][10][1][11][12][13][14][15]
Motion (flicker fusion)Flicker fusion frequency
60 Hz
median of 21 relatives in class Mammalia: Rattus norvegicus, Cavia porcellus, Mus musculus, Felis catus, Macaca mulatta, Macaca nemestrina
Group default[19][20][21][22]

Comparisons

Related animals

More mammals: all mammals with measured vision data.

Sources

  1. 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
  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. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. species_v1:Timney & Keil 1992
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Wilman et al. 2014 EltonTraits 1.0, MamFuncDat.txt. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3559887.v1
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Schmitz L, Motani R. 2011. Science 332:705-708, SOM. doi.org/10.1126/science.1200043
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Banks MS, Sprague WW, Schmoll J, Parnell JAQ, Love GD. 2015. Science Advances 1:e1500391. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500391
  17. Fornazari GA, Montiani-Ferreira F, Filho IR, Somma AT, Moore B. 2016. The eye of the Barbary sheep or aoudad (Ammotragus lervia): reference values for selected ophthalmic diagnostic tests, morphologic and biometric observations. Open veterinary journal 6(2):102-113. doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v6i2.6
  18. species_v1:Standard textbook knowledge
  19. Haarlem CS, Hynes C, Jackson AL, Mitchell KJ, O'Connell RG, Healy K. 2026. Pace of ecology drives the tempo of visual perception across the animal kingdom. Nature Ecology & Evolution (doi:10.1038/s41559-026-02994-7). Figshare dataset 10.6084/m9.figshare.30556475. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30556475
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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

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