Open the tool

Red-tailed hawk vs rock pigeon: how their vision differs

Two animals people expect to see alike, or very differently. Here are their values side by side, from the same catalogue and with the same evidence labels.

Sample scene rendered by the See Like Animals engine for the red-tailed hawk.
Red-tailed hawk
Sample scene rendered by the See Like Animals engine for the rock pigeon.
Rock pigeon

The differences in numbers

Dial by dial

DialRed-tailed hawkRock pigeon
Colour
Colour receptors: 4 receptor classes: 405 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 449 nm (SWS (blue)), 504 nm (MWS (green)), 567 nm (LWS (long)) Estimated[1][2]
Colour receptors: 4 receptor classes: 406.5 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 453 nm (SWS (blue)), 507 nm (MWS (green)), 567 nm (LWS (long)) Measured[1][2]
Sharpness
Acuity: 16.8 cycles per degree Measured[3]
Acuity: 14 cycles per degree Measured[3][4]
Field of view
Binocular overlap: 25.5° Measured[5][6]
Total field of view: 278° Derived[5]
Blind area behind the head: 82° Measured[5]
Eye placement: lateral Derived[5][6]
Binocular overlap: 19° Measured[6]
Total field of view: 316° Measured (not re-verified)[7]
Blind area behind the head: 44° Derived[7]
Eye placement: lateral Derived[6]
Sharp zones (foveas)
Number of foveas: 2 Measured (not re-verified)[8]
Fovea type: central fovea, temporal Measured (not re-verified)[8]
Number of foveas: 1 Measured[9][7]
Fovea type: central fovea Measured[9][7]
Night vision
Activity pattern: diurnal Measured (not re-verified)[10][11][12][13][2][14][15]
Rods vs cones: cone-dominated Derived[10][11][12][13][2][14][15]
Activity pattern: diurnal Measured (not re-verified)[16][11][12][13][2][15]
Rods vs cones: cone-dominated Derived[16][11][12][13][2][15]
Motion (flicker fusion)
Flicker fusion frequency: 77.7 Hz Estimated[17]
Flicker fusion frequency: 88.5 Hz Measured[18][17]
Compare them on your own photo

Vision types: Red-tailed hawk: Raptor telephoto. Rock pigeon: Panoramic grain-eater and wader.

More comparisons: all comparisons.

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. Caves EM, Brandley NC, Johnsen S (2018) Visual acuity and the evolution of signals. Trends Ecol Evol 33:358-372. Supplementary Tables S1-S3.. doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.03.001
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. species_v1:Martin & Young 1983
  8. species_v1:Potier et al. 2017
  9. Delacoux M, Kano F. 2024. Fine-scale tracking reveals visual field use for predator detection and escape in collective foraging of pigeon flocks. eLife 13:RP95549. doi.org/10.7554/elife.95549
  10. Angielczyk KD, Schmitz L 2014. Nocturnality in synapsids predates the origin of mammals by over 100 million years. Proc R Soc B 281: 20141642. Dryad doi:10.5061/dryad.1v8kj.. doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1642
  11. Light conditions and the evolution of the visual system in birds (figshare dataset, SupplementaryDataset1). doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22116371.v3
  12. Choiniere JN, Neenan JM, Schmitz L, Ford DP, Chapelle KEJ, Balanoff AM, Sipla JS, Georgi JA, Walsh SA, Norell MA, Xu X, Clark JM, Benson RBJ. 2021. Evolution of vision and hearing modalities in theropod dinosaurs. Science 372:610-613. doi:10.1126/science.abe7941. Data: https://osf.io/teq73/. doi.org/10.1126/science.abe7941
  13. 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
  14. Schmitz & Motani 2011. Nocturnality in dinosaurs inferred from scleral ring and orbit morphology. Science 332:705. Comparative data redeposited in Xing et al. 2020 supplementary information (Zenodo).. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3591994
  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. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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

Renders use the sample scene at a 60° field of view in daylight. Evidence levels: how the tiers work.