Open the tool

How does the rough-skinned green treefrog see?

The rough-skinned green treefrog (Boana cinerascens) 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 rough-skinned green treefrogThis 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 rough-skinned green treefrog (Boana cinerascens), catalogue-v1
DialValueEvidenceSources
ColourColour receptors
2 receptor classes: 518.5 nm (MWS (green)), 573 nm (LWS (long))
measured in this species
Measured[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 4 rows (of 4 rows): nocturnal
Measured (not re-verified)[3][4][1][5]
Rods vs cones
rod-dominated
nocturnal -> rod-dominated; crepuscular / cathemeral / mixed -> mixed; diurnal -> cone-dominated
Derived[3][4][1][5]
Motion (flicker fusion)Flicker fusion frequency
16.9 Hz
median of 2 relatives in order Anura: Rhinella marina, Lithobates clamitans
Group default[6][7]

Related animals

More amphibians: all amphibians with measured vision data.

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. 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. Oliveira et al. 2017. AmphiBIO, a global database for amphibian ecological traits. Sci Data 4:170123.. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4644424.v5
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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?