Open the tool

How does the Humboldt penguin see?

The Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti) is a bird in the order Sphenisciformes. Its eyes belong to the vision type Penguin (underwater-tuned bird): blue-shifted cones, no UV cone, flat cornea for underwater focus.

Measured in this species: colour, field of view 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 Humboldt penguin's eyes, using the values in the table below.
The same scene rendered for the Humboldt penguin (60° field of view, daylight).
See your photo as the Humboldt penguinThis 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 Humboldt penguin (Spheniscus humboldti), catalogue-v1
DialValueEvidenceSources
ColourColour receptors
4 receptor classes: 403 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 450 nm (SWS (blue)), 499 nm (MWS (green)), 543 nm (LWS (long))
measured in this species
Measured[1][2]
SharpnessAcuity
18.93 cycles per degree
median of 2 relatives in family Spheniscidae: Aptenodytes patagonicus, Eudyptula minor
Estimated[3][4]
Field of viewBinocular overlap
28°
species-v1.csv
Measured[5][6]
Total field of view
282°
species-v1.csv
Measured[5][6]
Blind area behind the head
78°
blind area = 360 - total field
Derived[6]
Eye placement
lateral
frontal if binocular overlap >= 60 deg, else lateral
Derived[6]
Sharp zones (foveas)Number of foveas
1
median of 48 relatives in class Aves: Branta canadensis, Cardinalis cardinalis, Passerina cyanea, Zenaida macroura, Cyanocitta cristata, Junco hyemalis
Group default[7][8][9]
Fovea type
single central fovea (displaced dorso-temporally from retinal centre)		Group default[7][8][9]
Night visionActivity pattern
diurnal
mode of 5 rows (of 5 rows): cathemeral; diurnal; not_nocturnal
Measured (not re-verified)[10][11][12][1][13]
Rods vs cones
cone-dominated
nocturnal -> rod-dominated; crepuscular / cathemeral / mixed -> mixed; diurnal -> cone-dominated
Derived[10][11][12][1][13]
Motion (flicker fusion)Flicker fusion frequency
88.5 Hz
median of 17 relatives in class Aves: Bubo virginianus, Melopsittacus undulatus, Passer domesticus, Taeniopygia guttata, Columba livia, Calypte anna
Group default[14][15][16][17][18]

Related animals

More birds: all birds 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. Frazer SA, Baghalian M, et al. 2024. Discovering genotype-phenotype relationships with machine learning and the Visual Physiology Opsin Database (VPOD). GigaScience 13:giae073; VPOD v1.3 data release. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19051998
  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. Hadden PW, Zhang J. 2023. An Overview of the Penguin Visual System. Vision (Basel, Switzerland) 7(1):6. doi.org/10.3390/vision7010006
  6. species_v1:Hadden & Zhang 2023 (Table 1, primary ref [47])
  7. 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
  8. Potier S, Mitkus M, Bonadonna F, Duriez O, Isard P-F, Dulaurent T, Mentek M, Kelber A 2017. Eye size, fovea, and foraging ecology in accipitriform raptors. Brain Behav Evol 90: 232-242. Supplementary material (Tables S1, S2).. doi.org/10.1159/000479783
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Light conditions and the evolution of the visual system in birds (figshare dataset, SupplementaryDataset1). doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22116371.v3
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Boström JE, Dimitrova M, Canton C, Håstad O, Qvarnström A, Ödeen A. 2016. Ultra-rapid vision in birds. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0151099. S1 Table. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151099
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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?