Open the tool

How does the degu see?

The degu (Octodon degus) is a mammal in the order Rodentia. Its eyes belong to the vision type Small prey mammal (UV).

Measured in this species: colour, 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.

See your photo as the deguThis 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 degu (Octodon degus), catalogue-v1
DialValueEvidenceSources
ColourColour receptors
2 receptor classes: 360 nm (UVS), 500 nm (MWS (green))
measured in this species
Measured[1]
Ultraviolet
yes: at least one receptor peaks in the ultraviolet		Measured
SharpnessAcuity
2.05 cycles per degree
median of 20 relatives in order Rodentia: Mesocricetus auratus, Cuniculus paca, Dasyprocta leporina, Ellobius lutescens, Ellobius talpinus, Heterocephalus glaber
Group default[2][3][4][5][6]
Field of viewBinocular overlap
50°
median of 1 rows (eyes-at-rest rows preferred)
Measured[7]
Sharp zones (foveas)Number of foveas
0
fovea_present / area_centralis_type (retinal topography; count 1 = fovea present, 0 = none)
Measured[8]
Fovea type
area centralis, horizontal streak		Measured[8]
Night visionActivity pattern
diurnal
mode of 7 rows (of 8 rows): cathemeral; diurnal; mixed (nocturnal/crepuscular, cathemeral, crepuscular or diurnal/crepuscular); photopic
Measured (not re-verified)[2][9][10][11][12][13]
Rods vs cones
cone-dominated
nocturnal -> rod-dominated; crepuscular / cathemeral / mixed -> mixed; diurnal -> cone-dominated
Derived[2][9][10][11][12][13]
Motion (flicker fusion)Flicker fusion frequency
62.5 Hz
median of 7 relatives in order Rodentia: Rattus norvegicus, Cavia porcellus, Mus musculus, Callospermophilus lateralis, Tamias amoenus, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus
Group default[14][15][16][17]

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. 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
  3. 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
  4. de Sousa AA et al. 2022. A natural history of vision loss: insight from evolution for human visual function. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 134:104550 (mmc, acuity compilation). doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104550
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Vega-Zuniga T, Medina FS, Fredes F, et al. 2013. Does nocturnality drive binocular vision? Octodontine rodents as a case study. PLoS ONE 8: e84199.. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084199
  8. 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
  9. Wilman et al. 2014 EltonTraits 1.0, MamFuncDat.txt. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3559887.v1
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Schmitz L, Motani R. 2011. Science 332:705-708, SOM. doi.org/10.1126/science.1200043
  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. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  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

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