Open the tool

How does the northern mole vole see?

The northern mole vole (Ellobius talpinus) is a mammal in the order Rodentia. Its eyes belong to the vision type Small prey mammal (UV).

Measured in this species: sharpness, 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 northern mole voleThis 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 northern mole vole (Ellobius talpinus), catalogue-v1
DialValueEvidenceSources
ColourColour receptors
2 receptor classes: 360 nm (UVS), 500 nm (MWS (green))
receptor set of nearest measured relative Phodopus sungorus (same family Cricetidae)
Estimated[1]
Ultraviolet
yes: at least one receptor peaks in the ultraviolet
Estimated
SharpnessAcuity
0.9 cycles per degree
median of 1 anatomical-ganglion rows (method priority rule)
Measured[2]
Field of viewBinocular overlap
80°
median of 3 relatives in family Cricetidae: Mesocricetus auratus, Neotoma floridana, Onychomys leucogaster
Estimated[3][4]
Sharp zones (foveas)Number of foveas
0
fovea_present / area_centralis_type (retinal topography; count 1 = fovea present, 0 = none)
Measured[5]
Fovea type
none
Measured[5]
Night visionActivity pattern
nocturnal
tie ['diurnal', 'nocturnal'] broken by the broader category (round-3 tie-break rule 3: cathemeral > crepuscular > nocturnal > diurnal) (of 2 rows): diurnal; nocturnal
Measured (not re-verified)[6][7]
Rods vs cones
rod-dominated
nocturnal -> rod-dominated; crepuscular / cathemeral / mixed -> mixed; diurnal -> cone-dominated
Derived[6][7]
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[8][9][10][11]

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. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Wilman et al. 2014 EltonTraits 1.0, MamFuncDat.txt. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3559887.v1
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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?