Common octopus vs peacock mantis shrimp: 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.
The differences in numbers
- The common octopus has 1 colour receptor class and the peacock mantis shrimp 10.
- Flicker fusion: 30 Hz for the common octopus, 24.5 Hz for the peacock mantis shrimp. The higher value sees fast motion in finer time steps.
Dial by dial
| Dial | Common octopus | Peacock mantis shrimp |
|---|---|---|
| Colour | Colour receptors: 10 receptor classes: 400 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 429 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 430 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 451 nm (SWS (blue)), 487 nm (MWS (green)), 503 nm (MWS (green)), 506 nm (MWS (green)), 509 nm (MWS (green)), 528 nm (MWS (green)), 546 nm (LWS (long)) Measured[3] | |
| Sharpness | No value | Acuity: 1.1 cycles per degree Measured[4] Angle between facets: 1.6° Group default[5] Eye type: compound eye |
| Field of view | No value | No value |
| Sharp zones (foveas) | No value | No value |
| Night vision | Rods vs cones: no rods (invertebrate photoreceptors) Group default | Rods vs cones: no rods (invertebrate photoreceptors) Group default |
| Motion (flicker fusion) | Flicker fusion frequency: 30 Hz Group default[6] |
Vision types: Common octopus: Cephalopod colourblind polarisation. Peacock mantis shrimp: Crustacean (mantis shrimp, crab).
More comparisons: all comparisons.
Sources
- Chung W, Marshall N 2016. Comparative visual ecology of cephalopods from different habitats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.1346
- Kelber A, Vorobyev M, Osorio D. 2003. Animal colour vision - behavioural tests and physiological concepts. Biol Rev 78:81-118. doi.org/10.1017/S1464793102005985
- Porter ML. Crustacean photoreceptor lambda max compilation, Table 1-1 (dissertation, "Porter_2005" in VPOD); extracted from PDF by VPOD with tabula. github.com/VisualPhysiologyDB/visual-physiology-opsin-db
- Feller KD, Sharkey CR, McDuffee-Altekruse A, Bracken-Grissom HD, Lord NP, Porter ML, Schweikert LE 2021. Surf and turf vision: patterns and predictors of visual acuity in compound eye evolution. Arthropod Structure & Development 60:101002. doi.org/10.1016/j.asd.2020.101002
- Bagheri Z, Jessop A, Partridge J et al. 2022. A new computational model illuminates the extraordinary eyes of Phronima. PLOS Computational Biology. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010545
- species_v1:Bullock et al. 1991 (via Lafitte et al. 2022)
- 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
- 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
- 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
Renders use the sample scene at a 60° field of view in daylight. Evidence levels: how the tiers work.