Open the tool

Horse vs cow: 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.

Sample scene rendered by the See Like Animals engine for the horse.
Horse
Sample scene rendered by the See Like Animals engine for the cow.
Cow

The differences in numbers

Dial by dial

DialHorseCow
Colour
Colour receptors: 2 receptor classes: 428 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 539 nm (MWS (green)) Measured[1]
Colour receptors: 2 receptor classes: 438 nm (VS/SWS (violet)), 554 nm (LWS (long)) Measured[1][2]
Sharpness
Acuity: 20.2 cycles per degree Measured[3][4]
Acuity: 4.98 cycles per degree Measured[3]
Field of view
Binocular overlap: 42.5° Measured[5][6]
Total field of view: 350° Measured (not re-verified)[7]
Blind area behind the head: 10° Derived[7]
Eye placement: lateral Derived[5][6]
Binocular overlap: 35.5° Measured[5][6]
Total field of view: 350° Group default[7]
Blind area behind the head: 10° Group default[7]
Eye placement: lateral Derived[5][6]
Sharp zones (foveas)
Number of foveas: 0 Measured[8]
Fovea type: area centralis, horizontal streak Measured[8]
Number of foveas: 0 Measured[8]
Fovea type: anakatabatic area, area centralis, horizontal streak Measured[8]
Night vision
Activity pattern: cathemeral Measured (not re-verified)[9][10][11][1][12][13][14][15][16]
Pupil shape: horizontal Estimated[17]
Reflective layer (tapetum): yes Measured[18][19]
Rods vs cones: mixed Derived[9][10][11][1][12][13][14][15][16]
Activity pattern: diurnal Measured (not re-verified)[9][10][11][1][14][15]
Pupil shape: horizontal Estimated[17]
Reflective layer (tapetum): yes Measured[18][19]
Rods vs cones: cone-dominated Derived[9][10][11][1][14][15]
Motion (flicker fusion)
Flicker fusion frequency: 60 Hz Group default[20][21][22][23]
Flicker fusion frequency: 60 Hz Estimated[20]
Compare them on your own photo

Vision types: Horse: Grazing ungulate panorama. Cow: Grazing ungulate panorama.

More comparisons: all comparisons.

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. Müller B, Glösmann M, Peichl L, Knop GC, Hagemann C, Ammermüller J (2009) Bat eyes have ultraviolet-sensitive cone photoreceptors. PLoS ONE 4:e6390
  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. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. species_v1:Timney & Keil 1992
  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. 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
  10. 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
  11. Wilman et al. 2014 EltonTraits 1.0, MamFuncDat.txt. doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3559887.v1
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Schmitz L, Motani R. 2011. Science 332:705-708, SOM. doi.org/10.1126/science.1200043
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Banks MS, Sprague WW, Schmoll J, Parnell JAQ, Love GD. 2015. Science Advances 1:e1500391. doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500391
  18. Fornazari GA, Montiani-Ferreira F, Filho IR, Somma AT, Moore B. 2016. The eye of the Barbary sheep or aoudad (Ammotragus lervia): reference values for selected ophthalmic diagnostic tests, morphologic and biometric observations. Open veterinary journal 6(2):102-113. doi.org/10.4314/ovj.v6i2.6
  19. species_v1:Standard textbook knowledge
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.