Super Chicken Vision

A study in the journal Public Library of Science ONE finds that chickens have additional retinal cones compared with us, which allows them to discern additional colors. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Bring home a bucket of fried chicken and you may find that people have strong feelings about which part of the bird is best. Well, scientists at Washington University in St. Louis [led by Joseph Corbo] say the answer is: the eyes. At least when you compare them to our own ocular implements. Because chickens can see more colors than we do, findings that appear in the journal Public Library of Science ONE. [See http://bit.ly/b0LyQT]

The ability to see colors comes from specialized light-sensing cells found in the retina. These cells, called cones, come in different flavors, each of which can detect different wavelengths of light. Humans have three kinds of cones that allow us to see red, green and blue. But birds have an extra cone for seeing violet and ultraviolet light. What’s more, these chicken cones are distributed evenly throughout the retina, enhancing the birds’ ability to see colors all around their visual field.

Woodpeckers, sparrows and pigeons have a similar setup in the retina department, which presumably gives them an advantage when it comes to finding mates or spotting brightly colored berries. It may also explain why the chicken crossed the road. If you could see what he does, maybe you’d head over there, too.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe