Bifocal Fish Sees Differently above and below Water Line
A fish (Anableps anableps) that keeps its eyes half submerged has specially adapted pupils and retinas to see clearly both above and below the water. Christopher Intagliata reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
“Hey, four-eyes!” That playground taunt is more accurate when applied to Anableps anableps—a fish related to the guppy. It lives in the brackish waters of mangrove swamps in central and South America, and hunts for food at the water's surface... its bulging eyes submerged halfway. Which poses an evolutionary problem—should those eyes be attuned to the greenish light streaming through the mangroves? Or the yellowish rays drifting up through murky water? Well, these fish eyes see both.
Anableps doesn't actually have four eyes—just the usual two. But each eye has two pupils, one above water, one below. And each pupil sends incoming visual info to a different side of the fish's retina.
Cones in each half of the retina are adapted to produce different light-filtering pigments. So cones hit by underwater rays are primed to sense longer-wavelength yellow light. Cones hit by daylight are sensitive to shorter-wavelength green light. The finding appears in the journal Biology Letters. [Gregory Owens et al., "In the Four-Eyed Fish (Anableps anableps), the Regions of the Retina Exposed to Aquatic and Aerial Light Do Not Express the Same Set of Opsin Genes"]
The entire arrangement makes it easy for this bifocal fish to spot a tasty bug flying above the water, or a bit of algae below. For when it comes to evolution, the ayes have it.
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.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
