Talk:Tapetum lucidum

Definition
I modified the definition of tapetum lucidum to match the more sensical translation of tapetum (tapestry rather than carpet). A tapestry is vertically hanging, in the same plane (vertical) as one would see the eyes of a living animal. Thus, it makes more sense to me to use the vertical aspect of the latin-english translation (tapestry) as opposed to the horizontal aspect of the latin-english translation (carpet).(actually, tapetum lucidum is masculine 2nd declention. It's of the accusative case, meaning it's of an indirect cause-anonymous user)

Which species have it? Do humans have it? AxelBoldt 22:13 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * Cats, yes, people, no.  Lots and lots of animals, I think, but cats are the ones famous for it. -- Someone else 22:16 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * We do have it, we just can't use it. Look at the inner corner of your eye in a mirror. That pink thing is your tapeum ludicum.(caruncle, not tapetum lucidum).


 * Could someone supply a citation that verifies humans have but can't use a tapetum;
 * a letter in "nature" contradicts this directly.

We do not possess tapatum lucidum, and we or them do not have to option to/ not to use it. It is a physiological reflective surface assisting in the animals ability to see at night (like a light multiplier) as opposed to the human eye which has a pigmented epithelial layer that absorbs light, reducing problems with glare and excess amounts of light in daylight hours.206.255.17.109 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Man and the higher apes have no tapetum;" 69.248.130.133 00:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Siamese cats do actually have tapetum lucidum. The point pattern in cats that Siamese cats express, which is not ::::unique to the Siamese breed, is a limited form of albinism. This means that pigment is reduced in in the fur ::::(creating the white parts of the body), but also in the eyes. This absence of color creates the optical illusion ::::of point cats having blue eyes, and also allows the red blood vessels to show through the tampetum lucidum. This ::::creates the red glow. Point cats still have it, it just ends up being colored by the blood rather than the pigment. Swiftwindcat 22:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Something else: "is a layer of tissue in the eye of many vertebrate animals". Not only vertebrates have some kind of reflecting layer in the eye: Spiders, Crustaceans, Mussels, possibly Squids. 91.6.85.213 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Pagi in Berlin Germany 2010.03.03 19:15


 * All animals' eyes will produce "eyeshine" from light when the surrounding environment is dark, the only exception is that of the human eye. I am not sure what the motives are for giving it this new name of "tapetum Lucid-anything" but I am quite sure whatever the motive it is not purposed to give a better understanding which means it's likely meant only to confuse. If the article was truly meant to explain facts so that the reader may understand, it would mention Laminin, as laminin is what causes eyeshine and is absent in only human eyes. - Dirtclustit (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Eyeshine
Should it be mentioned that when an animals eye reflects light like that, it is called Eyeshine? For example, the Fox hunting article mentions this reflecting effect in the eyes as "Eyeshine" and I have seen several websites that also call it eyeshine. So should the article note that the reflective effect of the tapetum lucidum is called Eyeshine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.154.144.123 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Giant isopod
I don't know in which article this impressive pic would fit... Scriberius 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * HOLY S*#T! It's a monster! Chrisrus (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lemur
According to this nature letter, Lemurs have tapeta. Would this make a nice addition?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v183/n4666/abs/183985a0.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.8.132.161 (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone Care to Explain this
I have been trying to determine the cause of my eye color in this photo:

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v10/128/84/3210900/n3210900_30359310_8829.jpg

I seriously doubt I have a tapetum lucidum —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingApe (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC) If it was just that one photo, I would say it's a fluke. If it happens in many photos or reflects at night, it could be a sign of retinoblastoma, a nasty cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.216.61 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC) not suggesting anything but - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-440032/The-strange-white-light-nearly-killed-baby-Grace.html 62.31.149.64 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Article comments
I was asked to comment on the article, and here it goes:


 * Sources, sources, sources...The more references, the better (as long as they are reliable).
 * A diagram showing the tissue as part of the whole eye.
 * Describe the varients in the classification section.
 * I find the line: "Eyeshine can be seen in flash photographs of animals, and in person" confusing...I thought people didn't have eyeshine.
 * I wouldn't put images of all the animals with eyeshine...the human/dog one is okay, though. Maybe making an image with side-by-side eyehine pictures (the eyes only) for eyeshine of different colours.
 * An anatomy section like Optic disc, if necessary.
 * Also, look at other eye-related article like Cornea, etc. and see what they have that's not here.

Cheers, Spencer  T♦C 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great comments! --Una Smith (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to comments: More sources now, still more to come.  It seems no special-purpose diagram exists, but the tapetum lucidum is in the choroid or the retina, so can use any diagram that labels these.  Variants described;  the messy one may need more detail.  Confusing line fixed, I hope.  Agree re images;  eyes gallery a nice idea, but so far few images available (many on Commons note the eyeshine has been edited out...).  Last 2 points pending. --Una Smith (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cave dwellers
Is eyeshine common among cave dwellers? Any notable examples? --Una Smith (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Eyeshine and visual acuity

 * Dog vision here... --Una Smith (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Primate Anatomy: An Introduction (Google Books) has a long section on eyes, with much discussion of tapetum lucidum but little synthesis and no citations. --Una Smith (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Article text: Tapetum lucidum "is supposed to cause the perceived image to be blurry from the interference of the reflected light." The TL is a *retroreflector*, so in theory there should be no blur. I find no evidence for blur, only reasonable supposition. State the supposition as such, citing refs. --Una Smith (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph makes me wonder if a cat has decribed his vision unable to discern objects that humans without the lucid tapestry can. -- J7n (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be an open question. I have not found any published experiment concerning the effect of a TL on visual acuity. --Una Smith (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs, for reference
Grab bag of refs not to hand that may be useful. --Una Smith (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ziem, K. H. (1893) Das Tapetum lucidum bei Durchleuchtung des Auges Zeitschrift f. Psychologie u. Physiologie der Sinnesorgane. Bd. IV. Hft. 6. S. 401—403.
 * Franz (1906) Zur Anatomic, Histologie, und functionellen Gestaltung des Selachierauges. Jen. Zeitschr. /. Naturwiss., vol. 40, pp. 697-840, pl. 29
 * Eyes of 18 species of sharks and rays. --Una Smith (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

inconsistent description of the 'tapetum lucidum'
In one sentance, it is...

"...often described as iridescent..."

Then, in the next:

"The tapetum lucidum, which is iridescent..."

'often described as' and 'is' have different connotations - picking one and sticking with it would help make things more consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.173.101 (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Other kinds ?
"Tapetum lucidum iridis. This structure reported in the iris of columbiform birds consists of reflective cells iridocyti which are visible in histological sections under transmitted or polarized light. Chiasson and Ferris (1968) described two types of cells in the Inca Dove (Scardafella inca): cells with large reflecting platelets scattered in the superficial layer of the iris and deeper cells with smaller platelets forming a more discrete iridocyte body Corpus iridocytorum."

- p. 597 Howard E Evans and Graham R Martin in Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Nomina anatomica avium 2e (ed. Julian J. Baumel. 1993, Nuttall Ornithological Club) [ Chiasson, R. B. and Ferris, W. R. 1968. The iris and associated structures of the Inca Dove (Scardafella inca). Amer. Zool. 8: 818.]

So is Tapetum lucidum a generic term for any reflective layer? Shyamal (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. And it looks like the different types evolved independently in different lineages Grantus4504 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are the non-retinal ones notable enough to require disambiguation? --Una Smith (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Green Eyeshine
It says that "dogs have yellow eyeshine", but the picture and many other pictures show dogs with green eyeshine. Something's got to give! Chrisrus (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The coloration that is produced is based on pigmentation in the eye. It is not an effective way of          identification; however, there are tendencies among species. There is no way to blanket a color over an          entire species, but there are enough commonalities within to make rough judgments. Caunltd (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, yellow and green eyeshine occurs in (cats at least with) yellow and green eyes, while blue eyes produce pink eyeshine. Keep in mind that our color vision gets worse in the dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the coloration issue, I had a Burmese cat with yellow-green eyes that had red eyeshine. MiscGezork (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Humans:I am a human. I have yellow eye shine. It is a rare German trait that uses defused potassium to achieve this in the retina. 4 other people have this. It has been proven by the university of Chicago that there is no reduction in vision during the night or degeneration. Here is a study reference. I do not need a flashlight when others cannot see because of the low light.

http://www.molvis.org/molvis/v18/a120/index.html '"A tapetal-like fundus reflex in a healthy male: evidence against a role in the pathophysiology of retinal degeneration?"Bold text"Heckenlively JR, Weleber RG. X-linked recessive cone dystrophy with tapetal-like sheen. A newly recognized entity with Mizuo-Nakamura phenomenon. Arch Ophthalmol. 1986 Sep;104(9):1322–1328. [PubMed]

ocular irises
What is an ocular iris? "Ocular" as far as I know means "relating to the eye" and so every iris is ocular. njaard (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Factor of 6?
I couldn't check the reference because of a paywall, though I found another that contradicts the claimed factor of 6. Although cats eyes may be 5.5 times more sensitive than human eyes, the tapetum lucidum itself only contributes a factor of 1.44, or 44% increase. Other effects such as keeping pupils dilated are responsible for the rest. Reference: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/jphysiol.1953.sp004826/pdf --Turpin (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Human uses" of tapetum lucidum
This is a weird thing to discuss because the effect evolved for the usefulness to the animal, not for the benefit of other species. Being able to spot animals through eyeshine is fair enough I guess, but the other suggestions are pretty much just saying "these animals have good eyesight so we use them for seeing things at night". The last sentence, "Historically, its function was regarded as simply to increase the light intensity of an image on the retina.[13]" suggests that now we know its "function" is to allow us to see them - which we don't. And the reference demonstrates that historically this one source considers only the benefit to the animal itself - but doesn't demonstrate that no-one else had noticed its effect in making animals eyes visible at night (which I'm sure they had, otherwise it wouldn't have been discovered at that point). Accordingly I've deleted this last sentence because I think it would be confusing and distracting to most readers. 86.0.32.216 (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)