1985
DOI: 10.1007/bf00002579
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Growth of the teleost eye: novel solutions to complex constraints

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
52
1
3

Year Published

1990
1990
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
52
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…The absolute density (cells per unit area) of all cell types in the neural retina of snapper, with the exception of rods, showed a consistent decreasing trend with increasing eye size. This observation supports earlier reports that eye enlargement involves both stretching of the neural retina and continued cellular addition (Johns 1981;Fernald 1985).…”
Section: »• V* • • * "!_supporting
confidence: 93%
“…The absolute density (cells per unit area) of all cell types in the neural retina of snapper, with the exception of rods, showed a consistent decreasing trend with increasing eye size. This observation supports earlier reports that eye enlargement involves both stretching of the neural retina and continued cellular addition (Johns 1981;Fernald 1985).…”
Section: »• V* • • * "!_supporting
confidence: 93%
“…On the other hand, comparing the relationship between body length and eye and lens diameter in G. melastomus and C. coelolepis indicates that, for an equivalent fish length of 58 cm, C. coelolepis has the eye (15%) and lens diameter (19%) larger than G. melastomus. Large eyes and increased lens diameter magnify the image on the retina and, at the same time, improve visual acuity (Fernald, 1985). This would allow the studied species to widen the range of available prey and to be more selective.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the eye grows in larger teleost individuals, some cells are added in the retinal margin. However, overall, the existing retina is stretched, resulting in a decrease in absolute cell densities, and constant visual capabilities (Fernald, 1985). The average number of cones was 780,906 (Table 2).…”
Section: Topographic Distribution Of Cone Photoreceptorsmentioning
confidence: 99%