Visual fields were determined in alert restrained birds using an ophthalmoscopic reflex technique. The region of binocular overlap is relatively small: maximum width of 20° occurs approximately 15° below the horizontal, and the field extends vertically through 80° with the bill tip placed close to the centre. Monocular field width in the horizontal plane is 139°, and the field is asymmetric about the optic axis. The cyclopean field extends through 260°, and the blind area above and behind the head reaches maximum width of 100° close to the horizontal. At the frontal margins of the monocular field the retinal and optical fields do not coincide; the retinal field margin lies approximately 10° inside the optical margin. This gives rise to an apparent binocular field that is twice the width of the functional binocular field. Interspecific comparisons show that the binocular field of Short-toed Eagles is similar in shape and size to those of bird species that differ markedly in phylogeny, ecology, foraging technique, and eye size. This suggests that these relatively narrow binocular fields are a convergent feature of birds whose foraging is guided by visual cues irrespective of whether items are taken directly in the bill or in the feet, as in eagles, and irrespective of the size and shape of the monocular and cyclopean visual fields. It is argued that binocular vision in birds results from the requirement for each monocular field to extend contralaterally to embody a portion of the optical flow field which is radially symmetrical about the direction of travel. This is in contrast to functional explanations of binocularity, such as those concerned with stereopsis, which present it as a means of extracting higher order information through the combination of two monocular images of the same portion of a scene.

Keywords:
Vision, Eye, Visual fields, Binocular vision, Optic flow field, Bird, Aves, Short-toed Eagle, Circaetus gallicus
1.
Berkhoudt, H. (1985) Structure and function of avian taste receptors. In Form and Function in Birds (ed. by A.S. King and J. Mclelland), Academic Press, London, pp. 463–496.
2.
British Ornithologists’ Union (1992) Checklist of Birds of Britain and Ireland (ed. 6). British Ornithologists’ Union, Tring, Herts., U.K.
3.
Brown, L.H., E.K. Urban, and K. Newman (1982) The Birds of Africa, Vol. 1. Academic Press, London, New York.
4.
Casini, G., G. Fontanesi, and P. Bagnoli (1993) Binocular processing in frontal-eyed birds. In Vision, Brain, and Behavior in Birds (ed. by H.P. Zeigler and H.-J. Bischof), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 159–171.
5.
Collett, T. (1977) Stereopsis in toads. Nature, 267: 349–351.
6.
Cramp, S., and K.E.L. Simmons (1980) Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, London and New York.
7.
Davies, M.N.O., and P.R. Green (1994) Multiple sources of depth information: an ecological approach. In Perception and Motor Control in Birds: an Ecological Approach (ed. by M.N.O. Davies and P.R. Green), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 339–356.
8.
Frost, B.J., D.R. Wylie, and Y.C. Wang (1994) The analysis of motion in the visual systems of birds. In Perception and Motor Control in Birds: an Ecological Approach (ed. by M.N.O. Davies and P.R. Green), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 248–269.
9.
Gerritsen, A.F.C., and J.G. Sevenster (1985) Foraging behaviour and bill anatomy in sandpipers. Fortschritte der Zoologie, 30: 237–240.
10.
Gill, F.B. (1994) Ornithology (ed. 2). W.H. Freeman, New York.
11.
Gottschaldt, K.M. (1985) Structure and function of avian somatosensory receptors. In Form and Function in Birds, Vol. 3 (ed. by A.S. King and J. Mclelland), Academic Press, London, pp. 375–461.
12.
Hughes, A. (1977) The topography of vision in mammals of contrasting life style: comparative optics and retinal organization. In Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Vol. VII/5 (ed. by F. Crescitelli), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 613–756.
13.
Jäger, R., and H.P. Zeigler (1991) Visual field organization and peck localization in the pigeon (Columba livia). Behav. Brain Res., 45: 65–70.
14.
Jones, R.K., and D.N. Lee (1981) Why two eyes are better than one: the two views of binocular vision. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 7: 30–40.
15.
Katzir, G., and G.R. Martin (1994) Visual fields in herons (Adreidae) – panoramic vision beneath the bill. Naturwissenschaften, 81: 182–184.
16.
Katzir, G., and G.R. Martin (1998) Visual fields in the Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax: nocturnality does not result in owl-like features. Ibis, 140: 157–162.
17.
Krapp, H.G., and R. Hengstenberg (1996) Estimation of self-motion by optic flow processing in single visual interneurons. Nature, 384: 463– 466.
18.
Lee, D.N. (1980) The optic flow field: the foundation of vision. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 290: 169–179.
19.
Lee, D.N. (1994) An eye or ear for flying. In Perception and Motor Control in Birds: An Ecological Approach (ed. by M.N.O. Davies and P.R. Green), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 270– 291.
20.
Lee, D.N., P.E. Reddish, and D.T. Rand (1991) Aerial docking by Hummingbirds. Naturwissenschaften, 78: 526–527.
21.
Martin, G.R. (1984) The visual fields of the tawny owl, Strix aluco L. Vision Res., 24: 1739–1751.
22.
Martin, G.R. (1986a) The eye of a passeriform bird, the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris): eye movement amplitude, visual fields and schematic optics. J. Comp. Physiol. [A], 159: 545–557.
23.
Martin, G.R. (1986b) Sensory capacities and the nocturnal habit of owls (Strigiformes). Ibis, 128: 266–277.
24.
Martin, G.R. (1986c) Total panoramic vision in the mallard duck, Anas platyrhynchos. Vision Res., 26: 1303–1306.
25.
Martin, G.R. (1990) Birds by Night. T & A D Poyser, London.
26.
Martin, G.R. (1994) Visual fields in woodcocks Scolopax rusticola (Scolopacidae; Charadriiformes). J. Comp. Physiol. [A], 174: 787–793.
27.
Martin, G.R. (1998) Eye structure and amphibious foraging in albatrosses. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 265: 1–7.
28.
Martin, G.R. (1999) Eye structure and foraging in King Penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus. Ibis, in press.
29.
Martin, G.R., and M.D.L. Brooke (1991) The eye of a procellariiform seabird, the Manx shearwater, Puffinus puffinus: visual fields and optical structure. Brain Behav. Evol., 37: 65–78.
30.
Martin, G.R., and G. Katzir (1994a) Visual fields and eye movements in herons (Ardeidae). Brain Behav. Evol., 44: 74–85.
31.
Martin, G.R., and G. Katzir (1994b) Visual fields in the stone curlew Burhinus oedicnemus. Ibis, 136: 448–453.
32.
Martin, G.R., and G. Katzir (1995) Visual fields in ostriches. Nature, 374: 19–20.
33.
Martin, G.R., and G. Katzir (1999) Visual fields, foraging and binocularity in birds. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Ornithological Congress (ed. by N. Adams and R. Slowtow), University of Natal, Durban, in press.
34.
Martin, G.R., and S.R. Young (1983) The retinal binocular field of the pigeon (Columba livia): English racing homer. Vision Res., 23: 911– 915.
35.
Martin, G.R., and S.R. Young (1984) The eye of the Humboldt Penguin, Spheniscus humboldti: visual fields and schematic optics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 223: 197–222.
36.
McFadden, S.A. (1993) Constructing the three-dimensional image. In Vision, Brain and Behavior in Birds (ed. by H.P. Zeigler and H.-J. Bischof), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 47–61.
37.
McFadden, S.A. (1994) Binocular depth perception. In Perception and Motor Control in Birds: An Ecological Approach (ed. by M.N.O. Davies and P.R. Green), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 54–73.
38.
Mikkola, H. (1983) Owls of Europe. T & A D Poyser, Calton.
39.
Pettigrew, J.D. (1979) Binocular visual processing in the owl’s telencephalon. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 204: 435–454.
40.
Polyak, S. (1957) The Vertebrate Visual System. University of Chicago, Chicago.
41.
Rossel, S. (1983) Binocular stereopsis in an insect. Nature, 302: 821–822.
42.
Sibley, C.G., and B.L. Monroe (1990) Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
43.
Srinivasan, M.V. (1996) Flies go with the flow. Nature, 384: 411.
44.
Survival Anglia (1990) Survival: Snakes and Eagles, Video, Producer C. Willcock. Survival Anglia Ltd., London.
45.
Tansley, K. (1965) Vision in Vertebrates. Chapman Hall, London.
46.
Volman, S.F. (1994) Directional hearing in owls: neurobiology, behaviour and evolution. In Perception and Motor Control in Birds: An Ecological Approach (ed. by M.N.O. Davies and P.R. Green), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 292–314.
47.
Wallman, J., and J.D. Pettigrew (1985) Conjugate and disjunctive saccades in two avian species with contrasting oculomotor strategies. J. Neurosci., 5: 1418–1428.
48.
Walls, G.L. (1942) The Vertebrate Eye and Its Adaptive Radiation. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Michigan.
49.
Welty, J.C., and L.F. Baptista (1988) The Life of Birds (ed. 4). W.B. Saunders, New York.
50.
Wylie, D.R.W., W.F. Bischof, and B.J. Frost (1998) Common reference frame for neural coding of translational and rotational optic flow. Nature, 392: 278–282.
51.
Wylie, D.R.W., and B.J. Frost (1990) Binocular neurons in the nucleus of the basal optic root (nBOR) of the pigeon are selective for either translational or rotational visual flow. Visual Neurosciences, 5: 489–495.
1999
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.