File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Are there any animals that have movement-based vision?
Or was that just made up for the movie entirely?
>> Anonymous
No idea what the movie claimed, but even the human eyes are sensitive to movement. Entirely movement-based vision would be impractical, though.
>> Anonymous
yeah that's what I thought, seems unlikely, and when I goggled it all I got was Jurassic Park
>> Anonymous
I've noticed that if the light is low, I might not notice something at all until it moves.

Eh, it makes a bit of sense.
>> Anonymous
Frogs (admittedly they do see things that don't move, but their vision mainly relies on motion for clarity.)

The gaps in the dinosaur DNA were bridged with frog DNA in Jurassic Park, hence they had frog-like vision and frog-like ability to change sex.
>> Anonymous
The cones in your eye let you see color and focus on detail.

The rods can't tell color, but are great at sensing movement (that's why you see things moving out of the corner of your eye all the time).

Extremely simple experiment: Tell a friend to sit and stare forward. Wiggle a pen or pencil at the corner of their eye and ask them what color it is. They'll probably say it's black no matter what color it actually is.
>> Anonymous
The t-rex vision wasn't jurassic park only theory

the inconsistency was that the t-rex is a hunter... scientists now say that the t-rex is a scavenger (hence poor eyesight and tiny arms). The t-rex did nothing but clean after other dinosaurs

childhood illusion destroyed
>> Anonymous
>>319102
No, there was no theory in the original book. See>>319087for an explanation.

Spielberg fucked up while making the movie and made it seem there was an actual scientific theory claiming dinosaurs had movement-based vision. There's never been such a thing.
>> Anonymous
Going by what animal planet said, cheetahs have movement based vision.
>> Anonymous
>>319125
Most, if not all, cats are nearsighted. They can see things that don't move, but anything in the distance is an indistinct fuzzy shape until it starts moving.
>> Anonymous
>>319102
Still though, a scavenger of it's size is not something you want to run into without a really big gun, or some kind of explosive.
>> Anonymous
The movement-based vision was highly likely.

But the real fuckup was that Dr. Grant said this while the T-Rex's nose was about a foot away from them. It sure as fuck could smell them. If an animal has shitty eyesight it won't rely on it to locate prey as much as the other senses.
>> Anonymous
>>319180
>>The movement-based vision was highly likely.

The hell it was. Read the goddamn thread.

There is no reason in the world why dinosaurs would have vision inferior to their closest relatives, birds and crocodiles. Except for:>>319087
>> Anonymous
>>319180
Especially since they had olfactory lobes the size of grapefruits. In my opinion, T. rex was a scavenger/opportunist.
>> Anonymous
Leopard geckos (possibly other lizards as well) have movement-based vision in that they won't notice or pursue their prey (a cricket) until it moves around in front of them.
>> Anonymous
>>319102
It most likely played both roles, many predators do today. T-Rex had binocular vision, I don't know where they get the idea that it had poor eyesight.

T-Rex being exclusively a scavenger, with the strength and teeth it had at it's disposal, is a moronic idea, and Jack Horner is full of shit.
>> Anonymous
/dino/ on 420 would rage so hard at this thread
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
It does kinda look like a frog
>> Anonymous
>>319305
What kind of frogs do you have hopping around where you live?
>> Anonymous
Why'd they use frog DNA to fill in the gaps? Why not bird or reptile DNA?
>> Anonymous
>>319332
because its a science fiction movie / book with tons of inaccuracies
>> Anonymous
>>319102
Fuck you and your Jack Horner bullshit!!

There's an episode of Evolution (Discovery Channel show) that was about eyes. They showed that T-Rex had excellent vision. The Allosaurus had shitty vision though, making it an ambush predator.

Jack Horner can suck my balls and lick my taint.
>> Anonymous
>>319492
wtf is jack horner

the shit I'm talking about was on the discovery channel, gb2mythbusters
>> Anonymous
>>319501
He was the guy who started the whole "T-Rex was a scavenger" bullshit.

Here's part 1 of the show about eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBG1t2iLccA

I assume you can find the other parts and the part where they tested various dinosaurs vision and showed it would have most likely been a predator. I'm not too confident though.
>> Anonymous
>>319332
Simple: birds and reptiles can't change sex spontaneously, unlike frogs, and Crichton needed to give the dinosaurs that ability to get them to reproduce despite all the clones being originally of the same sex.

Yeah, I know, contrived. But Crichton needed some way to hammer in his "scientists trying to control nature are stoopid" message.

>>319518
There's a hadrosaur skeleton with a healed T.rex bite mark on its tail vertebrae. If Tyrannosaurus was a pure scavenger, it apparently had strange difficulty telling living and dead animals apart!
>> Anonymous
>>319716
The most popular theory right now is that they hunted when they were younger and faster, and became scavengers when they were older, but still supplemented their diet with occasional hunting.
>> Anonymous
>>319724
Tyrannosaurs as scavengers theory doesn't really hold water anymore. It's true that it's believed they may have preferred to steal kills from younger individuals as adults, but there is no reason why they couldn't have hunted whenever necessary. They weren't exactly going after gazelles.
>> Anonymous
>>319492

Er..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_(paleontologist)

He was also a consultant for all the JP movies. Which just goes to show how much they actually listened to him...

The frog example Michael Crichton used in the books was later disproved, but apparently no one bothered to change it in the movies. Frogs don't have the best vision, but their vision certainly isn't movement based. Surely a predatory creature that also leaps about has to have decent depth perception.
>> Anonymous
>>319102
actually, thats not been proven either, some even think it adapted to either survival strategy depending on where it hunted.
>> Anonymous
>>319987
I've kept frogs before, and whether it's true or not, the way frogs react really makes it seem like they have movement-based vision. At least mine (American bullfrogs). So even if it's been disproven, I can't fault people who have observed frogs for believing it.
>> Anonymous
>>319332

Because the plot required that the dinos change sex and birds and reptiles can't do that. Frogs can.
>> Anonymous
>>319138
Cheetahs arent cats
>> Anonymous
>>320032
Right. Let me guess: they're mustelids. No! I know. Ursids.
>> Anonymous
Actually, reading this thread I've decided that Jurassic Park isn't really that retarded. It's a bit stupid, but I see why they do things in such a way when making sci-fi movies.