Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

A negatively powered lens in the chameleon

Abstract

CHAMELEONS are arboral lizards that spot their prey visually and catch it by highly precise shots with their long sticky tongue. They scan their environment by large-amplitude independent saccadic eye movements; once an insect is detected, the head axis is aligned towards the target ('head tracking'1, both eyes come forward to fixate the insect and, in a phase called 'initial protrusion'2, the sticky tongue is loaded with tension by a special hyoid apparatus3 and subsequently shot out of the mouth with great precision. Lenses placed in front of the eyes produce predictable errors in distance estimation4, suggesting that chameleons rely on accommodation cues when measuring the distance to their prey, but focusing has never been measured directly. Using a new technique to measure accommodation5, we now show that accommodation is precise enough to serve as the major distance cue. Because accurate focusing requires large retinal images, we have tested image magnification and find that it is higher than in any other vertebrate eye scaled to the same size. This is a result of a unique optical design: unlike other vertebrate eyes, the crystalline lens of the chameleon has negative refractive power. Although there is a trend among vertebrates to increase corneal power and to decrease lens power with higher visual acuity, only in the chameleon eye has this tendency led to a reversal of the sign of the power of the lens.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flanders, M. Vision Res. 25, 935–942 (1985).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Altevogt, R. & Altevogt, R. Z. Vergl. Physiol. 36, 66–77 (1954).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wainwright, P. C. & Bennett, A. F. J. exp. Biol. 168, 1–21 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Harkness, L. Nature 267, 346–349 (1977).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schaeffel, F., Hagel, G., Eikermann, J. & Collett, T. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A11, 487–495 (1994).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagner, H. & Schaeffel, F. J. comp. Physiol. A169, 515–521 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Miller, W. H. in Handbook of Sensory Physiology Vol. VII/6A (ed. Autrum, H.) 69–143 (Springer, Berlin, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Martin, G. in Perception and Motor Control in Birds (eds Davies M. N. O. & Green, P.) 5–30 (Springer, Berlin, 1994).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Schaeffel, F. & Howland, H. C. J. comp. Physiol. A160, 375–384 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Schaeffel, F. & Howland, H. C. Clin. vis. Sci. 3, 83–99 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Young, T. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 19, 23–88 (1801).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Glickstein, M. & Millodot, M. Science 192, 605–606 (1970).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Citron, M. C. & Pinto, L. H. Vision Res. 13, 873–876 (1973).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schaeffel, F., Glasser, A. & Howland, H. C. Vision Res. 28, 639–657 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hughes, A. in Handbook of Sensory Physiology Vol. VII/5 (ed. Crescitelli, F.) 613–756 (Springer, Berlin, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  16. O'Keefe, L. P. & Coile, D. C. Ophthal. Physiol. Opt. 8, 97–100 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ott, M., Schaeffel, F. A negatively powered lens in the chameleon. Nature 373, 692–694 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1038/373692a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/373692a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing