I’m going to guess as an island species, it had no natural predators, and therefore the evolutionary pressure for it to have a wide field of view did not exist
I mean, it it has pupils like that, it has a wide field of vision. That’s the whole point of rectangular pupils. I would assume that having front-facing eyes would also give it depth perception, but maybe it needed that for making difficult jumps or something?
Not necessarily, with “genetic drift” random phenotypic changes can happen that have a neutral effect on fitness. So if they don’t need side-facing eyes, then this can just happen randomly. Especially if the sideways eyes are in some way “costly” to maintain
There was an interesting study done with zebra finches. In it they glued fake mohawkes on males and found that females selected them over unaltered males, even though it didn’t naturally occur in the species. So there is some precedence for the possibility that the forward facing eyes were simply “sexier”.
I’m not sure for that specific case, but in the general case there doesn’t need to be evolutionary pressure for change. If there is no pressure one way or the other random mutations can (and will over time) cause change without environmental reason (genetic drift).
I’m going to guess as an island species, it had no natural predators, and therefore the evolutionary pressure for it to have a wide field of view did not exist
I mean, it it has pupils like that, it has a wide field of vision. That’s the whole point of rectangular pupils. I would assume that having front-facing eyes would also give it depth perception, but maybe it needed that for making difficult jumps or something?
Probably, although there would still need to be some evolutionary pressure for forward facing eyes… I wonder what it is.
Depth perception is advantageous. It is even beneficial for island goat activities.
With the absence of natural predators, the disadvantages of the narrow field of view are mostly outweighed by the advantages of depth perception .
Not necessarily, with “genetic drift” random phenotypic changes can happen that have a neutral effect on fitness. So if they don’t need side-facing eyes, then this can just happen randomly. Especially if the sideways eyes are in some way “costly” to maintain
If sideways eyes are “costly” compared to forward facing eyes, then that would technically be a push for forward facing.
Or goats just find forward facing eyes to be sexier.
There was an interesting study done with zebra finches. In it they glued fake mohawkes on males and found that females selected them over unaltered males, even though it didn’t naturally occur in the species. So there is some precedence for the possibility that the forward facing eyes were simply “sexier”.
I mean you can do a smoldering sexy look at someone if your eyes face sideways. Makes total sense.
I know I do
<Gives you the side eye>
Depth perception.
Derception.
Derpception
I’ve always wondered if there was a term for evolutionary changes that weren’t needed!
I’m not sure for that specific case, but in the general case there doesn’t need to be evolutionary pressure for change. If there is no pressure one way or the other random mutations can (and will over time) cause change without environmental reason (genetic drift).
maybe living in caves?
Curious to consider that by being an apex consumer, it is a predator by default, even if its prey is flora.