Several visual traits have previously been assessed in elasmobranchs; however, few studies have examined and compared multiple visual attributes within a particular genus. The primary advantage of studying closely related species is that any differences between them are more likely to reflect functional ecological adaptations rather than the effects of phylogenetic separation. In this study, the visual capabilities of 4 wobbegong shark species, which vary in life-history and/or habitat, were examined: the western wobbegong (Orectolobus hutchinsi), the spotted wobbegong (O. maculatus), the ornate wobbegong (O. ornatus) and the dwarf spotted wobbegong (O. parvimaculatus). The retinae of all 4 wobbegong species are duplex; rod and cone photoreceptors can be distinguished easily on the basis of morphology. Some variation in relative eye size exists, with O. parvimaculatus possessing the largest eyes. The topographic distribution of cells within the ganglion cell layer of O. hutchinsi reveals a weakly elongated central visual streak of increased cell density, mediating a higher spatial resolving power of 2.06 cycles deg–1 in the frontal visual field. Retinal topography of O. maculatus and O. parvimaculatus is similar, with both possessing a dorsal horizontal streak facilitating an increased spatial resolving power of 3.51 cycles deg–1 and 3.91 cycles deg–1, respectively, in the lower visual field. O. parvimaculatus also possesses an area of increased cell density in the naso-ventral region of the retina, mediating acute vision in the upper caudal region of the visual field. While all 4 species have visual systems optimised for increased visual sensitivity, O. maculatus and O. parvimaculatus appear to be particularly well suited to activity under low light conditions.

Keywords:
Behaviour, Ecology, Eye size, Retina, Retinal topography, Spatial resolving power, Vision, Wobbegong shark
1.
Ali MA, Anctil M (1974): Retinas of the electric ray (Narcine brasiliensis) and the freshwater stingray (Paratrygon motoro). Vision Res 14:587–588.
2.
Anctil M, Ali MA (1974): Giant ganglion cells in the retina of the hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). Vision Res 14:903–904.
3.
Anderson WG, Good JP, Pillans RD, Hazon N, Franklin CE (2005): Hepatic urea biosynthesis in the euryhaline elasmobranch Carcharhinus leucas. J Exp Zool 303A:917–921.
4.
Bozzano A, Collin SP (2000): Retinal ganglion cell topography in elasmobranchs. Brain Behav Evol 55:191–208.
5.
Braekevelt CR (1992): Photoreceptor fine structure in the southern fiddler ray (Trygonorhina fasciata). Histol Histopathol 7:283–290.
6.
Braekevelt CR (1994a): Fine structure of the choroidal tapetum lucidum in the Port Jackson shark (Heterodontus phillipi). Anat Embryol 190:591–596.
7.
Braekevelt CR (1994b): Retinal photoreceptor fine structure in the short-tailed stingray (Dasyastis brevicaudata). Histol Histopathol 9:507–514.
8.
Brooke MdL, Hanley S, Laughlin SB (1999): The scaling of eye size with body mass in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 266:405–412.
9.
Chidlow JA (2003): The biology of wobbegong sharks (Family: Orectolobidae) from south-western Australian waters. MSc Thesis. James Cook University, Townsville.
10.
Collin SP (1988): The retina of the shovel-nosed ray, Rhinobatos batillum (Rhinobatidae): morphology and quantitative analysis of the ganglion, amacrine and bipolar cell populations. Exp Biol 47:195–207.
11.
Collin SP, Pettigrew JD (1988a): Retinal topography in reef teleosts. I. Some species with well-developed areae but poorly-developed streaks. Brain Behav Evol 31:269–282.
12.
Collin SP, Pettigrew JD (1988b): Retinal topography in reef teleosts. II. Some species with prominent horizontal streaks and high- density areae. Brain Behav Evol 31:283– 295.
13.
Collin SP, Pettigrew JD (1989): Quantitative comparison of the limits on visual spatial resolution set by the ganglion cell layer in twelve species of reef teleosts. Brain Behav Evol 34:184–192.
14.
Compagno L, Dando M, Fowler S (2005): A Field Guide to the Sharks of the World. London, Harper Collins.
15.
Curd MR (1968): Dilute H2O2-NH4OH: a rapid bleach for retinal melanin. Stain Technol 43:42.
16.
Fouts WR, Nelson DR (1999): Prey capture by the Pacific angel shark, Squatina californica: visually mediated strikes and ambush-site characteristics. Copeia 304–312.
17.
Franz V (1905): Zur Anotomie, Histologie und funktionellen Gestaltung des Selachierauges. Jena Z Naturw 40:697–840.
18.
Garamszegi LZ, Møller AP, Erritzøe J (2002): Coevolving avian eye size and brain size in relation to prey capture and nocturnality. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:961–967.
19.
Gruber SH, Gulley RL, Brandon GJ (1975): Duplex retina in seven elasmobranch species. Bull Marine Sci 25:353–358.
20.
Gruber SH, Cohen JL (1978): Visual system of the elasmobranchs: state of the art 1960–1975; in Hodgson ES, Mathewson RF (eds): Sensory Biology of Sharks, Skates, and Rays. Arlington, Office of Naval Research, pp 11–116.
21.
Gruber SH, Cohen JL (1985): Visual system of the white shark, Carcharodon carcharias, with emphasis on retinal structure. South Calif Acad of Sci, Mem 9:61–72.
22.
Harahush BK, Hart NS, Green K, Collin SP (2009): Retinal neurogenesis and ontogenetic changes in the visual system of the brown banded bamboo shark, Chiloscyllium punctatum (Hemiscyllidae, Elasmobranchii). J Comp Neurol 516:83–97.
23.
Hart NS (2002): Vision in the peafowl (Aves: Pavo cristatus). J Exp Biol 295:3925–3935.
24.
Hart NS, Lisney TJ, Collin SP (2006): Visual communication in elasmobranchs; in Ladich F, Collin SP, Moller P, Kapoor BG (eds): Fish Communication. Enfield, Science Publishers, pp 337–392.
25.
Heath AR (1990): The ocular tapetum lucidum: a model system for interdisciplinary studies in elasmobranch biology. J Exp Zool Suppl 5:41–45.
26.
Howland HC, Merola S, Basarab JR (2004): The allometry and scaling of the size of vertebrate eyes. Vision Res 44:2043–2065.
27.
Hueter RE, Gruber SH (1982): Recent advances in studies of the visual system of the juvenile lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris). Fla Sci 45:11–25.
28.
Hughes A (1977): The topography of vision in mammals on contrasting lifestyles: comparative optics and retinal organization; in Crescitelli F (ed): Handbook of Sensory Physiology, vol VIII/5: The Visual System in Vertebrates. Berlin, Springer, pp 613–756.
29.
Huveneers C, Otway NM, Gibbs SE, Harcourt RG (2007): Quantitative diet assessment of wobbegong sharks (genus Orectolobus) in New South Wales, Australia. ICES J Mar Sci 64:1–10.
30.
Kawamura G, Ohashi S (1988): The habit of cutlassfish as inferred from the retina. Nippon Suisan Gakk 54:889.
31.
Kohbara J, Niwa H, Oguri M (1987): Comparative light microscopic studies on the retina of some elasmobranch fishes. Nippon Suisan Gakk 53:2117–2125.
32.
Last PR, Chidlow JA (2008): Two new wobbegong sharks, Orectolobus floridus sp. nov. and O. parvimaculatus sp. nov. (Orectolobiformes: Orectolobidae), from southwestern Australia. Zootaxa 1673:49–67.
33.
Last PR, Stevens JD (2009): Sharks and Rays of Australia. Collingwood, CSIRO.
34.
Lisney TJ (2004): Neuroethology and vision in elasmobranchs. PhD Thesis. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
35.
Lisney TJ, Collin SP (2007): Relative eye size in elasmobranchs. Brain Behav Evol 69:266–279.
36.
Lisney TJ, Collin SP (2008): Retinal ganglion cell distribution and spatial resolving power in elasmobranchs. Brain Behav Evol 72:59–77.
37.
Litherland L, Collin SP (2008): Comparative visual function in elasmobranchs: spatial arrangement and ecological correlates of photoreceptor and ganglion cell distributions. Vis Neurosci 25:549–561.
38.
Logiudice FT, Laird RJ (1994): Morphology and density distribution of cone photoreceptor in the retina of the Atlantic stingray, Dasyatis sabina. J Morphol 221:277–289.
39.
Matthiessen (1880): Untersuchungen über den Aplanatismus und die Periscopie der Krystallinsen des Fischauges. Pfügers Arch Physiol Menschen Tiere 21:287–307.
40.
Nakamura EL (1968): Visual acuity of two tunas, Katsuwonus pelamis and Euthynnus affinis. Copeia 1968:41–49.
41.
Ollivier FJ, Samuelson DA, Brooks DE, Lewis PA, Kallberg ME, Komaromy AM (2004): Comparative morphology of the tapetum lucidum (among selected species). Vet Ophthalmol 7:11–22.
42.
Rogart RB, Ritchie JM (1977): Physiological basis of conduction in myelinated nerve fibers; in Morell P (ed): Myelin. New York, Plenum Press, pp 117–159.
43.
Sivak JG (1976): The accommodative significance of the ‘ramp’ retina of the eye of the stingray. Vision Res 16:945–950.
44.
Sivak JG (1978): Optical characteristics of the eye of the spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias). Rev Canad Biol 37:209–217.
45.
Sivak AG, Luer CA (1991): Optical development of the ocular lens of an elasmobranch, Raja eglanteria. Vision Res 31:373–382.
46.
Snyder AW, Miller WH (1977): Photoreceptor diameter and spacing for highest resolving power. J Opt Soc Am 67:696–698.
47.
Stell WK, Witkovsky P (1973): Retinal structure in the smooth dogfish, Mustelus canis: general description and light microscopy of giant ganglion cells. J Comp Neurol 148:1–32.
48.
Stone J (1981): The wholemount handbook: a guide to the preparation and analysis of retinal wholemounts. Kensington, Clarendon Press.
49.
Theiss SM, Lisney TJ, Collin SP, Hart NS (2007): Colour vision and visual ecology of the blue-spotted maskray, Dasyatis kuhlii. Müller & Henle, 1814. J Comp Physiol A 193:67–79.
50.
Theiss SM, Hart NS, Collin SP (2009): Morphological indicators of olfactory capability in wobbegong sharks (Orectolobidae, Elasmobranchii). Brain Behav Evol 73:91–101.
51.
Theiss SM (2009): Sensory biology and ecology of wobbegong sharks (Orectolobidae). PhD Thesis. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
52.
Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002): Modern Applied Statistics with S, ed 4. New York, Springer.
53.
Walls GL (1942): The Vertebrate Eye and Its Adaptive Radiation. Bloomfield Hills: Cranbook Press.
54.
Wässle H, Riemann HJ (1978): The mosaic of nerve cells in the mammalian retina. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 200:441–461.
55.
Yamanouchi T (1956): The visual acuity of the coral fish Microcanthus strigatus (Cuvier Valenciennes). Publ Seto Marine Biol Lab 5:133–156.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
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.