• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

What's wrong with this picture?

Kat said:
As you can see from this picture, the lavender has a normal-sized eye for a hatchling. I don't have good enough resolution on my ruler to give an exact size, but it's visibly over 2mm in diameter.

The butter (and siblings), which are larger hatchlings, have smaller eyes, 2mm or less in diameter. The overall effect causes them to appear to have longer heads.

I have no idea if this defect is something worth worrying about, or if they will grow out of it. The fact that nobody here noticed the odd eye size makes me wonder if I need be concerned at all. Thoughts?

-Kat
Click to expand...

By lining a strait edge along those pics it looks like the "normal eye" is about 3mm and the "small eye" looks like it is 1 and 3/4mm -2 mm. That is only a 1/4mm-1mm difference.

I don't think that is too far out from the normal eye size. The fact that those babies are lager than normal might be creating an optical illusion that their eyes are smaller than they seem.
 
Kat said:
As you can see from this picture, the lavender has a normal-sized eye for a hatchling. I don't have good enough resolution on my ruler to give an exact size, but it's visibly over 2mm in diameter.

The butter (and siblings), which are larger hatchlings, have smaller eyes, 2mm or less in diameter. The overall effect causes them to appear to have longer heads.

I have no idea if this defect is something worth worrying about, or if they will grow out of it. The fact that nobody here noticed the odd eye size makes me wonder if I need be concerned at all. Thoughts?

-Kat
Click to expand...
Now that you point it out, I see what you mean. After you posted the butter and the lav together, it seemed obvious that the butter had a longer head, but I chalked that up to regular corn variation. I still didn't really tie it in with eye size.

I would hesitate to classify it as a defect. I think I STILL attribute it to natural corn variation. I can't really imagine culling such big and healthy-looking hatchlings. I think you are correct in concluding that our general failure to pick up on this is reason for diminished concern. :)
 
Kat said:
0x12 is hexidecimal for 18. Obviously you're not a computer programmer. ;)-Kat
Click to expand...

sorry, no i am not. just a normal human being and 0 x 12 = 0 in my world. :cheers:
 
By lining a strait edge along those pics it looks like the "normal eye" is about 3mm and the "small eye" looks like it is 1 and 3/4mm -2 mm. That is only a 1/4mm-1mm difference.
Click to expand...

Your math is a little off. 3-2mm=1mm, sure, but 3-1 3/4mm = 1 1/4mm.

So if we look at it this way... a difference of 1mm is a 33% decrease in the diameter of the eye. A difference of 1.25mm is a 42% decrease in the diameter of the eye.

The smaller eye has only 34%-44% of the area (pi*r squared) of the larger eye.

Just some interesting numbers to throw out there for y'all.

-Kat
 
Kat said:
Your math is a little off. 3-2mm=1mm, sure, but 3-1 3/4mm = 1 1/4mm.

So if we look at it this way... a difference of 1mm is a 33% decrease in the diameter of the eye. A difference of 1.25mm is a 42% decrease in the diameter of the eye.

The smaller eye has only 34%-44% of the area (pi*r squared) of the larger eye.

Just some interesting numbers to throw out there for y'all.

-Kat
Click to expand...

Your right my math was a little off there. :sidestep:

But i think my point is still valid: I don't think that is too far out from the normal eye size.
 
It was a freakin' eyeball thing!!!???? Gads, and here I was looking for extra legs or something....I'm so dissapointed!
 
I was looking to see if there were known causes of micropthalmia. It seems that there are a variety of causes including genetics, but I think genetics could likely be ruled out in this case. Anwyay,
one of the many descriptions said:
Microphthalmia in newborns is also associated with infections during pregnancy, particularly rubella and cytomegalovirus (CMV). In addition, microphthalmia may also be a result of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome(FAS).
Click to expand...
Incubation conditions could be involved, especially if that line was more sensitive to the conditions. This would at least make more sense with the entire clutch being that way. Was this clutch hatched as early as the others (something like day 55 wasn't it?)
 
Actually, it was day 59 or so. But yeah, I'm suspecting incubation conditions, if only because ALL of them are showing it. No way I'd be 'lucky' enough to get 100% weirdos if it were a recessive gene.

-Kat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top