Disruptive eye mask

Gaboon viper Bitis gabonica, its eye concealed by a disruptive mask

Disruptive eye masks camouflage the eyes of a variety of animals, both invertebrates such as grasshoppers and vertebrates including fish, frogs, birds and snakes. The eye has a distinctive shape and dark coloration dictated by its function, and it is housed in the vulnerable head, making it a natural target for predators. It can be camouflaged by a suitable disruptive pattern arranged to run up to or through the eye, sometimes forming an eyestripe. The illusion is sometimes completed by the provision of a false eye or head somewhere else on the body, in a form of automimicry.

Eye masks were first noticed by the artist Abbott Handerson Thayer in 1909, and analysed extensively by the zoologist Hugh Cott in 1940. However, in 2005 Tim Caro could still observe that the assumption that eye masks served as camouflage had not been tested systematically.

History

The artist Abbott Handerson Thayer mentioned the "masking" of the eyes of birds and mammals in his 1909 book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom, stating that this was found mainly in birds, such as plovers, and predatory mamamls. He noted that "it is very effective .. as it completely breaks the eye's otherwise conspicuous circular or oval outline.

The zoologist Hugh Cott identified the value of concealing the eye in his 1940 book Adaptive Coloration in Animals. He notes the "inherent conspicuousness of an eye-spot", which "stands out from everything else, and rivets the attention." Therefore, he argues, "no scheme of camouflage will be completely effective which does not mask or modify the appearance of the eye". He mentions, as "beautiful examples" of face patterns that achieve this, the swamp viper Proatheris superciliaris and the Gaboon viper Bitis gabonica. In his words:

The disruptive value of a pattern lies in its tendency to hide the real form of an animal by suggesting a false form to the eye. So long as the false configuration is recognized in preference to the real one, concealment will be effected.

Cott described disruptive eye masks as a special case of a coincident disruptive pattern, one that provides camouflage by joining together parts of the body to create a new appearance which contradicts the actual structures present. He noted that "more or less well-defined ocular bands or stripes" are found in many species of bird, including the nuthatch, snipe, whimbrel, ringed plover, and turnstone, and thought it significant that these patterns were associated with active nidifugous young, as in the ringed plover. He recorded that "what appear to be markings of similar significance" are found in mammals such as gemsbok, sable antelope, Grant's gazelle and vizcacha.

Pattern

G. W. Barlow, noting Cott's examples, analysed fish "eye-lines", finding a relationship between angle of line and both body shape and angle of forehead. He found that fast-swimming species had longitudinal lines and long bodies; deep-bodied fish had vertical bars and the ability to turn abruptly. Many barred patterns were in his opinion "obviously an adaptation for crypsis". He concluded that stripes and bars were both social signals and antipredator adaptations.

Leah and Benjamin Gavish tested patterns that conceal birds' eyes using patterns and human observers. They found that patterns which allow the eye to protrude from the dark area concealed the eye best, calling this the "borderline eye effect".

The evolutionary zoologist Tim Caro observed in 2005 that "the whole topic of disruptive coloration needs systematic analysis". Caro noted that in mammals, "no systematic tests of this idea are available", but that dark patches around the eyes, which would tend to draw attention to the eye instead of camouflaging it, are associated with grassland and terrestrial carnivores as well as riparian animals, suggesting the function of reducing glare, or perhaps of aposematism.

• 
  Elegant grass-mimicking grasshopper, Leptacris elegans, has stripes that join head and eye to the body
• 
  The jack-knifefish, Equetus lanceolatus, has a strongly disruptive pattern on body and through the eye.
• 
  Chaetodon ocellicaudus, the tail-spot butterflyfish is conspicuously coloured, but its eye is camouflaged and the tail has a false eye, distracting predators' attention from the head.
• 
  Rana temporaria, the common frog, has a disruptively patterned body and an eyestripe concealing the eye.
• 
  Little ringed plover chick is boldly disruptive with a pattern that obliterates the eye at a short distance.
• 
  Eurasian nuthatch has an stripe joining the beak, eye, and body
• 
  Oxybelis aeneus, the Mexican vine snake, has a dark, strongly contrasting eyestripe to conceal the eye.
• 
  Gemsbok has a disruptive facial mask that obscures the eye.

Sources

• Caro, Tim (2005). Antipredator Defenses in Birds and Mammals. University of Chicago Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Cott, Hugh B. (1940). Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Thayer, Abbott Handerson (1909). Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom. Macmillan. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)