Is Primate Cone Ratio Variation Functional and Adaptive?

Variation in animal perception provides excellent opportunities for studying adaptation. Unusually, primates exhibit a great deal of inter‐ and intra‐specific visual system variation. Here, we discuss what is known about the retinal cone mosaic, and the sources of variation in primate cone types and their relative expression. We focus on catarrhines (African and Asian monkeys and apes and humans), which have evolved uniform trichromacy, exhibiting short‐ (S), medium‐ (M), and long‐wave (L) cones. Catarrhines generally exhibit high inter‐specific consistency in the peak sensitivities of their L and M sensitive cones. One under‐explored component of variation is the relative expression of those cones, that is, the L:M ratio. Across catarrhines, the mean L:M ratio is 1:1, with some limited intraspecific variation. Intriguingly, humans show two big differences compared to other catarrhines. Firstly, their mean L:M ratio is shifted to 2:1. Secondly, they show vast (75‐fold) intraspecific L:M ratio variation. We discuss evidence as to whether this difference in the mean ratio, and this high intraspecific variation, are likely to have functional consequences, concluding that indeed this variation likely impacts color perception. We finish by suggesting possible explanations for the higher mean ratio of L:M cones in humans, highlighting similarities with other aspects of our color vision that differ from other catarrhines. We hope that the suggestions and questions we raise will inspire future research on primate cone ratios. Summary: We discuss what is known about the retinal cone mosaic, and the sources of variation in primate cone types and their relative expression.One under‐explored component of variation is the relative expression of the Long‐ (L) and Medium (M)‐wavelength cones, that is, the L:M ratio.Across catarrhines, the mean L:M ratio is 1:1. Human mean L:M ratio is shifted to 2:1. Humans also show vast (75‐fold) intraspecific L:M ratio variation.We discuss whether this difference in the mean ratio, and this high intraspecific variation, are likely to represent functional and adaptive variation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]