Talk:Iris (anatomy)

message: I think we should definitely merge this article with the Iris...it's too short to be on its own.
Menpri (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about a piece of anatomy, whereas your suggested merge (limbal ring) is about a physiologic variation. In the absence of any discussion over the last year I have removed the merge tags. LT90001 (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: This article seriously needs some references and a good cleanup. (Especially the alternative medicine, "red eye" and veterinary bits stood out.) I dunno how to add the warning boxes though. 
--KatjaKat (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References and cleanup

message: How about telling what the iris dose up front? Still don't know what it does and why it does it. Need to read more.
: Was just thinking that. Article currently opens by describing the tissue the iris is made of. I am adding an opening statement that "The Iris is a membrane in the eye, responsible for controlling the amount of light reaching the retina."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsg (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function? 

message: The black ring surrounding the iris is not described!?
:If the iris is black, how can it have a black ring? Find a reference and add something, teach us! 173.164.86.190 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Ring 

message: Could someone put information in relating to the biometrics and how they relate to the iris? --Cyberman 20:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biometrics 

message: The picture as replaced has no caption, let alone anatomical detail. It repeats the iridology instantiation, also without merit there. Anyway, it is hardly fit for an anatomical description, since most stromal detail is simply unavailable. Please revert or I'll do it myself in due time. Sincerely, irismeister 19:27, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
Better illustration would be good; will see if I have one with no conflict on rights (a medical illustrator serving ophthalmic literature for 30+ years).
Art4med (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an anatomical illustration 

message: Can there be medical problems, after using a Irisscan more times
a day and used for many years?
Are there any midical reports about the use of these scans?
----
Well, it depends on the physical construction of the device used for scanning the iris. However, in most practical situations, both you and your eyes are unaware of the iris scan (which is purposely hidden near the ATMs for instance, by design, and has no chance to adjust pupil size, that's for sure. As a result, increased exposure of the retina may follow, through a larger-than-needed pupil aperture. The situation is aggravated by repetead, continuous exposure. I for instance use the ATM several times a day. The industry did NOT address your safety concern, or mine, in search for cheap secret identification. The situation is similar to that following aggressive marketing of spuriously  protecting sun glasses: Lenses which do not contain an anti-UV screen and only reduce overall  light intensity, in fact endanger the eyes: The pupil reacts to the decreased overall light intensity, and dilates, increasing its diameter in a split second. More light enters the eye so spuriously protected by sun glasses. Sadly, this increased light admitted inside the eyeball includes higher-energy, lower-bandwidth, really dangerous UV light (not filtered by most sun glasses). It is UV light which damages the retina more than higher intensity mid-spectrum green or low-spectrum, low energy red and infra-red frequencies. The bottomline? Play natural. Play safe ! And check the anti-UV filtering properties of your sun glasses, iris scanners, flashes and light bulbs. Thank you for the interesting point raised. This should be included in the text. As for the second question not that I know, I'm afraid, there aren't. I checked PaperChase (a service of the National Library of Medicine listing ALL published medical literature). There are, however older studies concerning natural light. Corporations in America have a well documented habit of supressing information not serving their sales department in one way or another. Sincerely, irismeister 14:36, 2004 Feb 19 (UTC)
----
I am considering uploading an image of my own heterochrimia iridis to illustrate this paragraph - good idea?
Nick04 18:02, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get on it today or tommorrow - whenever I can retrieve the photos I have of it. Nick04 08:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  question: Medical impact Using these scans?  

message: "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings (it can be jarring to the reader). In particular, for individual words and word-endings. For example, do not use center (American) in one place and centre (British) in another." User:Niteowlneils
:Indeed - "colour" and "color" are used all over the place. Will someone fix this? — 217.46.147.13 (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Manual of Style says spelling should be consistent

message: In that a search of Irides redirects to the Iris (anatomy) page.. I attempted to provide anyone searching for informtation on Irides the abstract strategy game with a link to the Irides(game) page. I don't understand why Elf deleted this link for the reason "I couldn't see what it had to do with "Iris", let alone specifically "Iris (anatomy)." when that is exactly why the link was created in the first place.. to allow those who weren't interested in Iris (anatomy) to find the information they wanted.
:Ah ha, I see the difficulty. OK, the solution is to change the redirect to a disambiguation.  Which isn't at all obvious to newer users, I'm afraid. Your heart's in the right place. :-)  So I went ahead and changed it. Try searching for Irides now.   Elf | Talk 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   Irides 

message: Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Improvement Drive

message: First of three comments / questions:
If I were a student having to find out what epigenetic means, and this were the first article I came upon, then I could interpret the first sentence in the section "Genetic and physical factors determining iris color" as meaning that "an individual's epigenetic constitution is made up of the combined effects of texture, pigmentation, fibrous tissue and blood vessels within the iris stroma".  What then about the rest of the body? To avoid this, one could just leave out "which together make up an individual's epigenetic constitution", or, if one does want to make the point, I can suggest something like "the whole of which is epigenetically determined" or "which is part of the individual's epigenetic make-up". --Seejyb 21:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do these make up an individual's epigentic constitution? 

message: The paragraph starting "The optical mechanisms by which the non-pigmented stromal components influence eye color are complex, and many erroneous statements exist in the literature" is difficult to make sense of, and the present description specifically does not help the reader much to know what is erroneous.
I would suggest that one starts out by plainly stating that, as far as is known, eye colour is determined both by
* pigment (biochrome), as well as by
* altering of reflected light by the physical composition of the iris - molecules and microstructures that are not pigments (structural colour).
One can than carry on to say what the pigments are (and are not - such as blue), and give a short description of what is meant by structural colour.
Under structural colour, the parts about scattering, diffraction, interference, Tyndall, Rayleigh and Raman can be put in perspective (seen in the right light?). This is presumably the main area where the "erroneous statements" can then be pointed out.
I see that Wikipedia has no article yet on structural colour, nor schemochrome, and in the article on Pigment, structural colour and pigment are differentiated in what seems to me an incorrect way. --Seejyb 21:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The physics of eye colour 

message: The comment "...ocular albinism, in which the eye is otherwise healthy despite an obviously red pupil and a translucent pinkish iris due to reflected light from the fundus." is not true. Both of the albinos whom I know have blue eyes (iris), and apparently normal (black) pupils. Oculocutaneous and ocular albinism have different manifestations. I'll post what I have before I change anything...  --Seejyb 21:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red eye 

message: I wouldn't be the first person to call myself stupid (though I freely admit there are things I don't understand), but I was so blown away by the talk about radial contraction folds, crypts of Fuch and heterochromia, my brain shut down and I lost track of what the actual purpose, if any, of the iris is.
It isn't a particular uncommon thing for me to feel on many of the medical articles, as a matter of fact.  I understand Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, and I wouldn't ever ask anyone to dumb down an article, but... the article seems inaccessible to a layman like myself.
Could someone please help with a somewhat simplified explanation or, at the very least, leave a message on my talk page explaining to me what the purpose of the iris is?  ekedolphin 06:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what is your purpose? Like you and everyone else the irides has no purpose, it simply is there. Cuzandor 00:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Scuse me while my brain goes 'splody

message: I recently created and uploaded a high-quality image of a human Iris (blue). If no one objects, I will move the current iris-image in the anatomy box downward as a separate image and use the new one instead.
Reason: higher Quality (approx. 4MPix)
--JDrewes (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anatomy Box Image 

message: This article could stand the attention of s.o. from an animal biology project.  Lots of animals have irises.  The article, as is, looks as though only humans did.  What about cuttlefish, reptiles, goats and sheep, cats etc.  Do any insects have irises??  76.97.245.5 (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Too human centric

message: under "Genetic and physical factors determining iris color": i think the genetic factors determining eye colour are epistatic, not epigenetic as quoted. I'm not 100% sure, but from the the explanation of how it works it sounds like epistasis, not epigenetics. Perhaps somebody can investigate this further??
129.96.244.110 (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  epigenetic vs epistatic 

message: This article needs to specify the average size. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average diameter? 

message: According to Britannica's coverage of the development of iris pigment:
"Usually, a baby belonging to the white races is born with blue eyes because of the absence of pigment cells in the stroma; the light reflected back from the posterior epithelium, which is blue because of scattering and selective absorption, passes through the stroma to the eye of the observer. As time goes on, pigment is deposited, and the colour changes; if much pigment is laid down the eye becomes brown or black, if little, it remains blue or gray."
On the other hand, Webvision, from the University of Utah, a trusted site on the physiology of the eye, presents this quote:
"Eye color, or more correctly, iris color is due to variable amounts of eumelanin (brown/black melanins) and pheomelanin (red/yellow melanins) produced by melanocytes. More of the former is in brown eyed people and of the latter in blue and green-eyed people. The Melanocortin-1 Receptor Gene is a regulator of eumelanin production and is located on chromosome(MCIR) 16q24.3. Point mutations in the MCIR gene will affect melanogenesis. The presence of point mutations in the MCIR gene alleles is a common feature in light skinned and blue/green eyed people"
The first one involves development over time, the second a chemical balance.  Which one is right?  We need an expert!
Nuvitauy07 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Sources:  Development of Iris Color 

message: The use of the title "Iris" is under discussion, see Talk:Iris (plant) where the plant is proposed to be the primary topic.  -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Iris

message: I actually came to this page to see if I could see a list of animals that had slit irises like cats juxtaposed against circular ones like humans, and then more uncommon things like goats and their horizontal rectangular irises. And it's not even all cats, the big cats have round irises. I was wondering if there was some taxonomic connection between the ones that have it one way versus another, but nope, apparently no one else cares, I am astounded by how shortsighted and limited these wikipedia articles are, I thought this was supposed to have a page on EVERYthing. I certainly got nowhere by searching for an actual article about slit iris.
75.175.48.64 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: this information can be found in the Pupil article, as it's the pupil that is considered to have an unusual shape. ~ Boomur [☎] 14:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  different species 

message: I'm a bit confused over recent edits by User:Cavefish777 and User:Cavefish7777, and more recently, User:Troglobite64. These edits have generally made the "Eye color" section confusing and grammatically incorrect. After my rollback of the initial edits was reverted by the original editor (i think this was 777), i went ahead and did some cleanup off Cavefish's version, as the old version was less-than-ideal anyway. This has also been reverted, and I'm not really sure why. Another user has opened a sockpuppet investigation due to sockpuppetry associated with a similarly named account in the past. I was wondering if the cavefishes had anything to discuss, so that we could avoid an edit war. ~ Boomur [☎] 02:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent string of reverts 

message: Is there a name for the iris and pupil combined? ie the non-white/sclera part of the eye, the coloured part?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.16.123 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: There is this weird section inserted about Amber-colored eyes right in the middle of the section about Genetic and physical factors determining iris color. I moved it because it seems weird to have it as a top-level header. 45.37.108.163 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Amber eyes section 

message: What does this mean:
"This anterior surface projects as the dilator muscles."
Is there perhaps a word missing at the end, like "contract"?
Pollifax (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?