Talk:Heterochromia iridum/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Split the articles

Don't heterochromia iridis and heterochromia iridium deserve separate articles, particulary since they're two different traits that are often confused? Joygerhardt 07:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Heterochromia iridium redirects here, so it shouldn't be difficult to remove the redirect command and cut the information from here and paste it there. It would considerably shorten both articles to do that, though. It might make more sense to create Heterochromia, which does not yet exist, and put both the info for both of them on that page. Thoughts? AED 07:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

On second thought - I Googled the terms and found no consensus in the terminology. For instance, this medical dictionary states that "heterochromia iridis" is what this article has termed "heterochromia iridium" [1]. If "iridis" is plural of "iris", then it makes sense that the definition here is wrong. (It gets even more confusing when noting that you can have bilateral multicolored irises.) I still think all the information should still be moved to Heterochromia where the differences can be told. AED 07:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Iridis" is the genitive singular form of the word "iris," so it means "...of the iris" (referring to one iris). "Iris" has several meanings in Latin: "Iris, goddess of the rainbow," "rainbow," or "iris of the eye." (The word derives from Greek.) "Heterochromia iridium" should really be "heterochromia iridum," where the "iridum" means "...of irises" (referring to more than one iris). I'm not sure how that extra "i" slipped in there. "Iridium" is a chemical element. When "iris" is treated as a Latin noun (like it is in "heterochromia iridum"), it is not a third-declension "i" stem, so it doesn't have the form "iridium." On the moon, there is an area named Sinus Iridum. In this case, the "Iridum" means "...of rainbows," but it's the same "iridum" found in "heterochromia iridum." You're likely to see "heterochromia iridium" elsewhere, but it's unlikely that the person who wrote it knows Latin. Ian-Miller 08:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a small section in the article about how "Heterochromia Iridium" should be, in terms of Latin grammar, "Heterochromia Iridum"? There are ways to determine whether the extra "i" should be in there, but they're technical grammatical rules.

Incidentally, I found moon maps (such as this one) that show "Sinus Iridium," but that doesn't refute what I wrote above. It seems to be in a similar situation as "Heterochromia Iridium": most people wouldn't know the difference. Ian-Miller 05:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Neglecting any obvious mirror sites of this or other Wiki articles, my brief Google search found three laypersons who agree with this article's definition of heterochromia iridis [2][3][4] but only one professional who does [5]. On the other hand, I found at least five professional websites or professionals who state that heterochromia iridis is what this article has defined as heterochromia iridium [6][7][8][9][10] and four others who state heterochromia iridis can refer to both the binocular and the monocular conditions [11] [12] [13] [14]. There are very few professional references that comment on heterochromia iridium, but the professional noted above who supports this article's definition of heterochromia iridis also supports this article's definition of heterochromia iridium.

I think the lack of professional references to heterochromia iridium are simply because of what Ian-Miller suggested: it is spelled incorrectly, primarily by laypersons. Heterochromia iridum gets fewer Google hits, but the hits it does get appear to come from professionals confirming that it applies to either the binocular or both the binocular and the monocular conditions. One optometric physician's extensive glossary on eye-terminology states that [15], heterochromia iridis and heterochromia iridum are just the opposite of what this article has defined.

I found one E-medicine article that summarizes succinctly the issue as I see it: "heterochromia iridum" [is] "more commonly known as heterochromia iridis". In my opinion, this Wikipedia article is making a distinction between two terms that is not supported by the majority of experts using those terms or even by the majority of people using those terms. I think the change is warranted. Is there anyone monitoring this article who would care to comment? AED 06:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that the top priority is Wikipedia's consistency. The Iris article defines the terms the other way around, which can be rather confusing for any user relying heavily on Wikipedia. PaF 03:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I have integrated all of the information in this article into Heterochromia and will redirect it shortly. AED 21:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

i have complete and partial heterochromia is that possible

Associated with human chimerism?

I always thought that tetragametic chimerism was a major cause of heterochromia. Should that be mentioned in the article? See for example http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=26. --Mathew5000 12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Being that there are only "about 30-40 human cases" of chimerism known in scientific literature, I doubt one could say it is a "major" cause of heterochromia. I think the dominant autosome associated with it would be its 'major' cause. Nagelfar 11:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing Iris Color on Same Eye?

Both of my cat's eyes change from blue to red at the same time (as instinct, I suppose). Does this fall under heterochromia? Or something else? I doubt it does but if it does then we should add it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.162.2 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. It's normal for eyes to change color in different lighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.186.126 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging Central heterochromia and Heterochromia

The merger of Central Heterochromia and Heterochromia seems logical considering the former is highly relevant to the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnie1o1 (talk • contribs)

And since both articles are fairly short, and in large part redundant (even within themselves), and a variety of other reasons. There's going to need to be some major editting to do it, though, as I've just noticed Central is in large part a copyright violation. I wish I had more time, I'd take care of it myself, but I don't, so someone else is going to have to step up to the plate and actually do it. -Bbik^★ 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I merged the articles, it might need a little clean up to remove redundant content. Iepeulas (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

rarity

central seems to be the most common? and i have... whats it called? secondary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.163.47 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

wrestler kane

someone remove kane the wrestler from the list, he wears a colored contact while in character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

David Bowie

david bowie does not have heterochromia!! his pupil is left wide open due to an accident leaving him with almost no iris showing but both of his eyes are blue.

I thought it was a fist-fight in his childhood. Anyway, it might be a good idea if the article mentioned this, because tons of readers would otherwise think, "Ah, this is what David Bowie has!"

--63.25.225.9 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

David bowie donesn't have heterochomia as it is said in his biographie on the David Bowie page. So I'm removing him from the list of people who has heterochromia. Gaaboot (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article, as it currently reads, contradicts with the David Bowie article with regard to his eye colour. --Setanta747 (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The passage in David Bowie about his eye colour is well cited whereas the passage here was not. I have removed it as WP:OR. --JD554 (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hereward the Wake?

This is a quote from a biography of Australian poet Les Murray: "His hair was red, like that of almost all the Murrays, and his eyes were curiously coloured, one blue, one green, 'like Hereward the Wake', he would joke in later life." page 27 of Peter Alexander's book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.36.176 (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

More info

More information on this disorder would be good. For example, does it effect vision? Is the condition that causes this the same one that causes some people to have different colored eyes? IANAD, so I can't answer these questions... :-( — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

As the guy who supplied the picture, I can tell you it doesn't have effect vision. The condition that causes two eyes of different colour is Heterochromia Iridium, instead of Iridis. The two often get confused and some people interchange them.

Does it only occur in caucasians? Purple Rose 16:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This condition is often misdescribed. Sometimes the condition described by the image is called 'Sectoral Heterochromia Iridis, and Heterochromia Iridium. Perhaps a final word on this would be wise. I also have a semi-colored iris, and this does not cause any problems with vision.

Heterochromia occurs in all people, I've just posted a photo of a Hispanic woman with two different coloured eyes. --Speakslowly 04:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding vision: I have heterochromia (bluish-gray and greenish-gray), and, according to my eye care professional, "the vision of a hawk". So, no, it does not affect vision, as far as I can tell. 24.124.88.11 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope doesnt effect vision. i have central heterochromia and have really good vision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.146.222 (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have Complete heterochromia and 20/20 vision --Gnintendo (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. 76.66.203.138 can split off the tiny non eye part back to Heterochromia if they wish OR add a Split template  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Heterochromia → Heterochromia iridum — Relisted. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• The article says "In anatomy, heterochromia refers to a difference in coloration, usually of the iris but also of hair or skin", but the article is all about the eye variety and nothing about hair or skin heterochromia. (Note" "iridum" = "of the irises", "iridis" = "of the [one] iris", so best "iridum", since the subject's 2 eyes have 2 irises.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Split off the eye phenomenon (most of the article) and leave a general heterochromia article behind. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So until that's done, what should the article be called? I would have thought the present title was better (it does mention other meanings of heterochromia; the iris variety dominates the article presumably because that meaning of heterochromia is dominant anyway).--Kotniski (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How rare is this?

What's the chance of a person having differently colored eyes? Sagittarian Milky Way 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure, actually. I know it's quite rare. I know two people with heterochromia. One has a blue eye and a half brown/half blue eye and the other has a green eye and a brown eye. It would be nice to be given stats. Anyone have any? RiotMonday 21:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything except that it's rare. Something interesting I found was that it only "affects" less than 200000 Americans in the U.S., according to wrongdiagnosis.com. I think it's all very interesting, actually. As a person with one amber eye with a gray splotch and and a brown/green/blue/gray eye, it's very cool to find things like this out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.186.126 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• How rare? 200,000 affected people out of a total USA population of about 300,000,000 = 1 in about 1500. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this demonstrates the chances of inheriting it, but I have central heterochromia in both eyes. My eye color is naturally an olive-green and I have a vivid ring of ambery orange around both pupils. Had it since I was a small child. My maternal grandfather had heterochromia as well. One of his eyes was blue, the other green, which obviously means my mother was a carrier of the gene, but it skipped her and went to me. My half-brother has brown eyes, and both of his children do as well. --Skogul (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Central Heterochromia is the rarest form of Heterochromia"

That statement is nonsense. My mother has Central Heterochromia (brown, olive-green) and my father doesn't (teal), I do have my mothers eyes and so does my older sister, my younger sister has CHC but partially on my father's color (teal, hazel) while only my oldest brother has uniform color (brown), by Mendellian statistics this indicates that it propably is a dominant trait. Many people in my family have this trait and and quite a few non related to me pleople that I know have it (and I am not quite the social type). As about people with different eye color to each eye I've yet to meet someone.

I acknowledge that. I have got central heterochromia myself, and I know a lot of people who have it too. Besides that, there are only two people known by me with the different heterochromia in either of their eyes... - 138.232.231.243 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's rare, but not that rare. My old primary school teacher used to have this. It seems to be a genetic trait as well.Cb43569 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the website, wolframalpha.com, the estimated probability of being diagnosed with heterochromia is 1 in 46,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.60.40 (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

When answering this question, it seems pretty clear that answers need to distinguish the different probabilities of the different kinds - complete and partial heterochromias. Also central heterochromia, which anecdotally would seem to be quite common. Old_Wombat (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

References

complete and partial Heterochromia

is this possible because i have both — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.28.15 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

no — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.208.167 (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Description of Image:Heterochromia iridis 01.jpg

The image caption lists the eye color as hazel, but I would have considered it green since the brown in the eye is due to the heterochromia. Can this be changed? Krumhorns 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, David Bowie Is blind in this eye due to drug use. His eye is affected by LSD accidentally dropped in his eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.54.55 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Eye Central Heterochromia crop and lighter.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Eye Central Heterochromia crop and lighter.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 8, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-03-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 07:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A human eye displaying partial heterochromia iridum, where part of one iris is a different color from its remainder. Eye color, specifically the color of the irises, is determined primarily by the concentration and distribution of melanin. Shown here is an example of central heterochromia, where there are two colors in the same iris.Photo: Adam Cuerden

Central Heterchromia

I removed the following paragraph from the central heterochromia section because it was copy/pasted almost directly from here: http://cnri.edu/Iridology_FAQ/Iris_Color_&_Iris_Pigmentation.htm

In Central Heterochromia both eyes feature a central ring, usually brown/orange/yellow, and a true colored outer ring, The highly pigmented area that appears around the pupil and spreads outwards towards the edge of the iris may not be relevant to iris analysis unless it spills over the collarette. Conditions of gastric sub-acidity and hypochlorhydria may also be indicated. A common sign found in the biliary constitution.

If someone wants to rewrite it and add it back, they should really mention that this information is controversial, as it comes from Iridology. Alessandriana (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph,

"The potential to acquire central heterochromia may be inherited genetically, though Central Heterochromia in itself is the condition where drug and toxic settlements in the body make the iris colour appear different from its basic predominant colour. These toxic signs that show in the iris indicate the amounts of the toxins the system has failed to eliminate."

is based on iridology, which is totally rejected by the modern medical field. I think we really need to remove it. Berserk798 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed this part

The potential to acquire central heterochromia may be inherited genetically, though Central Heterochromia in itself is the condition where drug and toxic settlements in the body make the iris colour appear different from its basic predominant colour. These toxic signs that show in the iris indicate the amounts of the toxins the system has failed to eliminate.

because it is complete pseudoscience with unverified claims, and there is a potential danger there that such a paragraph would lead people to diagnose themselves with diseases they don't have. Encyclopedic means not opinion and fantasy, but substantiated fact- particularly in scientific and medical articles like this one. Whoever is puting this paragraph in there, I advise it would be better placed in the new section in the Iridology article, under a heading such as 'Overview of Iridology Claims'. --J3d3md4ss3in3 (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Hazel eyes are not central Hetrochromia" Could someone elaborate on this. I'm colour blind, I don't what colour hazel is and why it's difference from they other colors makes it an exemption to the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.103.156 (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New image

A photo of a cat exhibiting Heterochromia iridum has been submitted and added to Commons. File:Jules-Bright Eyes!.jpg I'll leave it to other editors to determien how and whether it should be placed in the article.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Users with heterochromia

The list is here.

(Removed from article; inappropriate for encyclopedic article. Elf | Talk 05:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC))

Sectoral heterochromia

Is there any particular reason that sectoral heterochromia was struck from this article? I liked to forward my friends to this page to show them what I've got, and now I can't explain as easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tccam (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your comment now. "sectoral" is currently mentioned in 2 places in the article as a synonym for partial heterochromia. I hope that addressed your issue. Elf | Talk 05:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Bad pictures

User Hardstylehunt3r (apologies if that's not the exact name) uploaded a picture with the description: "A picture of my eyes; I have complete heterochromia and anisocoria. " It's in the image gallery. This picture is of poor quality, to the point where it's useless in showing either trait it claims. I believe it was taken with a cell phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.209.112 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Done; left note on user's talk page to try a better quality one. Elf | Talk 05:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Central Heterochromia Hazel Picture

I propose one of the following pictures be added to the central heterochromia section as an example of central heterochromia creating a hazel eye;

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hazel_eye_of_a_mixed-ethnicity_female.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Amber_Brown_Green.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HumanFemalewithAmberIris.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.147.166 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

List

It may be interesting to add a list of notable people or celebrities with heterochromia. I believe Dan Aykroyd and Jane Seymour have the condition.65.81.79.71 (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Matthew Goode has the condition, obviously in Death Comes to Pemberley and not so much in The Good Wife. Any references for this? Manytexts (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Heterochromia iridum

Cyberbot II has detected links on Heterochromia iridum which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.newhealthguide.org/Central-Heterochromia.html

  Triggered by \bnewhealthguide\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Heterochromia iridum

Cyberbot II has detected links on Heterochromia iridum which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.newhealthguide.org/Central-Heterochromia.html

  Triggered by \bnewhealthguide\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor's vandalism blindness

Two different editors reverted the deletion of nonsense without bothering to check the accuracy of the information nor original addition, a vandalic addition of a one-time editor that picked a reference unverifiable online from a previous paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heterochromia_iridum&diff=prev&oldid=637094339 37.133.53.224 (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

^^Yeah that was me who originally made that edit. Just done it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.246.176 (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Iridum vs. Iridium

OK, I'm fairly sure that "iridium" is the correct Latin word for "of the irises". I have been looking for documentation of this, but I haven't yet found it. However, I'll share what I know.

One, "iris, iris, f." (the usual Latin dictionary entry for the word, giving its Nominative and Genitive Singular forms and its gender) is a third-declension noun; this can be determined by the -is ending of the Genitive form.

Two, the condition's name should translate to "of the irises", that is, the Genitive Plural form of the word.

Three, there are two "types" of third-declension noun in Latin: the regular, and the I-stem (neuter third-declension nouns are also somewhat different from those that a masculine or feminine, in both the regular and I-stem forms). In masculine and feminine nouns, the regular and the I-stem vary in only a single case and number: the Genitive Plural. The Genitive Plural ending in the regular third declension is -um, hence "iridum". However, the ending in the Genitive Plural for I-stem nouns is -ium, hence "iridium" and the label "I-stem".

Four, "iris" is probably an I-stem noun. I have not been able to find a dictionary entry for it as of yet that indicates this (as I said, most show "iris, iris, f.", which does not give enough information to indicate for certain whether or not the word is an I-stem), however, a general rule of thumb is that a third-declension masculine or feminine noun whose Nominative ends in -is just as its Genitive does is an I-stem (a source I could find quickly; scroll down to "**One Little Exception and clarification**). Thus, if "iris" is an I-stem noun, the correct Genitive Plural ending would be "iridium", not "iridum". Considering that as I type this, Firefox is giving me a spelling error on "iridum" and not "iridium", I'd wager "iridium" is the more commonly-used form, as well.

Having skimmed the above discussion, it seems as if the move to "iridum" was done believing the -ium ending to be incorrect Latin; this is not a true statement, since that ending most definitely does exist. I have not found proof that it can be correctly applied to "iris", but I believe it can (and, in fact, that the -um ending would in that case be wrong), so I suggest at the very least that someone try to track down whether or not "iris" is an I-stem. As far as I know, there's no hard-and-fast rule about I-stems; some words simply are and others simply are not. I hope we can figure out which "iris" is. --DragoonWraith (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• The form is iridum, as nominative singular iris, genitive singular iridis shows that iris is a consonant-stem irid- and the genitive plural is iridum. Compare Sinus Iridum on the moon = "bay of rainbows". I learned Latin at school. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I also learned Latin at school and I'm going to have to disagree with Anthony. Classical Latin really is no help here, because "Iris" (taken from the Greek - Ἶρις - as are most third declension nouns) is the name of a goddess, and there's only one of her. In Latin it is found as Iris in the nominative and normally Iridis in the genitive. Unsurprisingly, I've been unable to find the word ever used in the plural, so there isn't any way of determining whether it's an I-stem. Later use of medieval Latin gave us the use of the word in English for the coloured part of the eye, and medically we use a bastardised Latin for anatomical descriptions, which now results in having to create a plural form that never previously existed. It is entirely possible that either iridum or iridium may have been chosen for the genitive plural, and the best we can do is to stick with what modern sources say. But the sentence the common incorrect form "heterochromia iridium" is not correct Latin is as incorrect as it is anachronistic and ought to be removed. --RexxS (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heterochromia iridum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130513152057/http://www.heterochromiacentral.com/central%20heterochromia.html to http://www.heterochromiacentral.com/central%20heterochromia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unverifiable statistic for segmental heterochromia

I can find no sources which confirm the statistic regarding segmental or sectoral heterochromia.

Segmental heterochromia is rare in humans; only about 1% of the population have it.

In addition, since congenital heterochromia of all types only affects 0.6% of people and is generally unnoticeable, this figure appears to be way off. Perhaps the author intended to say that 1% of heterochromia cases are segmental or sectoral heterochromia, however, I can find no evidence of this.

--John Vedral (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heterochromia iridum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060108225641/http://www.optometry.co.uk/files/b9ef5756eeb28a9f1aca8872fd3f9c07_swann19990129.pdf to http://www.optometry.co.uk/files/b9ef5756eeb28a9f1aca8872fd3f9c07_swann19990129.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Differentiation

I think it would be useful to differentiate more explicitly between cases of heterochromia that are the result of genetic quirks in people suffering from no pathology and heterochromia associated with genetic diseases and other more diffuse pathologies. Urselius (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Misleading?

To quote the article:

"Though multiple causes have been posited, the scientific consensus is that a lack of genetic diversity is the primary reason behind heterochromia."

I do not have access to the cited book, but I think that this is misleading when applied to humans. I suspect what is meant is "the primary reason for the relatively high rate of heterochromia in some domesticated animals is a lack of genetic diversity". Heterochromia in humans is quite rare and I would be surprised if it was primarily linked to a lack of genetic diversity. Urselius (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Central heterochromia.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Central heterochromia?

I can’t find any good sources for the claims in the Central Heterochromia section, or anything about its existence at all beyond iridology sites, anecdotes, and some very quick mentions in otherwise poorly sourced articles about heterochromia. Should it even have its own section? It probably needs either a decent source or something about not actually being an accepted form of heterochromia, but I’m hoping someone’s found something legit about it. CaribouFanfare (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The paper here :https://search.proquest.com/openview/ef643a9b7bfc5f97e819203a68415819/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=54735

mentions and briefly describes central heterochromia, feel free to add a citation to it to the page. Irises with different colours arranged in a concentric pattern obviously exist and are fairly common, much more so than other types of heterochromia, therefore their existence should receive mention. Heterochromia is merely a description, it is not a specific disease or syndrome, therefore the idea of certain types being more 'accepted' than others is not applicable. Heterochromia just means 'different colour', iridum, means 'of the iris'; so anything involving different colour and the iris is fair game. Urselius (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! The description included in that paper doesn't support the one presented in this article ("in central heterochromia, spikes of different colors radiate from the pupil" vs. "the central (pupillary) zone of the iris is a different color than the mid-peripheral (ciliary) zone, with the true iris color being the outer color") or the final sentence about it appearing more often in eyes with low melanin. Do you think the section should be rewritten?

I agree it's very common and obviously exists (my eyes fit both definitions), but I'm not convinced there's enough quality citable material for more than a sentence or two here. CaribouFanfare (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The differences in description are merely that, they describe the same thing in essence, use the cited wording in preference. I will strike out the 'true colour' part as it seems unlikely - if a person's eyes are variegated then the variegation is the true phenomenon. I have changed the 'prevalence' assertion as I think it is factually wrong. Central heterochromia is just more noticeable in lighter eyes. I have what appear to be dark brown eyes, but in bright illumination the central iris is brown but the outer part is an olive green. Urselius (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)