Table 4. Comparison between theoretical predictions offered by Luo et al [2] (i.e. $\frac{f_{\ge E_a^T}^1}{f_{\ge E_a^T}^2}$ for m = 45, labeled as “Theory”) and the measurements of rate constants of visual pigments (i.e. $\frac{k_1}{k_2}$, labeled as “Experiment”).

Even for similar λ_max values of rods (Bufo and mouse) and cones (human and turtle), 16 and 83 fold difference appeared respectively. For other comparisons between rods and cones the differences are very large numbers which indicates that predicted and measured rate constants are not comparable.

Pigment	λmax(nm)	$E_a^T$(kcal/mol)	$f_{\ge E_a^T}$	Theory	Measured rate constant (s−1)	Experiment
Bufo rhodopsin	500	48.03	3.65 × 10−6	1	4.18 × 10−12	$\frac{1}{16}$
Mouse rhodopsin	500	48.03	3.65 × 10−6		6.64 × 10−11
Human red cone	617	38.93	2.44 × 10−3	1	6.70 × 10−7	$\frac{1}{83}$
Turtle(Trachemysscriptaelegans) L-cone	617	38.93	2.44 × 10−3		5.28 × 10−5
Larval tiger salamander(Ambystomatigrinum) rod	521	46.10	1.67 × 10−5	$\frac{1}{147}$	4.69 × 10−12	$\frac{1}{11261261}$
Turtle(Trachemysscriptaelegans) L-cone	617	38.93	2.44 × 10−3		5.28 × 10−5
Sturgeon (Acipenserbaeri) rods	549	43.75	7.45 × 10−5	$\frac{1}{2}$	1.07 × 10−10	$\frac{1}{55555}$
Macaque (Macacafascicularis) L-cone	561	42.82	1.36 × 10−4		5.94 × 10−6
Cane toad (Bufomarinus) red rod	503.9	47.67	4.72 × 10−6		1.17 × 10−11
Macaque (Macacafascicularis) L-cone	561	42.82	1.36 × 10−4	$\frac{1}{29.4}$	5.94 × 10−6	$\frac{1}{526315}$