Martin et al. ( 2001 ) measured chromatic sensitivity with red and green isoluminant LED stimuli of 4.7 deg foveally and at eccentricities between 20 and 50 deg in macaque monkey. They reported that most parvocellular (PC) ganglion cells in the periphery had an L − M sensitivity close to that of foveal PC cells. This finding is hard to reconcile with psychophysical results showing a steep decrease in L − M sensitivity with eccentricity, and possible ways out are “not very palatable” (Derrington, 2001 ). Is the monkey retina different from that in humans? Or do postretinal mechanisms determine the deterioration of chromatic discrimination in the periphery, as suggested by Martin et al. ( 2001 )? An inspection of the number of cells studied by Martin et al. ( 2001 ) suggests another possible way to reconcile these findings: only some midget cells exhibit a high selectivity, but the average selectivity declines with eccentricity. Martin et al. ( 2001 ) recorded from 131 cells at eccentricities above 20 deg, 54 cells (41%) were PC cells, of which 34 displayed overt red–green opponent responses. A quantitative analysis of 35 peripheral cells revealed that 28 cells were unambiguously cone opponent (showing a larger response to isoluminant modulation compared to luminance modulation produced by in-phase modulation of the red and green LEDs), while 7 cells (20%) responded weakly to isoluminant modulation. From the pool of these 28 cone-opponent cells a sample of 11 cells recorded above 30 deg was chosen for further analysis. Average red–green modulation sensitivity of these 11 cells was 0.8 and not significantly different from a sample of 18 foveal cells with a selectivity of 1.2 that was recorded in another study. There are several problems with this analysis. First, only a sample of 11 cells (20%) from a total of 54 PC cells was used in the analysis. Second, the average sensitivity tended to be higher in the fovea than in the periphery. This higher foveal sensitivity might become significant for a larger sample of cells. Third, foveal recordings were taken from another study with different animal subjects, stimuli, and apparatus (Lee, Pokorny, Smith, Martin, & Valberg, 1990 ) and may thus not be fully comparable to the peripheral recordings. We argue here that based on these data the strong claim that most peripheral cells have the same sensitivity as foveal cells is not fully supported. Instead, the study shows that only a subset of all peripheral PC cells has a selectivity that is comparable to the fovea, but that this sensitivity still tends to be smaller, and that this high selectivity is definitely not present in all peripheral cells. Overall, the findings of Martin et al. ( 2001 ) seem to be in agreement with most psychophysical findings.