I just realised something; in almost every picture of some mythological beastie that has a third eye, or of a cyclops with only one eye; the extra/singular eye is always either a left eye or a right eye.
That makes no sense though?? If you're only going to bother having one eye, or an extra eye tacked on or something, let it be free-standing; its own independant eyeball free on its own without looking like it's part of a pair.
And the way most artist depictions give this away is in the tearduct. It's always on either the left or the right, and that in turn betrays which half of the pair it's meant to be. (Where even is that other eye anyway? Has it genetically mutated to shrink to a size no longer perceivable by the human eye? Is it hidden underneath hair/ears/other?
YOU CANNOT JUST HAVE ONE HALF OF A PAIR
I feel that for a cyclops or any other beast to be anatomically correct, the singular/extra eye must have the tear duct smack bang in the center. Symetrically it would be free standing, but that raises the next problem of how would the eyelid function? Most eyeballs are leaf/almond shaped. This enables the eyelid to pull down, sweeping any debris into the tearduct, and out the way of any irritaion. To have a singular tearduct in the bottom middle of the eyeball though, you cannot have a singular eyelid sweeping down. The new eye would most likely be diamond shape, meaning that there must be two eyelids, sweeping down from each side and meeting in the center. This logic is such that makes the most sense to me, but I'd be mighty interested in hearing any other relevant points of veiw to this new theory.
(Disclaimer; I have no idea at all as to how I got to be thinking about this topic, so probably better not to bother ask!)