Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Both predators and prey commonly camouflage by blending with a background using shapes, colors, and textures. It is relatively easy to do when the background is busy, more difficult when it is barren. This seahorse pretends to be a part of or a growth on an underwater cable.

image.thumb.jpeg.a720bf1f480e8d4aee5f5d355a54711e.jpeg

Posted

The Nightjar family are all pretty cryptic. Here's three from Nigeria.

Long-tailed Nightjar - Caprimulgus climacurus sclateri

5801736629_e662d11a88_k.thumb.jpg.6261c333425d1e6170ca36082ab85d26.jpg

 

Standard-winged Nightjar - Macrodypteryx longipennis

2371849746_95ce5b3ef0_o.thumb.jpg.d39ff1a9ef387f7fa3d6a195d8ca7269.jpg

 

Plain Nightjar (cinnamon form) - Caprimulgus inornatus

5878600969_9394d797aa_k.thumb.jpg.0dd032eb89c58e5aec9e79269590ea2d.jpg

 

Posted

I know I have bad eyesight, but, other than Seth's pictures ( only the 2nd and 3rd ), I couldn't spot any of them.
I'd make a terrible predator, and starve to death ...

Posted

Good, aren't they?

Nature tries everything, until something works really well, then leaves it alone for a few million years.

Posted
3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The death's head hawkmoth doesn't just look like bees; it smells like a bee.

Makes sense. Chemical camouflage to hide from creatures that sense the world mostly chemically. Visual camouflage to hide from creatures that sense the world mostly visually. Audio camouflage anybody?

Posted
8 minutes ago, Genady said:

Audio camouflage anybody?

Moths have some audio camouflage. Besides active jamming sounds, fuzzy wings can make it passively difficult for bats to find them.

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/researcher-receives-grant-to-study-echolocation-in-moths/ 

Quote

Previous research shows other moths use sonar defense against bat predators by “jamming” the bats’ echolocation with a sound that confuses them. Based on the fossil record, interaction between moths and bats dates back at least 50 million years and researchers hope to understand how their coexistence may have affected their evolution, including the development of ears in hawkmoths, which are found in their mouths. Hawkmoths make sounds using their genitals and another aspect of the project will address preliminary evidence they use this form of communication in mating.

 

Posted
11 hours ago, MigL said:

I know I have bad eyesight, but, other than Seth's pictures ( only the 2nd and 3rd ), I couldn't spot any of them.
I'd make a terrible predator, and starve to death ...

In my defence, I would suggest that there is a certain selection bias at play. I tend not to photograph those individuals I didn't notice.

 

  • 2 months later...
Posted (edited)

Took a picture of a resting hummingbird yesterday:

image.thumb.jpeg.2c9b3b9c9f0d05baddf340487a11750a.jpeg

Only after enlarging it at home and looking carefully, noticed a lizard resting nearby:

image.jpeg.5fd8a0bd8748c96fed10d90e721bfd30.jpeg

Edited by Genady
  • 1 month later...
Posted

The  main reason a lot  of  animals  both  terrestrial

 

NEJkxTxD2SyrGGneuEdcCm-1200-80.jpg.76598686e57ba8bdd201ce508d345426.jpg

 

 

And  marine............

 

great_white_smile_4x3.jpg.25804218199e769db9f1b3618d478dbb.jpg

 

Have white  or  @ least  light colored belly's is  that  many  animals  are color blind and thus  see  only a grayscale of other things.........

And when the light source of  nature is always  from above....... the under side of animals... tend to be in shadow.....and seen  darker......than  their backs so  they  have  evolved like that  so the light shaded bellys cancel their darkness because their in the shadow under the animals body.......and other animals attentions as less likely  to be drawn to them

As you  know if it was not  like that the difference in the  shade between their backs & bellys would catch  eyes.......

Posted
22 minutes ago, Saber said:

The  main reason a lot  of  animals ...

1. How can one test this hypothesis?

 

23 minutes ago, Saber said:

many  animals  are color blind

2. Is it a fact? How many is "many"?

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Genady said:

1. How can one test this hypothesis?

Test what   ?  test that  their bellys are lighter than  their backs ?  or   are you  asking about the  colorblindness ?

 

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

2. Is it a fact? How many is "many"?

If you  go research about it  i think that a lot    by  a lot  i mean  more that 50-60% of  vertabrates  species  are  .........Except  primates & a lot of birds....they  mainly can see colors......

Edited by Saber
Posted
49 minutes ago, Saber said:

Have white  or  @ least  light colored belly's is  that  many  animals  are color blind and thus  see  only a grayscale of other things.........

Color blind doesn’t mean grayscale.

“In all animals, including humans, the perception of colour is determined by the presence of cells in the eye called cone photoreceptors. Cats and dogs have two kinds of cones, which are sensitive to blue and green light. This means they have a useful level of colour vision.  The level of colour vision in other animals depends on the presence and types of the cones.”

https://www.vetwest.com.au/pet-library/can-animals-see-colour/#:~:text=Only one animal cannot see in colour&text=The only animal that has,no cones in its eyes.

Also:

“The only animal that has been confirmed to see only in black and white is a fish called a Skate. This is because it has no cones in its eyes.”

Posted
9 minutes ago, Saber said:

Test what   ? 

Test this explanation of why they have white/light belly. "cancel their darkness because their in the shadow under the animals body" etc.

BTW, fish do not have "their shadow under their body."

 

10 minutes ago, Saber said:

If you  go research about it  i think that a lot    by  a lot  i mean  more that 50-60% of  vertabrates  species  are  .........Except  primates & a lot of birds....they  mainly can see colors......

I don't think it is so. Did you do that research? Do you have a reference to such a research?

Posted
12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Color blind doesn’t mean grayscale.

“In all animals, including humans, the perception of colour is determined by the presence of cells in the eye called cone photoreceptors. Cats and dogs have two kinds of cones, which are sensitive to blue and green light. This means they have a useful level of colour vision.  The level of colour vision in other animals depends on the presence and types of the cones.”

https://www.vetwest.com.au/pet-library/can-animals-see-colour/#:~:text=Only one animal cannot see in colour&text=The only animal that has,no cones in its eyes.

Also:

“The only animal that has been confirmed to see only in black and white is a fish called a Skate. This is because it has no cones in its eyes.”

Thanx

 

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

BTW, fish do not have "their shadow under their body."

I ddint  mean the  shadow  cast on the ground i meant the part of the body thats in shadow (  the under side of the animal )

 

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't think it is so. Did you do that research? Do you have a reference to such a research?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_color_vision
 

https://www.colormatters.com/color-matters-for-kids/how-animals-see-color

17 minutes ago, Genady said:

Test this explanation of why they have white/light belly. "cancel their darkness because their in the shadow under the animals body" etc.

Its called  counter shading 

fgrt.jpg.a66f925f1c54add3eeabf1594ee70bb6.jpg

 

Its  also  used in military camouflage.........

 

 

dgfhryt.jpg

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Saber said:

Thanx

 

I ddint  mean the  shadow  cast on the ground i meant the part of the body thats in shadow (  the under side of the animal )

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_color_vision
 

https://www.colormatters.com/color-matters-for-kids/how-animals-see-color

The second link, I don't trust. It is too simplified, for kids.

The first link, I didn't see there anything about "more than 50-60% of  vertabrates  species  are  .........Except  primates & a lot of birds....they  mainly can see colors......"

In fact, many years ago I studied biology, and got Master Degree (M.Sc.) in biology. One of my favorite courses was Animal Behavior, which I passed with A+. I remember well from that course that most, almost all animals have color vision. Usually, it is different from us, but they do have it. Some see fewer colors than us, some see more colors than us, most see different color than us.

Regarding the first question, how one can support your explanation of why some animals have white/light belly? You didn't give any answer to it.

Edited by Genady
Posted
1 hour ago, Saber said:

Its called  counter shading 

I understand this explanation. What I am asking is, how can we know that this is WHY they have it. Maybe there is another reason? Maybe there are several different reasons? We know why engineers use this counter shading; we can just ask them. But how do we know, why this feature evolved in animals?

BTW, the textbook explanation for sharks, for example, is somewhat different from yours. They say, that when other fish look at the shark from below, the shark is less visible because they see shark's light belly on the light surface background. When they look at the shark from above, the shark is less visible because they see shark's dark top on the dark bottom background.

Posted
54 minutes ago, Genady said:

The second link, I don't trust. It is too simplified, for kids.

Its  simplified   not  lie ified or wrongified
 

 

54 minutes ago, Genady said:

The first link, I didn't see there anything about "more than 50-60% of  vertabrates  species  are  .........Except  primates & a lot of birds....they  mainly can see colors......

Today, most mammals possess dichromatic vision, corresponding to protanopia red–green color blindness


 

54 minutes ago, Genady said:

 

 

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

I understand this explanation. What I am asking is, how can we know that this is WHY they have it.

 

i like to  say  it  and talk about my  point of view on  the evolution and was waiting to  discuss this thing in another topic i had questions about  evolution like the one i had in the Eyes & Ears topic  but  im really afraid to ask them  because when i  ask some questions you people  think im saying    ( this thing i  think  is  absolutely right and i dont accept any other theories to alter my view )   i had a lot of other questions about  evolution  but im really held back my the attitude of some users here i prefer not to open up and ask them .........as i have learn in my short stay here even asking things that other people dont agree would make some trouble for me ......

Oh  by the way

If  i said this.... The second link, I don't trust. It is too simplified

I would not be treated very nicely as people telling me its a scientific  site not a place to your personal thoughts.....🥲

 

Right now i saw Mr  swansont has gave me this...

rgtre.jpg.db938ff52d9d0086a7b3c0802083fdce.jpg

 

 

...for a clip   that  i mentioned kindly if you ignored the first couple of  seconds....and  it  was talking about  what i  wrote about    but i have to bear a penalty  that never expires........but they  insisnt on  giving me an unexpirable penalty ...........eitherwise..........

And here you just have a topic that  says examples of camo.   and  i wrote what i  thought is a nice  example........you  keep saying  why  you talk  with out  evidence.........
And i suggest you to read a little about  countershading ...........
And the answer is no.............i   have A+   in biology.......what  do i  have to do with you A+  man ?   you said   evidence i gave  evidence.........You say  examples  of  camo  i  gave my   Example...........

You know what   i  dont really a have a strong and stable mental state and think ill better leave here before the repellent atmosphere here makes my situation  worse.........

I learn  a lot of things in my  short stay  here.............thanx to  all people who helped me know more...........

Oh  the last word  i  still cant forgive you  for thikning im a flat earther  in  this topic......even though i said  man  i maybe  an idiot  in relation to people who  have A+ 's   and have studied in good universities of the first world countries.......... but  im really  not that  dumb to be a flat earther........
But people insisted on that  i was wrong and im trying to prove the globe isnt a sphere........

 



You  people   * not all of you  but most of you dont even listen to the questions people ask  you ............

* in my  short stay here ill give the credit for the user with best manners & attitude to  Mr or Mrs. Studiot ....try  to learn from him/her




 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Saber said:

about my  point of view on  the evolution

But I did not ask about any point of view on evolution. I ask a question related to scientific method.

Given a hypothesis, "animals have counter shading because it balances their light reflection and makes them less visible," what test or tests could support or refute this hypothesis?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.