whatever theory Posted June 26, 2015 Author Posted June 26, 2015 Thanks Tar for your comments. The borax bead testing is interesting. I may have to sleep on your comments for a few days before I can make an intelligent response to everything that you are saying, but I will try to get back on the subject when my brain has fully wrapped around the subject. I do not know how to apply this to my current technique but knowing the basics of what makes color occur should help answer some of the questions along the way. So thank you again. I am just waiting for it to stop raining here so that I can get outside and take pictures of the same object in different times of day. Post the results as soon as I have them. I have been thinking of a way to find the average color between species, like you suggested, and the problem that I am having is that if I took 20 different color samples from 2 of the same species, which have say 100 different shades of one color, if I did not compare the same numbers then adding these up and dividing them would give you different results from the 2 same species even if the shared the same exact color range. I understand what you are saying about trying to find an average color or maybe finding the most prevalent color between the same species, but I am a little unsure of the correct way of going about it. The only way I can see really accurately doing this is to test every single pixel from both species, then finding out which color is the most prevalent in each species. Below is the second part to my meat test. Before I only compared the color between the different kinds of meat between different species, but did not compare them to each other because it appeared that all of the meat was cut from the same animal. So now that I have shown the differences between different species of meat color I will try to show the similarity between the same species. The first picture are pigs then cows then lambs and last chicken.
Mordred Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Ever look at objects under ultraviolet light such as copper? A major factor is the light source itself. What distinquishes ultraviolet light as opposed to light from a standard light bulb ? Are all light bulbs equal in light/color mixtures? Even with the exact same ratings some bulbs emit slightly different ratios of visible/color spectrum. Focus first on imaging different objects with the same bulb. Before changing bulbs to a different rating. Then switch it up to ultraviolet. May answer a few questions on perceived color. Will a cow see the same colors as a human? Does one human see the same color as another? Or is the color they described a trained response? I'll let you ponder those questions. Is color itself reliable or should we instead focus on the frequencies? Why does spectrum analysis able to identify individual elements? How does the last question relate ? ( consider the objects your photographing comprised different mixtures of elements) If you truly want to understand color study spectrum analysis techniques. For example hydrogen and the 21 cm line . ( by the way it's great your experimenting. I suggest you study how spectography can identify chemical and element compositions via a more reliable method of frequency) vs perceived color. http://geology.com/articles/fluorescent-minerals/ 2
tar Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 Whatever Theory, Mordred makes some excellent points. Look at the structures holding the meat in your last pictures of pig and lamb. The mechanisms might be different, as in wood and metal or something, but the lighting in the one picture is obviously different than the lighting in the other. This has to affect your numbers, as in you can not assume the numbers belong to the meat when part of the numbers belong to the lighting. Another aspect of your investigation that occurred to me this morning, is that when you study pictures, the pictures have already been subject to digitalization and most probably some image processing. That is, the numbers that you see, have already been decided upon by some process that is at least one step removed from the actual wavelengths of light that are being reflected off the original subject. For instance, if the amount of red wavelengths coming from the original object was somewhere between 145 and 146 the camera already has decided to call it either 145 or 146, and you don't particularly know the process upon which it made the decision. The instruments themselves are capable of adjustments and calibrations. So consider the light source, the camera settings, specifications and internal processing rules and abilities, the computer programs and communication algorithms that are involved in transferring the data collected by the camera, to the monitor, and the specifications and abilities of the monitor. All in all, you need a few baseline standards against which to judge your numbers, so that you know what a set of numbers means, and so that you could reasonably compare one set of numbers with another set. The numbers by themselves are good. When you choose a color, and show the patch of that RGB value, it looks a whole lot, like the color of the thing. But consider Modred's suggestion of taking a picture of the same object, illuminated under ultraviolet light. If you were to take your samples and come up with an RGB patch that looked very much like the color the object was showing in the ultraviolet lit scene, it would NOT be the same RGB triplet of numbers that you would have come up with after showing us a patch that matched the sunlit object. Regards, TAR 1
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 26, 2015 Posted June 26, 2015 (edited) I cannot really compete with Tar and Mordred's remarks as regards colour mix. However I am beginning to have more simplistic considerations , which might be of value. Taking a view from two directions 1 ) the build up of colour from an atom up direction 2) the desirability for a particular colour from an environment , desirability , from a ' top down ' direction . 1 ) colours may be endemic in a species due to the various elements and molecules giving rise to a mix of colours stemming from their spectrum colours. The more these colours get mixed , the more towards a muddy brown , I would have thought appear. Certainly this is what happens when you mix colours of tube paint ( say acrylic) on a pallet . The mix soon moves toward " muddy brown " 2 ) colours may have become desirable due to a preference to eek out a safe space for themselves in the environment. Hence a Hornet , has made itself fairly secure by buzzing around with YELLOW. and BLACK stripes. Together with a nasty sting , most things will give such a flying ' hurting machine ' a wide berth. Mike Edited June 26, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos 1
whatever theory Posted June 27, 2015 Author Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) Thank you all for your comments. Is color itself reliable or should we instead focus on the frequencies? How would one measure the frequencies? In the link you gave, it was saying that common UV light bulbs are not as good as the ones made for testing minerals. Do you agree? I may have a hard time finding either of those where I live. If you have any pictures or if you have an UV light source, I would be happy to test them. Another aspect of your investigation that occurred to me this morning, is that when you study pictures, the pictures have already been subject to digitalization and most probably some image processing. That is, the numbers that you see, have already been decided upon by some process that is at least one step removed from the actual wavelengths of light that are being reflected off the original subject. For instance, if the amount of red wavelengths coming from the original object was somewhere between 145 and 146 the camera already has decided to call it either 145 or 146, and you don't particularly know the process upon which it made the decision. The instruments themselves are capable of adjustments and calibrations. As you suggested, I am working on an experiment where I will take pictures of the same object at different times of day inside and outside and I am going to use 2 different cameras for each test. I will compare them on 2 different computers with 2 different types photo software. I will post the results when finished, maybe this can help us answer some these questions. I cannot really compete with Tar and Mordred's remarks as regards colour mix. 1 ) colours may be endemic in a species due to the various elements and molecules giving rise to a mix of colours stemming from their spectrum colours. The more these colours get mixed , the more towards a muddy brown , I would have thought appear. Certainly this is what happens when you mix colours of tube paint ( say acrylic) on a pallet . The mix soon moves toward " muddy brown " I like your comments Mike, it is not a competition for good ideas, you have already contributed considerably. I see what you mean about the colors getting a little muddy on the picture of the bee. I never took this into consideration, so I guess this makes it one million and one things that need to still be worked out. This next picture I took from the link that Mordred provided: http://geology.com/articles/fluorescent-minerals/ This test was very unusual and the results were nothing like I thought they were going to be before I started. First with the UV picture, I tried to matches any colors from one stone to the next. The next picture, of normal lighting, I tried to test the same exact spots on each rock to each other, as the UV picture. If you will notice there is a lot less dots on the normal picture. Some areas that matched in the UV picture did match in the normal pictures, but many of them did not. It would appear that the mineral's colors under UV light match each other, even if these same areas do not match under normal lighting. Maybe there is a way to use the light cone 7 to figure out what elements matched both under UV and normal light, but I can not figure out how to use light cone 7 at all. It looks just like a bunch of numbers and symbols to me. Hopefully someone here will be able to make better sense of this test, I performed, then me. Thanks again I will try to remark on your remaining comments when I have more time. Edited June 27, 2015 by whatever theory
tar Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) Whatever Theory, Woke up in the middle of the night (4 am) this morning thinking about the pigments that cause the colors in living things. Back in #60 you took 10 readings and averaged out the red, the green and the blue, to come up with three numbers. I subtracted each of the numbers from 256 and added up the results and not surprisingly came up with 23 for cyan and 183 for magenta. Your average numbers were red 232, green 73, and blue 27. I did not do the calculation but if I had I am thinking I would have arrived at 230 yellow (256-27). So my thinking is, in order to be thinking about the species, and not the light, it is better to think of what wavelengths the animal is absorbing, and get that info from what wavelengths are left over (what the camera sees.) So your red 232, green 73, blue 27, becomes, in terms of the wavelengths absorbed by the animal, cyan 24, magenta 183 and yellow 229. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell Shows that the S type cones (short wavelengths) are most sensitive around 420nm, the M type (medium) around 534nm, and the L (long) around 564 nm. If you take the chart with the three bell type curves and conceptually imagine the animal absorbing part of white light (a straight horizontal line across the top) you could "plot" your numbers, and imagine a particular absorption curve, as to what light sensitive pigments are present in the animal. Regards, TAR Whatever Theory, Not sure about the ultraviolet results. It would be better, for "figuring out" purposes, if you gave us the readings for particular spots on the rocks, and not try to match colors. The colors, after all, should not match. I think we misdirected you. We were talking about different lighting conditions, as to what light is bounced off the subject and what is absorbed, in terms of what light is left for the camera or eye to see. Ultraviolet light, is called black light, because it does not produce any wavelengths in the visible spectrum. All the wavelengths are shorter than what we can see. If a rock "appears" under black light it is because it contains flourescent minerals, that absorb light of one frequency and a moment later release light of another frequency. Thus, we misdirected you, because the color of the light released from the rock is a function of the flourescent characteristics of the mineral, in that it releases visible light, after absorbing ultraviolet. So forgive me for the error. An ultraviolet source is no help at all in providing a "different" mix of wavelengths. It is providing NO visible wavelengths. All your subjects should read Red 0, Green 0, Blue 0, when observed under black light, unless they are flourescent. Regards, TAR Edited June 27, 2015 by tar 2
Klaynos Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 You cannot do normalised spectroscopy using digital photos. So you cannot look at the frequencies. 1
tar Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 Whatever Theory, Ogdensburg and Franklin and the Sterling Hills Zinc mines are about 20-25 minutes up the road from where I live. In my youth, we had a summer cabin at a lake about 10-15 minutes from Sterling hill and an old fisherman lived by himself in a cabin, where he had built a "black light" room to display his extensive collection of flourescent mineral samples from the area. The room was pitch black except for the fluorescent minerals. Really neat. http://www.galleries.com/minerals/fablocal/franklin.htm "Fluorescence is a very special trait to many of the minerals here. In fact the city of Franklin calls itself "The Fluorescent Mineral Capital of the World"! Not all the minerals fluoresce, but many do, especially willemite and calcite. It is hard to imagine a single fluorescent mineral display that exists without at least a specimen from Franklin or Sterling Hill. The most ordinary and even dull looking specimens from these localities can literally light up with beautiful reds (calcite) and greens (willemite) under short-wave and long-wave ultraviolet light. These specimens are made even more interesting with a sprinkling of nonfluorescent black franklinite peppering the fluorescent display with opaque black dots. Other fluorescent minerals from here include esporite (bright yellow-green), clinohedrite (orange-yellow), hardystonite (violet-blue), barite (white), manganaxinite (an intense red) and over 70 others." Regards, TAR 1
Lagoon Island Pearls Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 You cannot do normalised spectroscopy using digital photos. So you cannot look at the frequencies. Therein lies the rub. The OP erroneously claims this to be a doable method for the identification of pearls as to species. Molluskan valves (including pearls) contain aragonite tablets and calcite crystals embedded in a protein matrix. In a single specimen, no coloration is unique as seasonal variations occur. At the level of the periostracum, pigmentation may vary from nearly transparent early in the growth cycle to nearly opaque toward the end. In the same specimen, pearls of different colors are observed. Being intertidal in nature, these cycles are approximately 28 days in duration. Aragonite is thermodynamically unstable at standard temperature and pressure, tending to alter to mineral calcite. Marked seasonal variations are also observed. Aragonite may present as fibrous or columnar. Aragonite's crystal lattice differs from that of calcite, resulting in a different crystal shape, resulting an orthorhombic system with random acicular crystals. Repeated twinning results in pseudo-hexagonal forms. Mineral deposition in molluskan structures are strongly biologically controlled, hence some crystal forms are distinctively different from each other. In some mollusks, the entire shell is aragonite, while in others aragonite forms only discrete parts of a bimineralic structure. These structures may present in various combinations, whether prismatic, nacreous, foliated, columnar or calcitic. At best, pearl identification by species remains highly subjective. For example, the only known chemical difference between saltwater and freshwater pearls is manganese content, but even then does not imply species. In pathology, the differential diagnosis is employed to weigh probability. X-radiography and spectrometry may determine natural or aquacultural origins or structure, but in no way identifies species with one hundred percent certainty.
Mordred Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately spectrum analyzers are not cheap. Good ones are roughly 15,000 to 25,000 dollars. However one can compare a color to a frequency by doing research on the internet. Sites that show color to frequency relations are numerous. Here is one such chart. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color The complexity with this comes in the mixtures. Computers have a color range but this is merely digital assignment. The number of possible hues can easily exceed what a computer is designed to generate. However human perception can rarely pick out the differences. As far as UV bulbs, well this is readily available. Rock hounds use this tool all the time to help identify minerals. http://www.rockhounds.com/rockshop/reviews/uvtools_m100_lamp/ When I was a teenager I used to collect rocks. I had a pretty impressive collection. Though when I got older I gave that collection to another kid who was fascinated. The reason I mentioned the UV light is pigments can contain some of the same minerals. So it's helpful to test this in your classifications. Now as your tool of choice/availability is a digital camera. I would look at understanding how the camera digitizes a color. Here is one site to give you the general idea. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/specrend/ One can dig for other literature on digital color frequency programming. Side note not all cameras, monitors etc use the same algorithms. The study of color can be a lengthy one. It's a good idea to study and consider the above aspects in your experiments. At the moment I'm merely providing what's on the surface. As opposed to detailed information. Such is the joy of research, a key skill to master is how to use the internet to dig out reliable literature and data. The other key ingredient is finding consistent test conditions. An enclosed room with a single light is helpful. Always use a baseline bulb. Varying bulbs can alter the results, some bulbs produce more yellow, others more blue light. Here is another recommended test. Take the same object under the same lighting. Use the same location for the camera. Then take the same picture using different cameras. You should see the difference. Edited June 27, 2015 by Mordred 2
whatever theory Posted June 28, 2015 Author Posted June 28, 2015 Thanks Tar, Klaynos and Mordred for your comments. Back in #60 you took 10 readings and averaged out the red, the green and the blue, to come up with three numbers. I subtracted each of the numbers from 256 and added up the results and not surprisingly came up with 23 for cyan and 183 for magenta. Your average numbers were red 232, green 73, and blue 27. I did not do the calculation but if I had I am thinking I would have arrived at 230 yellow (256-27). So my thinking is, in order to be thinking about the species, and not the light, it is better to think of what wavelengths the animal is absorbing, and get that info from what wavelengths are left over (what the camera sees.) So your red 232, green 73, blue 27, becomes, in terms of the wavelengths absorbed by the animal, cyan 24, magenta 183 and yellow 229. That is a brilliant idea!!!... Shows that the S type cones (short wavelengths) are most sensitive around 420nm, the M type (medium) around 534nm, and the L (long) around 564 nm. If you take the chart with the three bell type curves and conceptually imagine the animal absorbing part of white light (a straight horizontal line across the top) you could "plot" your numbers, and imagine a particular absorption curve, as to what light sensitive pigments are present in the animal. Sometimes it is a bit difficult for me to comprehend the meaning in written words. Is there any way you can show an example of how to do this? Not sure about the ultraviolet results. It would be better, for "figuring out" purposes, if you gave us the readings for particular spots on the rocks, and not try to match colors. The colors, after all, should not match. My original purpose was to see if the colors that were illuminated matched each other in the picture. Then to see if these same areas matched each other under normal lighting conditions. While the colors on #2 and #3 matched in both the UV and the normal picture, none of the other colors matched in the normal picture. I should have studied the normal picture a little more before I started because the area in #5 that I tested in the UV photo had a light reflection in that same area in the normal picture. So the results,in my view, show that even if a certain mineral illuminates a certain color under UV light it may or may not match the same area in a normal picture. That is why I do not really understand why this is happening. I have confused even myself with this test. Unfortunately spectrum analyzers are not cheap. Good ones are roughly 15,000 to 25,000 dollars. However one can compare a color to a frequency by doing research on the internet. Sites that show color to frequency relations are numerous.Here is one such chart. Again I am having a little bit of a hard time understanding how to convert color to frequency on this chart. Any examples would be much appreciated. As far as UV bulbs, well this is readily available. Rock hounds use this tool all the time to help identify minerals. I will be traveling abroad next month and I will be looking for a UV bulb I can buy. We only have Chinese left over stuff available where I live and finding anything is a challenge here. The study of color can be a lengthy one. It's a good idea to study and consider the above aspects in your experiments.At the moment I'm merely providing what's on the surface. As opposed to detailed information.Such is the joy of research, a key skill to master is how to use the internet to dig out reliable literature and data. I totally agree with what you are saying. In order to advance this, starting from the beginning and understanding the basics should be our first priority. As we move along having all of this surface knowledge will help guide us in the right direction. Now as your tool of choice/availability is a digital camera. I would look at understanding how the camera digitizes a color.Here is one site to give you the general idea. http://www.fourmilab...ments/specrend/ I understand the idea, but I am having a hard time figuring out exactly how to transfer the x,y and z into r,g and b. I will figure it out but it may take me a little while to study this. I have one leaf test that I already completed, so I will post it now, but I will wait before preparing any more such test until I can fully understand how to adapt you and Tar's suggestions to this technique. Any and all help will be very appreciated. This test I have tested 2 leaves of the same wild species, from different plants, to each other. I have tested what appeared to be the lightest and darkest shade of green on each species. Even though I was able to easily match the color between species I was not able to find any of these colors on leaves of the other species. In the first and second picture the dark shades of green were close to each other, but you can see that the light shades from both species were very different from each other. This may help show that even if a species share one color with another the entire range of that color may be unique to it's own species. I wanted to explain in detail the next test I am going to try, in hopes that you all will be able to find any flaws or ways to improve what I am about to do. 1. I will set my 2 cameras on the same settings: Flash-On, Focus-Macro, Timer 5 Sec, ISO 200 -I will take a picture of a grey/white card in my black box from the same exact distance with both cameras, with the lid closed so no outside light gets in 2. I do the same as above but I will put them in a light box, to block indirect light, and on these photos I will take one with each camera with the flash on and one with the flash off. I will try to have my house lighting the same, but the indirect light from outside will still be present - I will repeat this process in the morning afternoon and mid day 3. I will do the same as number 2 outside with no box, in indirect sun light. 4. I will compare all of the pictures using Corel Photoshop first, then using Adobe Photoshop. Next I will repeat this same process on a different computer. Ok thanks again for all of your help. I am starting to get excited. I feel like we are starting to move at a fast pace and that we may actually be able to figure all of this out - 1
tar Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Whatever Theory, r33 g64 b27 was your color of the first set of leaves. My thought was to think of a line across the top of the cone chart, and make a yellow valley where blue was absorbed, a magenta valley where green was absorbed and a cyan valley where red light was absorbed. How the peaks between the valleys are to be drawn, is up for grabs, but the bottom of the valley in each case would be your plotted number, as I have done here, with B27, G64 and R33. This gives sort of a visual profile of the absorption of light taking place, to produce the perceived color. Regards, TAR Whatever Theory, I did not exactly follow your expectations with the fluorescent rocks. A particular area that shows a color under visible light, does not have to show that color under ultraviolet light. When visible light strikes a rock, it is either absorbed or reflected. When ultraviolet light hits a fluorescent mineral, certain wavelengths are absorbed, and then the energy is sent out, meaning light is emitted from the stone, at a different wavelength than what was absorbed. We know its different, because we can see it, and the wavelength that hit the stone was not within the visible spectrum. Perhaps your confusion is related to the fact that a computer screen emits light. Thus when you see a green thing on a monitor, there is actually green light being created and emitted from that area of the screen. The actual subject that the picture was of, does not create green light. The sun or a light bulb creates the white light, and the leaf absorbs the magenta wavelengths and reflects the green wavelengths. You have to keep the source of the wavelengths in mind, and what is happening in terms of the pigments absorbing such, in a living thing, to create its apparent color. This is crucial to understand, for your identification system to be structured in an understandable and falsifiable way. Whatever system you come up with, has to be able to be done by anyone following the same procedures. And anyone should get the same results when they follow the procedure you describe. If you say the profile of the dark part of the gabungo leaf is this and the profile of the light part is that, and somebody has a leaf and they follow your procedure to arrive at a profile for the dark part and a profile for the light part, the profiles should match pretty closely if they are testing a gabungo leaf, and they should match your profiles of a madingo leaf, if they are testing a madingo leaf. Regards, TAR 1
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) . Here is an interesting ' Colourful ', gem , that is in some obtuse way relevant to the discussion . Lewis Dartnell , in his book The Knowledge ( How to rebuild our world from scratch ) Isbn 9781847922274 2014. On page 65, brings up the question of the ' Carrot ' , which has for many western countries become a crop for eating. The carrot as a root vegetable by nature is either white or purple, historically. In the 17th century agriculturalists in the Netherlands , selectively bred the Orange Variety to honour " the Prince of Orange " , now we have the Orange Carrot , as a popular Carrot , coloured Orange , as a main crop. ( at least in the West ) Mike Edited June 28, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos 2
Lagoon Island Pearls Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) You have to keep the source of the wavelengths in mind, and what is happening in terms of the pigments absorbing such, in a living thing, to create its apparent color. This is crucial to understand, for your identification system to be structured in an understandable and falsifiable way. Whatever system you come up with, has to be able to be done by anyone following the same procedures. And anyone should get the same results when they follow the procedure you describe. I'll indulge the OP's procedure and contribute these images. The selected area is R-61 G-98 B-151. Testing this proceedure, I have four questions to ask the OP. 1- Is the Jay blue? 2- Is R-61 G-98 B-151 unique to Jays only? 3- Is this Jay always this exact color in outdoor lighting at all times of the day? 4- If I submitted the second image only, would it positively identify the subject as a Stellar's Jay? Edited June 28, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls
tar Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Lagoon Island Pearls, I did not have Stellar's Jay in my North American bird book, but searching on the internet, the pictures were varied enough so that the particular numbers you show, would not be the ones each picture would yield, so, somehow a correction factor, or a "bringing a picture to a standard state" has to be developed. Even if it is something like "take a picture of the male of the species in full sun with the sun behind you between 45 and 55 degrees elevated and have the bird facing away from you with the length of the body pointing between perpendicular to your line of site and parallel to you line of site, between this and that angle, and have the bird between this and that height higher than your position, and take the picture with this camera and this lens and these filters, and store the image in this manner and display it on this device in this manner, and select a pixel at this particular location on the bird and read its RGB value." That this particular RGB value can be found on a bird of another species would not be surprising, being that the same pigment or mix of pigments, would be chemically possible and historical connections between the lineage of the two species might make the presence of the same pigments, understandable. So for the identification of a species, you would probably need at least two if not more specific locations on the animal, that a reading of the RGB value is to be taken from. In this way you could identify the pigments in the claw and the beak and the three major colors on the wing feathers and the three major colors on the breast feathers, or whatever, and come up with a particular set of profiles, that would match pretty closely between members of the same species, that would not match, as a group of profiles, with the same readings, taken from those particular locations on a bird not of the species. But then we have other considerations like you pointed out with the pearls, where the trace minerals in the water will affect the colors on the inside of the shell, and on the coating an oyster will put around an abrasive thing to protect its inards. These colors might not be particularly pigments unique to the species, but might be influenced, by location, as the OP suggested. Or as Mike Smith Cosmos points out, there could be pigments bred in or out of the same species for various reasons, or you have your albino situations, or times where the bird has a wound or has been struck by a paint ball and such, where the general species identification by color process would not work. Regards, TAR 1
Lagoon Island Pearls Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) But then we have other considerations like you pointed out with the pearls, where the trace minerals in the water will affect the colors on the inside of the shell, and on the coating an oyster will put around an abrasive thing to protect its inards. These colors might not be particularly pigments unique to the species, but might be influenced, by location, as the OP suggested. You've made the assertion that environmental factors, namely trace elements affect the color of a pearl. As such, the burden of proof is now upon you to prove this is true. Citation please. I will add to this question, by submitting these images. Every pearl in all the images are from the same location and the same species, California mussels (Mytilus californianus). The first image is the nacreous lining of a shell (See edit note for correction). If your claim were true, which color is influenced by an environmental effect and which are buried in genetics? You've also mentioned standardization. How is this even remotely practical in these pearls, yet suitable for matching sets? The OP claims his method positively identifies pearls by species, but has failed to prove it. The first flaw being, a shell of the same species is required for comparison. This defeats the purpose, because for that reason the species is already known. Hence, confirmation bias is being employed, not objectivity. The second being, what part of the shell lining image directly relates to colors of other pearls posted here? Why are the grafted round pearls gold, not peacock as the image suggests. Why does one have green overtones and why does the other have red? At this time, I'll submit to you, that pigmented color is dictated by mucopolysaccharides and glycoproteins in the donor, not the recipent nor the environment. Overtones are dictated by the orientation of the aragonitie tablets within the extracrystalline structure. There is no single factor that gives rise to the onset of pearls in all instances. There are multiple etiological factors. Hormones, parasites. shell damage, autoimmunity, blood disorders to name a few. Environmental factors rank low in this order. I maintain pearls can be any color at any time for any reason, hence standardization is impossible. I will take it even further. You mentioned "abrasive". Please tell me, what part of a pearl grafting operation is abrasive? Would it be reasonable to expect irritation or abrasion might exaserbate the graft, leading to infection, rejection or mortality? Do you understand the difference between periostracial or myostracial onset of pearls? Do you understand pearls may be either septic or aseptic in origin? Do you understand an aseptic pearl can burst from the sac and become septic? Do you understand a septic pearl can become aseptic once mineralized sufficently? If one goes black and the other turns white, where does the standard lay? In the absence of external factors, do you understand pearls may be formed spontaneously by blood acid/base imbalance? Do you understand how blood borne protozans affect autoimmunity and how is this "abrasive"? Do you understand protein, calcite and aragonite are different things and may be present in different amounts for a multitude of reasons? Though I'm quite certain you are motivated to objectivity, I'm pained to suggest you're embracing myths in this case. Again, being the devil's advocate... why are the flat spots on the pearls purple? Have you noticed the purple pearls are the same as the white pearls, except inverted? Why is that shade of white unique to the white on the pearls in the other images? After all, they are from the same species in the same location. Epithelial cells are present on the outer surface of the mantle in a mollusk, There are epithelial cells on the inner surface as well, but do not mineralize. There are exceptions to this, where two shells meet, namely at the edges. Purple is observed in many species. Likewise, flat spots on pearls are formed because of the close proximity of the shells, hence mineralization takes place on both sides of the epithelium and the structure is extremely thin (scarecly a few microns) hence the orientation of aragonite tablets are more predictable and reflect light at that end of the spectrum only. Again, how can this possibly be unique to a single species of mollusk as to make it readily identifiable? I submit, it cannot. There are numerous myths about pearls. Perpetuating them does not make them true. As an example, pearl culture does not utilize grains of sand, ever. It utilizes graft tissue from a select donor, namely for the color of it's shell. Only one in ten is a suitable candidate, because shells are not identical. In natural pearls, sand is a factor, but the incidences are low and not uniform across species. In pectinae it's high, in heterodonta it's high in some (Panope generosa), virtually non-existent in others (Venerupus philipinarium). Edited Note: The "first image" is not at the top. I tried to upload it seperately in a follow up post, but they appeared in the middle of the post. (having incorrectly using the wrong reply button) Likewise, the pododesmus images also were lumped into the same thread. Rather that repost, please understand there are two species represented. (Mussels top half, rock oysters lower half) On the topic of environmental factors, I now submit images of natural pearls from Pododesmus macrochisma. These samples where taken from the same location as the mussels. It was a long held myth that the green color in the shells of Pododesmus m. was the result of algae infiltrating the extracrystalline structure of the shells. However, since I discovered pearls in the species, this cannot be true. After all, pearls are biotic, metabolic structures several times removed from the environment, especially where algae growth is concerned, otherwise would the tissues not be green too? You'll note some of the pearls are almost transparent. On some of those pearls, there are expressions of protein presenting a bright green. You will also note in some, the pearls are occluded in calcite and present as white, even though it's apparent there is green underneath it. These are seasonal factors, later in the year (namely winter) the mollusk will uptake the calcite when the salinity is reduced. Like bones, the building of pearls or shells is not a one way street. It's balance of give and take even though it's generally more give. However, in my current work, I'm seeing trends in areas where acidification is causing shells to become weak and thin... but that's another topic for another discussion. For any degree of accuracy, measurements would have to be taken seasonally and applied as a subsection to each species. Again wholly impractical and needlessly burdensome when attempting to create a baseline. You'll also note, that although green predominates the proteinaceous component of these pearls, brown occurs in about 5% of the cases. Likewise multiple colors. It can also be noted, the structure of these pearls are foliated calcite, not nacreous, even though strands of fibrous aragonite are visible in the SSEM views. To summarize. I am not suggesting environmental factors are not present. I am only saying it's negligible. Hence is cannot be applied to any standard of identification by color alone. I know several pearl farmers around the world. Some suggest their pearls have a tinge of something unique from others, but admit it's likely due to variations in the genetics of their brood stock, not the environment itself. Edited June 28, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls 1
tar Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Lagoon Island Pearls, The below link suggests as you said, that the color of a pearl is mostly up to chance, but the species and the environment play a role. I felt when Whatever Theory was after identifying a species by the color of its pearl, that this was analogous to attempting to determine someone's nationality by the color of a gall stone. Might be possible, but I did not see the likelihood, or the reasons why the coatings (nacre) would be specific to a species as it seems to me the same mechanical process, using the same basic ingredients, are employed from one species to the next. I am not sure its a myth that pearls form around irritants, as that seems to be the primary reason for a pearl to form in a natural environment. You obviously know a great deal more about pearls than I ever will, but they are after all, not a functional part of an oyster, but a response to an environmental threat. Perhaps the inside of the shell would be a better thing to check for IDing a species, than the color of the pearl. When it comes to cultured pearls, and dyed pearls and the like, we are moving a step away from the natural colors that a species would be exhibiting due to genetic factors, like what pigments and proteins are encoded in its DNA and due to environmental factors, like what trace elements are likely to be found in the environment where the oyster lives. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-pearls-to-be-different-colors.htm#didyouknowout “The factors that contribute to the color of a pearl include the type of oyster, the thickness and number of layers of nacre, and possibly trace elements in the oyster's aquatic environment. A pearl manufacturer may also influence the color of the pearl to some degree by introducing tissue from another oyster into the host oyster along with the shell nucleus. The color of a pearl is determined by a combination of factors: the base color, overtone, and iridescence. Cultured pearls are also sometimes dyed.” Regards, TAR Edited June 28, 2015 by tar
Lagoon Island Pearls Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Lagoon Island Pearls, The below link suggests as you said, that the color of a pearl is mostly up to chance, but the species and the environment play a role. I felt when Whatever Theory was after identifying a species by the color of its pearl, that this was analogous to attempting to determine someone's nationality by the color of a gall stone. Might be possible, but I did not see the likelihood, or the reasons why the coatings (nacre) would be specific to a species as it seems to me the same mechanical process, using the same basic ingredients, are employed from one species to the next. I am not sure its a myth that pearls form around irritants, as that seems to be the primary reason for a pearl to form in a natural environment. You obviously know a great deal more about pearls than I ever will, but they are after all, not a functional part of an oyster, but a response to an environmental threat. Perhaps the inside of the shell would be a better thing to check for IDing a species, than the color of the pearl. When it comes to cultured pearls, and dyed pearls and the like, we are moving a step away from the natural colors that a species would be exhibiting due to genetic factors, like what pigments and proteins are encoded in its DNA and due to environmental factors, like what trace elements are likely to be found in the environment where the oyster lives. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-pearls-to-be-different-colors.htm#didyouknowout “The factors that contribute to the color of a pearl include the type of oyster, the thickness and number of layers of nacre, and possibly trace elements in the oyster's aquatic environment. A pearl manufacturer may also influence the color of the pearl to some degree by introducing tissue from another oyster into the host oyster along with the shell nucleus. The color of a pearl is determined by a combination of factors: the base color, overtone, and iridescence. Cultured pearls are also sometimes dyed.” Regards, TAR Agreed for the most part, but some very important points are missed. The irritant thing, is irritating because it's not always the case. Irritation is described as the state of inflammation or painful reaction to allergy or cell damage. Mussels, clams and oysters have no brains, therefore do not experience pain as we know it. They are not sentient and sessile, hence do not have the ability to hide or relocate when attacked by predators. All they can do is close up, but sooner or later will have to open up to feed or breathe. Does this make them vulnerable to their environment? Yes indeed, but nowhere can it be suggested that color is the single limiting effect of environmental stresses. Shells break all time in storms or by logs etc., yet not every one results in pearls being formed. Most heal quite well and live long lives. As I mentioned, no single factor is implicated in all cases. To use your analogy in the quoted reply, a gall stone is the result of elevated levels of bile salts in the digestive tract, not an irritant, even though irritation may result from the concretion after the fact. The same applies to pearls, especially those of sterile myostracial origin. This type of pearl has no visible nuclei, which is why pododesmus pearls, among others appear nearly transparent. Horn pearls in abalone are caused by hepatopancreatis. Also not an irritant, but an autoimmune response to one or more blood borne ailments and/or histocompatibility antigens by predisposition. Much the same way streptocci bacteria is implicated in rheumatoid arthritis in humans. Inflammed joints remain sterile and aseptic. T-cells in the blood are fooled into thinking joint tissues themselves are bad and a reaction takes place. An antinuclear factor, if you will. A parasite drilling through the shell or tissues causes irritation. Sand lodged in the extrapallial space is also an irritant. These incidences are not uniform across the board. As mentioned earlier, some higher, some lower... even among the same class and genus. Also as mentioned and supported by your response is the relationship between donor and recipient. The donor always determines color. This is because the graft is homogeneic. In nature, especially where predators are concerned, the invasive tissues are xenogeneic and therefore not predictable. Once a mollusk is sacrificed, the mantle tissue remains viable for a short period of time thereafter. Most predators to mollusks are other mollusks, annelids, protozans and other things. In the case of mollusks or annelids, the mantle of the predator is situated in the blood stream as to keep growing, even though the critter itself died. This means a pearl of a completely different species occurred in a compatible host. Even if this thread were true, the pearl's appearance and structure cannot be attributed to the host. It's merely a surrogate, nothing more. I have the only known pearl from an octopus. One might ask, how does an animal with no shell produce a shell? The answer is xenogeneity as mentioned above, even though cephalopods are phylum mollusca. The octopus had amputated parts. Octopus eat bivalves. A piece of the mantle epithelium became lodged within the scar tissue, hence remained viable. Anyone examining the pearl might suggest it's origin may have been a cockle, a butter clam or an oyster, but a cephalopod would have never entered the equasion, especially on a double blind trial. All cultured pearls are periostracial in origin. The grafted tissue picks up the blood stream then begins to produce a protein barrier, then becoming prismatic in mineral structure, then nacreous, then calcareous... in that order. Each are different processes from one another and the components within present with different colors (among numerous other factors). Many natural pearls are myostracial in origin. Aberrations, if you will. Pearls that appear spontaneously for unknown or nonspecific reasons. Likewise, I challenge you or anyone else reading this to present evidence that a pearl can be attributed to a specific geographical location strictly based upon it's color only. Then again, even if it were true, who's to say that color will not be present elsewhere for other reasons in any species? There is not one molluscan species on this planet that presents with a single color on all these levels collectively unto itself. Most have several colors and the combinations and these patterns are not identical to each other. For even a semblence of credibility to this flawed thread, all colors must be considered, as does the cyclical seasonality of growth fronts, age, structure, quiescence, uptake, depuration and a whole gammit of other factors. Over the realm of tens of thousands of creatures in taxonomy, it's neither practical nor inculpatory. I am highly critical of even the more sophisticated gem labs on the planet for their assesments of pearl origin. Asserting their reports are largely based on subjectivity and not actual facts gleaned through differential diagnosis, pathology or tangible provenance. Pearls are very often drilled or otherwise destroyed for scientific purposes, essentially removing supporting or contradictory evidence. They also cannot provide evidence the pearls are indeed natural, not incidental to cultural processes unless beads or other nuclear inconsistencies are present. At best, pearl identification is based around educated guesses. Unless one harvests a pearl from the wild themselves and marked the location by GPS, there's absolutely no way science can definitively put that pearl back into it's original location by any means. This theory is debunked. Edited June 29, 2015 by Lagoon Island Pearls 1
tar Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Lagoon Island Pearls, The theory had problems from the get go and many members have shown, Whatever Theory, where and how the theory could be falsified. Like Strange, with the carrots and you with the cultured pearls. There are many limitations, adjustments, refinements and problems, involved with the theory. Debunked is a strong word, and if you want to consider the theory debunked, consider it debunked, but there is an underlying chemical reality of the world, that just might lend itself to color identification. Granted, Whatever Theory has not laid out a solid theory, and much of what was said in the OP was unsupported conjecture, cherry picking and unrigorous thinking...but there remains this underlying chemical reality of the world, that has electrons moving up a notch when hit by a photon, and dropping down a notch and releasing a photon, at a particular wavelength. Thus the atom announces itself to the world, by the frequencies of light that it emits. In organic beings, there are indeed chromophores, protein chains, that change their form when they absorb a photon. The absorption of a particular wavelength photon, gives the molecule away. You look at what frequencies have not been absorbed and you know which have. There are probably a finite set of these complex molecules, in all the varied species of animals and plants and fungi on the planet. And each of these finite set of molecules has its signature absorption profile, I would guess. It is not impossible to tell, by the RGB signature, what wavelengths have been absorbed, and not impossible to further predict that if a certain set of wavelengths have been absorbed, there might be a certain combination of particular proteins, doing the absorbing. If a species has a particular set of these proteins, in a particular physical pattern on their shell, hair, skin, flesh, eyes, claws, or whatever, this can be predicted by the RGB pattern Whatever Theory is experimenting with...possibly. I would not go so far as to say Whatever Theory's theory is debunked by the difficultly of determining species, by the color of a pearl, in a cultured pearl situation, where grafting and dying and such is part of the process. Regards, TAR
Strange Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Clearly, colour(s) is one of the parameters to identify a species (or a mineral). But to claim that it alone can uniquely identify species (or anything else) is clearly bogus. The nearest thing is the use of spectroscopy to identify chemical elements and molecules. 2
tar Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Whatever Theory, Strange is right. You have not yet told us how you are going to a identify a purple carrot as a carrot, nor have you told us how you are going to avoid identifying a clam as a carrot, when you find a purple carrot's RGB value, in the purple markings in its shell. Regards, TAR Edited June 29, 2015 by tar
Lagoon Island Pearls Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 The theory had problems from the get go and many members have shown, Whatever Theory, where and how the theory could be falsified. Like Strange, with the carrots and you with the cultured pearls. There are many limitations, adjustments, refinements and problems, involved with the theory. Debunked is a strong word, and if you want to consider the theory debunked, consider it debunked, but there is an underlying chemical reality of the world, that just might lend itself to color identification. Speaking to limitations. What color is an octopus? What color is a chameleon? Does a fish change it's color to adapt to it's environment? How would you even begin to refine or adjust this problem, when any color may be expressed in those species? I mentioned seasonality previously. Is it true humans experience periodic variations or fluctuations in skin tone between winter shut-ins and summer tans? By the way, Stellar's Jay is not blue. It only appears blue in the same sense as the sky or a lake appears blue. These among numerous examples that clearly falsifiy this theory, yet not one example has been demonstrated supporting a single RGB color is unique to any species. Debunked is putting it lightly. Clearly, colour(s) is one of the parameters to identify a species (or a mineral). But to claim that it alone can uniquely identify species (or anything else) is clearly bogus. The nearest thing is the use of spectroscopy to identify chemical elements and molecules.
tar Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Lagoon Island Pearls, I thought the single number was dropped as a possibility. The adjustments in process, included, I thought, the requirement for a series of colors taken from particular well thought out and described locations on the animal. I fully agree that a species having a unique number is not likely, but having a particular combination of numbers might be possible, if a species has a particular unique collection of pigments, put together in a particular way, this could identify it, as that particular species. Don't you think? Regards, TAR 1
Mordred Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Let me ask a simple question on that. "Do we count an albino as a different species" 1
tar Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Mordred, No I guess not. I will let Whatever Theory defend his theory, and make his own claims. I was just trying to leave open whatever possibilities there might be, to tell a species by its colors. Regards, TAR 1
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now