Quote:
|
"Chameleons first used colour change to make them more noticeable rather than, as is popularly believed, to blend in, a study suggests."
|
Quote:
|
Co-author Dr Devi Stuart-Fox, from The University of Melbourne, Australia, told BBC News: "[Our research] suggests that chameleons evolved colour change for signalling, to fend off rivals or attract a mate, and not so they could match a greater variety of backgrounds."
|
Quote:
|
As chameleons have a different visual system to humans, they have a fourth type of cone which is ultra-violet (UV) sensitive
|
Quote:
|
If a male is challenged by another male they both begin by showing their brightest colours - until one figures out the other is going to win and changes to a submissive, dark, 'don't beat me up colour
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7215005.stm
I found it somewhat intriguing, but most of all the way they process light.
It always seemed odd how camouflage was a semi-common defensive attribute in animals and chameleons fell into this list when they were almost exclusively the only species that didn't have a sustained version of it. Their's was more like a 'on' 'off' form, while you look at other blending counterparts that were shaped, toned, and almost constantly in defensive stance by evolution (not choice).
Always felt the ability to change was always a bit weaker than being shaped and dedicated, to an extent. As one would often change for a defense and elusive purpose AFTER a sign of danger, which would almost defeat the reason behind it half the time. If hand-guns are your only weakness, you don't wait till they pull a gun on you to put on a kevlar vest.
Rather than comparing it to other stealth creatures, it might be better to compare their camouflage to other active defenses. Blowfish making themselves bigger, fish swimming in schools, etc.
Interesting, in any case. It's always good to question the accepted theory.
Rather than comparing it to other stealth creatures, it might be better to compare their camouflage to other active defenses. Blowfish making themselves bigger, fish swimming in schools, etc.
Interesting, in any case. It's always good to question the accepted theory.
It's more on par with blowfish after the recent data. It always peeved me that it was a classified as a blending creature though.
From what I understand, most of them did consistently match surroundings but weather or not it was voluntary or not was debatable. With new articles like this, it seems there are methods and reasonings that were outside of a camo mechanism.