The reason tigers are orange is actually because animals are colorblind so their camouflage works in both the jungle and the savanna. What are other things about animals you were always confused about?
The reason tigers are orange is actually because animals are colorblind so their camouflage works in both the jungle and the savanna.
Why not just be green then?
Then the camouflage wouldn't work in the savanna
Many mammals don't because they evolved underground and had no need for color vision; primates reevolved it much later.
Many reptiles including birds have full color vision due to spending most of their evolutionary history being active during the daytime aboveground. One of the big exceptions is snakes, which, you guessed it, evolved from fossorial ancestors.
why didn't they just evolve to become green instead? then they wouldn't need to mainly hunt colorblind animals
Being orange lets them be camouflaged in the savanna for trichromat animals as well
>tiger
>savanna
Evolution is about using whatever works, green pigmentation, for whatever reason, hard to produce on mammalian hair, and tigers mostly hunt mammalian prey, who are usually color blind (barring primates).
Therefore, tigers wouldn't gain a whole lot from evolving the apparently difficult to produce green pigmentation, why worry about being able to catch tiny birds or some stupid shrieking ape when there are plenty of ungulates with shitty eyesight?
Why haven’t the deer evolved better eyesight?
They fuck fast enough that they havent had to.
If orange predators in the forest start killing them fast enough the trichromatic mutants will be the only ones to survive.
Basically they havent had enough pressure to evolve in that direction.
Nature doesnt optimize for the best it just aims for "good enough to make a couple babies before dying"
>Why haven’t the deer evolved better eyesight?
A better question is, why haven't they evolved to cross highways and roads better? Been through plenty of generations by now. When will they learn?
Evolution works slowly and isn't great at handling abrupt changes in environment very quickly.
In observing cats my whole life I have noticed that some run or walk into the street without concern for anything and others I have observed actually stop and look both ways just like a person.
Oh this is a fun thing that i've noticed here with rabbits.
Basically some areas of my city have the normal wild rabbits, and some have feral rabbits released and are breeding, they're brown and black respectively.
The wild brown rabbits you find hit quite often, even in areas with less traffic.
But the feral black rabbits you NEVER see hit even in high traffic areas.
My pet theory is that because the ferals come from domestic stock and still have those domestic genes in them they're less skittish around humans and thus less likely to run in a random direction to escape from "predators" in the form of people.
So what you are saying is evolution hasn't really passed the issue and cats have mixed results with roads? Are you agreeing with me?
>because animals are colorblind
Most mammals other than primates are. Birds have even better color vision than we do.
This sounds like a bunch of unverifiable bs that someone made up and turns out to not be true at all, like "gravity was less strong in the mesozoic and thats why dinosaurs got so big DURRR"
Well, we can actually check how many and what type of color receptors an animal has in it's eye.
I learned about that from a field and stream magazine a long time ago. pic related is what deer see.
I read about tigers but never made the connection to the wests that hunters wear.
The vests are also worn so you don't get shot by some idiot
as often
There are no “blue” birds. Red feathers are caused by pigmentation. Blue feathers are a structural color.
Why have people come to the conclusion that structural colour is somehow not real colour? If an object projects a colour its that colour, somple as.
Blue pigment absorbs other wavelengths and emits blue.
Structural blue colour absorbs other wavelengths and emits blue, it just does it with a larger pattern.
If you look close enough at a piece of blue pigment its not going to be blue anymore either.
Im sick of this "thing x isnt really an x" trend in popsci, and it usually coincides with a non-scientific definition that was later applied to a scientific category.
Like i saw a video where a dude went "Wowowow! Did you know there actually isnt such thing as a tree because trees evolved many times from different origins!" when "tree" is the description of a niche of "tall plants with a central woody body" it was never a claim of "all these things are of the exact same origin". Wow thanks for poisoning online discourse by giving fuel to pedantic fucks.
>reeeeee stop proving me wrong i hate thinking
Cope, homosexual. Sorry nature is interesting and complex and you're too much of a midwit mongoloid to understand its nuances.
this tbh
arguing semantics doesnt make you smart
>it usually coincides with a non-scientific definition that was later applied to a scientific category.
massive fact on this part. that is so annoying when that is done, it's like people think modern science has a monopoly on what words mean
a few months ago I was talking to a German guy who started seething like mad because he found out that strawberries aren't botanically berries and went on an autistic rant about how "English makes no sense" because we don't change the names of incredibly common foods because they're scientifically inaccurate
Meanwhile, Germans:
Peak naming.
Anger
>"Wowowow! Did you know there actually isnt such thing as a tree because trees evolved many times from different origins!"
This is kinda true though since there's no taxonomic difference between a tree and a bush
The whole point is that you can have different kinds of descriptions/classifications, that are useful in different contexts. Yes, tree/brush is not a useful distinction if you are writing a detailed biology paper about their evolutionary history, but are very useful terms if you were say writing a manual on how to build an emergency survival shelter. The same is true with the whole pigments/structure color thing; the distinction is useful if you are writing a detailed anatomical paper, but not helpful if you were making say a field identification guide to birds.
All mammalian pigmentation follows the same genetic pathways and processes. During development, color fills in from the spine and wraps around. That’s why Sylvester cats wear a tuxedo and the palms of hands and soles of feet of naggers are whiter than the rest of their body. Interestingly, this also means humans could sex select for tiger stripes.
What would a smashed an slammed human look like
>would
you got an entire continent filled with shartgolems
take a pick
/misc/ has rotted your mind
I see nothing wrong with that statement.
>color fills in from the spine and wraps around
Isn't this backward? Tuxedo happens because the pattern starts solid and "breaks" into sections and islands filled with white. It doesn't start white and fill in the black.
http://messybeast.com/bicolours.htm
Your picture is showing the opposite of what you're saying.
Oh nevermind im retarded and misread.
Ignore me.
Maybe I'm illiterate but the bottom 2 are "disproven" while the theory anon with the picture proposed is labeled "proven" also there are cats with skunk stripes like in picrel which seem to go against the idea that pigmentation encroaches from the spine toward the belly.
I forgot picrel, because I'm accident prone.
Hence why i said i'm retarded and misread.
Ic, I thought you were the picture poster saying that for some reason.
That's a fucking goat.
It's a lion
Birds can see in more colors then humans though
tigers can't hunt birds
Why did they adapt to climb trees then?
for fun.
Camouflage isn't just to hide while hunting. It's also to hide while being hunted.
how did the tiger know that
he looked it up on google
You, sir, have won the Internet for TOday!