Talk:Camouflage/Archive 3

Transparency is not camouflage
The opening sentence defines camouflage aptly: "methods of concealment that allows otherwise visible ... objects to remain unnoticed by blending with their environment"

Transparency is not compatible with this definition. It is not primarily a way of looking like the environment. It is a way of not being visible at all. --Ettrig (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. However, it's very hard (ok, impossible) to say everything about something in one sentence. When a fish is (somewhat) transparent, it does indeed appear to be just the environment (I'd say background, but as the book says, that is far too terrestrial a word) and so tends to remain unnoticed. In a way, too, the goal of camouflage research is exactly to make things invisible: transparency would be the ideal mechanism, were it available. Really, I'm against the idea of a definition in a sentence - such a thing is only ever a brief introduction to give people a quick idea. The whole article is the definition. As for perfect transparency, no fish or plankton attains that. They are always to some extent visible, some extent opaque. I've added "such as" to the first sentence, hope that's clearer. -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Transparency is certainly part of the subject-matter, and should be included. It is treated by Cott (p315) on transparency in fish as breaking up outline (etc), and p405 on lepidopteran wings as part of mimicry with hymenoptera, citing a Poulton paper of 1880 (ref #500 in Cott). Ruxton G.D. Sherratt T.N. and Speed M.P. 2004. Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals & mimicry. (Oxford) have Chapter 4 on transparency and silvering. The listing of transparency is not merely justified, it is necessary to properly reflect the literature. The word 'blending' is satisfactory; the rephrasing as 'not being visible at all' expresses an absolute, which is not appropriate, and not meant by the original. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that, very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about whether transparency is included in camouflage. That transparency is treated by Cott is not in itself a valid argument on that issue. Maybe Cott does say transparency is a kind of camouflage. But the discussion above does not give any indication that he does. The same goes for the discussion of the next reference. Could you please try to show that you understand the question and that your references are relevant to this discussion? --Ettrig (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look at Herring, Peter (2002). The Biology of the Deep Ocean. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198549567, pp 190-195, you will see that transparency is indeed a form of camouflage, and a major one (in the world's oceans) at that. Thus we have a reliable and authoritative source for the claim. Journal papers that substantiate this include Hidden in Plain Sight: The Ecology and Physiology of Organismal Transparency, Sönke Johnsen, Biological Bulletin, Vol. 201, No. 3 (Dec., 2001), pp. 301-318, which says "Experimental and theoretical studies in terrestrial,freshwater,and marine ecosystems have shown that transparency is a successful form of camouflage, and that several visual adaptations seem to counter it." You could also look at Crypsis in the Pelagic Environment, Margaret J. McFall-Ngai, American Zoologist, Vol. 30, No. 1  (1990), pp. 175-188, which says "in the homogeneous pelagic aquatic habitats, evolutionary convergence on three main forms of crypsis is evident: (1) transparency; (2) reflection of most, if not all visible wavelengths; and, (3) ventral bioluminescence as counterillumination; thus, to be cryptic most animals in these habitats use one or a combination of these modalities to variously transmit, reflect or mimic environmental light." Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * These references are excellent, and IMO conclusive. Also, I agree that mimicry is a kind of camouflage. Camouflage is not so much not seen, as it is not recognised by a predator for what it is. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the linked article by Johnsen does indeed say in the abstract that transparency is a form of camouflage. --Ettrig (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Some comments / suggestions

 * Lead


 * "The term probably comes from" -> "The term camouflage probably comes from" --- done
 * That info isn't in the rest of the article and shouldn't be just in the lead - maybe move it to the History section or remove it from the article. There should be a link to Wiktionary. --- done


 * "...what may seem opposite ways" - can that be made more encyclopedic ? maybe just "...several ways". --- done


 * Is dazzle camouflage or not ? - the article is inconsistent on this. It could be taken out of the lead and reduced to a brief mention in the rest of the aticle. If it is kept the "The prey ..." sentence should be linked to the preceding sentence (semicolon?). --- done, hope that's better. Dazzle was certainly called camouflage in the war, and was certainly 'protective coloration'.


 * "camouflage schemes to protect ... airfields ... using ... countershading." - how is countershading used to conceal an airfield ? --- done


 * "fighters" -> "fighter aircraft" --- done


 * "The rise of radar" -> "The use of radar" --- done


 * Link to cell site. --- done


 * "Peacock Flounder (Bothus mancus)" -> "Peacock Flounder" ? --- done


 * Further trim lead - e.g. rm ref to Finlay. --- done


 * History


 * The combination of the Darwin quote and the Poulton pic is rather messy. --- moved down


 * If Latin names are needed can they be used consistently - e.g. in brackets ? --- hide if possible, if not will use italics and commas


 * Is it "swallowtail moth" or "swallowtailed moth" (article is inconsistent) ? --- -ed; done


 * "pupae (chrysalises)" -> "pupae" ? --- done


 * "Peacock in the Woods" - can we link to the picture ? ---


 * "specialties" -> "specialities" (British English) --- done


 * "he was wounded in 1916 helping to set up an observation post" - delete? --- deleted


 * Dazzle - see previous comment. --- It was called camouflage and was certainly 'protective coloration'.


 * Mimesis


 * Moth pic caption should say "mimicing" or have a a fullstop. --- done


 * "Peppered Moth" -> "peppered moth" ? --- done, thanks for spotting that


 * "predators (or parasites)" -> "predators and parasites" ? --- done


 * "heavily armed" -> "heavily-armed" --- It was changed FROM that, MOS was cited.


 * The section is inconsistent about whether minicry is camouflage or not. --- removed sentence. Whole books could be written on that. For our purposes, mimesis is certainly camouflage.


 * "mimics truck" -> "mimics a truck" --- done

DexDor (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * --- many thanks, very helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've put some queries as comments in the article text (and may add more as I look at other sections). I've looked at the Thayer photo in the Countershading section several times and can't see the 2nd "bird" - is it just me ? DexDor (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * --- Thanks. Thayer of course didn't want you to see the 2nd bird; he surely went on camouflaging until the photo came out perfect in his view; the point being that countershading plus disruption can render objects indistinguishable from a background. It's a powerful and historic image. On the zebras, the ideal image for motion dazzle would show a lot of zebras moving fast, close together, with a lion right behind them. But that would be subtly favouring the motion dazzle hypothesis; I think the current image is fine for the job, striking but neutral. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Re Birds: Are we sure there's a 2nd bird in the picture? Is he playing a "Emporers new clothes" trick on us? I can see what looks like a bit of wire for one bird, but nothing for another. Back then taking lots of photos until you get what you want would be less easy than it is today.


 * He was a perfectionist; he may have just looked through the camera's viewfinder until everything was just right.

Re zebras: I thought the other pic might be more the sort of view a predator would get (unless lions have binos). DexDor (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * :) I'll have another look at Commons.

, but it's quite static; think I prefer the existing one, really.


 * Is it correct to say that "the system of Maskirovka [is] a comprehensive .. method ..." ? I thought it meant something more like "the art/science of military deception" ? (one difference being that any new technique developed would not be covered by the 1st definition, but would be covered by the 2nd). Military deception refers to it as a military doctrine and that looks to me (a non-Russian speaker who's come across the term a few times) more accurate than what the article says (or the uncited info in Wiktionary). The cited doc refers at one point to "maskirovka complex". DexDor (talk)


 * --- yes, doctrine is right, used that, and of course it includes camouflage as a major component.