Talk:Evolution of color vision in primates

helpme Thank you for your welcome! Quick question: So I haven't included enough references in here? I admit, this is an early draft that will be much improved over the next few weeks, but I am unsure as to what parts qualify as original research since I've maintained citations throughout the article. Njt24 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

 * You might want to check our policies on original research. Adding more references would be very useful (always is), as well as providing links to the sources you do have if they are available. If not, adding an ISBN number can help other editors verify your information. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This page is nearly identical to another page on Wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Vision_Evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplication of information
Let me try this again :-)

This Wikipedia page is nearly identical to another Wikepedia page: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Vision_Evolution

Shouldn't the info from the two be merged and then one of them eliminated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.233.30 (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I've moved Color Vision Evolution to Evolution of color vision and removed the duplicate information. It now needs a bit more information. Jack (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More sources

 * http://www.optometrists.asn.au/freestyler/files/ceo874206.pdf
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=LcalAv7iKgEC The Primate Visual System: A Comparative Approach By David Bowers, Jan Kremers, Allan House, David Owens Published by John Wiley and Sons, 2005

Shyamal (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The first reference above is now dead. Also, probably the best source out there is the following:
 * It discusses the evolution of color vision in primates in full detail, giving all the latest research up to a few years ago. –  VisionHolder « talk » 02:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It discusses the evolution of color vision in primates in full detail, giving all the latest research up to a few years ago. –  VisionHolder « talk » 02:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Opsin wavelengths don't look right
The article currently says "430 nm, 530 nm, and 560 nm wavelengths." I think the accepted figures are 419, 531, and 558. The second two numbers are close enough, but the 430 is way off. The opsin numbers are supposed to be in vitro. In vivo wavelengths get scooted up due to macular pigments and lens yellowing, with quite a bit of individual variation, as well as variation in published figures for averages. 430 nm is a commonly cited figure for the S-cones in vivo. Zyxwv99 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Do you have a source? If so, we can correct it. The current source says "430, 535 and 565 nm" (which I'll correct now). –  Maky  « talk » 19:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of the human visual system. The text is actually about catarrhines. However, I see a few little things that could use fixing, so I'll go ahead and make some changes. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose merging Evolution of human colour vision into Evolution of color vision in primates. Curran919 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge – The two are highly redundant. 'human vision' was written almost entirely at its inception in 2015. As 'humans' describes, there has been no evolution for 30million years, since apes split off from monkeys, so there is no information that should be included in 'humans' that wouldn't be in 'primates'. 'Primates' also has many more links to it and is better cited. There is, however, a lot of valuable info from 'humans' that can be added to 'primates', so the merge would definitely not be straightforward. Curran919 (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are supposed to vote on your own proposal. Of course you support merger, you made the proposal. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * okay, good to know :p I'm just jumping into this. The first 5 splits/merges I proposed months ago got zero input. Curran919 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Summarize - I think it would be better to write a summary of this article in a section of the human article, and add a tag in that section. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As I see it, genus homo has been around for 3 million years. In that time, there has been no evolution of our color vision. Hominidae (great apes) has been around for 17 million years. In that time, there has also been no evolution of color vision. Actually, yokoyama 2014 states "Trichromatic color vision in the human lineage was fully developed by 30 My ago". There has been no evolution in THIRTY MILLION YEARS, which was way before humans were around. There should be no human article. The primate article is already comprehensive.
 * Evolution of human color vision is in a template for human evolution. In the same sub category are: Bipedalism, Skeleton, Muscles, Skin color, Hair, Thermoregulation, Color vision, Speech, Language, Intelligence, Gender roles. All of those, except for color vision and hair (which forwards to a section that is NOT focused on humans) have occurred entirely since Homo split from Pan (chimps) 8 MYA. Color vision just doesn't belong in this group. Color vision does not separate humans from other species. It separates catarrhines from platyrrhines and primates from mammals. This is why I think everything belongs in the primate article. It would be like an article "evolution of the human eye" when evolution of the eye (vertebrate) is comprehensive and sufficient... Curran919 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge seems sensible as far as I can tell. The articles are rather different takes on the same topic, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of fruit theory?
The first (and largest) part of the paragraph reads as follows:

"While the “fruit theory” holds much data to support its reasoning, some recent research has criticized this theory. One study shows that the difference in the fruit-spotting task between trichromats and dichromats is largest when the tree is far away (~12m), inferring that the evolutionary pressure may have been on spotting fruit trees from a distance, rather than picking fruit. Those findings were based upon the fact that there is a larger variety of background S/(L+M) and luminance values under long-distance viewing."

How could that possibly be construed as a criticism of the fruit theory? Spotting the fruit from a distance would obviously be the most important part, if you're already within reach of it you can use all your other senses to both detect and determine ripeness. To me the idea that this is a criticism is ridiculous, if anything it's a strong corroboration. 51.175.156.113 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)