This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stay with established spelling – If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry has an article showing that Clifton Pugh on biographical, inheritance and other grounds was was a protanope. I have looked hard but cannot see any place suitable for this information in the article. There is no section for "notable color blind people" though such sections exist for example for Prosopagnosia. I have put this information with reference (more details are in the online abstract) in Color blindness and occupations though this is not the ideal place. However the information is important since it shows that color blindness should not stop people for seeking to become artists if that is their talent.
The article should really be renamed to "Color vision deficiency" and "Color blindness" redirect to it. As stated in the article it is more common to be deficient in color vision, but not lacking it! Therefore color blindness (not perceiving colors at all) is a special/maximum case of color vision deficiency. Using color blind for describing a condition with a broad range is a very unprecise top-level term, derogatory, and perpetuates ignorance.
While Tritanopia is commonly referred to as blue-yellow color blindness, the statement that tritanopes cannot distinguish blue from yellow is wrong.
If you look at this image in the article:
Blue and yellow are clearly distinguishable (blue appears green, yellow appears pink). Tritanopia should more accurately be called blue-green color blindness, since tritanopes actually cannot distinguish blue from green. ANDROS1337TALK 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
The use of the rainbow flags is disputed; there's a perception issue; see above. That two particular monochrome colors can be distinguished is not surprising; shifting the colors slightly might find an isochrome. The rainbow flag colors were not chosen to highlight abnormal vision. Diagostic tests for symptoms do not used saturated colors. Glrx (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no actual yellow cones in the human eye; Tritanopia is the lack of blue cones, and thus everything is seen in shades of red and green. Based on the image, it appears the red cones are more sensitive to yellow, while the green cones are more sensitive to blue. I personally think the term "blue-yellow color blindness" was named for the sake of completeness, and for the fact that tritanopes cannot see (NOT distinguish) the colors blue and yellow. ANDROS1337TALK 20:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I went ahead and made my suggested corrections (WP:BOLD). ANDROS1337TALK 22:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a common misconception due to the common name of the condition. And Britannica isn't any more reliable than Wikipedia. If you look at the image, blue and yellow are obviously distinguishable. Remember that the L (red), M (green), and S (blue) cones are not sensitive to any specific wavelength; they cover a continuous range of wavelengths. The L cones are more sensitive to long wavelengths, M cones to middle wavelengths, and S cones to short wavelengths. There are no discontinuities in the range of wavelengths that that each cone can perceive, therefore it isn't scientifically possible that a tritanope can distinguish blue from green but not from yellow, since green is closer to blue on the spectrum than yellow is. Based on the image, the L cones are more sensitive to yellow, while the M cones are more sensitive to blue. Perhaps if the shade of yellow had more green in its hue it could perhaps appear greenish to a tritanope . ANDROS1337TALK 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm improving the Evolutionary arguments section for a class assignment, and my edits are currently in my sandbox. Before I post it, I was hoping to get some constructive criticism on my additions and edits. Thank you! Larry.monocello (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I've uploaded my edits. There was a section about macaques in this area that didn't really fit, and also wasn't well sourced, so I deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry.monocello (talkLarry.monocello (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Larry.monocello who added this is in user:Sanetti's Darwinian medicine class. I looked over what you did and it seems entirely appropriate and useful. You found multiple sources which backed the content you added, you learned the wikitext markup and formatted everything properly, and you took initiative in modifying existing text. Thanks. It seems like you are expecting your classmate to review this further - I expect that to be even more productive. Blue Rasberry(talk) 14:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Adaptation: During the Second World War, the US Army discovered that colorblind soldiers could distinguish camouflaged targets better than their counterparts with color vision could. Further studies have shown that dichromats are better at detecting camouflaged targets in which the object’s color accounts for differences in texture between the object and its surroundings, have sharper vision, and may be less subject to the effects of “chromatic noise.” Other studies suggest a dichromat advantage in mesopic vision and scotopic vision. There is also a hypothesis that X-linked color deficiency leads to better discrimination against blue backgrounds, conferring an advantage to dichromats in fishing. As a result, dichromats may have an advantage over trichromats in detecting some kinds of prey, which could explain higher rate of dichromatism in relation to other defects.
Evolutionary Legacy: Another hypothesis posits that the high frequency of dichromatism in humans is due to a relaxation of pressure for trichromats in societies that have been traditionally pastoral and agricultural. Because color vision is less important to survival in these societies, positive selection for trichromatism would be relaxed. Because the only genetic difference between a dichromat and a trichromat is in the opsin genes, in agricultural-pastoral societies the ancestral dichromat phenotype not being a reproductive hindrance (and therefore not being subject to negative selection)—but rather the newer trichromat phenotype merely being more advantageous in pre-agricultural societies (subject to positive selection)—accounts for the relatively high frequency of dichromatism in these societies.
^Reit, Seymour (1978). Masquerade : the amazing camouflage deceptions of World WAR II. New York: Hawthorn Books. ISBN0-8015-4931-0.
^Jägle, H.; Luca, E.; Serey, L.; Bach, M.; Sharpe, L. T. (23 August 2005). "Visual acuity and X-linked color blindness". Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology244 (4): 447–453. doi:10.1007/s00417-005-0086-4.Cite uses deprecated parameters (help)
^Regan, B. C.; Julliot, C.; Simmen, B.; Vienot, F.; Charles-Dominique, P.; Mollon, J. D. (29 March 2001). "Fruits, foliage and the evolution of primate colour vision". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences356 (1407): 229–283. doi:10.1098/rstb.2000.0773.Cite uses deprecated parameters (help)
^Hut, R. A.; Paolucci, S.; Dor, R.; Kyriacou, C. P.; Daan, S. (3 July 2013). "Latitudinal clines: an evolutionary view on biological rhythms". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences280 (1765): 20130433–20130433. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.0433.Cite uses deprecated parameters (help)
^Grassavaro Gallo, P.; Romana, L.; Viviani, F.; Camperio Ciani, A. (1997). "Do Congenital Color Vision Defects Represent a Selective Advantage?". In C. Dickinson; I. Murray. John Dalton's Color Vision Legacy. Manchester: Taylor & Francis. pp. 227–233.Cite uses deprecated parameters (help);|accessdate= requires |url= (help)
^ abPost, R. H. (1 September 1982). "Population differences in red and green color vision deficiency: A review, and a query on selection relaxation". Biodemography and Social Biology29 (3-4): 299–315. doi:10.1080/19485565.1982.9988503.
I suggest that we remove all the test and "how things look" images except the Ishihara plates and other public domain images from reputable sites. We don't know how well they actually work and their construction is in essence a form of oiginal research. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I have color blindness and all the images look different to me on these "how things look" comparisons, so they don't even work. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)