|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Monochromacy.
|WikiProject Medicine / Ophthalmology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Color||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|A fact from Monochromacy appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 14 April 2004. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
|WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|
Daltonism ? Achromatopsia ? Blue Cone Monochromacy ? please put order don't mix everything !
Humans ? Animals ? It is not really clear what you are speaking about. 1. In humans Achromatopsia is a rare genetic disorder inherited throught 4 different genes with autosomal recessive inheritance. It is a severe eye condition. 2. In humans Blue Cone Monochromacy is a rare genetic disorder inherited throught Chromosome X. It is a severe eye condition sharing some symptoms with achromatopsia but different from achromatopsia. 3.In humans daltonism with the lack of opsin MW protein or opsin LW protein is a less rare genetic conditions affecting 5-8% of males. Daltonism is inherited with Cromosome X but it is not a severe consition. People with Daltonism don't have photophobia or nistagmus or poor visual acuity. 4. other rare form of monochromacy, related to daltonic people who loose also the S-opsin protein, could not have severe symptoms because in these form of monochromacy the fovea centralis is filled of functioning photoreceptors like in daltonism.
I really think it will be important to have single articles for Achromatopsia and for Blue Cone Monochromacy as well as a page for daltonism. All these pages can be linked from pages related to inherited retinal diseases or genetic retinal diseases or eye diseases.
the situations for animals is very different.
How's that again?
Quoting article: "The perceptual effect of any arbitrarily chosen light from the visible spectrum can be matched by any pure spectral light.".
It seems to me that "any arbitrarily chosen light from the visible spectrum" means the same thing as "any pure spectral light".
I suppose that "any arbitrarily chosen light from the visible spectrum" could be INTENDED to mean "any arbitrarily chosen combination of wavelengths of light from the visible spectrum".
I too question it. Cones do not sense gradations of colour; they sense brightness at specific wavelengths, with each cone having a different peak sensitivity and, around that peak, having overlapping responses with the other cones. It is the comparison between different signals from each type of cone that we perceive as colour. This would mean that, for a green monochromat, as the colour being viewed approached green, it would get brighter, but not "more green". A yellow light that stimulated the green cone as much as a dimmer green light, would appear to be the same colour. A yellow light that stimulated the green cone as much as a turquoise light would also appear the same. I see no way for such a person to be able to see more than brightness, I.e. Shades of grey, with bright illumination producing a skewed distribution of greys (both white and green would appear white), and dim illumination producing a more even "black and white" image, assuming normal rod function.184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I question even more in this article. If you have one type of rods plus one type of cones, why should you be completely color-blind? The rods allow you to distinguish total luminosity, and the cones would (for example) allow you to distinguish "reddish" from "not reddish". --220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Which means, by the way, that I don't question the 100 colors questioned above. But obviously there is a contradiction in the article. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a study of that. It's like what I call "campfire vision", where there's a general low light level but enough long wavelength to get the L cones involved at the same time as the rods. There ought to be a bit of a color sense in that. In more typical lighting, there's not much overlap of levels where both work. The brain circuits to compare them might therefore not have much input to develop from. Just my ideas... Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Tagged for copyediting
I've tagged the article for copyediting, as there are certain phrases and ways of structuring that seem out of place in an article, as well as overcapitalisation in some places. The writing also suggests potential for copyvio, so I would recommend checking for that. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I did some basic style and case fixes, and fixed a few errors. I don't see obvious copyvio problems. But it could still use a lot of work. Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Achromatopsia describes the pathological phenomenon in humans, where as monochromacy describes the condition of seeing only one color. As this article points out, that could be perfectly natural in other animals. Not withstanding that difference, most of this article is dedicated to achromatopsia, and human vision is probably the primary focus of a complete article on this topic, not the fact that seals possess no blue cones. Therefore a merger and rearranging of the subject material might be in order. Both articles also possess some readability issues, with parts of each taking the tone of a technical manual. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think a better idea would be to trim Monochromacy to be more about monochromacy in general and in animals, but to direct to Achromatopsia for more details on the human abnormal monochromacy. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be necessary to have a page for Blue Cone Monochromacy, a rare human genetic retinal disease inherited on Chromosome X. Blue Cone Monochromacy is a monochromacy in humans and is different from achromatopsia. It is not easy to find information about blue cone monochromacy inside this page, so I kindly suggest to have 1. a page for Blue Cone Monochromacy 2. a page for achromatopsia. In achromatopsia the cones in the human retina lose the functionality and the day vision is completely lost. Achromatopsia is an autosomic recessive disease. People with achromatopsia have only the night vision, due to rods. In Blue Cone Monochromats part of the day vision is mantained, because blue cone are functional, so in this rare disease there is monochromacy. This page about monochromacy seems to me really not clear. Renata.sarno (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I concur. This article should keep all information on normal monochromacy in animals. Human-disease material should be merged into Achromatopsia. This article should have approximately one paragraph basic description of the human-disease, linking to Achromatopsia. Alsee (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I also agree, this article should be short, and the relevant human disease information should be in Achromatopsia. It looks like someone attempted to do something along those lines a few months ago but was reverted. Hopefully I will have time to come back and work on doing it soon. Ljeyrich (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Achropatopsia is a (generally) genetic desaese for humans and some other animals (some dogs, etc), with many other consequences than just not seeing colors (photophobia, reduced vusual acuity, nystagmus). Monochromacy is the normal condition for some animals. So these two different words describe two very different things, so the articles should absolutely not be merged to avoid creating confusions. I agree with the previous ideas to modify and simplify the article about moochromacy. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)