Talk:Pentachromacy
 | The contents of the Pentachromacy page were merged into Tetrachromacy on 7 October 2022 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Untitled
[edit]I have reverted the change user:Smack made to the intro of this page - I'm afraid it was quite seriously wrong. Animals with colour vision do not "divide up the specturm"; the colour seen is a function of the relative levels of activation of the different classes of receptors, and shows continuity from one colour to another. seglea 10:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Point taken, but even though I already knew the concept of "chromacy", I found the introduction confusing. Do you expect people to know what a "pure spectral light" or "spectral light" is? Also, since you reverted my disambiguation, please find a better page to link to than the mess that is spectrum. --Smack (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that what is there, though technically correct, is not easy to read. Also I agree that your electromagnetic spectrum is probably better than spectrum - I didn't have time to do more than a quick revert but will get to it as soon as i can. seglea 12:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I have changed "exponentially" to "multaplicatively". This is because when combining the 100 gradations from one sensor with the 100 gradations from a second sensor, the number of gradations is multiplied, to get 10,000. It is a mere coincidence that this is equal to the exponential formula 100^2. If one cell detected 20 gradations and the other 500, it would still be multaplicative (20 x 500 = 10,000), but there would be no corresponding exponential formula. The term "exponentially" is a "cool" technical term in mathematics that people like throwing around even when not correct, just like people say that something is ironic (a technical literary term) even when it is not ironic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.0.245 (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have made some factual corrections. Three colors of light are not enough to simulate all the colors that an average human can distinguish, so it does not make sense that a pentachromat would be completely satisfied with five varieties of light. See the article on color perception. For example, if you take pure red, green, and blue, then you cannot represent a monochromatic cyan — mixing green and blue would yield a less intense color, according to human eyes. Some output devices (especially printers) use more than three colors, often as much as six, to more closely match what the human eye can distinguish. Also, the three human cones are called "long", "medium", and "short", not "red", "green", and "blue". Each is sensitive to a wide variety of wavelengths that overlap with the others significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.0.245 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) |
Fishies?
[edit]My understanding is that certain species of fish have Pentachromacy. Can anyone confirm? SChalice 04:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Tritanomaly
[edit]Being heterozygous for tritanomaly, unlike protanomaly and deuteranomaly, would not confer an extra color vision. Long and medium are both on the X chromosome, so if someone is heterozygous for both, she can see five primary colors, as half the cones express each allele of each. But short is on the seventh chromosome, so if someone is heterozygous for it, all of his/her short-wave cones express both alleles, and are sensitive to the average of what the two alleles code for. phma (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)