Talk:Countershading

The picture

Flatfish

Maybe the picture can be edited to show where the other duck is? It is not only counter-shaded, but also camouflaged to such an extent that I cannot find it at all. I think this reduces the effectiveness of the image. Since people will just have to believe the other duck is there, they may doubt there is a second model at all, and think that the picture is a hoax. It would be much better if the duck was hardly visible, instead of totally invisible. I can only see the metal wire on which it should be perched. --10:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)85.150.110.169 (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thayer was it seems very proud of it, and he surely wanted the duck to be totally invisible; no doubt he kept on adjusting the paint until the photo came out perfect as he saw it. Not sure that improving on it would be wise, therefore. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The picture is a joke. He did a real one with a countershaded duck, but people complained that it was too easy to spot the countershaded one. So he made this one just for the detractors. 68.228.222.149 (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a jolly good joke. We should keep it. Flatfish, which are also countershaded, can do a good job too. But either way, Thayer's duck or the flatfish, we are blurring the line between countershading and camouflage. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There's a quote from Forbes in the article on Thayer's book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom which speaks of Thayer's obsession, his belief that all animal coloration was camouflage, in the form of countershading. He was right that countershading exists (and it is a form of camouflage) but certainly some animals - flamingos, skunks to name but two groups - are not. Skunks indeed are anti-countershaded, so patterned as to be as conspicuous as possible. A better zoologist than Thayer would have seen that the skunk exception actually demonstrates how well countershading works - you do the opposite if you don't want to disappear. I've clarified the caption and added a ref to Forbes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Epipelagic Chiswick Chap, what the hell? If there really is no second duck and it's just a joke, why are you saying there is in the caption? It's absolutely misleading and not at all useful to the reader. You need to say this in the article. I'm rather upset that I spent minutes looking for something that isn't there. This is an encyclopedia, and you'll shouldn't be actively giving bad information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.72.34 (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Come now, the picture is in a (very) serious book by Thayer, and in all earnestness he intended the picture to demonstrate the perfection of camouflage that countershading could offer. I'm sure he took great pains to make the countershaded object hard to see, to the point of invisibility, but there is no suggestion of cheating. The picture is of great historical interest in the development of a theory of countershading, and it certainly deserves its place in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there *is* a second duck. I don't see the wire-stand-thing underneath, like what the left-hand duck has. adjusting the color levels in GIMP reveal no aberrant forms (i.e. a silhouette) whatsoever- neither the silhouette of a duck or a wireframe support-thing. It certainly is possible that it was perfectly well painted to look just right... but I rather doubt it. on the other hand I rather doubt if it were a hoax, he'd not have thought of adding a wire-stand-thing with no duck... but could see an OCD artist painting the stand, too. Regardless of if there is or is not a second duck, the image should be deprecated and moved lower-down. It's confusing, and leading readers to make the same mistake as Thayer: conflating counter-shading with camouflage as a whole. at the very least, to hide the second duck he needed to use pattern disruption as well as counter-shading. the picture of the shark is much more obvious as to what exactly is being discussed. I see no problem using the duck picture further down, but as it stands, as *the* picture, it's confusing.50.249.119.98 (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

OCD, eh... Well, there are good reasons on both sides, but you're right, it's too much of a quirk for the start of the article, and it evidently is causing some head-scratching, if not actual confusion. I've swapped the images around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Black and white sea birds

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning that many unrelated sea birds have a white underside (to conceal them when seen from below) and black upper side (to conceal them when seen from above)? It supports the theory, since it has evolved through parallel evolution. FunkMonk (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a mention (and ref) on seabirds in the 'from above or below' section; it doesn't apply to all seabirds, nor is there evidence that camouflage from the side (conventional countershading) matters in their case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Countershading/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article, I'll give it a look. FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• The images appear to be cluttering a bit, but I think this impression could be prevented if you remove the size forcing of the images. Readers can simply click on an image if they want to see it at larger size. Left aligning some could also prevent clutter. --- done

• This sentence is very long, and could be broken in two: "The reverse of countershading, with the belly pigmented darker than the back, enhances contrast, making animals that can defend themselves, such as skunks, more conspicuous." --- done

• You should be consistent with your use of full stops in image captions. Now you only use it in some. --- done

• This sentence makes it seem as if the article "agrees" with a subjective statement, which it probably shouldn't: "as Peter Forbes writes, "the results were remarkable." --- done

• In the following sentence, could full names, or other kinds of identification, be added, to clarify that these are people, and not for example companies? "Research by Tankus and Yeshurun into "camouflage breaking" --- done

• The two squirrel images seem to be creating a lot of white space. How about arranging them as the two plesiosaur images on the right here?[1] --- done

• Perhaps some images are redundant, especially since you have a gallery. The gallery should probably have a different title, like "examples of countershading in animals" or some such. --- done

• There seems to be inconsistency in the tense used when studies are explained (for example "Rowland (2009) identifies an additional mechanism of countershading"). It should be uniform, and it seems you have used past tense the most. --- done

• Is there any reason for the excessive use of short quotes integrated in the text (for example: Similarly in the sea slug Glaucus atlanticus, "inverted coloration is likewise correlated with inverted habits")? Couldn't these simply be paraphrased or reworded? --- done

• That's it from me, looks good, my main concerns are the image layout and the overuse of short quotes within the text. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

--- Thanks. All items actioned, hope that looks better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, seems like one issue disappeared in an edit conflict or something, the last sentence under "A related mechanism: counter-illumination" needs a source. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• That was quick! I think it looks much better now, and will pass it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Fossil countershading

Could perhaps be added: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140108170723.htm FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Might also be of interest, countershading demonstrated in the dinosaur Psittacosaurus.[2][3] FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Uncited changes

Since this article is fully cited and has been reviewed, could changes please be discussed here first? Even apparently small changes to wording can easily break the intended meaning of sentences. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)