Talk:Chameleon
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | There is arequest, submitted by Catfurball, for anaudio version of this article to be created. For further information, seeWikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
In the article it is written: "Contrary to popular belief, this change of colour is not an adaptation to the surroundings but rather an expression of the physical and physiological condition of the lizard."
I have recently been in contact with chameleons and I must say that it is indeed adaptation to it's surroundings. For example I watched a chameleon walking on a stone fence and it was yellow like the stone, then it went on a branch near the wall and into the bush and it changed to the color of the bush and then went on a dry bush and changed color to that of the dry bush.It was incontestably adapting to the color of it's surroundings. Anybody know why this article states it the way it does? Until then I'm putting a "factual accuracy" warning on it.
---
Sounds like a load of crap to me, I think it's better if someone changes it back to accepted views.
Well, they can change color to their surroundings to hide, but they also change according to their mood.61.230.79.24209:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I own Chamaeleo calyptratus as a pet, and I've never seen her change colour to adapt to its surroundings. She lives in a large vivarium with many different colours and I even take her out occasionally but she only changes colour when she's offended or about to lay eggs. I've removed the tag because the current statement is sourced (National Geographic is seems like a valid source to me when talking about wildlife) yet the contrairy, that they change colour as a way of camouflage, isn't.81.246.93.2 (talk)16:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that Chameleons can change their color based on the surroundings for camouflage, it has been shown that they will change their color based on temperature, light, and mood. I guess the question is, for what reason do they mostly change their color?
Samielx16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the disputed sentence as follows:"Contrary to popular belief, this change of color is not only an adaptation to the surroundings but also an expression of the physical and physiological condition of the lizard. The skin color is changed under influence of mood, light and temperature."
I believe this is, in fact, correct. Hope this is acceptable to all. --Mwanner 21:04, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Completely correct!61.230.79.24209:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know anyone to ask this so ill do it here, i have a project aboput chameleons and i have to make a poster about them i have three topics,food,habitat and description.I need at lest 6 topices can you write below what other topics i could use???—Precedingunsigned comment added by99.235.238.178 (talk)17:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is there any video of a chameleon changing its colour avail?84.189.129.67 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)a .gif might even be better ;)84.189.129.6714:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duno but that picture is class
shophie— Precedingunsigned comment added by90.218.59.209 (talk •contribs)17:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The video is a bit disappointing to me; I hope someone can find an fair use one that contains an example of the color-changing abilities of the chameleon.68.36.144.32 (talk)19:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
doing a search for "Blind chameleon" will find you several sites stating:
A blind chameleon still changes colour to match its environment
but there is no source or any other infomation. anyone know?
Chameleons differ in the complexity of their pigment cells and also that their response is more rapid (seconds rather than minutes), however the principle is the same except they probably use a neuronal response in addition to a hormonal one. That said, some animals have light sensing cells ouside the eye, but it seems highly unlikely that these could mediate such complex colour changes that the chameleon can do. Moreover, Anoles are known to have excellent vision over a wide colour range, suggesting that their vision may play a large role in mediating their adaptation to background[2]. But... blind chameleons will still be able to respond to stress and communicative cues by changing colour (as their hormones will still be released and their neurons will still fire - just not in response to vision). Thus, i think the evidence suggests that blind chameleons would not respond to background colours specifically, but that they would still change colour in respone to their wider environment. Hope that helps.Rockpocket18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the statementA completely blind chameleon, in this way, can still take on the colors of its environment. First of all, it's a non sequitur. The preceding paragraph doesn't explain how a blind chameleon could take on the colors of its environment -- it just explains the mechanics behind a chameleon's color changes. Second of all, it's false. A blind chameleon can't take on the color of its environment, except perhaps accidentally. AsRockpocket suggests in hes excellent summary above, it could and probably would change color in response to environmental factors, but that's not the same astaking on the colors of its environment. See also[3].Kiscica05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have raised panther chameleons for a few years now, and I can safely say they do not change colour to match the back ground. The article is correct. They change colour to attract a mate, to warn off other males, to bask in the sun and to indicate mood or body temperature. The panther chameleon does not change colour to match its surroundings. Panther chameleons are the most colour chameleons - every colour imaginable. 4:37, Nov 6/06.
After reading the above, i am just wondering: How about colorblind chameleons? Do they adapt different?77.164.181.26 (talk)19:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about if other sensory input stimulates the memory of the chameleon? Similar to the way a blind person learns their way around a familiar environment like their house? They don't need the sensory input via their cane. So, if the chameleon finds itself smelling the same plant, feeling the same type of branch, or feeling the heat of the sun, is it not possible that the changing colour would happen, almost as a reflex?—Precedingunsigned comment added by114.76.26.221 (talk)03:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the easy way to test this, for pet chameleon owners, would be to make a little black bag to put over it's head. Alternatively, if the "pineal eye" might be important, make it a tiny little blindfold. Might take a bit of time with some cloth and elastic, but it's not rocket science. Tho it is original research, it'd be nice to clear this probable myth up. And hey, just put it up on a web page then cite it.
94.197.127.192 (talk)00:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blue + yellow is never green.
Blue light + yellow light = white light. Blue dye + yellow dye = Black dye.
Anyone care to check what they meant and correct it?Andy00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thisis rubbish. One part blue light to two parts yellow light will give white light. However, blue dye and yellow dye do make green dye! The subtractive (true primary) colours are magenta, yellow and cyan. When perfrect examples of each are mixed, you will get black. Since there is little to no magenta in blue and yellow, they most certainly willnot make black when mixed. How can mixing blue with a lighter colour produce a darker colour? Besides, any school kid knows yellow and blue make green! --Danfc 13:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)actually yes, blue and yellow light would create green light. green light consists of wavelengths between the two, so the average seen by our eyes would be greenish.—Precedingunsigned comment added by65.93.142.253 (talk)03:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept the following as humble submissions. English being my second language, my phrasing sometimes comes across as arrogant.Take what you like and leave the rest.
I may have a bee in my bonnet, but "contrary to popular belief" in an encyclopedia article sounds condescending. To me it seems to be saying something like "ordinary stupid people believe this, but we know better". Furthermore, without a statistical survey of "popular belief", or a specification of in which population the belief is popular, it may not be true.In the diet section, may I suggest something like: "In illustrations, a chameleon is often depicted catching a fly with it's long tongue, but flies are not normally a a significant part of an adult chameleon's diet."
In the section on change of colour, it is sufficient to state the fact that colour change is both an adaptation to the environment and an expression of emotion. That is, confirm "popular belief" and add the relevant scientific perspective about the other functions of colour change. Possible edit?: "This change of color is not only an adaptation to the surroundings but is also an expression of the physiological state of the lizard (note that imho using the adjectives physical and physiological both is superfluous). Thus the skin color may change in response to changes in ambient light and temperature, as well as to changes in mood. While colour change is clearly advantageous as camouflage, it also plays an essential part in communication with other chameleons, relating especially to territorial and mating behaviour, such as rivalry fights." --Seejyb08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite journal}}:Unknown parameter|coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). In the conclusions they say... the predator-spe-cific responses were consistent across populationsdespite variation in absolute contrast, providingstrong evidence that the change in brightness (evidentto the human eye) is an antipredator response. Also,we cannot conclude that chameleons adjust theirbrightness to appear equally cryptic to birds andsnakes because we could not derive realistic measuresof receiver-relative contrast.Billlion (talk)12:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it habitat?
What's the difference from Chameleon andChamaeleo? There's no article there. Also, could someone identify thisimage? --Steinninntalk20:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a minor shuffle in the reproduction section. The article didn't make it absolutely clear that chameleons are either oviparous or ovoviviparous and nothing else, but I assume that's the case. If not, please edit it.82.81.169.20011:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit changed spellings from British to American spellings. I'm assuming the original spelling was British.Alphonze04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a word, perhaps technical, for the type of independent eyes that a chameleon has?Jason Quinn (talk)15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific word for chameleon's eyes, but they are described asindependent (most lizards can aim each eye at a separate target,) and they havestereoscopic binocular vision, with rapid ability to change focus, which is sometimes described colorfully astelescopic.
Current infobox image is no good: the chamaeleon in question fills about 5-10% of the image, but somewhere between 30% and 50% of the image would be preferable. In the current one, it is hard to perceive a chamaleon for all the brown grass. Possible solutions: 1. cut down the current one, remove all irrelevant grass and others, 2. substitute the current one for another that photographs the chameleon from the side. ... said:Rursus (mbork³)16:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an edit war brewing. FYI the link doesn't even work. --Guerillero (talk)06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.funvid.eu/index.php?page=videos§ion=view&vid_id=102894—Precedingunsigned comment added by90.182.195.122 (talk)07:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the parasitism section very quickly with basic citations. The text below was much too detailed for the context, and totally unsourced. If you have a use for it, and proper citations, feel free to add it back.Chiswick Chap (talk)10:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Recognised parasites include:
The article seems to speak of the name "lion ground" as though it's a perfectly natural and obvious name for the creature. I'd be very interested to find out why exactly it's called that.Rikeus (talk)
JB5 edited the text in three places. One was just a English/American thing, and I would not have bothered with it, but the other two are problematic. "...are subject to several protozoan parasites..." became " arevectors for several protozoan parasites ". This, subject to fully referenced and defensible claims to the contrary (not a passing mention in a husbandry manual) is not a supported claim. There is a lot of difference between being a vector and being subject to an infection. In fact, there even is a lot of difference between being a reservoir and being a vector. It also suggests that they are vectors for diseases of other animals. There are a LOT of species of Plasmodium and most of them play no role in humans for example. That sort of claim needs a good deal of material epidemiological support and indication of which species are involved. There are many kinds of chameleons that occur in many regions.
Again, "...are susceptible to parasitism..." is a far stronger statement than "...are subject to parasitism..." and needs substantial support. We know that they get parasitised, but in most cases it is just one of those things. "Susceptible" suggests that they are prone to succumb. "Subject to" is more neutral, and would suit mild, routine afflictions as well as serious diseases.
So please, more detail before re-submission.JonRichfield (talk)16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Change of colour" begins with the sentence "Being norganimals, some chameleon species are able to change their skin coloration.". What does the word "norganimals" mean? A google search of the word turned up only one result: this wikipedia page itself, which leads me to suspect that it is probably a typo. If so, somebody who knows what it'smeant to say needs to correct it.
106.68.6.108 (talk)14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link onChameleon. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)15:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links onChameleon. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template{{source check}}(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)19:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,I am a student editor with WikiEducation.During my research, I found research from National Geographic stating that certain species of chameleons have bones that glow when under UV light. I would like to add this information to the Chameleon page, but how should I go about writing it? I did it once before, and I did not think I was against the guidelines, but my edit was removed. –S jacob1102 (talk)20:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be of interest to include a section on cultural perceptions. The eleven years I lived in central, east and northeast Africa, I commonly found that people considered them poisonous, dangerous, and not to be handled. When I did so, I was warned that I might be poisoned. I have no independent documentation but wonder if there are any anthropological sources on this?Ptilinopus (talk)23:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is well established that chameleons change color to attract mates, establish dominance and communicate their emotions. But is it a conscious act? Does the chameleon choose to change color or is it an automatic process triggered exclusively by reactions to external/hormonal stimuli?Kiwi Rex (talk)17:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I speak British English and believe it is correct to use that instead of which as the restrictive relative pronoun. This edit [[4]] suggest that is an Americanism? I think it should be that.Billlion (talk)08:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed all the spellings from "color" to "colour" as this article has the template {{Use British English}}. According to the talk pageTalk:Chameleon#Spelling spellings were changed from colour to color in 2007. Looking atthis diff from 2005 (two years prior), the article did infact use British spellings, so I've brought it back to the original version. —Panamitsu(talk)01:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 5 of colour change - “Chameleon colour palettes have evolved through evolution and the environment.” Is there a more concise way to write that?Remostain (talk)19:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The top-left image is of Brookesia micra, and the top right is Chamaeleo chamaeleon.The caption should read "Clockwise from top right ...", rather than from top left.— Precedingunsigned comment added by161.29.133.76 (talk)06:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph, first sentence. Last edit changed the “laterally compressed bodies” to “literally compressed bodies”, presumably because they didn’t know that the word “lateral” exists and its correct usage referring to the compressed side-to-side dimensions of the lizard. Ironically, this edit was marked as “fixing” a typo. Thank you.120.16.135.164 (talk)08:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
