Variety of color in butterflies

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with the standard color scale with a lot of shades (and names)? Except for its inaccessibility.... Maybe you don't need to limit the number of options? This will only contribute to a more accurate description.

I'm sorry, but what's wrong with the standard color scale with a lot of shades (and names)? Except for its inaccessibility.... Maybe you don't need to limit the number of options? This will only contribute to a more accurate description.

Duc, there are also listed 5 points and below them-additional notes, what is not like for butterflies...

From the notes, it is only clear why you can't use a limited set of colors, but why you can't use a color scale is not clear.

So the scale is not suitable here at all-the point is that the description sets specific color options, from which you can then make a selection. For example, select cases where there are blue And red colors. In the case of a scale, such selection is much less effective.

And, I understand, this is necessary for the on-line determinant? Then take a look at the option adopted at the Plantarium. There are not many colors selected, approximately the same as in your list. But there are three items: "Main color" "With a shade" "Spots-stripes". In other words, if the color is "controversial" (someone may mistake it for orange, someone-for yellow), it is marked: Color: orange, yellow. With a shade: orange, yellow. In principle, you can also add red to the shades. Well, and if necessary - spots. However, for any selected combination (yellow, yellow with an orange tint, orange, orange with a yellow tint, orange), this option is selected...

If I understand correctly, you suggest solving the problem by dividing the color attribute into two parts: the primary color and the secondary color. But she wouldn't do that. As there were seroburmaline options, so they will remain. And the fact that you can specify yellow and orange at the same time, for example, is yes, I already use it...

Yes, I suggest using two categories: color and hue. However, I still don't understand what exactly you want to achieve... The most accurate description of the color? Then only the scale. For example, this or better yet this. Well, or their "paper" versions. But where are they?
Or do you want to select suitable options from the image database based on a request with a color description? What's wrong with shades? In any color, we isolate the main color (in the case of a real gray-brown color, this is purple, or, if you want, blue) and shades (gray, red). If you are not sure which of the components will be perceived as the main color and which as the shade, enter several options.
As for the difference in monitor settings and color reproduction of photos , we, fortunately, have such a thing as color perception constancy. We easily and imperceptibly cope with such problems (well, if the shifts are within reasonable limits, of course....)

I have a similar problem last spring surfaced my student was doing a diploma on the color variability of locusts. We used photos from nature - because dry material fades. Well, they got both the manager and the ward on the defense

Lesson learned:
1) There are standardized printed color catalogs - Pantone. But they do not cover the entire color scheme and require an experienced expert (and when trying to digitize and process on a computer, they are unlikely to justify themselves-although this is my personal opinion).
2) You can try using a" computer " scale based on RGB, for example, this one: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_colors
3) You can try using just digital RGB values - although this is not very clear.
4) If we work with digital photos, the shades are affected by many factors: camera features, lighting (it is cloudy outside, and the height of the sun above the horizon). Apparently, this can be partially compensated for by using a reference paper of the same color on all photos and then correcting it on a computer. For computer image processing - both color correction and RGB detection - you can use, for example, GIMP , a powerful graphics editor distributed free of charge. http://www.gimp.org

Yeah... The nerds mentioned this once - http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...578#entry642088

Okay, I'll try to finish with my first version, then we'll see how it works... Here I will also reset the link for testing/use by those who wish.

And that Bondartsev's "Color Scale" is no longer listed in biology!? Why invent a new "two-wheeled vehicle"???

And that Bondartsev's "Color Scale" is no longer listed in biology!? Why invent a new "two-wheeled vehicle"???

1. The Bondartsev color scale is not a primer, it is not lying around on every corner, and not everyone can know about it. I don't know. And even after your pointer — I find only mentions, but not the actual content.
2. As far as I understand, this scale is used to standardize the names of colors. That is, these formulations will be understood by people who will have such a scale at hand (at best). I need everyone to understand.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. If there is a scale next to you, drop the link.

What does it mean to be understood by everyone? Including colorblind people?

An unambiguously reproducible color is still either RGB, or its analog on other base colors or with their other gradations.

All — this means people who do not have a table in front of them that explains what the "red-pistachio" option means. That is, there should be a few options, but they should all be clear without additional explanations and there was no doubt when choosing from them.
In my question, RGB has nothing to do with it at all. I do not need accuracy, but unambiguity of choice for a person.

I do not need accuracy, but unambiguity of choice for a person.

IMHO, the unambiguity of the choice in this case is utopia. What the former considers "pink", the latter considers "purple". And the third considers it "lilac".

IMHO, the unambiguity of the choice in this case is utopia. What the former considers "pink", the latter considers "purple". And the third considers it "lilac".

That's the whole point. The challenge is to find an option when there is no doubt about it. That is, lilac, mauve, purple, light blue, and ultramarine can be attributed, for example, to blue.

Isn't it easier and more effective to give a picture than to explain it in words? Maybe I don't understand something, but what is the point of such very conventional color descriptions?

So my goal is reversed. Don't put the color in the description, but make it possible to select by color. For example, select all the species that have red. For dummies, this is a very good guide. And also for those who want to select not by species, but by appearance.

IMHO, the unambiguity of the choice in this case is utopia. What the former considers "pink", the latter considers "purple". And the third considers it "lilac".

And this happens because the child learns to perceive colors. From the adults around him. It creates something like a "coordinate grid" of shades - what is considered what. And then, having learned, any color compares with this standard and, based on the results of the comparison, somehow names it. Especially difficult are these very purple shades, even blue-turquoise is also not a gift... So it is not a fact that what you decide to attribute to blue someone will not attribute to red

Asar, why don't you make something like a picture-not write the names of colors in letters, but a collage of colored squares? Although, of course, all the variety found in butterflies can not be squeezed in anyway...

Maybe I'll do it with pictures, too. Only there will not be individual colors then, but a certain piece of the scale (for example, the period from blue to purple). Otherwise, the ambiguity will remain.

So my goal is...... to make it possible to select by color. For example, select all the species that have red. For dummies, this is a very good guide.

What's the benefit?

What's the benefit?

The goal is to select from the general pile those types that interest them (for example, when trying to determine what they saw/photographed) by a feature that is understandable to teapots.

The goal is to select from the general pile those types that interest them (for example, when trying to determine what they saw/photographed) by a feature that is understandable to teapots.

Take photos of the teapot Pontia edusa, Coenonympha pamphilus, Plebeius argus. "Defines" as Euchloe ausonia, Lycaena dispar, Polyommatus icarus, respectively. I'm not even talking about more complex types.
Who needs such a "definition"?
If it wants to determine, let it contact specialists or delve into the issue on its own.
In addition, IMHO, it is just easier for dummies to look at the pictures and find something similar than to think about the description of a gray-brown-crimson mottled butterfly in the text.

Vladimir, well, let's still remember about the genitals of male pigeons. It's a no brainer that when a teapot determines, it can make mistakes. Essno, the favorite way to identify such a person is from pictures.
So, we take a website with pictures. To simplify things, let's take it as true that the desired view is on the site and there are illustrations for it too. But at the same time, here's the problem, there are still a couple of thousand views and several thousand photos on the site. Question: How can a teapot narrow all this happiness down to an acceptable size? Answer: such" left-hand " features as geography, size, and color (within large limits, so as not to make a mistake) will allow a person to reduce the sample several times, and if they are lucky, even a hundred times.
Well, let him go to the specialists or sit over the determinant himself — why go too far? There is a specialist at his side, let him go to a specialist. Only most people don't have specialists. And there is no dried butterfly instance either, by the way. But the accuracy is also 100%-I do not need (although desirable).

That is, more or less in the topic, a person can choose some taxon to reduce the sample, for example. And not in the subject — it can't. But it can be a color or geo (pop).

In general, all this is in theory, of course. As soon as I'm ready, I'll be able to check it out. The main thing is not to forget to put yourself in the place of a teapot defining or a person who is interested not in the definition, but in color forms. Not with T. Z. zoology, essno.

So, we take a website with pictures. To simplify things, let's take it as true that the desired view is on the site and there are illustrations for it too. But at the same time, here's the problem, there are still a couple of thousand views and several thousand photos on the site.

If we take the website "Butterflies of the World", but without geographical division, then yes.
And if we take the site "Butterflies of the MO", then there will not be so many diaries there, you can find them with a simple search.

If we take the website "Butterflies of the World", but without geographical division, then yes.
And if we take the site "Butterflies of the MO", then there will not be so many diaries there, you can find them with a simple search.

Of course, in my case, we take "Butterflies of the World". Since the last time we discussed this topic, nothing has changed...
And so, yes, I agree, if all the daily reports are placed on one page, there is no need to sculpt unnecessary signs.

Geography is not just a "left-hand sign", it is the first thing that the determinant begins with. Be it "Butterflies of the Crimea" or "Butterflies of the Caucasus" or even "Insects of the USSR".

Well, very good, so it's an extra reason to use this feature and apply it.

But there is access to the Internet, where there is, for example, this forum (+specialists).
If the correctness of the definition is not important, then it is not a definition and there is nothing to discuss here. Then let him, the teapot, "define "all the blue ones as" pigeon Icarus "and be glad that he was able to"define" them.

Vladimir, first of all, let him know that there is a "golubyanka Icarus" in the world at all. This will be a growth for him. And if he knows in advance that Icarus exists (the teapot is advanced), then he will not identify all the blue ones as icarus. And also, I'm not saying that you need to determine only on the basis of color. I say that the color helps narrow down the selection. Make 500 views out of 1000. Or 50. I think that's a good thing. And it's also good that color selections can be used not only for biological purposes, but also for editorial/design purposes. And who else may need it for what...

... I myself now, while I'm putting color on different species, already make some new generalizations for myself, which without such a bird's-eye view, it would be more difficult and/or boring for me to do ...

Of course, in my case, we take "Butterflies of the World". Nothing has changed since the last time this topic was discussed...

Are you planning to write a Guide to the Butterflies of the World for Dummies?

Are you planning to write a Guide to the Butterflies of the World for Dummies?

No, it's still the same modest catalog with advanced features for selecting views and photos based on attributes;--)

Why is that? Once on the Internet hung the site of a girl who was passionate about macro photography. She had all the blue ones (mostly Amanda's) identified by Icarus.

But mind you, not with order ribbons or even pea pigeons!

Narrowing down the sample is a good thing. However, the color can not always be determined unambiguously-you never know, color distortion in the photo or the copy is broken.

So I outlined this problem, in particular, in the very first post: what color options should be available to take all this into account. I.e., the colors are so different that you can choose between them without a doubt, even if the monitor is buggy or the dusty museum case has recently passed a hundred years.

In addition, you will need to write a parallel branch for brown female pigeons, for example. And given that males are also brown, and females, on the contrary, are blue, the kettle, not knowing how to determine the sex except by color, will get completely confused and boil...

Yes, so both brown and blue colors will be specified for the same view.

But, okay. Let it be a simple case. Male Icarus. Based on the blue color, we get a selection of "Icarus, Amanda, Thersites, etc.", dozens of similar species in appearance. How do I explain what is what to the teapot?

The teapot is determined by the pictures. One way or another, he will have to review more or less of them, look at all sorts of spots and bandages, etc. Yes, sometimes it will still have more or less uncertainty. But if you don't make color-based selections, they will take a lot longer to search, and the uncertainty may also be greater (due to a drop in interest/attention due to the amount of material being viewed) than if they use color sampling as one of their tools.
And in the end, he will still come to a certain list of species, between which he will choose based on other characteristics or other information, based on the testimony of specialists, etc.The task is to get to this list faster.

Of course, in my case, we take "Butterflies of the World". Since the last time we discussed this topic, nothing has changed...
And so, yes, I agree, if all the daily reports are placed on one page, there is no need to sculpt unnecessary signs.

Why narrow down the sample by such a very ambiguous feature as color, thus getting (for example) "blue+brown" = hundreds of pigeons and satyrs of the World at the output, when you can go the usual way-narrow down by geography and get a hundred and a little diaries from the Moscow region at the output (- further-thumbnails, and, here it was found!! )? Did you see it Noctuidae.de? Why not do the same?

So I outlined this problem, in particular, in the very first post: what color options should be available to take all this into account. I.e., the colors are so different that you can choose between them without a doubt, even if the monitor is buggy or the dusty museum case has recently passed a hundred years.

IMHO, the question has no solution and this is obvious. Just as there is no solution to the already discussed possibility of converting the wingspan to the wing length.
Remember, in the topic on the definition of butterflies, there were cases of incorrect color transfer, butterflies changed beyond recognition. This is not even saying that not every butterfly can be unambiguously "called" any color.

This post was edited by okoem - 05.10.2010 09: 46

Why narrow down the sample by such a very ambiguous feature as color, thus getting (for example) "blue+brown" = hundreds of pigeons and satyrs of the World at the output, when you can go the usual way-narrow down by geography and get a hundred and a little diaries from the Moscow region at the output (- further-thumbnails, and, here it was found!! )? Did you see it Noctuidae.de? Why not do the same?

Why can't you combine them? Why does a person know what diaries are? Why does a person always know where this butterfly came from (although in most cases it does)? Why is it easier to find information on small geo-regions at the level of Moscow or any other region than by color? This is what concerns the definition. In addition to the definition, I remind you that there are other purposes, including neocolozoological ones, for color samples. However, even for such samples, the color should be set appropriately.
Noctuidae.I haven't seen it yet. I don't speak German very well. I just looked it up. Don't do it either, because there are no free samples at all. It's like modeling a computer determinant with a dichotomous key. When it is possible with a polytomic one, this is also the advantage of a computer over a book.

IMHO, the question has no solution and this is obvious. Just as there is no solution to the already discussed possibility of converting the wingspan to the wing length.
Remember, in the topic on the definition of butterflies, there were cases of incorrect color transfer, butterflies changed beyond recognition. This is not even saying that not every butterfly can be unambiguously "called" any color.

It would be like this, but the number of colors per view is unlimited. Therefore, it is not necessary to unambiguously call a single cvt. And definitely call not one — it seems to be working out so far. I think I'll reduce only the blue shades to one, and it should work (so far, however, I've only gone through about 300-400 species, let's see what happens next).

This post was edited by Asar - 05.10.2010 13: 53

By the way, it's ready. For example, lepidoptera.ru/catalog/?color[]=25

This post was edited by Asar - 23.12.2010 01: 08

And not bad, by the way

PVOzerski, thank you.
Link. corrected, by the way, and then it crookedly reproduced the URL due to the presence of square brackets in it...

Do you want to check out how your entomologically virgin friends will use your resource? (After practicing at the Blacksmith Shop better-not-remember-how-many-years-ago, I only picked up entomological determinants to scan them)

Is this Lycaena dispar?

Do you want to check out how your entomologically virgin friends will use your resource?

I mean, how accurately will they be able to determine the view from the photo? Hopefully, with more than any sci-fi pop book. However, it depends on the amount of information for a particular type on the site, of course.

Is this Lycaena dispar?

If this is a question for me, then I don't know — I don't know anything about butterflies...