Chameleons frogs and puffins also fluoresce

[Baldilocks]

In addition to flying squirrels, other have got the trick.

 

Chameleons:

https://www.nature.c...598-017-19070-7

 

Frogs

https://www.pnas.org...ent/114/14/3672

 

Puffins

https://www.smithson...ones-180968724/

 

and related Auklets

http://biology-web.n...cristatella.pdf

 

Baldi

[Alaun]

With the first link I got a warning:

Web Attack: Fake Flash Player Download 17

[Baldilocks]

With the first link I got a warning:

Web Attack: Fake Flash Player Download 17

Sorry about that. I just tried the link again and I'm not getting an issue. The link is to Nature magazine.

 

If you Google "Fluorescing chameleons" you should get the same link as well as others, mostly cross-referring.

 

Baldi

[Alaun]

Hello Baldi!

I should have said a welcome here at UV photography! We have a board here, where you might introduce yourself.

 

I tried google and their link to nature.com and got again the warning from my Norten Anti Virus. In the browser, I get the information, that the site is doing/trying cross site tracking (which is blocked by Safari).

[Shane]

Why Puffins have glowing beaks is another question entirely. Puffins have the ability to see UV wavelengths, which are invisible to humans. This means other puffins can likely spot the fluorescent beaks in normal daylight conditions

 

This is as far as I got before the article lost all credibility. You do not need the ability to see UV wavelengths to observe UV stimulated visible fluorescence.

[Shane]

"It's hard to say what it would look like [to them], we can't comprehend that colour space," Dunning tells Smellie. "But almost certainly it's attractive to the birds. They must be able to see it — that's the only reason it would exist."

 

" that's the only reason it would exist"..........why did I bother reading on....I guess I needed to see how bad it got.

 

Just because UV absorption/reflectance patterns, UV stimulated visible fluorescence and structural iridescence colors occur in nature does not mean it's there for a reason. Granted in many cases it does have a use but not always. In some cases it is purely coincidental. Plants often exhibit strong porphyrin fluorescence, not to look "pretty", it's a function of the UV and blue component of sunlight interacting with chlorophyll (a magnesium porphyrin). Brown eggs often fluoresce red due to protoporphyrins. The protoporphyrins are deposited to strengthen the egg shell in areas where calcium is thin. This results in the brown body colour of an egg and/or brown or red spotting. It's not there to make the egg look "pretty" or camouflaged. The inside of the black lipped Pinctada margaritifera oyster fluoresces red due to porphyrins, since it is mostly covered by the mantle it is not readily observable and certainly isn't to attract a mate.

[Andrea B.]

There's a lot of discussion which could be made on whether or not fluorescence is there for a reason --- or not. :D I am one who tends to go with the notion that most of what occurs in nature is not mere happenstance. But I must also grant that there are evolutionary dead ends. Just think of the human appendix, for one thing. (That useless little wiggle caused me a surgery years ago!)

 

As for visible fluorescence, it can enhance the colour of a plant or flower, yes? That is potentially useful to the plant. And fluorescence also discharges some energy. That is useful in the photosynthetic process.

 

But I am not writing today for reasons of serious rebuttal. Just musing -- and making a very late response to this thread as I play catch up.