Talk:Chameleon

== Colorblind ==ize: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.59.209 (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Why do they change colour?

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. 61.230.79.242 09:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Notice that the National Geographic reference cited here is an article written for schoolchildren. Other more serious articles are quite explicit about the dual nature of colour change as both camouflage and social indicator. See e.g. here and here, quoting from Biology Letters and PLoS Biology respectively. I'm amending in line with the measured suggestion by Mwanner below. --Air (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be entertaining to put a cameleon on a tartan. If it's not a native Scottish chameleon, serious injury can result. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientists disagree

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?

Samielx 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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! 61.230.79.242 09:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.238.178 (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Blind chameleon

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?

I don't know about chameleons specifically, but most animals that undergo background adaptation show a greatly reduced ability to do so when blinded. This has been demonstrated widely in zebrafish [1]:

"When placed on a dark background, melanin granules (also called melanosomes) become widely distributed within the processes of star-shaped black pigment cells, the melanophores. As a result, when viewed from a distance, the animal appears blackish. When placed on a light background, melanosomes become aggregated, and the animal appears pale. A direct projection from the retina to the hypothalamus provides the sensory input to this adaptation response. In most teleosts, the hypothalamus then induces the pituitary to secrete two hormones with antagonistic actions on the melanophores, one for dispersal and the other for aggregation of melanin."

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. Rockpocket 18:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Further reading reveals the chameleon does have a well developed pineal 'third eye' on its head. It has light sensitive cells that are only sensitive to violet and blue light. So this may well play some sort of role in colour adaptation, but is unlikely to mediate the entire response. However, if someone would like to volunteer their pet chameleon, i could easily do a bit of ad hoc surgery and we could find out.... ;) Rockpocket 18:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement A 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. As Rockpocket suggests in hes excellent summary above, it could and probably would change color in response to environmental factors, but that's not the same as taking on the colors of its environment. See also [3]. Kiscica 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That one somehow went under my radar or else i would have removed it myself. Rockpocket (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.26.221 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Colour maths

Blue + yellow is never green.

Blue light + yellow light = white light. Blue dye + yellow dye = Black dye.

gfdgdo 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 will not 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.142.253 (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to think about it less in mixting paints or dyes, and more in terms of filtering wavelengths of light. This article explains it in more detail. Rockpocket 19:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusion probably caused by lack of clarity about schemochromes and biochromes, layering, reflection, absorption, transmission, interference et al. A layer of melanophores, then a layer of schemochrome containing chromatophores, topped by a layer of yellow and red biochrome containing cells can conceivably be manipulated to produce colours from black to blue to green to yellow/red to grey depending on how the animal changes the internal structure of the chromatophores. This should be cleared up under chromatophores or maybe a separate article on "colours on nature" (whew!). --Seejyb 08:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Further confusion comes from the fact that people use the word "blue" when they mean "cyan". Blue light plus yellow light is indeed white (if appropriate amounts of each are mixed) - but cyan light (which is blue+green and looks like "sky blue") plus yellow (red+green) equals red+blue+green+green. Two shots of green for the price of one! Hence, the result of mixing sky-blue light (as the chameleon does) with yellow would produce a light green color. SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what you may believe...

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." --Seejyb 08:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well i think it is ok to say "contrary to popular belief". For example a display next to a Chameleon in the vivarium at Manchester Museum (seen August 2008) indicates that colour change is used for camouflage. I was alerted to the possibility it might not be true for a rerun of an episode of QI Series 1, Episode 4. This show specifically aims at exposing popular beliefs that are wrong.

On the other hand I am confused about exactly how they use colour change to avoid predation. I found this article STUART-FOX, DEVI (2006). "Camouflage and colour change: antipredator responses to bird and snake predators across multiple populations in a dwarf chameleon". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 88 (3): 437–446. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2006.00631.x. Retrieved 2008-08-16. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). In the conclusions they say

... the predator-spe- cific responses were consistent across populations despite variation in absolute contrast, providing strong evidence that the change in brightness (evident to the human eye) is an antipredator response. Also, we cannot conclude that chameleons adjust their brightness to appear equally cryptic to birds and snakes because we could not derive realistic measures of receiver-relative contrast. Billlion (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What is it habitat?

merge with Chamaeleo?

What's the difference from Chameleon and Chamaeleo? There's no article there. Also, could someone identify this image? --Steinninn ^talk 20:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Chameleon is the English common name of several species in several genera. Chamaeleo is just one of these genera (exactly like Bradypodion, Calumma, etc). It can be compared to Apes which include Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae (humans, gorillas, etc). So no, merging Chameleon (= Chamaeleonidae) with the genus Chamaeleo would be a mistake, as they deal with different sub-groups. It would be nice to know exactly where you took the photo you link to. Kenya is a pretty large country and many chameleons have a very restricted range. The species I suspect it is, Chamaeleo hoehnelii, is found in the central highlands, e.g. it is fairly common near Nairobi. 212.10.92.201 20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)212.10.92.201 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about your reply on my talk page, I would have missed it :D Ok, no merge needs to be done, but I put a tag up there because there is no intro at all in that article. I don't know exactly where the image was taken because I wasn't driving :P but I remember it wasn't very far from Nairobi. So Chamaeleo hoehnelii is probably it. I knew this would be the place to ask, I'm so grateful for your help. I think I'll put my picture up on the article since the other image doesn't have the proper license tag. --Steinninn ^talk 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Only oviparous and ovoviviparous?

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. 82.81.169.200 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What else is there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Viviparous, which describes your placental mammalian mother, good poster, and mine as well.--Gagundathar Inexplicable (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Spelling

This edit changed spellings from British to American spellings. I'm assuming the original spelling was British.Alphonze 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that's a clear no-no. The spelling established by the first major contributor should stand, unless the subject for some reason is particularly linked to e.g. USA or England (in which case the respective spellings should stand; see WP:ENGVAR). Had it been a recent edit, I would have reverted it. However, seeing that it has stood for some time, and the user who did it hasn't been doing it consistently since then (at least the - admittedly rather few - pages I checked don't indicate that), I don't see any compelling reason for reverting it. Measurements, of course, are a bit different (WP:UNITS), and this article falls well within SI, as relating to a non-US subject and being a scientific subject. • Rabo³ • 16:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The type of eyes a chameleon has?

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)

There is no specific word for chameleon's eyes, but they are described as independent (most lizards can aim each eye at a separate target,) and they have stereoscopic binocular vision, with rapid ability to change focus, which is sometimes described colorfully as telescopic.

Image

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)

Also, the creature appears to be on chopsticks, which (to me at least) is so strange as to be distracting. Swapping it for one of the other pictures would be good. --catslash (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I am not as opposed to that picture as you two, I see your point(s). I have done a swap, but I wouldn't feel strongly if someone else were to swap this one in turn. JonRichfield (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Have cropped the image so the subject of interest fills the frame. Original is still, of course, up on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That is fine. I would not have minded if you had done the original as well. I still am looking for a better pic, but I don't have many and that is the only sp. where I live. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

video

This looks like an edit war brewing. FYI the link doesn't even work. --Guerillero (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Video

http://www.funvid.eu/index.php?page=videos&section=view&vid_id=102894 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.182.195.122 (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Parasitism

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)

"Recognised parasites include:

• Choleoeimeria bohemii - Meller's chameleon (Trioceros melleri)
• Choleoeimeria brookesiae - spiny leaf chameleon (Brookesia decaryi)
• Choleoeimeria glawi - panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis)
• Choleoeimeria hirbayah - veiled chameleon (Chamaeleo calyptratus)
• Choleoeimeria largeni - graceful chameleon (Chamaeleo gracilis)
• Choleoeimeria tilburyi - Jackson's chameleon (Trioceros jacksonii)

• Eimeria hajeki - pygmy chameleon (Rampholeon temporalis)
• Eimeria vencesi - panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis)
• Eimeria worthi - Oustalet's chameleon (Furcifer oustaleti)

• Isospora brygooi - panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis)
• Isospora jaracimrmani - veiled chameleon (Chamaeleo calyptratus)" --- well I told you it was too detailed.

Chameleon etymology

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)

I don't know. I don't know that there is a definitive answer at all. My best guess is that it is because the European chameleon, which first bore the name, is one of the few terrestrial species of chameleon, like Ch. namaquensis, (hence "ground") and reacts fiercely in its own defence. Does anyone have a better idea? JonRichfield (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC

More about parasites: reversion

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 " are vectors 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)

Norganimals?

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's meant to say needs to correct it.

106.68.6.108 (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chameleon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111212443/http://torontozoo.com/ExploretheZoo/AnimalDetails.asp?pg=794 to http://www.torontozoo.com/ExploretheZoo/AnimalDetails.asp?pg=794

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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chameleon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chameleonnews.com/lighting1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203195712/http://www.usfca.edu/fac_staff/dever/CHAMELEONS.pdf to http://www.usfca.edu/fac_staff/dever/CHAMELEONS.pdf

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 by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Glow-in-the-dark" Bones

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)

Cultural perceptions

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)

Color change

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)

Which/that

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)

Both are actually in wide use in BE; I routinely use which in that context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Spelling

I've just changed all the spellings from "color" to "colour" as this article has the template {{Use British English}}. According to the talk page Talk:Chameleon#Spelling spellings were changed from colour to color in 2007. Looking at this 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)