Talk:Disruptive eye mask

Helping the predator?

Thank you for a very interesting article! Early in the article it says by predators to help them approach their prey. I would appreciate some explanation of this. I get the impression (I really hope this is right) that disruptive eye masks have evolved because they make it difficult for predators to find and attack the eye of the prey in which they have evolved. This makes it counterintuitive that they should help the predators approach the prey. Maybe there is a trade off here. To mask the eye the mask must be distinctive. But that it is still advantageous because the effect of comouflage is greater than the effect of making the whole prey more discernible. If this is right, I think it would be good to have it in the article. --Ettrig (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)#

Thanks! Prey wear camouflage to avoid predators; predators wear camouflage to avoid being seen by their prey. I've reworded the first sentence accordingly. Your comments apply to disruptive marks in general. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Another interesting topic, will review soon. Any relation to supercilium? FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, and I don't think so, though eyestripes are often disruptive masks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• "the swamp viper Proatheris superciliaris and the Gaboon viper Bitis gabonica" Why give scientific names for these and not any of the other animals mentioned in the article? It is also inconsistent in the image captions, and if you keep the scientific names, you should link the common names that are mentioned first.

Using English names instead.

• Also keep the order of common/scientific names consitent. Sometiems you put one first, sometimes the other.

See item above.

• "The zoologist Hugh Cott identified ... He notes" You should probably stick to one tense throughout the article, it jumps between past and present multiple times.

Fixed.

• "nidifugous" could be explained in parenthesis.

Glossed.

• I wonder if any more historical commentary or critique of this concept exists? Seems a bit scant now.

Added Cloudsley-Thompson's review article.

• "the whole topic of disruptive coloration needs systematic analysis".[10] Caro noted that in mammals, "no systematic tests of this idea are available"" This reads more like critique which would belong in the history section.

Good idea, moved.

• Plovers should be linked under first mention in History.

Done.

• "G. W. Barlow, noting Cott's examples" When?

Added date.

• "adaptation for crypsis" I doubt most readers know what crypsis means.

Added gloss.

• "Leah and Benjamin Gavish tested" When?

Added date.

• Much of the first paragraph of the intro has info and examples not found in the article body. The intro is only supposed to summarise the article body though, so the unique info there should either be duplicated or moved to the article body, and with added citations.

Moved to body and cited.

I believe that's all done to date now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Alright, looks good to me and I'll promote, you might consider adding citations to the image examples, but it should be fine for now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)