I found that bird's colorful plumages reflect their needs for foods and enviroments (1 Viewer)

[chris butterworth]

Now I know that this bird is called "bee-eater".
http://www.arkive.org/european-bee-eater/merops-apiaster/

Is it occasional that the bee eater has the lower jaw with yellow fine fair that is very similar to yellow fine fair on the bee?

A reasonable explanation is that food need relationship beween the bird and the bee selected the bird's pleasant sensation organs. Later, the beauty sense organ of the female bird selected the male's plumage.

Of the 25 /30 species of Bee-eater ( depending on taxonomy ) only about 8 have yellow chins / throats. Of the tens of thousands of species in the family Hymenoptera only a tiny proportion, probably less than 1%, have yellow in their colouring.

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

These fruits would not be so big before. I do not doubt that there were some fruits with this color and form long time ago.

So you do agree that, whatever the explanation for one species of Toucans breast colour, it could not be the 'examples' you quoted? That there may be another reason that some Hornbills have pale / yellow bills, other than their particular liking for recently evolved varieties of domesticated fruit? Is it possible that, as both Toucans and Hornbills tend to live in parties and feed in the canopies of fruiting trees, their black coloration is very noticeable when the birds are on the canopy and may be of help in keeping the group together while the light patches / bills would provide the same 'purpose' inside the canopy where it's dark?

Chris

 

[Andy Hurley]

Of the 25 /30 species of Bee-eater ( depending on taxonomy ) only about 8 have yellow chins / throats. Of the tens of thousands of species in the family Hymenoptera only a tiny proportion, probably less than 1%, have yellow in their colouring.

Chris

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j...abmSiQYsJCG3GSXJ4u_mNZQ&bvm=bv.55123115,d.Yms is a good site for research

 

[morninglight]

It may be a reasonable explanation, but unless you can provide some actual evidence (e.g. that bee-eater species with yellow throats eat more bees and wasps than those without yellow throats, which would require actual research in the field) there is absolutely no point in posting example after dubious example.

Evolution is continuing. To like eating bees is necessary condition but not sufficient condition for the bee eaters' yellow throat.
I said that other birds survive perhaps because they have other advantages.

 

[morninglight]

One more forecast for you to test: I guess that this bird must like eating beetles.
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=2056&do=album&picid=326538#pic_block

 

[Reuven_M]

They eat bees and wasps more frequently than other birds. That is enough.
Your standard is too high.

It's not enough. Bee-eaters eat bees and wasps more frequently than other birds. Some bee-eaters have yellow plumage bearing a passing resemblance to some bees and wasps. You haven't provided any evidence for a link between these two facts.

This would be a perfect way to test your hypothesis. If the bee-eaters with yellow throats eat more bees and wasps, it could be some evidence for your hypothesis. If, on the other hand, there is no link, it could be evidence against your hypothesis. It still probably wouldn't be quite that simple, but it's a good first step.

Listen to what others have been telling you, and realize that you simply do not have the evidence to support your ideas. Until you do have some basis for your hypothesis, talking about it any more is pointless. Finding pretty pictures of birds that vaguely resemble their food sources is not evidence.

 

[morninglight]

chris: The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
Morniglight: It is not mysterious. Something looks beatiful because we have beauty sense in perceiving them. Why do we have beauty sense? Beauty sense is only positive feedback signal for us to seek or approach objects that are useful for us to survive. So, the more we like to and want to approach objects, such as younger and healthy opposite sex，fresh fruits, good eviroments, the more beautiful these objects look.
And, dissatisfation can intensify beauty sense. That means that seeking is more necessary.

 

[morninglight]

It's not enough. Bee-eaters eat bees and wasps more frequently than other birds. Some bee-eaters have yellow plumage bearing a passing resemblance to some bees and wasps. You haven't provided any evidence for a link between these two facts.

This would be a perfect way to test your hypothesis. If the bee-eaters with yellow throats eat more bees and wasps, it could be some evidence for your hypothesis. If, on the other hand, there is no link, it could be evidence against your hypothesis. It still probably wouldn't be quite that simple, but it's a good first step.

Listen to what others have been telling you, and realize that you simply do not have the evidence to support your ideas. Until you do have some basis for your hypothesis, talking about it any more is pointless. Finding pretty pictures of birds that vaguely resemble their food sources is not evidence.

I have similar consideration: ducks' plumage show patterns that look like river, island, aquatic snail, clam. Yet, phesants' plumage do not show. They show more frequently grains, insects, fruits. This is because they live in different environments. If they have opposite plumage, for example, a pheasant has plumage with island-like pattern, My theory must be wrong.

 

[chris butterworth]

chris: The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.
Morniglight: It is not mysterious. Something looks beatiful because we have beauty sense in perceiving them. Why do we have beauty sense? Beauty sense is only positive feedback signal for us to seek or approach objects that are useful for us to survive. So, the more we like to and want to approach objects, such as younger and healthy opposite sex，fresh fruits, good eviroments, the more beautiful these objects look.
And, dissatisfation can intensify beauty sense. That means that seeking is more necessary.

You are imposing your opinion of 'beauty', not even that of all people, as 'beauty' as a concept is very personal, upon creatures that probably do not perceive the external world in the same way as humans. You are, I'm afraid, descending into farce. Your last 'example' showing a Bird-of-Paradise and attempting to link it to 'beetles'? The two particular beetles you show, a Stag Beetle and a Chafer may have had some credence, particularly the Chafer and the pattern on the crown, but linking the tail feathers to the antennae of an abysmal cartoon butterfly shows that you have finally lost the plot. Please don't come back and say "I never said that" as your previous utterances have shown us you link all the disparate images in your montages together. I would have thought by now you may have realised we aren't just a group of people who have 'seen a few birds' (to quote one of your earlier posts ) but, when it comes to birds, are far more knowledgeable than you.
Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

Do you agree that the examples I gave in post #222 are a simpler, and more elegant theory to account for the appearance of the birds you mentioned? Far more so than some hypothetical 'bird prefers one specific type of fruit above all others therefore evolves to look like that fruit' idea. For once I'd like a straight answer, an answer that could be perceived as part of a discussion, and not yet another risible 'example'.

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

I have similar consideration: ducks' plumage show patterns that look like river, island, aquatic snail, clam. Yet, phesants' plumage do not show. They show more frequently grains, insects, fruits. This is because they live in different environments. If they have opposite plumage, for example, a pheasant has plumage with island-like pattern, My theory must be wrong.

You have shown nothing of the sort. You have shown that you perceived patterns in plumage that resemble, to your eye, these things. Time and time again your linking of rivers, islands, aquatic snails, clams has been shown to be no more than wishful thinking. No more than seeing castles in clouds or the face of Jesus in a piece of toast. I could easily claim the scalloped pattern on the neck of Common Pheasant resembles the ripples left in sand by the retreating tide therefore Common Pheasant likes eating Cockles. And you, with your 'understanding of Popper', would have to accept that in the same way you expect us to accept your 'examples'.

Chris

 

[morninglight]

You are imposing your opinion of 'beauty', not even that of all people, as 'beauty' as a concept is very personal, upon creatures that probably do not perceive the external world in the same way as humans. You are, I'm afraid, descending into farce. Your last 'example' showing a Bird-of-Paradise and attempting to link it to 'beetles'? The two particular beetles you show, a Stag Beetle and a Chafer may have had some credence, particularly the Chafer and the pattern on the crown, but linking the tail feathers to the antennae of an abysmal cartoon butterfly shows that you have finally lost the plot. Please don't come back and say "I never said that" as your previous utterances have shown us you link all the disparate images in your montages together. I would have thought by now you may have realised we aren't just a group of people who have 'seen a few birds' (to quote one of your earlier posts ) but, when it comes to birds, are far more knowledgeable than you.
Chris

Yes, you are are far more knowledgeable about birds than me. That is why you are so angry with my discovery. But you lack deep thought. Good oppotunity is only for fewer people they get ready earlier. I am here not for providing knowlede about birds, but for telling how the birds' beauty sense originated.

 

[morninglight]

Please have a look at this bird
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gl2jQNBZ3_s/T1jgmsXYrdI/AAAAAAAAB20/1svN6NCfbVM/s400/Red-headed+Vulture.JPG
It gives us a ghastly sight!
Fur is dilacerated from bleeding muscle. Can you find this image from bodies of pheasants and ducks? Never! This is my evidence for conjecture that the patterns for beauty presented by birds reflect their needs of foods and eviroments!

 

[morninglight]

The white fine fair is not useless ornament at all. It just mimics wool or cony hair.

 

[chris butterworth]

:smoke:

Yes, you are are far more knowledgeable about birds than me. That is why you are so angry with my discovery. But you lack deep thought. Good oppotunity is only for fewer people they get ready earlier. I am here not for providing knowlede about birds, but for telling how the birds' beauty sense originated.

I am not angry, although I will admit to being frustrated with your wholesale rejection of any, and all, information that has been provided to show that your 'examples' are based entirely on falsehoods. You haven't even grasped the reality of the difference between human perception and avian perception. You continue to impose anthropomorphic values upon a different kingdom. You continue to make junior school mistakes about zoobiology. You continue to post 'examples' and try to force them to fit your, and only your, 'theory'. As someone who is purporting to make a contribution to biology it only makes sense you should get a grounding in the subject. Having read Darwin and Wallace doesn't make you fit to prognosticate, it does, however, allow you to learn from others and then comment on evolution. Your position that somehow internal thought processes, in birds, can have an evolutionary effect on their gross morphology is nothing more than pseudo-Lamarckism.

Chris

The post of the Vulture says it all. To you the bird is a 'ghastly sight', but to a biologist it's a wonderful case of evolutionary adaption.

Your view - based on nothing more than your anthropocentric impression and bias.
The scientific view - based on fact born out of repeatable observation.

C

Finally. Would you please treat at least one of us with the respect we have treated you by giving an answer to the example I posed in post #230, as it goes right to the heart of your proposition?

C

 

[morninglight]

So you do agree that, whatever the explanation for one species of Toucans breast colour, it could not be the 'examples' you quoted? That there may be another reason that some Hornbills have pale / yellow bills, other than their particular liking for recently evolved varieties of domesticated fruit? Is it possible that, as both Toucans and Hornbills tend to live in parties and feed in the canopies of fruiting trees, their black coloration is very noticeable when the birds are on the canopy and may be of help in keeping the group together while the light patches / bills would provide the same 'purpose' inside the canopy where it's dark?

Chris

No！ I think that wild and domestic fruits are similar except their sizes.

 

[morninglight]

Red headed vulture is not alone. King vulture is similar. Male king multure has the neck that mimics beast's red meat and teared fur . There seems cow leather upside and also sheepskin downside.

 

[chris butterworth]

No！ I think that wild and domestic fruits are similar except their sizes.

Now your prevaricating. I said nothing about fruit, did I?. As for the difference between domestic fruit and wild I'll use a couple of your examples. Wild Peaches are small and yellowish-green ( as I'm sure you already know, having had it pointed out in a previous post ). Wild Bananas are small and .................. green. Do you wish for more examples before you answer the actual question?

Chris

 

[chris butterworth]

Red headed vulture is not alone. King vulture is similar. Male king multure has the neck that mimics beast's red meat and fur. There seems cow leather upside and also sheepskin downside.

Yet another of your attempts to upset zoogeography. Where do King Vultures live? Where did cattle and sheep originate? How long have they been in contact? Could such an evolutionary change have occurred in that space of time? And what about the Bird-of-Paradise and the childish cartoon of the 'butterfly'?

Chris

 

[morninglight]

:smoke:
Chris

The post of the Vulture says it all. To you the bird is a 'ghastly sight', but to a biologist it's a wonderful case of evolutionary adaption.

Your view - based on nothing more than your anthropocentric impression and bias.
The scientific view - based on fact born out of repeatable observation.

C

Your understanding ability has problem.
I said 'ghastly sight'. That meant that to common people, the bird was ghastly; but to the female bird, it was beautiful.
Do you still think I am anthropocentric?

Biologists think that bird is beautiful. This does not beyong my theory, according which the more one likes an object, the more beautiful the object will be.