|
Disruptive coloration (also known as disruptive camouflage or disruptive patterning) is a form of camouflage that works by breaking up the outlines of an animal, soldier or military vehicle with a strongly contrasting pattern. It is often combined with other methods of crypsis including background colour matching and countershading. It appears paradoxical as a way of not being seen, since disruption of outlines depends on high contrast, so the patches of colour are themselves conspicuous. The importance of high-contrast patterns for successful disruption was predicted in general terms by the artist Abbott Thayer in 1909 and explicitly by the zoologist Hugh Cott in 1940. Later experimental research has started to confirm these predictions. Disruptive patterns work best when all their components match the background. While background matching works best for a single background, disruptive coloration is a more effective strategy when an animal or a military vehicle may have a variety of backgrounds. Conversely, poisonous or distasteful animals that advertise their presence with warning coloration (aposematism) use patterns that emphasize rather than disrupt their outlines. For example, skunks, salamanders and monarch butterflies all have high-contrast patterns that display their outlines. ==Early research== The artist Abbott Handerson Thayer in his 1909 book ''Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom'' argued that animals were concealed by a combination of countershading and "ruptive" marks, which together "obliterated" their self-shadowing and their shape. Thayer explained that:〔Thayer, 1909. pp. 77–78, and throughout.〕 Hugh Cott's 1940 book ''Adaptive Coloration in Animals'' introduced ideas such as "maximum disruptive contrast". This uses streaks of boldly contrasting colour, which paradoxically make animals or military vehicles less visible by breaking up their outlines. Cott explains that in ideal conditions, background colour matching together with countershading would "suffice to render an animal absolutely invisible against a plain background", but at once adds that conditions are hardly ever ideal, as they are constantly changing, as is the light. Therefore, Cott argues, camouflage has to break up the perceived continuous surfaces of an object and its outlines. In Cott's own words, "for effective concealment, it is essential that the tell-tale appearance of form should be destroyed."〔Cott, 1940. pp. 47–67.〕 Cott draws an analogy with a pickpocket who carefully distracts your attention, arguing that: Further, Cott criticises unscientific attempts at camouflage, early in the Second World War, for not understanding the principles involved: The pioneering work of Thayer and Cott is endorsed in the 2006 review of disruptive coloration by Martin Stevens and colleagues, which notes that they proposed a "different form of camouflage" from the traditional "strategy of background matching" proposed by authors such as Alfred Russel Wallace (''Darwinism'', 1889), Edward Bagnall Poulton (''The Colours of Animals'', 1890) and Frank Evers Beddard (''Animal Coloration'', 1895); Stevens observes that background matching on its own would always fail because of "discontinuities between the boundary of the animal and the background".〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「disruptive coloration」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|