"It's Not Easy Being Green"

[classic33]

Apart from the sloth, which comes the closest, why aren't there any green mammals?

 

[ianrauk]

Chameleons, Parrots, Fish, Beetles, Turtles are green.

 

[Onyer]

Chameleons, Parrots, Fish, Beetles, Turtles are green.

But they are not mammals. The Sloth comes closest, but this is only an algae growing in their fur.

 

[ianrauk]

But they are not mammals. The Sloth comes closest, but this is only an algae growing in their fur.

Doh. Yes. Didn't read the thread properly. Too early in the morning.

 

[Cubist]

Apart from the sloth, which comes the closest, why aren't there any green mammals?

You know, Classic, you certainly raise some fascinating topics! Do you have an answer, or some inkling? As a fact I've never thought about, it now has me keen to know the answer. Off to do a bit of googling.

 

[Levo-Lon]

Must have been an oversight...

 

[Dave 123]

The green Mamil....

Oh, MAMMAL....?

 

[Dave 123]

A few interesting thoughts...


http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1357,00.html

 

[Cubist]

Well, a bit of reading shows why the processes of producing color is different in mammals, through melanin rather than the organic compounds and mechanical processes that reptiles birds and insects use or exploit, but this doesn't tell us why they don't do green.

 

[winjim]

The simple slightly facetious answer is that there don't need to be. If being green was advantageous in a particular environment, evolution would have provided. I guess camoflague would be useful, but most mammalian predators have pretty rubbish colour vision, and if you think about it, in a woodland environment, only the leaves are green, there's actually a lot more brown around.

A green pigment would also need to be pretty specialised to reflect at that specific wavelength right in the middle of the visible spectrum. Brown is a lot easier to make as it's a broad range of wavelengths. Even red and blue are easier as they can extend into the UV and IR ranges.

 

[winjim]

Of course there might be loads of green mammals but they're so well camoflagued we just haven't found them yet...

 

[Glenn]

The real answer is, because there are no blue plants

 

[Levo-Lon]

Try spotting a tiger in scrub..
tho a green coat would be handy at times.

isn't chlorophyll the reason?

 

[Cubist]

The simple slightly facetious answer is that there don't need to be. If being green was advantageous in a particular environment, evolution would have provided. I guess camoflague would be useful, but most mammalian predators have pretty rubbish colour vision, and if you think about it, in a woodland environment, only the leaves are green, there's actually a lot more brown around.

A green pigment would also need to be pretty specialised to reflect at that specific wavelength right in the middle of the visible spectrum. Brown is a lot easier to make as it's a broad range of wavelengths. Even red and blue are easier as they can extend into the UV and IR ranges.

Similarly for plains predators, vibrant green is seen much less in the environment than muted brown. Even where camouflage is needed by predators, it tends to be achieved by broken shapes such as cat fur which, lions aside, tends to be striped, spotted or mottled. When we're hunting rabbits, we tend to concentrate on eliminating noise, movement and block shapes. Birds are sharper eyed, so concealment, color and shape are more important if decoying pigeons for example.

 

[Beebo]

Mammals are hairy, and hair seems to come in various shades of brown, black and white.