286,174 Pages

Peacock Flounder shows its ability to change its pattern and colours to match its environment.

photo of a soldier putting on camouflage face paint

A soldier applying a disruptive pattern to his face; his helmet and jacket are both disruptively patterned

Camouflage is the use of any combination of materials, coloration or illumination for concealment, either by making animals or objects hard to see (crypsis), or by disguising them as something else (mimesis). Examples include the leopard's spotted coat, the battledress of a modern soldier, and the leaf-mimic katydid's wings.[1] A third approach, motion dazzle, confuses the observer with a conspicuous pattern, making the object visible but momentarily harder to locate. The majority of camouflage methods aim for crypsis, often through a general resemblance to the background, high contrast disruptive coloration, eliminating shadow, and countershading. In the open ocean, where there is no background, the principal methods of camouflage are transparency, silvering, and countershading, while the ability to produce light is among other things used for counter-illumination on the undersides of cephalopods such as squid. Some animals, such as chameleons and octopuses, are capable of actively changing their skin pattern and colours, whether for camouflage or for signalling.

Military camouflage was spurred by the increasing range and accuracy of firearms in the 19th century. In particular the replacement of the inaccurate musket with the rifle made personal concealment in battle a survival skill. In the 20th century, military camouflage developed rapidly, especially during the First World War. On land, artists such as André Mare designed camouflage schemes and observation posts disguised as trees. At sea, warships and troop carriers were painted in dazzle patterns that were highly visible, but designed to confuse enemy gunners as to the target's speed, range, and heading. During and after the Second World War, a variety of camouflage schemes were used for aircraft and for ground vehicles in different theatres of war. The use of radar in the Cold War period has largely made camouflage for fixed-wing military aircraft obsolete.

Non-military use of camouflage includes making cell telephone towers less obtrusive and helping hunters to approach wary game animals. Patterns derived from military camouflage are frequently used in fashion clothing, exploiting their strong designs and sometimes their symbolism. Camouflage themes recur in modern art, and both figuratively and literally in science fiction and works of literature.

History[edit | edit source]

In zoology[edit | edit source]

In ancient Greece, Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) commented on the colour-changing abilities, both for camouflage and for signalling, of cephalopods including the octopus, in his Historia animalium:[2]

The octopus ... seeks its prey by so changing its colour as to render it like the colour of the stones adjacent to it; it does so also when alarmed.


Camouflage has been a topic of interest and research in zoology for well over a century. According to Charles Darwin's 1859 theory of natural selection,[3] features such as camouflage evolved by providing individual animals with a reproductive advantage, enabling them to leave more offspring, on average, than other members of the same species. In his Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:[4]

When we see leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottled-grey; the alpine ptarmigan white in winter, the red-grouse the colour of heather, and the black-grouse that of peaty earth, we must believe that these tints are of service to these birds and insects in preserving them from danger. Grouse, if not destroyed at some period of their lives, would increase in countless numbers; they are known to suffer largely from birds of prey; and hawks are guided by eyesight to their prey, so much so, that on parts of the Continent persons are warned not to keep white pigeons, as being the most liable to destruction. Hence I can see no reason to doubt that natural selection might be most effective in giving the proper colour to each kind of grouse, and in keeping that colour, when once acquired, true and constant.


Experiment by Poulton, 1890: swallowtailed moth pupae camouflaged to match their backgrounds when larvae

The English zoologist Edward Bagnall Poulton studied animal coloration, especially camouflage. In his 1890 book The Colours of Animals, he classified different types such as "special protective resemblance" (where an animal looks like another object), or "general aggressive resemblance" (where a predator blends in with the background, enabling it to approach prey). His experiments showed that swallowtailed moth pupae were camouflaged to match the backgrounds on which they were reared as larvae.[5][lower-alpha 1] Poulton's "general protective resemblance"[7] was at that time considered to be the main method of camouflage, as when Frank Evers Beddard wrote in 1892 that "tree-frequenting animals are often green in colour. Among vertebrates numerous species of parrots, iguanas, tree-frogs, and the green tree-snake are examples".[8] Beddard did however briefly mention other methods, including the "alluring coloration" of the flower mantis and the possibility of a different mechanism in the orange tip butterfly. He wrote that "the scattered green spots upon the under surface of the wings might have been intended for a rough sketch of the small flowerets of the plant [an umbellifer], so close is their mutual resemblance."[9][lower-alpha 2] He also explained the coloration of sea fish such as the mackerel: "Among pelagic fish it is common to find the upper surface dark-coloured and the lower surface white, so that the animal is inconspicuous when seen either from above or below."[11]

Abbott Thayer's 1907 painting Peacock in the Woods depicted a peacock as if it were camouflaged.

The artist Abbott Handerson Thayer formulated what is sometimes called Thayer's Law, the principle of countershading.[12] However, he overstated the case in the 1909 book Concealing-Coloration in the Animal Kingdom, arguing that "All patterns and colors whatsoever of all animals that ever preyed or are preyed on are under certain normal circumstances obliterative" (that is, cryptic camouflage), and that "Not one 'mimicry' mark, not one 'warning color'... nor any 'sexually selected' color, exists anywhere in the world where there is not every reason to believe it the very best conceivable device for the concealment of its wearer",[13] and using paintings such as Peacock in the Woods (1907) to reinforce his argument.[14]

The English zoologist Hugh Cott's 1940 book Adaptive Coloration in Animals corrected Thayer's errors, sometimes sharply: "Thus we find Thayer straining the theory to a fantastic extreme in an endeavour to make it cover almost every type of coloration in the animal kingdom."[15] Cott built on Thayer's discoveries, developing a comprehensive view of camouflage based on "maximum disruptive contrast", countershading and hundreds of examples. The book explained how disruptive camouflage worked, using streaks of boldly contrasting colour, paradoxically making objects less visible by breaking up their outlines.[16] While Cott was more systematic and balanced in his view than Thayer, and did include some experimental evidence on the effectiveness of camouflage,[17] his 500 page textbook was, like Thayer's, mainly a natural history narrative which illustrated theories with examples.[18]

Military[edit | edit source]

Before 1800[edit | edit source]

Ship camouflage was occasionally used in ancient times. Philostratus (c. 172–250 AD) wrote in his Imagenes that Mediterranean pirate ships could be painted blue-gray for concealment.[19] Vegetius (c. 360–400 AD) says that "Venetian blue" (sea green) was used in the Gallic Wars, when Julius Caesar sent his speculatoria navigia (reconnaissance boats) to gather intelligence along the coast of Britain. The ships were painted entirely in bluish-green wax, with sails, ropes and crew the same colour.[20] There is little evidence of military use of camouflage on land before 1800, but two unusual ceramics show men in Peru's Mochica culture from before 500 AD, hunting birds with blowpipes which are fitted with a kind of shield near the mouth, perhaps to conceal the hunters' hands and faces.[21] Another early source is a fifteenth-century French manuscript, The Hunting Book of Gaston Phebus, showing a horse pulling a cart which contains a hunter armed with a crossbow under a cover of branches, perhaps serving as a hide for shooting game.[22] Jamaican Maroons are said to have used plant materials as camouflage in the First Maroon War (c. 1655–1740).[23]

19th-century origins[edit | edit source]

Green jacketed rifleman firing Baker rifle 1803

The development of military camouflage was driven by the increasing range and accuracy of infantry firearms in the 19th century. In particular the replacement of the inaccurate musket with weapons such as the Baker rifle made personal concealment in battle essential. For example, two Napoleonic War skirmishing units of the British army, the 95th Rifle Regiment and the 60th Rifle Regiment, were the first to adopt camouflage in the form of a rifle green jacket, while the Line regiments continued to wear scarlet tunics.[24] A contemporary study in 1800 by the English artist and soldier Charles Hamilton Smith provided evidence that grey uniforms were less visible than green ones at a range of 150 yards.[25]

In the American Civil War, rifle units such as the 1st United States Sharp Shooters (in the Federal army) similarly wore green jackets while other units wore more conspicuous colours.[26] Other British Army units started to adopt khaki uniforms informally during the Indian mutiny of 1857, and by 1896 khaki drill uniform was used everywhere outside Europe;[27] by the Second Boer War six years later it was used throughout the British Army.[28]

First World War[edit | edit source]

Iron observation post camouflaged as a tree by Cubist painter André Mare, 1916

photo of camouflaged field gun

Field gun, 1917

In the First World War, the French army formed a camouflage corps, led by Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola,[29][30] employing artists known as camoufleurs to create schemes such as tree observation posts and covers for guns. Other armies soon followed them.[31][32][33] The term camouflage probably comes from camoufler, a Parisian slang term meaning to disguise, and may have been influenced by camouflet, a French term meaning smoke blown in someone's face.[34][35] The English zoologist John Graham Kerr and the American artist Abbott Thayer led attempts to introduce scientific principles of countershading and disruptive patterning into military camouflage, with limited success.[36]

Ship camouflage was introduced in the early twentieth century as the range of naval guns increased, with ships painted grey all over.[37][38] In April 1917, when German U-boats were sinking many British ships with torpedoes, the marine artist Norman Wilkinson devised dazzle camouflage, which paradoxically made ships more visible but harder to target.[39] In Wilkinson's own words, dazzle was designed "not for low visibility, but in such a way as to break up her form and thus confuse a submarine officer as to the course on which she was heading".[40]

Second World War[edit | edit source]

photo of a white Catalina maritime patrol aircraft

Maritime patrol Catalina, painted white to minimise visibility against the sky

WWII tank mimics a truck in Operation Bertram

In the Second World War, the zoologist Hugh Cott, a protégé of Kerr, worked to persuade the British army to use more effective camouflage techniques, including countershading, but, like Kerr and Thayer in the First World War, with limited success. For example, he painted two rail-mounted coastal guns, one in conventional style, one countershaded. In aerial photographs, the countershaded gun was essentially invisible.[41] The power of aerial observation and attack led every warring nation to camouflage targets of all types. The Soviet Union's Red Army created the comprehensive doctrine of Maskirovka for military deception, including the use of camouflage.[42] For example, during the Battle of Kursk, General Katukov, the commander of the Soviet 1st Tank Army, remarked that the enemy "did not suspect that our well-camouflaged tanks were waiting for him. As we later learned from prisoners, we had managed to move our tanks forward unnoticed". The tanks were concealed in previously-prepared defensive emplacements, with only their turrets above ground level.[43] In the air, Second World War fighters were often painted in ground colours above and sky colours below, attempting two different camouflage schemes for observers above and below.[44] Bombers and night fighters were often black,[45] while maritime reconnaissance planes were usually white, to avoid appearing as dark shapes against the sky.[46] For ships, dazzle camouflage was mainly replaced with plain grey in the Second World War, though experimentation with colour schemes continued.[37]

As in the First World War, artists were pressed into service; for example, the surrealist painter Roland Penrose became a lecturer at the newly founded Camouflage Development and Training Centre at Farnham Castle,[47] writing the practical Home Guard Manual of Camouflage.[48] The film-maker Geoffrey Barkas ran the Middle East Command Camouflage Directorate during the 1941–1942 war in the Western Desert, including the successful deception of Operation Bertram. Hugh Cott was chief instructor; the artist camouflage officers, who called themselves camoufleurs, included Steven Sykes and Tony Ayrton.[49][50]

After 1945[edit | edit source]

The Canadian CADPAT was the first pixellated digital camouflage pattern to be issued.

Modern German Flecktarn 1990, developed from a 1938 pattern, is a non-digital pattern which works at different distances.

Camouflage has been used to protect military equipment such as vehicles, guns, ships,[37] aircraft and buildings[51] as well as individual soldiers and their positions.[52] Vehicle camouflage techniques begin with paint, which offers at best only limited effectiveness. Other methods for stationary land vehicles include covering with improvised materials such as blankets and vegetation, and erecting nets, screens and soft covers which may suitably reflect, scatter or absorb near infrared and radar waves.[53][54][55] Some military textiles and vehicle camouflage paints also reflect infrared to help provide concealment from night vision devices.[56] After the Second World War, radar made camouflage generally less effective, though coastal boats are sometimes painted like land vehicles.[37] Aircraft camouflage too came to be seen as less important because of radar, and aircraft of different air forces, such as the Royal Air Force's Lightning, were often uncamouflaged.[57]

Many camouflaged textile patterns have been developed to suit the need to match combat clothing to different kinds of terrain (such as woodland, snow, and desert).[58] The design of a pattern effective in all terrains has proved elusive.[59][60][61] The American Universal Camouflage Pattern of 2004 attempted to suit all environments, but was withdrawn after a few years of service.[62] Terrain-specific patterns have sometimes been developed but are ineffective in other terrains.[63] The problem of making a pattern that works at different ranges has been solved with pixellated shapes, often designed digitally, that provide a fractal-like range of patch sizes so they appear disruptively coloured both at close range and at a distance.[64] The first genuinely digital camouflage pattern was the Canadian CADPAT, soon followed by the American MARPAT. A pixellated appearance is not essential for this effect, though it is simpler to design and to print.[65][66]

Principles[edit | edit source]

photo of a Draco indochinensis on a tree trunk, very hard to see

Draco indochinensis uses several methods of camouflage, including disruptive coloration, lying flat, and concealment of shadow.

Camouflage can be achieved by different methods, described below. Most of the methods contribute to crypsis, helping to hide against a background; but mimesis and motion dazzle protect without hiding. Methods may be applied on their own or in combination.

Crypsis[edit | edit source]

Crypsis means blending with the background, making the animal or military equipment hard to see (or to detect in other ways, such as by sound or scent: for details, see crypsis). Visual crypsis can be achieved in many different ways,[1] which are described below.

Resemblance to the surroundings[edit | edit source]

The Black-faced Sandgrouse is coloured like its desert background.

Some animals' colours and patterns resemble a particular natural background. This is an important component of camouflage in all environments. For instance, tree-dwelling parakeets are mainly green; woodcocks of the forest floor are brown and speckled; reedbed bitterns are streaked brown and buff; in each case the animal's coloration matches the hues of its habitat.[67][68] Similarly, desert animals are almost all desert coloured in tones of sand, buff, ochre, and brownish grey, whether they are mammals like the gerbil or fennec fox, birds such as the desert lark or sandgrouse, or reptiles like the skink or horned viper.[69] Military uniforms, too, generally resemble their backgrounds; for example khaki uniforms are a muddy or dusty colour, originally chosen for service in South Asia.[70] Many[71] moths show industrial melanism, including the peppered moth which has coloration that blends in with tree bark.[72] The coloration of these insects evolved between 1860 and 1940 to match the changing colour of the tree trunks on which they rest, from pale and mottled to almost black in polluted areas.[71][lower-alpha 3] This is taken by zoologists as evidence that camouflage is influenced by natural selection, as well as demonstrating that it changes where necessary to resemble the local background.[71]

Disruptive coloration[edit | edit source]

File:Disruptive Coloration by Hugh Cott 1940.jpg

Illustration of the principle of "maximum disruptive contrast" by Hugh Cott, 1940

Disruptive patterns use strongly contrasting, non-repeating markings such as spots or stripes to break up the outlines of an animal or military vehicle,[73] or to conceal telltale features, especially the eyes, as in the common frog.[74] Predators like the leopard use disruptive camouflage to help them approach prey, while potential prey like the Egyptian nightjar use it to avoid detection by predators.[75] Disruptive patterning is common in military usage, both for uniforms and for military vehicles. Disruptive patterning, however, does not always achieve crypsis on its own, as an animal or a military target may be given away by factors like shape, shine, and shadow.[76][77][78]

The presence of bold skin markings does not in itself prove that an animal relies on camouflage, as that depends on its behaviour.[79] For example, although giraffes have a high contrast pattern that could be disruptive coloration, the adults are extremely conspicuous when in the open. Some authors have argued that adult giraffes are cryptic, since when standing among trees and bushes they are hard to see at even a few metres' distance.[80] However, adult giraffes move about to gain the best view of an approaching predator, relying on their size and ability to defend themselves, even from lions, rather than on camouflage.[80] A different explanation is implied by the fact that young giraffes are far more vulnerable to predation than adults: more than half of all giraffe calves die within a year,[80] and giraffe mothers hide their calves, which spend much of the time lying down in cover while their mothers are away feeding. Since the presence of a mother nearby does not affect survival, it is argued that young giraffes must be extremely well camouflaged; this is supported by the fact that coat markings are strongly inherited.[80]

Eliminating shadow[edit | edit source]

Camouflaged animals and vehicles are readily given away by their shapes and shadows. A flange helps to hide the shadow and a pale fringe breaks up and averages out any shadow that remains.

photo of a flat-tail horned lizard on ground

The Flat-tail Horned Lizard's body is flattened and fringed to minimise its shadow

Some animals, such as the Horned Lizards of North America, have evolved elaborate measures to eliminate shadow. Their bodies are flattened, with the sides thinning to an edge; the animals habitually press their bodies to the ground; and their sides are fringed with white scales which effectively hide and disrupt any remaining areas of shadow there may be under the edge of the body.[81] The theory that the body shape of the Horned Lizards which live in open desert is adapted to minimise shadow is supported by the one species which lacks fringe scales, the roundtail horned lizard, which lives in rocky areas and resembles a rock. When this species is threatened, it makes itself look as much like a rock as possible by curving its back, emphasizing its three-dimensional shape.[81] Some species of butterflies, such as the Speckled Wood, Pararge aegeria, minimise their shadows when perched by closing the wings over their backs, aligning their bodies with the sun, and tilting to one side towards the sun, so that the shadow becomes a thin inconspicuous line rather than a broad patch.[82] Similarly, some ground-nesting birds including the European nightjar select a resting position facing the sun.[82] The elimination of shadow was identified as a principle of military camouflage during the Second World War.[83]

Self-decoration[edit | edit source]

Decorator crabs cover their bodies with sponges.

Some animals actively seek to hide by decorating themselves with materials such as twigs, sand, or pieces of shell from their environment, to break up their outlines, to conceal the features of their bodies, and to match their backgrounds. For example, a caddis fly larva builds a decorated case and lives almost entirely inside it; a decorator crab covers its back with seaweed, sponges and stones.[1] The nymph of the predatory masked bug uses its hind legs and a 'tarsal fan' to decorate its body with sand or dust. There are two layers of bristles (trichomes) over the body. On these, the nymph spreads an inner layer of fine particles and an outer layer of coarser particles. The camouflage may conceal the bug from both predators and prey.[84]

Sniper in a ghillie suit

Similar principles can be applied for military purposes, for instance when a sniper wears a ghillie suit designed to be further camouflaged by decoration with materials such as tufts of grass from the sniper's immediate environment. Such suits were used as early as 1916, the British army having adopted "coats of motley hue and stripes of paint" for snipers.[85] Cott takes the example of the larva of the blotched emerald moth, which fixes a screen of fragments of leaves to its specially hooked bristles, to argue that military camouflage uses the same method, pointing out that the "device is ... essentially the same as one widely practised during the Great War for the concealment, not of caterpillars, but of caterpillar-tractors, [gun] battery positions, observation posts and so forth."[86]

Cryptic behaviour[edit | edit source]

Movement catches the eye of prey animals on the lookout for predators, and of predators hunting for prey.[87] Most methods of crypsis therefore also require suitable cryptic behaviour, such as lying down and keeping still to avoid being detected, or in the case of stalking predators such as the tiger, moving with extreme stealth, both slowly and quietly, watching its prey for any sign they are aware of its presence.[87] As an example of the combination of behaviours and other methods of crypsis involved, young giraffes seek cover, lie down, and keep still, often for hours until their mothers return; their skin pattern blends with the pattern of the vegetation, while the chosen cover and lying position together hide the animals' shadows.[80] The flat-tail horned lizard similarly relies on a combination of methods: it is adapted to lie flat in the open desert, relying on stillness, its cryptic coloration, and concealment of its shadow to avoid being noticed by predators.[88] In the ocean, the leafy sea dragon sways mimetically, like the seaweeds amongst which it rests, as if rippled by wind or water currents.[89]

Motion camouflage[edit | edit source]

Comparison of motion camouflage and classical pursuit

Most forms of camouflage are ineffective when the camouflaged animal or object moves, because the motion is easily seen by the observing predator, prey or enemy.[90] However, insects such as hoverflies[91] and dragonflies use motion camouflage: the hoverflies to approach possible mates, and the dragonflies to approach rivals when defending territories.[92][93] Motion camouflage is achieved by moving so as to stay on a straight line between the target and a fixed point in the landscape; the pursuer thus appears not to move, but only to loom larger in the target's field of vision.[94] The same technique can be used for military purposes, for example by missiles to minimise their risk of detection by the enemy.[91] However, missile engineers, and animals such as bats, use the technique primarily for its efficiency rather than camouflage.[95]

Changeable skin pattern / colour[edit | edit source]

Fish and frog melanophore cells change colour by moving pigment-containing bodies.

Animals such as chameleon, frog,[96] flatfish, squid and octopus actively change their skin patterns and colours using special chromatophore cells to resemble their current background (as well as for signalling).[97]

Each chromatophore contains pigment of only one colour. In fish and frogs, colour change is mediated by the type of chromatophores known as melanophores that contain dark pigment. A melanophore is star-shaped; it contains many small pigmented organelles which can be dispersed throughout the cell, or aggregated near its centre. When the pigmented organelles are dispersed, the cell makes a patch of the animal's skin appear dark; when they are aggregated, most of the cell, and the animal's skin, appears light. In frogs, the change is controlled relatively slowly, mainly by hormones. In fish, the change is controlled by the brain, which sends signals directly to the chromatophores, as well as producing hormones.[98]

The skins of cephalopods such as the octopus contain complex units, each consisting of a chromatophore with surrounding muscle and nerve cells.[99] The cephalopod chromatophore has all its pigment grains in a small elastic sac, which can be stretched or allowed to relax under the control of the brain to vary its opacity. By controlling chromatophores of different colours, cephalopods can rapidly change their skin patterns and colours.[100][101]

photo of a pair of ptarmigan in mixed white and brown plumage

Rock ptarmigan change colour in springtime; here the male is still mostly in winter plumage.

On a longer timescale, animals like the arctic hare, arctic fox, stoat, and rock ptarmigan change their coat colour (by moulting and growing new fur or feathers) from brown or grey in the summer to white in the winter; the arctic fox is the only species in the dog family to do so.[102] However, arctic hares which live in the far north of Canada, where summer is very short, remain white year-round.[102][103]

File:Adaptiv infrared camouflage demo hiding tank as car.jpg

Adaptiv infrared camouflage lets an armoured vehicle mimic a car.

The principle of varying coloration either rapidly or with the changing seasons has military applications. Active camouflage could in theory make use of both dynamic colour change and counterillumination. Simple techniques such as changing uniforms and repainting vehicles for winter have been in use since the Second World War. In 2011, BAE Systems announced their Adaptiv infrared camouflage technology. It uses about 1000 hexagonal panels to cover the sides of a tank. The panels are heated and cooled to match either the vehicle's surroundings (crypsis), or an object such as a car (mimesis), when viewed in infrared.[104][105][106]

Countershading[edit | edit source]

Countershading acts as a form of camouflage by 'painting out' the self-shadowing of the body or object. The result is a 'flat' appearance, instead of the 'solid' appearance of the body before countershading.

Countershading uses graded colour to counteract the effect of self-shadowing, creating an illusion of flatness. Self-shadowing makes an animal appear darker below than on top, grading from light to dark; countershading 'paints in' tones which are darkest on top, lightest below, making the countershaded animal nearly invisible against a suitable background.[107] Thayer observed that "Animals are painted by Nature, darkest on those parts which tend to be most lighted by the sky's light, and vice versa". Accordingly the principle of countershading is sometimes called Thayer's Law.[108] Countershading is widely used by terrestrial animals, such as gazelles[109] and grasshoppers; marine animals, such as sharks and dolphins;[110] and birds, such as snipe and dunlin.[111][112]

photograph of visible and invisible bird models

Two model birds painted by Thayer: matching background colours on the left, countershaded and nearly invisible on the right

Countershading is less often used for military camouflage, despite Second World War experiments that showed its effectiveness. English zoologist Hugh Cott encouraged the use of techniques including countershading, but despite his authority on the subject, failed to persuade the British authorities.[113] Soldiers often wrongly viewed camouflage netting as a kind of invisibility cloak, and they had to be taught to look at camouflage practically, from the enemy observer's point of view.[114][115] At the same time in Australia, zoologist William John Dakin advised soldiers to copy animals' methods, using their instincts for wartime camouflage.[116]

The term countershading has a second meaning unrelated to "Thayer's Law". It is that the upper and undersides of animals such as sharks, and of some military aircraft, are different colours to match the different backgrounds when seen from above or from below. Here the camouflage consists of two surfaces, each with the simple function of providing concealment against a specific background, such as a bright water surface or the sky. The body of a shark or the fuselage of an aircraft is not gradated from light to dark to appear flat when seen from the side. The camouflage techniques used are the matching of background colour and pattern, and disruption of outlines.[109]

Counterillumination[edit | edit source]

Yehudi Lights provide counterillumination camouflage, raising the average brightness of a plane from a dark shape to the same as the night sky.

Counterillumination means producing light to match a background that is brighter than an animal's body or military vehicle; it is a form of active camouflage. It is notably used by some species of squid, such as the sparkling enope squid and the midwater squid. The latter has light-producing organs (photophores) scattered all over its underside; these create a sparkling glow that prevents the animal from appearing as a dark shape when seen from below.[117] Counterillumination camouflage is the likely function of the bioluminescence of many marine organisms, though light is also produced to attract[118] or to detect prey[119] and for signalling.

Counterillumination has rarely been used for military purposes. "Diffused lighting camouflage" was trialled by Canada's National Research Council during the Second World War. It involved projecting light on to the sides of ships to match the faint glow of the night sky, requiring awkward external platforms to support the lamps.[120] The Canadian concept was refined in the American Yehudi lights project, and trialled in aircraft including B-24 Liberators and Navy Avengers.[121] The planes were fitted with forward-pointing lamps automatically adjusted to match the brightness of the night sky.[120] This enabled them to approach much closer to a target – within 3,000 yards (2,700 metres) – before being seen.[121] Counterillumination was made obsolete by radar, and neither diffused lighting camouflage nor Yehudi lights entered active service.[120]

Transparency[edit | edit source]

Many animals of the open sea, like this Aurelia labiata jellyfish, are largely transparent.

Many marine animals that float near the surface are highly transparent, giving them almost perfect camouflage.[122] However, transparency is difficult for bodies made of materials that have different refractive indices from seawater. Some marine animals such as jellyfish have gelatinous bodies, composed mainly of water; their thick mesogloea is acellular and highly transparent. This conveniently makes them buoyant, but it also makes them large for their muscle mass, so they cannot swim fast, making this form of camouflage a costly trade-off with mobility.[122] Gelatinous planktonic animals are between 50 and 90 per cent transparent. A transparency of 50 per cent is enough to make an animal invisible to a predator such as cod at a depth of 650 metres (2,130 ft); better transparency is required for invisibility in shallower water, where the light is brighter and predators can see better. For example, a cod can see prey that are 98 per cent transparent in optimal lighting in shallow water. Therefore, sufficient transparency for camouflage is more easily achieved in deeper waters.[122]

Some tissues such as muscles can be made transparent, provided either they are very thin or organised as regular layers or fibrils that are small compared to the wavelength of visible light. A familiar example is the transparency of the lens of the vertebrate eye, which is made of the protein crystallin, and the vertebrate cornea which is made of the protein collagen.[122] Other structures cannot be made transparent, notably the retinas or equivalent light-absorbing structures of eyes — they must absorb light to be able to function. The camera-type eye of vertebrates and cephalopods must be completely opaque.[122] Finally, some structures are visible for a reason, such as to lure prey. For example, the nematocysts (stinging cells) of the transparent siphonophore Agalma okenii resemble small copepods.[122] Examples of transparent marine animals include a wide variety of larvae, including coelenterates, siphonophores, salps (floating tunicates), gastropod molluscs, polychaete worms, many shrimplike crustaceans, and fish; whereas the adults of most of these are opaque and pigmented, resembling the seabed or shores where they live.[122][123] Adult comb jellies and jellyfish obey the rule, often being mainly transparent. Cott suggests this follows the more general rule that animals resemble their background: in a transparent medium like seawater, that means actually being transparent.[123] The small Amazon river fish Microphilypnus amazonicus and the shrimps it associates with, Pseudopalaemon gouldingi, are so transparent as to be "almost invisible"; further, these species appear to select whether to be transparent or more conventionally mottled (disruptively patterned) according to the local background in the environment.[124]

Silvering[edit | edit source]

The adult herring, Clupea harengus, is a typical silvered fish of medium depths.

The herring's reflectors are nearly vertical for camouflage from the side.

Where transparency cannot be achieved, it can be imitated effectively by silvering to make an animal's body highly reflective. At medium depths at sea, light comes from above, so a mirror oriented vertically makes animals such as fish invisible from the side. Most fish in the upper ocean such as sardine and herring are camouflaged by silvering.[125]

The marine hatchetfish is extremely flattened laterally, leaving the body just millimetres thick, and the body is so silvery as to resemble aluminium foil. The mirrors consist of microscopic structures similar to those used to provide structural coloration: stacks of between 5 and 10 crystals of guanine spaced about ¼ of a wavelength apart to interfere constructively and achieve nearly 100 per cent reflection. In the deep waters that the hatchetfish lives in, only blue light with a wavelength of 500 nanometres percolates down and needs to be reflected, so mirrors 125 nanometres apart provide good camouflage.[125]

In fish such as the herring which live in shallower water, the mirrors must reflect a mixture of wavelengths, and the fish accordingly has crystal stacks with a range of different spacings. A further complication for fish with bodies that are rounded in cross-section is that the mirrors would be ineffective if laid flat on the skin, as they would fail to reflect horizontally. The overall mirror effect is achieved with many small reflectors, all oriented vertically.[125] Silvering is found in other marine animals as well as fish. The cephalopods, including squid, octopus and cuttlefish, have multi-layer mirrors made of protein rather than guanine.[125]

Mimesis[edit | edit source]

Peppered moth caterpillars mimicking twigs

Peppered Moth caterpillars mimic twigs

In mimesis (also called masquerade), the camouflaged object looks like something else which is of no special interest to the observer.[126] Mimesis is common in prey animals, for example when a peppered moth caterpillar mimics a twig, or a grasshopper mimics a dry leaf.[127]

Mimesis is also employed by some predators and parasites to lure their prey. For example, a flower mantis mimics a particular kind of flower, such as an orchid.[128] This tactic has occasionally been used in warfare, for example with heavily armed Q-ships disguised as merchant ships.[129][130][131]

The Common Cuckoo, a brood parasite, provides examples of mimesis both in the adult and in the egg. The female lays her eggs in nests of other, smaller species of bird, one per nest. The female mimics a sparrowhawk. The resemblance is sufficient to make small birds take action to avoid the apparent predator. The female cuckoo then has time to lay her egg in their nest without being seen to do so.[132] The cuckoo's egg itself mimics the eggs of the host species, reducing its chance of being rejected.[133][134]

Motion dazzle[edit | edit source]

The zebra's bold pattern is probably not camouflage.

Most forms of camouflage are made ineffective by movement: a deer or grasshopper may be highly cryptic when motionless, but instantly seen when it moves. But one method, motion dazzle, requires rapidly-moving bold patterns of contrasting stripes.[135] Motion dazzle may degrade predators' ability to estimate the prey's speed and direction accurately, giving the prey an improved chance of escape.[136] Motion dazzle distorts speed perception, and is most effective at high speeds; stripes can also distort perception of size (and so, perceived range to the target). As of 2011, motion dazzle had been proposed for military vehicles, but never applied.[135] Since dazzle patterns would make animals more difficult to locate accurately when moving, but easier to see when stationary, there would be an evolutionary trade-off between dazzle and crypsis.[136]

An animal that is commonly thought to be dazzle patterned is the zebra. The bold stripes of the zebra have been claimed to be disruptive camouflage,[137] background blending and countershading.[138][lower-alpha 4] After many years in which the purpose of the coloration remained unsolved,[139] there is evidence from different experiments that the pattern does reduce attractiveness to biting flies such as horseflies and tsetse flies.[140][141]

Civil applications[edit | edit source]

Cellphone tower disguised as a tree

Camouflage is occasionally used to make buildings less conspicuous: for example, in South Africa, towers carrying cell telephone antennae are sometimes camouflaged as tall trees with plastic branches, in response to "resistance from the community". Since this method is costly (a figure of three times the normal cost is mentioned), alternative forms of camouflage can include using neutral colours or familiar shapes such as cylinders and flagpoles. Conspicuousness can also be reduced by siting masts near or actually on other structures.[142]

Hunters of game have long made use of camouflage in the form of materials such as animal skins, mud, foliage, and green or brown clothing to enable them to approach wary game animals.[143] Field sports such as driven grouse shooting conceal hunters in hides (also called blinds or shooting butts).[144] Modern hunting clothing makes use of fabrics that provide a disruptive camouflage pattern; for example, in 1986 the hunter Bill Jordan created cryptic clothing for hunters, printed with images of specific kinds of vegetation such as grass and branches.[145]

Fashion, art, society[edit | edit source]

File:Dazzle camouflage costume ball.PNG

The 'dazzle ball' held by the Chelsea Arts Club, 1919

Military camouflage patterns influenced Fashion from the time of the First World War onwards. In 1919, the attendants of a "dazzle ball", hosted by the Chelsea Arts Club, wore dazzle-patterned black and white clothing. The ball influenced fashion and art via postcards and magazine articles.[146] The Illustrated London News announced

The scheme of decoration for the great fancy dress ball given by the Chelsea Arts Club at the Albert Hall, the other day, was based on the principles of 'Dazzle', the method of 'camouflage' used during the war in the painting of ships ... The total effect was brilliant and fantastic.[146][147]

More recently, fashion designers have often used camouflage fabric for its striking designs, its "patterned disorder" and its symbolism.[148]

File:Poster of Arcadia leafy tank by Ian Hamilton Finlay and George Oliver 1973 screenprint.jpg

Ian Hamilton Finlay's Arcadia screenprint

Modern artists such as Ian Hamilton Finlay have used camouflage to reflect on war. His 1973 screenprint of a leafily-camouflaged tank, Arcadia, is described by the Tate as drawing "an ironic parallel between this idea of a natural paradise and the camouflage patterns on a tank".[149] The title refers to the Utopian Arcadia of poetry and art, and the memento mori Latin phrase Et in Arcadia ego which recurs in Hamilton Finlay's work. In science fiction, Camouflage is a novel about shapeshifting alien beings by Joe Haldeman.[150] The word is used more figuratively in works of literature such as Thaisa Frank's collection of stories of love and loss, A Brief History of Camouflage.[151]

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. A letter from Alfred Russel Wallace to Darwin of March 8, 1868 mentioned such colour change: "Would you like to see the specimens of pupæ of butterflies whose colours have changed in accordance with the colour of the surrounding objects? They are very curious, and Mr. T. W. Wood, who bred them, would, I am sure, be delighted to bring them to show you."[6]
  2. Cott explains Beddard's observation as a coincident disruptive pattern.[10]
  3. Before 1860, unpolluted tree trunks were often covered in pale lichens; polluted trunks were bare, and often nearly black.
  4. The belly of the zebra is white, and the dark stripes narrow towards the belly, so the animal is certainly countershaded, but this does not prove that the primary function of the stripes is camouflage.

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Forbes, 2009. pp. 50–51.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Aristotle (c. 350 BC). Historia Animalium. IX, 622a: 2–10. Cited in Borrelli, Luciana; Gherardi, Francesca; Fiorito, Graziano (2006). A catalogue of body patterning in Cephalopoda. Firenze University Press. ISBN 978-88-8453-377-7. Abstract
  3. Darwin, 1859.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Darwin, 1859. p. 84.
  5. Poulton, 1890. p. 111.
  6. Alfred Russel Wallace (8 March 1868). "Alfred Russel Wallace Letters and Reminiscences By James Marchant". Darwin Online. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F1592.1&viewtype=text. Retrieved 29 March 2013. 
  7. Poulton, 1890. Fold-out after p. 339.
  8. Beddard, 1892. p. 83.
  9. Beddard, 1892. p. 87.
  10. Cott, 1940. pp. 74–75.
  11. Beddard, 1892. p. 122.
  12. Thayer, 1909.
  13. Forbes, 2009. p. 77, citing Thayer, 1909. pp. 5, 16.
  14. Rothenberg, 2011. pp. 132–133.
  15. Cott, 1940. pp. 172–173.
  16. Cott, 1940. pp. 47–67.
  17. Cott, 1940. Chapter 10. pp. 174–186.
  18. Forbes, 2009. pp. 153–155.
  19. Casson, 1995. pp. 211–212.
  20. Casson, 1995. p. 235.
  21. Jett, Stephen C (March 1991). "Further Information on the Geography of the Blowgun and Its Implications for Early Transoceanic Contacts". pp. 89–102. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2563673. 
  22. Payne-Gallwey, Ralph (1903). The Crossbow. Longmans, Green. pp. 11. 
  23. Saunders, Nicholas (2005). The People of the Caribbean: An Encyclopedia of Archaeology and Traditional Culture. ABC-CLIO. 
  24. Haythornthwaite, P (2002). British Rifleman 1797–1815. Osprey Publishing. p. 20. ISBN 978-1841761770. 
  25. Newark, 2007. p. 43.
  26. "Killers in Green Coats". Weider History Group. 20 February 2008. http://www.historynet.com/killers-in-green-coats.htm. Retrieved 8 July 2012. 
  27. Barthorp, Michael (1988). The British Army on Campaign 1816–1902. 4 (1882–1902). Osprey Publishing. pp. 24–33. ISBN 0-85045-849-8. 
  28. Chappell, M (2003). The British Army in World War I (1). Osprey Publishing. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-84176-399-6. 
  29. Wright, Patrick (23 June 2005). "Cubist Slugs". pp. 16–20. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n12/patrick-wright/cubist-slugs. 
  30. Guirand de Scévola, Lucien-Victor (December 1949). "Souvenir de Camouflage (1914–1918)" (in French). http://www.revuedesdeuxmondes.fr/user/details.php?code=9504&show=text. 
  31. Forbes, 2009. pp. 104–105.
  32. "Art of the First World War: André Mare and Leon Underwood". The Elm at Vermezeele. Memorial-Caen. 1998. http://www.memorial-caen.fr/10EVENT/EXPO1418/gb/texte/027text.html. Retrieved 8 February 2013. 
  33. "Art of the First World War: André Mare". Memorial-Caen. 1998. http://www.memorial-caen.fr/10EVENT/EXPO1418/gb/texte/008text.html. Retrieved 8 February 2013. 
  34. "Camouflage". Online Etymology Dictionary. 2012. http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=camouflage&allowed_in_frame=0. Retrieved 8 February 2013. 
  35. "Camouflage, n". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/26737?isAdvanced=false&result=1&rskey=2NawDO&. Retrieved 8 February 2013. 
  36. Forbes, 2009. pp. 85–89.
  37. 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 Sumrall, RF (February 1973). "Ship Camouflage (WWII): Deceptive Art". pp. 67–81. 
  38. Prinzeugen. "Schnellboot: An Illustrated Technical History". Prinz Eugen. http://www.prinzeugen.com/colors.htm. Retrieved 5 March 2012. 
  39. "Obituary: Mr Norman Wilkinson, Inventor of 'dazzle' painting". The Times. 1 June 1971. p. 12. 
  40. Wilkinson, Norman (1969). A Brush with Life. Seeley Service. p. 79. 
  41. Forbes, 2009. pp. 149–150.
  42. Keating, Kenneth C (1981). "Maskirovka: The Soviet System of Camouflage". U.S. Army Russian Institute. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a112903.pdf. Retrieved 8 July 2012. 
  43. Clark, Lloyd (2011). Kursk: the greatest battle. Headline Review. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-7553-3639-5. 
  44. Shaw, Robert L. (1985). Fighter Combat : Tactics and Maneuvering. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-059-9. 
  45. Stephenson, Hubert Kirk (1948). Applied Physics, pp. 200, 258. Volume 6 of Science in World War II; Office of Scientific Research and Development. Editors: Chauncey Guy Suits and George Russell Harrison. Little, Brown.
  46. Tinbergen, Niko (1953). The Herring Gull's World. Collins. p. 14. ISBN 0-00-219444-9. "white has proved to be the most efficient concealing coloration for aircraft on anti-submarine patrol" 
  47. "World War II". Farnham Castle. http://www.farnhamcastle.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&Itemid=133. Retrieved 8 February 2013. 
  48. Forbes, 2009. pp. 151–152.
  49. Barkas, 1952. pp. 154, 186–188.
  50. Forbes, 2009. pp. 156–166.
  51. "Concealment, Camouflage, and Deception". Smithsonian. pp. 1–4. http://www.smithsonianconference.org/climate/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ConcealmentCamouflageDeception.pdf. Retrieved 16 June 2012. 
  52. "FM 21–75". Chapter 1: Cover, Concealment, and Camouflage. Department of the Army. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/21-75/Ch1.htm. Retrieved 16 June 2012. 
  53. "FM 21-305/AFMAN 24-306". Chapter 20: Vehicle Camouflage And Nuclear, Biological, And Chemical Operations. Department of the Army. pp. 1–9. http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM21_305/CH20.PDF. Retrieved 16 June 2012. 
  54. "5–103". Appendix D: Camouflage. Department of the Army. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/5-103/APPD.HTM. Retrieved 17 June 2012. 
  55. "SSZ Camouflage". Military Suppliers & News. 2012. http://www.armedforces-int.com/suppliers/multispectral-camouflage.html. Retrieved 17 June 2012. 
  56. Jukkola, EE; Cohen, R. (1946). "Color Stability of Olive Drab Infrared-Reflecting Camouflage Finishes". pp. 927–930. Digital object identifier:10.1021/ie50441a019. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50441a019. 
  57. Richardson, Doug (2001). Stealth Warplanes: Deception, Evasion, and Concealment in the Air. MBI Publishing / Zenith Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-1051-9. http://www.scribd.com/doc/118487425/Stealth-Warplanes. 
  58. Pfanner, Toni (March 2004). "Military uniforms and the law of war". pp. 99–100. http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_853_pfanner.pdf. 
  59. FM 21–76 US Army Survival Manual. Department of the Army. Archived from the original on 8 September 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080908134400/http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/FM21-76_SurvivalManual.pdf. Retrieved 8 January 2013. 
  60. Photosimulation Camouflage Detection Test. U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center. 2009. p. 27. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/Photosimulation-Camouflage-Detection-Test. Retrieved 5 October 2012. 
  61. Brayley, Martin J (2009). Camouflage uniforms: international combat dress 1940–2010. Crowood. ISBN 1-84797-137-7. 
  62. Freedberg, SJ Jr. (25 June 2012). "Army drops universal camouflage after spending billions". http://defense.aol.com/2012/06/25/army-drops-universal-camouflage-after-spending-billions. Retrieved 27 September 2012. 
  63. Davies, W. "Berlin Brigade Urban Paint Scheme". Newsletter. Ex-Military Land Rover Association. http://www.emlra.org/index.php/articles/berlin-brigade-urban-paint-scheme. Retrieved 25 September 2012. 
  64. Craemer, Guy. "Dual Texture – U.S. Army digital camouflage". United Dynamics. http://www.uniteddynamics.com/dualtex. Retrieved 27 September 2012. 
  65. Gye, H (25 June 2012). "How U.S. Army spent $5 billion on 'failed' pixel camouflage". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164686/How-U-S-Army-spent-5BILLION-failed-pixel-camouflage--wanted-look-cooler-Marines.html. Retrieved 21 November 2012. 
  66. Engber, D (5 July 2012). "Lost in the Wilderness, the military's misadventures in pixellated camouflage". Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/07/camouflage_problems_in_the_army_the_ucp_and_the_future_of_digital_camo_.single.html. Retrieved 27 September 2012. 
  67. Cott, 1940. Chapter 1: General Colour Resemblance. pp. 5–19.
  68. Forbes, 2009. p. 51.
  69. Cott, 1940. pp. 5–6.
  70. Newark, 2007. pp. 45–46.
  71. 71.0 71.1 71.2 Cott, 1940. p. 17.
  72. Still, J (1996). Collins Wild Guide: Butterflies and Moths. HarperCollins. p. 158. ISBN 0-00-220010-4. 
  73. Barbosa, A; Mathger, LM; Buresch, KC; Kelly, J; Chubb, C; Chiao, C; Hanlon RT (2008). "Cuttlefish camouflage: The effects of substrate contrast and size in evoking uniform, mottle or disruptive body patterns". pp. 1242–1253. Digital object identifier:10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.011. PMID 18395241. 
  74. Cott, 1940. pp. 83–91.
  75. Stevens, M; Cuthill, IC; Windsor, AMM; Walker, HJ (7 October 2006). "Disruptive contrast in animal camouflage". pp. 2433–2436. Digital object identifier:10.1098/rspb.2006.3614. PMC 1634902. PMID 16959632. 
  76. Sweet, KM (2006). Transportation and Cargo Security: Threats and Solutions. Prentice Hall. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-13-170356-8. 
  77. FM 5–20: Camouflage, Basic Principles. U.S. War Department. 1944. http://cartome.org/fm5-20-toc.htm. 
  78. Field Manual Headquarters No. 20-3. Department of the Army. 30 August 1999. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/20-3/toc.htm. 
  79. Roosevelt, Theodore (1911). "Revealing and concealing coloration in birds and mammals". pp. 119–231. http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/470.  Roosevelt attacks Thayer on page 191, arguing that neither zebra nor giraffe are "'adequately obliterated' by countershading or coloration pattern or anything else."
  80. 80.0 80.1 80.2 80.3 80.4 Mitchell, G; Skinner, JD (2003). "On the origin, evolution and phylogeny of giraffes Giraffa camelopardalis". pp. 51–73. Digital object identifier:10.1080/00359190309519935. http://www.bringyou.to/GiraffeEvolution.pdf. 
  81. 81.0 81.1 Sherbrooke, WC (2003). Introduction to horned lizards of North America. University of California Press. pp. 117–118. ISBN 978-0-520-22825-2. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zXlLdu3956gC&pg=PA118&lpg. 
  82. 82.0 82.1 Cott, 1940. pp 104–105.
  83. U.S. War Department (November 1943). "Principles of Camouflage". http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/camouflage.html. 
  84. Wierauch, C (2006). "Anatomy of disguise: camouflaging structures in nymphs of Some Reduviidae (Heteroptera)". pp. 1–18. Digital object identifier:10.1206/0003-0082(2006)3542[1:AODCSI]2.0.CO;2. 
  85. Forbes, 2009. pp. 102–103.
  86. Cott, 1940. p. 360.
  87. 87.0 87.1 Cott, 1940. p. 141.
  88. "What is a Horned Lizard?". hornedlizards.org. Horned Lizard Conservation Society. http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/hornedlizards_frame.html. Retrieved 21 December 2011. 
  89. "Leafy Sea Dragon". WWF. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/teacher_resources/best_place_species/current_top_10/leafy_sea_dragon.cfm. Retrieved 21 December 2011. 
  90. Cott, 1940. pp. 141–143.
  91. 91.0 91.1 Srinivasan, MV; Davey, M (1995). "Strategies for active camouflage of motion". pp. 19–25. Digital object identifier:10.1098/rspb.1995.0004. 
  92. Hopkin, Michael (5 June 2003). "Dragonfly flight tricks the eye". Nature.com. http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030605/full/news030602-10.html. Retrieved 16 January 2012. 
  93. Mizutani, AK; Chahl, JS; Srinivasan, MV (5 June 2003). "Insect behaviour: Motion camouflage in dragonflies". p. 604. Digital object identifier:10.1038/423604a. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6940/full/423604a.html. 
  94. Glendinning, P (2004). "The mathematics of motion camouflage". pp. 477–481. Digital object identifier:10.1098/rspb.2003.2622. PMC 1691618. PMID 15129957. 
  95. Ghose, K; Horiuchi, TK; Krishnaprasad, PS; Moss, CF (2006). "Echolocating Bats Use a Nearly Time-Optimal Strategy to Intercept Prey". p. e108. Digital object identifier:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040108. PMC 1436025. PMID 16605303. 
  96. Cott, 1940. pp. 30–31.
  97. Forbes, 2009. pp. 52, 236.
  98. Wallin, M (2002). "Nature's Palette". Bioscience Explained. pp. 1–12. http://www.bioscience-explained.org/ENvol1_2/pdf/paletteEN.pdf. Retrieved 17 November 2011. 
  99. Cott, 1940. p. 32.
  100. Cloney, RA; Florey, E (1968). "Ultrastructure of Cephalopod Chromatophore Organs". pp. 250–80. Digital object identifier:10.1007/BF00347297. PMID 5700268. 
  101. "Day Octopuses, Octopus cyanea". MarineBio Conservation Society. http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=553. Retrieved 31 January 2013. 
  102. 102.0 102.1 "Arctic Wildlife". Churchill Polar Bears. 2011. http://churchillpolarbears.org/churchill/arctic-wildlife. Retrieved 22 December 2011. 
  103. Hearn, Brian (20 February 2012). The Status of Arctic Hare (Lepus arcticus bangsii) in Insular Newfoundland. Newfoundland Labrador Department of Environment and Conservation. p. 7. http://www.env.gov.nl.ca/env/wildlife/endangeredspecies/ssac/arctic_hare.pdf. Retrieved 3 February 2013. 
  104. "Tanks test infrared invisibility cloak". BBC News. 5 September 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14788009. Retrieved 13 June 2012. 
  105. "Adaptiv – A Cloak of Invisibility". BAE Systems. 2011. http://www.baesystems.com/magazine/BAES_019786/adaptiv--a-cloak-of-invisibility. Retrieved 13 June 2012. 
  106. "Innovation Adaptiv Car Signature". BAE Systems. 2012. http://www.baesystems.com/image/BAES_019603/innovation-adaptiv-car-signature. Retrieved 13 June 2012. 
  107. Cott, 1940. pp. 35–46.
  108. Forbes, 2009. pp. 72–73.
  109. 109.0 109.1 Kiltie, Richard A. (January 1998). "Countershading: Universally deceptive or deceptively universal?". pp. 21–23. Digital object identifier:10.1016/0169-5347(88)90079-1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0169534788900791. 
  110. Cott, 1940. p. 41
  111. Ehrlich, Paul R; Dobkin, David S; Wheye, Darryl (1988). "The Color of Birds". Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Color_of_Birds.html. Retrieved 1 February 2013. 
  112. Cott, 1940. p. 40.
  113. Forbes, 2009. pp. 146–150.
  114. Forbes, 2009. p. 152.
  115. Barkas, 1952. p. 36.
  116. Elias, 2011. pp. 57–66.
  117. "Midwater Squid, Abralia veranyi". Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-photos/midwater-squid-abralia-veranyi. Retrieved 28 November 2011. 
  118. Young, Richard Edward (October 1983). "Oceanic Bioluminescence: an Overview of General Functions". pp. 829–845. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/1983/00000033/00000004/art00003. 
  119. Douglas, RH; Mullineaux, CW; Partridge, JC (September 2000). "Long-wave sensitivity in deep-sea stomiid dragonfish with far-red bioluminescence: evidence for a dietary origin of the chlorophyll-derived retinal photosensitizer of Malacosteus niger". pp. 1269–1272. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692851. 
  120. 120.0 120.1 120.2 "Diffused Lighting and its use in the Chaleur Bay". Naval Museum of Quebec. Royal Canadian Navy. http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/navres/NMQ_MNQ/researches_recherches/diffusedLighting_camouflageLumineux/index-eng.asp. Retrieved 3 February 2013. 
  121. 121.0 121.1 Hambling, David (9 May 2008). "Cloak of Light Makes Drone Invisible?". Wired. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/05/invisible-drone. Retrieved 17 June 2012. 
  122. 122.0 122.1 122.2 122.3 122.4 122.5 122.6 Herring, 2002. pp. 190–191.
  123. 123.0 123.1 Cott, 1940. p. 6.
  124. Carvalho, Lucélia Nobre; Zuanon, Jansen; Sazima, Ivan (April–June 2006). "The almost invisible league: crypsis and association between minute fishes and shrimps as a possible defence against visually hunting predators". pp. 219–224. Digital object identifier:10.1590/S1679-62252006000200008. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1679-62252006000200008&script=sci_arttext. 
  125. 125.0 125.1 125.2 125.3 Herring, 2002. pp. 192–195.
  126. Gullan, PJ; Cranston, PS (4th edition, 2010). The Insects. John Wiley, Blackwell. pp. 512–513. ISBN 978-1-4443-3036-6. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=S7yGZasJ7nEC&pg=PA512#v=onepage&q&f=false. 
  127. Forbes, 2009. p. 151.
  128. Forbes, 2009. p. 134.
  129. Beyer, Kenneth M (1999). Q-Ships versus U-Boats: America's Secret Project. Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1-55750-044-4. 
  130. McMullen, Chris (2001). "Royal Navy 'Q' Ships". Great War Primary Documents Archive. http://www.gwpda.org/naval/rnqships.htm. Retrieved 6 March 2012. 
  131. Forbes, 2009. pp. 6–42.
  132. Welbergen, J; Davies, NB (2011). "A parasite in wolf's clothing: hawk mimicry reduces mobbing of cuckoos by hosts". pp. 574–579. Digital object identifier:10.1093/beheco/arr008. 
  133. Brennand, Emma (24 March 2011). "Cuckoo in egg pattern 'arms race'". BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9418000/9418131.stm. Retrieved 22 August 2011. 
  134. Moskát, C; Honza, M (2002). "European Cuckoo Cuculus canorus parasitism and host's rejection behaviour in a heavily parasitized Great Reed Warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus population". pp. 614–622. Digital object identifier:10.1046/j.1474-919X.2002.00085.x. 
  135. 135.0 135.1 Scott-Samuel, NE; Baddeley, R; Palmer, CE; Cuthill, IC (June 2011). "Dazzle Camouflage Affects Speed Perception". In Burr, David C. p. e20233. Digital object identifier:10.1371/journal.pone.0020233. PMC 3105982. PMID 21673797. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0020233. 
  136. 136.0 136.1 Stevens, M; Searle, WTL; Seymour, JE; Marshall, KLA; Ruxton, GD (25 November 2011). "Motion dazzle and camouflage as distinct anti-predator defenses". BMC Biology. pp. 9–81. Digital object identifier:10.1186/1741-7007-9-81. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/9/81/abstract. 
  137. Cott, 1940. p. 94.
  138. Thayer, 1909. p. 136.
  139. Caro, Tim (2009). "Contrasting coloration in terrestrial mammals". pp. 537–548. Digital object identifier:10.1098/rstb.2008.0221. PMC 2674080. 
  140. Waage, J. K. (1981). "How the zebra got its stripes: biting flies as selective agents in the evolution of zebra colouration". pp. 351–358. http://tabanidae.lifedesks.org/node/1486. 
  141. Egri, Ádám; Miklós Blahó; György Kriska; Róbert Farkas; Mónika Gyurkovszky; Susanne Åkesson and Gábor Horváth (March 2012). "Polarotactic tabanids find striped patterns with brightness and/or polarization modulation least attractive: an advantage of zebra stripes". pp. 736–745. Digital object identifier:10.1242/jeb.065540. http://jeb.biologists.org/content/215/5/736.full. 
  142. du Plessis, A (3 July 2002). Telecommunication Mast Management Guidelines For The City of Tshwane. City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality. http://www.tshwane.gov.za/AboutTshwane/CityManagement/CityDepartments/CorporateandSharedServices/legalservices/_layouts/mobile/view.aspx?List=1c67d863-b080-497c-b5e6-5f737c9debda&View=01d8646a-31ab-4506-a31d-76c75e245307&RootFolder=%2FAboutTshwane%2FCityManagement%2FCityDepartments%2FCorporateandSharedServices%2Flegalservices%2FPolicies%20Listing%2FTelkom%20Mast&ViewMode=Detail. 
  143. Newark, 2007. p. 38.
  144. Blakeley, Peter F (2012). Wingshooting. Stackpole Books. pp. 116, 125. ISBN 978-0-8117-0566-0. 
  145. Newark, 2007. pp. 48, 50.
  146. 146.0 146.1 Forbes, 2009. p. 100.
  147. "The Great Dazzle Ball at the Albert Hall: The Shower of Bomb Balloons and Some Typical Costumes". Illustrated London News. No. 154. 22 March 1919. pp. 414–415. 
  148. "Love and War: The Weaponized Woman". John Galliano for Christian Dior, silk camouflage evening dress. The Museum at FIT. 9 September – 16 December 2006. http://www3.fitnyc.edu/museum/loveandwar/galliano.htm. Retrieved 1 December 2011. 
  149. "Ian Hamilton Finlay: Arcadia (collaboration with George Oliver)". Arcadia, 1973. Tate. July 2008. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/hamilton-finlay-arcadia-collaboration-with-george-oliver-p07025. Retrieved 11 May 2012. 
  150. Haldeman, Joe (2004). Camouflage. Ace Books. ISBN 0-441-01161-6. 
  151. Frank, Thaisa (1992). A Brief History of Camouflage. Black Sparrow Press. ISBN 0-87685-857-4. 

Bibliography[edit | edit source]

Camouflage in nature[edit | edit source]

Pioneering research
General reading

Military camouflage[edit | edit source]

Further reading[edit | edit source]

  • Behrens, Roy R (2002). False Colors: Art, Design and Modern Camouflage. Bobolink Books. ISBN 0-9713244-0-9.
  • Behrens, Roy R (2009). Camoupedia: A Compendium of Research on Art, Architecture and Camouflage. Bobolink Books. ISBN 978-0-9713244-6-6.
  • Behrens, Roy R (editor) (2012). Ship Shape: A Dazzle Camouflage Sourcebook. Bobolink Books. ISBN 978-0-9713244-7-3.
  • Goodden, Henrietta (2009). Camouflage and Art: Design for Deception in World War 2. Unicorn Press. ISBN 978-0-906290-87-3.
  • Latimer, Jon (2001). Deception in War. John Murray. ISBN 978-1-58567-381-0.
  • Newman, Alex; Blechman, Hardy (2004). DPM – Disruptive Pattern Material: An Encyclopaedia of Camouflage: Nature, Military and Culture. DPM. ISBN 978-0-9543404-0-7.
  • Stevens, Martin; Merilaita, Sami (2011). Animal Camouflage: Mechanisms and Function. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-15257-0.
  • Wickler, Wolfgang (1968). Mimicry in plants and animals. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-070100-7.
For children
  • Kalman, Bobbie; Crossingham, John (2001). What are Camouflage and Mimicry?. Crabtree Publishing. ISBN 978-0-86505-962-7. (ages 4–8)
  • Mettler, Rene (2001). Animal Camouflage. First Discovery series. Moonlight Publishing. ISBN 978-1-85103-298-3. (ages 4–8)

External links[edit | edit source]

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.