Science desk
< January 30	<< Dec | January | Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum Here it is mentioned that A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 380 to about 750 nanometers. Maverick 9828 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC) And here https://science.nasa.gov/ems/09_visiblelight/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20visible%20light,from%20380%20to%20700%20nanometers. in NASA website it mentions that Typically, the human eye can detect wavelengths from 380 to 700 nanometers. So should I edit Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick 9828 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reference in the wikipedia article is a biology textbook, which is a better reference for a statement that pertains to physiology than a popularising web page from a space agency. --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah a textbook from '2005' and a website of a 'leading space agency' that deals a lot with Electromagnetic spectrum.. so it is counterintuitive... Maverick 9828 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not about the electromagnetic spectrum, it is about the human eye (neither of which has changed much since 2005...). --Wrongfilter (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nature.com agrees with 750 but starts with 390 and not 380.

there are just so many studies that all are true in themselves. So we can't provide a single range. anyways Thanks Maverick 9828 (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the article visible spectrum points out, the boundaries vary between individuals and according to conditions. So one should expect some variation between sources. Double sharp (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. Maverick 9828 (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to detect fades off rapidly as the wavelength passes 700 and there is no sharp cutoff. I can see a 850 nm near infrared LED as red, but it does not mean we have to update the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should change the article about human hearing to put the upper limit at 13KHz as that's about all I can hear these days :-( NadVolum (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply a RS for the presumption that your hearing is human hearing?  --Lambiam 20:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain I can prove I'm a human for you. 🤖 er I mean 😀 NadVolum (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, when reliable sources give different information, they can both be quoted. Also note that the original version you're describing has a built-in fudge factor, the word "about". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Xystrocera globosa has

antenniferous tubercles scarcely projected. ([1], p 224) This information would be more valuable if I knew what an antenniferous tubercle was. According to this book, it means one thing in aphids and another in hemiptera, but X. globosa is a beetle. Are these the tubercles that bear the antennae, or are they merely rather close to the antennae?

Thank you for any advice you can provide. Cremastra (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Aphididae are a family that belongs to the order Hemiptera, the definitions in the Dictionary of Insect Morphology are ambiguous.

Just like ciliferous means “bearing cilia”, coniferous means “bearing cones��, and ovuliferous means “bearing ovules”, we may expect antenniferous to mean “bearing antennae”. It is hard to make out whether the entomologist(s) qualifying the tubercles of the order Hemiptera in general with this adjective were myopic, or confused as to the sense of -(i)ferous, or what.  --Lambiam 20:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]