{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02356020942408377, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.554285714285714, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Variable utility in the enigmatic presence of ultraviolet reflectance in conspicuous aposematic signals

Warning signals are often characterized by highly contrasting,
distinctive and memorable colors. Both chromatic (hue) and achromatic
(brightness) contrast contribute to signal efficacy, making longwave
colored signals (red and yellow) that generate both chromatic and
achromatic contrast common. Shortwave colors (blue and ultraviolet) do
not contribute to luminance perception, yet are also common in warning
signals. The presence of UV aposematic signals is paradoxical as UV
perception is not universal, and evidence for its utility is at best
mixed. We used visual modeling to quantify how UV affects signal
contrast in aposematic butterflies and frogs. We found that UV only
appreciably affected visual contrast in the butterflies. As the
butterflies, but not the frogs, have UV-sensitive vision these results
support the notion that UV reflectance is associated with intraspecific
communication, but appears to be non-functional in frogs. Consequently,
we should be careful when assigning a selection-based benefit from UV
reflectance.