Am I misunderstanding the title there or is it simply made to be catchy but wrong? The actual beginning of the article says this: "Researchers have shown why

Am I misunderstanding the title there or is it simply made to be catchy but wrong? The actual beginning of the article says this: "Researchers have shown why intense, pure red colors in nature are mainly produced by pigments, instead of the structural color that produces bright blue and green hues." So the research has to do with the origin of different colors in animals, not "why blue and green are nature's brightest colors". A quick look at a Scarlet Ibis or a Poison Frog should make it clear that opposing red to blue in a battle for "nature's brightest colors" would be an irrelevant endeavour anyway, and that isn't what the researchers have been doing in the first place.