One thing that does not seem to have been mentioned in the article is the simple fact that flowers feature overt hue (I.e. are colorful). Chromatic vision in p

One thing that does not seem to have been mentioned in the article is the simple fact that flowers feature overt hue (I.e. are colorful). Chromatic vision in primates, insects, birds and fishes seem to have co-evolved in response to items of luxury. In the case of humans it was fruit, in the case of insects and birds it was flowers. These islands of chromatic intensity signaled ‘loot-boxes’ of high super-high carb content. The carb came at a cost to the plant, but in return they got to spread their seed far and wide. Chromacity seems to exist as a layer on top of lightness, and has certainly evolved as an afterthought to it. furthermore, in some ways chromatic vision seems to contradict Lightness vision in its form. Proof? Just compare the saturation map of a vase of flowers to its lightness map. They are rarely similar. As a painter, I am especially intrigued by this. These mechanisms seems to account for our overtly emotional response to color, as opposed the functional nature of lightness. I.e. color = special treat. Despite this, I believe that the prime stimulus of a flower is its shape (silhouette). This aspect of perception is prime in all animals (and in art) and the chromatic expression of a flower serves only to emphasize this shape.