>>457146
>>457182
>>457184
I am not an expert on color vision, but understand enough about it to know that you are all just pulling stuff out of your asses.

historically there have been biases in naming colors because nature doesn't always provide enough instances of every point in the color spectrum and technology of course didn't (and still doesn't) provide pigments of each and every possible (=humanly distinguishable) color. this *obviously* influences naming conventions and the total number of standard color categories in everyday language...

but today we know a lot more about the physiological boundaries of the human vision system!
there is multiple points along the spectrum that deserve special interest. (basically local maxima and transition spaces between them)
you can understand a hump as heightened ability to distinguish changes (relatively speaking), that emerge in contrast to the less distinguishable gradients. naturally this earns both those types of areas their own 'hue names'.
>on the one hand has to do with what is being modeled as 3 overlapping-but-different kinds of cone cells (L-red, M-green, S-blue), but also with their individual irregularities in responding to stimulation (see humps like for example in the blues).

so yes. the spectrum is of course continuous instead of stepped.
yes. naming conventions have been irregular.
and still.
we are at a point in history where it is clear that the number of individual hues is NOT arbitrary or bound to religion, but correlates with our physiology.