You're basically doing what I said people do, which is to use color to describe how animals act. That does not mean that color, as a concept, has any meaning in the mind of an animal.
The electromagnetic spectrum is continuous; our concept of color is a completely arbitrary way of dividing it[1] up into sections. That was the point of the Radiolab episode (and a lot of academic research before it): different human cultures divide up the electromagnetic spectrum in different ways, each of which is as valid as another.
Animals might not have this concept at all; for example it would be just as physically valid to think of the electromagnetic spectrum the way we think about sound--as a continous spectrum from "quiet" to "loud". We know that divisions are arbitrary when it comes to sound--that's why the "this amp goes to 11" joke in Spinal Tap is funny.
The frequency of the perceived light coresponds roughly to color. The frequency of the perceived sound corresponds roughly to pitch. So I think that "quiet" to "loud" is analogous to "pale" to "bright", when it comes to visible light.
>>different human cultures divide up the electromagnetic spectrum in different ways ...
Yep, different human cultures divide up the sound spectrum in different ways too ... So what ?
Some people have absolute pitch perception, allowing them to reproduce a musical tone, that they had heard exactly, even without knowing its proper name, just like some people can distinguish between color hues, that other people lump together as generic "pink", "green", "blue" or "yellow".
Having a vocabulary of specific names may ease learning/training, but it seems to me, that no matter how many different words for colors you teach a child with daltonism, the child will still fail a color blindness test.
The electromagnetic spectrum is continuous; our concept of color is a completely arbitrary way of dividing it[1] up into sections. That was the point of the Radiolab episode (and a lot of academic research before it): different human cultures divide up the electromagnetic spectrum in different ways, each of which is as valid as another.
Animals might not have this concept at all; for example it would be just as physically valid to think of the electromagnetic spectrum the way we think about sound--as a continous spectrum from "quiet" to "loud". We know that divisions are arbitrary when it comes to sound--that's why the "this amp goes to 11" joke in Spinal Tap is funny.
[1] Edit to add: only a tiny portion of it