When I was sitting my entry exam for my real job, we had a colour blindness check. The training officer (who was nominally in charge of the apprentices) came round with bits of coloured paper and presented them to us so that we could name the colours. Blue, OK. Orange, passed. Green, no problem. Brown looked brown, even if it was towards the reddish end of the range that gets tagged brown. Grey. Problem. He called it "slate" because to him slates were grey (corpoate teaching), despite the evidence outside the window looking over the rooftops of Preston, that slates could be green, purple-ish and anything between, depending on where they came from. I suspect that "slate" was used to avoid confusion with abbreviations.
We agreed on grey slates, I didn't get booted off, but I suspect I was tagged as a potential trouble maker.
Vision, like hearing, is tremendously subjective, probably along with smell and taste. It's not just what the input organ is sensitive to, it's what the brain makes of it when it gets there. Since it probably hasn't been thought of, there won't be a test for it, so it is likely to remain unknown. Since we have not noticed verifiable tales of people with exeptional low light vision, probably not. If it was an advantage, those with would have overwhelmed the others by now, in the same way that those who could tell ripe fruit didn't die young of belly-ache before they passed their genes on.