Peridot.
I seem to remember, from my days learning Korean and living there, that there isn’t really a distinction made between blue and green in the Korean language.
This cite seems to confirm that: Blue–green distinction in language - Wikipedia
Japanese was the same. The word 青 (ao ) used to encompass blue and green. They now have a separate word for green (midori, for all you drinkers out there).
Personal insults should be kept in the pit. 
Thinking about colour in a functional way, back when words like pink were entering our language people wouldn’t sit around and make up colours and names like they do now.
I’d hazard a guess that there’s a need for the colour pink that doesn’t exist with other shades of the main colours.
If a person was looking a bit blue or a bit green the exact shade wouldn’t matter.
But there’s a big difference between a person looking pink and looking red.
The prevalence of pink in nature could be the reason for the distinction.
Necessity being the mother of invention and all that.
Eh? Is this a whoosh? Peridot is green.
As to the OP - it’s strange to me to puzzle why English has a word for pink (or orange), when, as has been pointed out, it hasn’t always. Shakespeare had no word for the shade. So clearly English accumulates more colour words over time - soon enough, “aqua” & “avocado” will be accepted words. Just wait for the 2020s 50s revival.
Peach is accepted as “orange & white.”
Strangely, my dictionary suggests that the colour term “pink” might not come from the flower, but from a contraction of “pinkeye”, which is another name for conjunctivitis, and comes from the Dutch “pinck oogen” meaning “small eyes”.
That seems pretty unlikely to me, but who am I to argue with the word wonks at Collins?
Not true. Both the shears and the flower are named from the verb “to pink”, which means to decorate with a perforated pattern.
Re my last post, I’m not sure if I’m misinterpreting the dictionary and “pinkeye” was also an earlier name for the flower. It only gives the eye disease meaning for pinkeye, but World Wide Words seems to think “pinkeye” might have been applied to the flower too.
According to Cecil’s column, “blue” is a relative latecomer in most languages’ development. That surprises me. Given the omnipresence of sea and (even more so) sky, you’d think it would develop earlier as a common color designation.
And sadly, now that I’m 47, there isn’t really a distinction between blue and green when I’m in dim light. 
If I have something light blue and I ask a random person what color it is, I’ll fairly likely get the answers “blue” and “light blue”. If I have something pink and ask what color it is, it will be rare that I get the answer “red”.
Similarly, if I have a few lightly colored objects and I say “Hand me the blue one”, I’ll get the light blue one the first go with no comment. If I say “Hand me the red one”, the person will probably hesitate briefly and may even ask “You mean the pink one?” If i have a light blue and a standard blue object, and I ask for the light blue one, I’ll get light blue. If I ask for the blue one, I’ll get asked, “light blue or dark blue?” If I have a pink object and a red object, they’ll be no confusion when I ask for the red one.
Light blue is seen as a subset of blue, but pink is generally not thought of as a subset to red.
The reason that yellow and blue crayons don’t mix to make a very good green is that crayons don’t mix well, period. But blue paint and yellow paint will make a perfectly acceptable green paint. Red, yellow, and blue make a pretty good basis for a color space, and though the space doesn’t have quite as much volume as CMY space, it has the advantage that the “primary colors” line up with certain aspects of human visual processing.
If I remember correctly, the word blue originally referred to light blue rather than the shade we call blue today. And previous to that it referred to any light color such as a pale yellow.
The same way pink isn’t light red, i’d say the color you’re really referring to is ‘baby blue.’ This is the one that’s referred to by the russian word ‘galooboy’. (The emphasis is on the first syllable. It’s not a boy who’s galoo. However, if a boy is galooboy, then it does mean he’s gay.)
Anyway, the distinction in a Russian person’s mind between baby blue and blue is pretty strong, more than for an English-speaking person. The word ‘galooboy’ in Russian leads russians to notice the color more often. But consider this: ’ English has ‘aqua’, and that’s a very distinct color, among a number of others. In Russian these would just be called ‘galooboy’ without a second thought. So who really appreciates colors more, Russians or English-speakers?
Here’s something to consider while looking at this graph: File:Cone-response-en.png - Wikipedia
At the red end of the spectrum, red only activates the one type of cone, and doesn’t activate the rods at all. By adding white to the mix, you are actually activating a different set of cones, plus the rods. (This is also why red light won’t disrupt your night vision). OTOH, adding white to blue or green will just increase the level of activity, without actually making new sensors activate.
…I just did a quick leaf-through of the texts and you’re right. That is so bizarre. 
Where did you learn that? [/trying not to hijack too much, I promise]
I seems that names for colors are generated culturally. I submit that in the future “aqua” and “lime” and “salmon” will be just as common as “pink” is today.
Well, the online etymology dictionary has the first attestation for 1733 (with “pink-coloured” from 1681). Shakespeare does use the word, but only in the superlative/finest example meaning: “Mercutio: Nay, I am the very pinck of curtesie,” Rom. & Jul. II.iv.61
I got interested in the etymology of “pink” a few years ago, when I set out to make myself a “pinked” i.e. pattern-punched leather jerkin for the SCA. The flower-before-colour factlet came up then.