Talk:Commensalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

Should ideally have a Commons category on this too. Richard001 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Box under Types

There's something very wrong, but I don't know how to edit that sort of thing. Volunteers?79.182.34.112 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ↔ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.235.155 (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing a relationship type

Yes this relationship type may not be common or perhaps even non-existent, but theoretically fathomable. What would the relationship type be called where one organism is unaffected and the other is harmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.161.180 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I found it, it's called fuckyoulism for the record —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.161.180 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

another example

A few days ago I was at Fort lauderdale beach, and I noticed while snorkeling that there were small fish following me, eating bits of detritus out of the sand I kicked up while walking. There were anywhere from 3 to 6 of them, and they followed me for a long time. Has anyone ever heard of this, or did I discover a new behavior in fish? Michael1115 (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Egocentric POV

"The question of whether the relationships between humans and some types of our gut flora is commensal or mutualistic is still unanswered." our gut flora? very human-shity. what if a non-human were to read this? perhaps one with no gross gut flora? -Jaardon (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

._. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.198.65 (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to them as gross, just because of their species? how human centric. Michael1115 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Types

The human-cow example in the Types section isn't parasitism, it's predation. You could argue that predation is a special case of parasitism, but that would be an original conclusion.

05:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.170.91 (talk)

It reeks of having been added by someone with an agenda.--Elvey (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed — it sounds like an original conclusion (especially the idea of leather as commensalism. What?), and it's not sourced. I cut it; if somebody's got a reputable source for the idea, please add that. --76.105.223.240 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find an RS to support my view, but it seems odd to me that phoresy is considered a form of commensalism. The hydrodynamic or aerodynamic profile of an animal is going to be radically altered for the worse by phoresy. The side-view mirrors on a modern car cause 3-6% of total vehicle drag ([1] via [2]) so a remora on a shark, for example, could easily be the difference between catching and not catching prey. I'd call that 'harm'. Just a thought.--Elvey (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations

The year of publication in reference no. 2 should be 1991, not 2001. I clicked 'edit' but couldn't seem to see the references appearing in the edit box, just keywords. Would be grateful if anyone could make the change or advise me as to how to bring up to correct edit box. Qowirmclvxdnhv (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Cum mensa

I don't think so. "Cum mensa" means "with table". All the dictionaries I can find say it is from "com-" (together) and "mensa". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.155.24 (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC) what up dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.89.210 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Example

When big boats leave or enter a harbor their motors cause the fish to surface. The seagulls get the fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.4.225 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No such bird as a "seagull" it's always "gull." Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gull Autodidact1 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Article introduction

Why does this article have two introductory paragraphs, one supposedly for an ecological and the other for a biological meaning, regardless of the fact both meanings are exactly the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardorejorge (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Remoras must increase drag on their host

a remora attaching itself to a larger fish increases drag and uses up the larger animal's energy. Predators in the wild manage their energy to conserve in a variety of ways, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that a remora is harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.214.112.138 (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Dogs should be moved to Mutualism article.

I believe that Dogs are currently listed on this page due to a misunderstanding of the source material. The sources currently being used (At least the sources that I can access) to categorize the relationship between humans and domesticated dogs as commensalism do not support that conclusion, and instead support categorizing it as mutualism. While it is true that (Zeder MA (2012). "The domestication of animals". Journal of Anthropological Research. 68: 161–190.) refers to the "commensal pathway" in relation to the domestication of dogs, it does so only when referring to the early stages of the domestication process. When referring to the current relationship between humans and domesticated animals the source places it into the category of mutualism: "I believe a strong argument can be made that domestication qualifies as a form of biological mutualism with clear benefits for each partner in the relationship"(Zeder p. 162) and "Following this line of argument... might define domestication as: a sustained, multigenerational, mutualistic relationship...."(Zeder p. 163). Even the language used in this article describes a mutualistic relationship, not a commensal one. "Proto-dogs might have taken advantage of carcasses left on site by early hunters, assisted in the capture of prey, or provided defense from large competing predators at kills."(The cited source is behind a paywall so I cannot check to see what nomenclature they use when describing the relationship, but the statement describes mutual benefit i.e. taking advantage of carcasses, which benefits dogs, and assisting in the capture of prey and proving defense from competing predators, which benefits early hunters). Unless there is any serious objection, I will soon attempt to move dogs into the mutualism article. This article could, in line with the sources, discuss the origins of domestication as following a commensal path, but should not indicate that the relationship is commensal in its current form. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Commensalism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Commensalism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Tong2015":

• From Staphylococcus aureus: Tong SY; Davis JS; Eichenberger E; Holland TL; Fowler VG (July 2015). "Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 28 (3): 603–661. doi:10.1128/CMR.00134-14. PMC 4451395. PMID 26016486.
• From Staphylococcus: Tong SY, Schaumburg F, Ellington MJ, Corander J, Pichon B, Leendertz F, Bentley SD, Parkhill J, Holt DC, Peters G, Giffard PM (2015) Novel staphylococcal species that form part of a Staphylococcus aureus-related complex: the non-pigmented Staphylococcus argenteus sp. nov. and the non-human primate-associated Staphylococcus schweitzeri sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 65(Pt 1):15-22

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)