Talk:Superorganism

Ambiguous second paragraph

I've read the second paragraph of this article a dozen times and can't figure out what it means. Especially "However, strict ecological studies reveal little or no self control inside organism communities, and such communities usually easily go off balance or change into entirely different ones. This view is countered and balanced by Systems Theory and the dynamics of a complex system."

Is "organism communities" a way of describing the biosphere, or the traditional definition of a superorganism? Which view is "countered and balanced" and in what way? I think something real is trying to be communicated here but I can't for the life of me parse the phrasing. Could someone more familiar with the topic clarify this paragraph or remove it?

Kronick (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw a fact tag on it-- an appropriate reference might clear up what is meant by "organism communities" here. Not knowing any better, I'd guess that it means communities of heterogeneous organisms, especially since "ecological studies" is right there in the accompanying context. Further, I will guess that it means communities within a limited defined ecological or geographical niche. Extending the notion of an "organism community" to include the entire biosphere seems like a stretch; local connections and influences would seem to have a greater effect than some tenuous (yet possibly valid) Gaia business. All of this is pure uninformed speculation on my part, based solely on the face of the text here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True

Are Portuguese Men o' War and chondrophores true superorganisms? —JerryFriedman 18:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think that they qualify, other examples are ant colonies and bee hives, or coral reefs.--Scorpion451 07:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing memetics category

I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this has more than a loose connection to memetics anyway, more towards cybernetics and biology--scorpion 451 rant 20:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We should still link to it at the bottom of the article. It's useful info relating to the social part of the article. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Added new section, citations, and section heads

I have supplied a new section subhead. Please advise what you think. Also, I have added a new section, for the topic is also related to sociology and economics. I have cited the new section extensively. It may seem controversial, but hey: the term superorganic was coined by a sociologist, and the issues, as you will see, are the same as in the main article.

Feel free to kill it if it seems too offpoint or long for the article.

I have also dug up a few citations for the earlier parts of the article. I'm afraid someone else will have to find the Timothy Leary cite!

References

Wirkman 02:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Need much more info

• So we know who coined super organic, but what about superorganism? I thought it was E.O. Wilson who used that term, or at least popularized it (of course he wasn't the first to have the idea by any means)
• A list of superorganisms
• What are some examples of governing principles of superorganisms?
• More info...

Some places to start: [1] [2] NittyG (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The scientific community doesn't have a classification of collective organisms as of yet, I have heard that the taxonomy people are on it. So far as I know, the classification currently used is loose and applies to any communal organism which communicates with each other in simple fashion (even humans for example). So a list of such species would be a pretty long one....

Personally, I have heard the term applied by a professor only to a collection of organisms where an independent unit cannot survive on its own. Such a classification would eliminate flocks of birds or a group of humans etc, but this classification would probably only be approved after quite a few articles published for somewhat of a consensus to be reached. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Need better definitions for "independent unit cannot survive on its own," particularly "independent," and quantifying the duration of survival. For instance, in warm weather a worker bee may survive overnight away from the colony, able to return when it is warm enough to fly again. Few humans could survive away from other humans for even a few weeks unless the environment was extremely benign. Finding a place to draw the line will not be easy, I suspect. Good to see that taxonomists are on it... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Emergent Behavior??

Can someone add an explanation of "Emergent Behavior"? Odrinn (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superorganism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706184310/http://www.icpress.co.uk/books/histsci/p268.html to http://www.icpress.co.uk/books/histsci/p268.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Update

Aside from the information added in the In Cybernetics section, I have also attempted to reword parts therein that were directly copied from Kelly Kevin's work. I am not sure if the case is also the same in other parts of the article. Those who have access to the sources used can help check this issue. Thanks. Darwin Naz (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

If it weren't for the redirect from Superorganism complicating the logistics, I would already have undone the recent bold move, as the "R" component of BRD. Discussion is now appropriate, better late than never.

Calling the old title "semantically incorrect" seems pedantic and prescriptive. Google hits may not be the best measure of usage, but I am willing to say a nearly 50:1 ratio in favor of "superorganism" is persuasive. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It turns out that undoing the move did not need admin intervention. I have restored the article's state prior to the move, since the common name is "superorganism". Discuss before moving again; see WP:BRD. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Cf. supernational ("extremely national") and supranational ("having power or influence that transcends national boundaries or governments"). Dlku4d (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

So? The common term for this topic continues to be "superorganism" as shown by over a million google hits for it, vs. about 22k for "supraorganism". The article stood for thirteen years with the commonly used name. Now, without prior discussion, etymology should suddenly override long-standing usage? That is not how language works.

Wiktionary, like any other wiki, is not a reliable source. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Google search hits are completely irrelevant. Search Google Books. 178.66.80.183 (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, here is what it shows. There is no room for doubt that "superorganism" is used more often. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A superorganism is "an organism of outstanding quality". Cf. supernational ("extremely national") and supranational ("having power or influence that transcends national boundaries or governments"). The difference between the words superorganism and supraorganism is qualitative, not quantitative. Those two words are not synonymous and cannot be compared by usage statistics. Dlku4d (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Usage statistics do indeed show that "supraorganism" never really caught on as a synonym for the commonly understood meaning of "superorganism," which is not "an organism of outstanding quality" however many times you may say it.

Wiktionary entries for both superorganism and supraorganism were edited anonymously on 13 September from IP addresses in St. Petersburg, belonging to Rostelecom. Did you forget to log in earlier? 178.66.80.183 also belongs to Rostelecom. This is enough evidence to open a SPI case, which will be my next step. Consider this your notification. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC on page move to "supraorganism"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved back, consensus that superorganism is the WP:COMMONNAME. Closing early as this was a contested move from a long standing title which should not have been changed without an WP:RM. (non-admin closure) – Thjarkur (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

---

See discussion above. Long-standing name in common use was changed without prior discussion, with the specious claim that it is "semantically incorrect." Just plain Bill (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

A supraorganism is above (not upon) its participants:

Super. Opposite to sub and under, is the Latin super, above and upon. When applied to place, it is more exalted or higher in the same direction; when to quantity, it is greater than, something more or above that of which we were speaking. Like sub it implies contiguity. It is up-on, that is, on the upper side; and, as subter implies distance, so, when the Latins supposed a space to intervene, they generally employed supra. This, however, was not universally attended to, because that such accuracy of distinction was seldom necessary. The English upon and above are respectively equivalent to super and supra; and these also are often used without discrimination.

—Booth, David. An Analytical Dictionary of the English Language London, 1830, p. ccvi

A supraorganism manifests itself in the joint action of its participants:

Super-: A prefix (Latin) signifying above, beyond, surpassing, and the like. For example, superlabial means above a lip, and superfoliar refers to a region or object above the foliage.

Supra-: A prefix (Latin) signifying over, above, or beyond, where growth or action is implied. For example, "supracrescent" signifies "growing over" another part or organ.

—Glossary of Botanical Terms U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1931

Note that etymologically, the Latin word ‘supra’ means ‘higher’ in the sense of ordination, whereas ‘super’ implies a spatial order. Thus, in contrast to the mainly used notion of ‘superorganism’, we prefer to stay with the notion of a ‘supraorganism’.

—Lüttge, Ulrich (ed.); Cánovas, Francisco M. (ed.); Matyssek, Rainer (ed.). Progress in Botany 77 Springer, 2016, p. 223

Dlku4d (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

In reality, the super/supra distinction is not as clear-cut as you try to make it seem. For example, in anatomy "supraorbital" means "above the eye socket" not in an abstract hierarchical sense, but simply in terms of location. In case anybody missed it, that is diametrically opposite to the reasoning of Lüttge et al. for their preference.

Appeals to etymology carry little weight when compared to actual usage of the sort shown in that google books ngram chart linked above. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Word usage in Google Books is a purely quantitative measure that does not take the quality of word use into account. Things of inferior quality tend to be more numerous. Dlku4d (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Material things of inferior quality may tend to be more numerous, but that does not apply to word usage. If you think that a word being less commonly used means it is of superior quality, you need to think again.

The basis for Lüttge's preference is flawed. The suprasternal notch is not of higher value or influence, nor held in higher esteem than some other notch. It is simply located closer to the head and further from the feet than the sternum. The Lüttge reference is not a reliable source for your claim that "superorganism" is the "wrong" word.

Shouting is ineffective in this kind of discussion, and undermines your credibility. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You have completely discredited yourself by resorting to a straw man argument, Just plain Bill. The Lüttge reference does not claim that supra- means "higher" exclusively in the sense of ordination. In the spatial sense, supra- means "above", whereas super- means "upon". That is why only supra- can be used in the sense of ordination, as in supranational ("above individual nations"):

Certainly, the EU has a president, a commission, a parliament, and a currency. It also is trying to create more statelike features, such as a constitution. Yet even EU supporters argue that the European project is not to make the EU a giant country. Instead, rather than being a superstate, the EU is a suprastate which is characterized by an overall structure that facilitates cooperation between member countries and enhances their strengths while not erasing national governments or national identities.

—Stoltman, Joseph P. (ed.) 21st Century Geography: A Reference Handbook Vols. 1 & 2, SAGE, 2012, p. 614

Dlku4d (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You are still shouting, which is unpersuasive. Furthermore, going around in circles with this kind of word salad is not a path to consensus. In English, "ordination" primarily means a ceremony or other process of entry into a priesthood or other consecrated role. What do you mean when you use that word?

The whole "above/upon" connection to Latin is iffy in actual usage, and can just as easily support "superorganism" in this context, to describe an entity whose distributed existence may be considered to "live" upon a collection of individual organisms, as a colony of bees is an organization established upon a number of individuals.

In any case, prescriptive etymological arguments carry little weight when compared to the way words are actually used and understood (and have been for decades) by cognizant speakers and writers. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Superorganism is the common name for this phenomenon, so the article should be put back to that name, which it's had for a long time. "Supraorganism" may or may not be more linguistically correct -- that seems unclear -- but that's not the determining factor. "P.S." It's generally better to start a discussion before renaming an article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Dlku4d (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no doubt that "superorganism" is the WP:COMMONNAME and "supraorganism" is used several of orders of magnitude less frequently. Etymological arguments are quite beside the point. Dlku4d's invocation of the sentence "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." is relevant only if they can actually cite reliable sources that make the specific claim that "superorganism" is an ambiguous or inaccurate name. CodeTalker (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Use superorganism, per WP:COMMONNAME. Etymological arguments, and philosophical ones about whether good things are less or more frequent than bad things, are immaterial to WP:RM discussions. I also agree that the attempt to make a clear-cut distinction between these prefix spellings is specious. Actual science does not use them consistently the way Dlku4d would prefer, despite the prescriptivism of some in-field writers like Lüttge, and despite there being perhaps a "trend" toward a split, which may or may not ultimately be successful (WP:NOT#CRYSTAL). In Latin itself, this alleged distinction does not exist. The -er-/-ra- forms are of the same word in different grammatical constructions, as in other pairs like inter-/intra-. In English, this is essentially the same sort of orthographical inconsistency as cardio-/kardio-; various pundits from time to time have attempted to give a rationale for one over the other, but in the end the actual usage has been arbitrary. We have eletrokardiogram not electrocardiogram simply because someone preferred the k spelling and it stuck long enough to get widely adopted. Same is true of superorganism, which might be subjectively better as supraorganism (or better yet supra-organism, to avoid a confusing potential diphthong) but which is still usually spelled superorganism despite any arguments otherwise. There are many cases like this in medicine and other sciences. See ped- for how confusing this can get, given that ped- can have at least four different meanings (some of which are sometimes given other spellings, such as paid-, paed-, or pod-). WP's job is to reflect actual usage, not try to "correct" it with an artificial conformity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This thread is not about mere orthography. In the spatial sense, supra- means "above", whereas super- means "upon". That is why only supra- can be used in the sense of ordination, as in supranational ("above individual nations"):

Certainly, the EU has a president, a commission, a parliament, and a currency. It also is trying to create more statelike features, such as a constitution. Yet even EU supporters argue that the European project is not to make the EU a giant country. Instead, rather than being a superstate, the EU is a suprastate which is characterized by an overall structure that facilitates cooperation between member countries and enhances their strengths while not erasing national governments or national identities.

—Stoltman, Joseph P. (ed.) 21st Century Geography: A Reference Handbook Vols. 1 & 2, SAGE, 2012, p. 614

It is semantically illegitimate and grossly erroneous to apply the word superorganism to a group of synergetically interacting organisms.

WP:COMMONNAME says: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Dlku4d (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Your "only supra- can be used in the sense of ordination" hypothesis is self-evidently false, since superorganism is in fact well-attested, in this sense. You are making a prescriptivist argument, and WP does not work on that basis. Sometimes I wish that it did, mind you; but it does not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

An organism is a single macromolecule. Macromolecules are classified into supermolecules and supramolecules.

• A supermolecule is held together by intramoleculer (covalent) bonds and is a periodic, inorganic crystal.
• A supramolecule is held together by intermolecular (non‑covalent) bonds and is an aperiodic, organic crystal.

There is of course a further distinction between a supermolecule and a supramolecular system. A supermolecule is a giant molecular entity that is made up of covalently bonded identifiable molecular units, thus it is similar in constitution to that of a tertiary structure of a protein. A supramolecular system, on the other hand, is a self‑assembled, non-covalently bonded entity where complete molecular units are brought together through non‑covalent forces to create a complex structure similar in constitution to that of a quaternary structure of a protein. Figure 12 shows both of the supermolecular and supramolecular constructions.

Thus a supermolecule has a clearly defined chemical constitution, whereas for the supramolecular system it is possible to have variations in the constitution depending on how many molecular units are required to create the self‑assembling, and hence self‑organizing, complex system.

—Kato, Takashi. Liquid Crystalline Functional Assemblies and Their Supramolecular Structures Springer, 2008, p. 11

SUPRAMOLECULES

Groups of two or more polyfunctional molecules "that are held together and organized by means of intermolecular (non-covalent) binding interactions" [J.-M. Lehn, Science 260, 1762 (1993)]. A supramolecule (from the Latin supra, meaning "above or beyond," as contrasted with the Latin super, meaning "over") behaves as a distinct molecule with properties differing from those of its molecular components.

Example. A variety of different types of bonding interactions can lead to supramolecule formation: (1) Simple van der Waals interactions can lead to organized forms of matter such as liquid crystals (Sect. 10.83), micelles (Sect. 10.72), vesicles, and catenanes and rotaxanes (Sect. 6.25). (2) Hydrogen bonding is the primary source of binding in the classical supramolecule, double-stranded DNA.

—Orchin, Milton; Macomber, Roger S.; Pinhas, Allan R.; Wilson, R. Marshall. The Vocabulary and Concepts of Organic Chemistry John Wiley & Sons, 2005, p. 154

A small molecule might be called ‘the germ of a solid’. Starting from such a small solid germ, there seem to be two different ways of building up larger and larger associations. One is the comparatively dull way of repeating the same structure in three directions again and again. That is the way followed in a growing crystal. Once the periodicity is established, there is no definite limit to title size of the aggregate. The other way is that of building up a more and more extended aggregate without the dull device of repetition. That is the case of the more and more complicated organic molecule in which every atom, and every group of atoms, plays an individual role, not entirely equivalent to that of many others (as is the case in a periodic structure). We might quite properly call that an aperiodic crystal or solid and express our hypothesis by saying: We believe a gene—or perhaps the whole chromosome fibre—to be an aperiodic solid.

—Schroedinger, Erwin. What Is Life CUP, 1967, pp. 64–65

Thus, the term superorganism is an oxymoron, because a superorganism is a supermolecule, i.e. an inorganic crystal:

Covalent crystals consist of an infinite network of atoms joined together by covalent bonds. Examples are diamond, silicon, SiC, and quartz (SiO₂). The whole crystal is better viewed as a large molecule or supermolecule.

—Zhang, Zhuomin M. Nano/Microscale Heat Transfer Springer, 2020, p. 263

Dlku4d (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.