Talk:Symbiosis/Archive 1

Archive 1

I got redirected from biotrophic to here, but theres no mention of it in the article (necrotrophic isn't mentioned either). Could anyone add it in. Also this article seems very short bfor such an important topic. Thanks.

This article is dire. In the second section 'Changes in Interactions' there is a very subjective assertion that 'Mutualism, parasitism, and commensalism are often not discrete categories of interactions and should rather be perceived as a continuum of interaction ranging from parasitism to mutualism.' This is not cited. In 'Symbiosis and Evolution', the quote "Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking." is not referenced properly and I would question its relevance or correctness. THe article on the whole is very poor.

Please mention corals and other interesting examples. I do not have the credentials to do so. Ketankhare 10:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

mucous -> mucus, surely, unless a mucous membrane is meant? -- Anon.

How does an emotive relationship play in to a Symbiotic relationship. ie. a pet. if a dog gets food and shelter under this definition the dog is peraisitic. that doesn't seem right.

Doesn't this article need to at least mention antibiosis? soverman 16:06 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Dogs are parasitic. They leech food and shelter off humans and give nothing back except slobber, fleas and rabies. I declare myself thoroughly a cat person. Whoever removed this text before clearly doesn't understand the nature of a discussion page.

A dog is not a parasite. It gets food and shelter, while the human owner gets some real or percieved benefit. After all, the human chooses to feed the dog. I suppose a cat might consider humans to be parasites who live in the cat's house.--RLent 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You might also say (á la Agent Smith) that humans are the parasites of the world, but this isn't the point.

A parasite is an organism that increases its own fitness (reproductive success) while causing a cost to the fitness of another individual. Since all pets obtain food (and veterinary treatment) due to time and money spent by humans, they should be classified as parasites. It doesn't matter that the human perceives a benefit. If a mosquito injected you with ecstasy while it sucked your blood you wouldn't claim that it shouldn't be classed as a parasite.

You're all confused. Parasitism is a relationship between members of different species in which the parasite benefits and the host is harmed. Whether or not a dog is a parasite depends on your interpretation of human losses and gains in the relationship. If you believe that humans benefit from dogs (emotionally or otherwise, it doesn't matter; emotions are not unbiological) substantially--or, as research has often shown, that our life expectancy can be increased because of their presence, then you have to conclude that the dog-human relationship is a kind of mutualism. "But, it's cultural, it's related to human desires" you could argue, but you'd be wrong...culture and desire are an evolved aspect of the human species and they are not phenomena that exist independently of biology and ecology.

On the other hand, if you think people are compromising their ability to find mates or to fight diseases or to properly nourish themselves when they acquire a dog (an argument -could- be made, I suppose), then the dog is a parasite. This is a stricter scrutiny on the idea of "detriment" or "cost." Species that expend energy for a benefit are not necessarily experiencing parasitism. A pear tree that transports its seeds to distant grounds via the bowels of a horse, and meanwhile adds to the weight that the horse must carry throughout the day -- this tree is not a parasite. Even mutualist relationships, like that of a crocodile and its dental-hygenist birds, require energy expenditure. It has to be more than that, it has to compromise the species' evolved function in its ecological niche...e.g. lessen its chances of producing fertile offspring, its chances of normal life expectancy, etc.

Some of you, in this discussion, are using the term parasite as a metaphor. Owen Wilson's most recent character 'Dupree' is a parasite (metaphorically)...an individual "living off," or otherwise burdening, another member of his own species. Hurting the host, benefiting the parasite. But this is just a way of understanding the tenor of a story or a relationship through the vehicle of a convenient biological term. The term "parasitism," when used in connection with symbiosis, describes an evolutionary result of the ongoing relationship between evolved species. If I buy a dog tomorrow, and he weakens my immune system while getting fat on my dime, his parasitism is metaphorical; it's a unique dysfunction of the evoled relationship between dogs and humans (whatever that is). A mosquito, by contrast, bites you in exactly the way that its DNA have designed it to bite you, and it benefits accordingly, at your expense. And YES, if a species of mosquito evolved that conferred positive psychotropics (maybe a benign, creativity-inspiring, low-side-effects strand of XTC) upon its host, and the benefits of the psychotropics outweighed the costs of the bite, then we would describe that as a mutualist relationship. Don't get confused by the standard or conventional (i.e. metaphorical) ways of thinking about parasitism; it should not be a moral or aesthetic issue.

Should a link be made to Adam Smith? Me lkjhgfdsa 21:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Smith page and didn't see anything about symbiosis (a biological phenomenon). What would be your reason for the link? Satyrium 02:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Artificial Symbiosis

How can artificial symbiosis be mutually beneficial? Can the artifact benefit? This doesn't make sense to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.5.75 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

An example would be a conservatory. In this case, the human organizer of symbiotic and competitive relationships gets money, excercise, and if they're any good, recognition and sex. Brewhaha@edmc.net 05:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

there's a surprisingly high amount of vandalism here

despite them being all very quickly reverted edits, the frequency here is oddly high, or at least i think so. Perhaps an admin should block it from being edited by new/unregistered users? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pfzngn (talk • contribs) 01:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed! I took out some :-D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.1.199 (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutralism

The definition given at the top of the article doesn't really incorporate neutralism. It says something like, at least one organism must benefit or suffer; in neutralism neither organism does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.160.172.2 (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering about that one myself. I think the definition requires more than proximity. Brewhaha@edmc.net 05:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"There is no single universally agreed upon definition of symbiosis. Some define symbiosis in the sense that De Bary intended, describing a close relationship between organisms in which the outcome for each is highly dependent upon the other. The relationship may be categorized as mutualism, parasitism, commensalism, or any biological interaction in which at least one organism benefits. Others define it more narrowly, as only those relationships from which both organisms benefit, in which case it would be synonymous with mutualism."

^that is definately not neutral Drrake 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion you're replying to, apart from being months old and in reference to a long gone version of the article, refers to neutralism not neutrality. Even were that not the case, your comment still wouldn't make any sense. There are no neutrality problems with the lead; in the context of describing the differing definitions of a technical term, narrow is a perfectly neutral antonym of broad. Neither term implies a value judgement on the correctness of either definition. – ornis⚙ 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to challenge the neutrality of this article on a minor scale...

Right at the end of the entire article it states that ""Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking." As in humans, organisms that cooperate with others of their own or different species often out-compete those that do not." This is not necessarily true, take Emily Dickinson for example. She lived a very secluded and introverted life, yet she is regarded as one of America's greatest poets of the 19th century. Sure, that's a while back, but it doesn't change the fact that she 'didn't co-operate with others' and was still very successful.

Thank you, that is all.

220.235.112.102 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That bit added at the end about Margulis's work is a bit dubious-- that is, her work may be important, but the explanation of it sets up Darwin's theory as a straw man which Margulis benefits by demolishing. Darwin proposed that evolution progressed by natural selection, and organisms best adapted to their environments are those that thrive. There's no absolute requirement that an adaptation translate DIRECTLY into a competitive advantage. (But, of course, a parasite/symbiont that chooses a successful partner is more likely to succeed than one that doesn't.) In any case, there's been more than a hundred years of research into evolution since Darwin, so it's not surprising that thousands of scientists working together (or in competition?) have managed to refine his theory.144.171.207.28 14:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Description?

"The living together in permanent or prolonged close association of members of usually two different species, with beneficial or deleterious consequences for at least one of the parties."

Surely a Symbiotic relationship is beneficial to both parties, not just one, or its parasitic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chozabu (talk • contribs) 04:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

or commensal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.156.95 (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

hi guys, i rewrote the intro to emphasise the use of the word symbiosis, and

point out its importance in the living world. Added a good general reference, and cleaned some stuff up. (margulis is brilliant but her books with Dorion Sagan are poorly written, alas.)

i removed that artificial symbiosis thing. the sentence didn't make sense, and i've never heard of it. a reference would be useful.

what do you think?

the examples seem rather arbitrary, that's why i added my 4 in the intro. these seemed the most important and pervasive ones. the examples in th body are fun. perhaps we can have specific examples of each VARIETY of symbiosis described in the varieties section.

perhaps i'll consider adding more. Wikiskimmer 10:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, just needs a quick run-through of the various types of commensalism (amensalism etc). Richard001 07:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Biotrophic

I got redirected from biotrophic to here, but theres no mention of it in the article (necrotrophic isn't mentioned either). Could anyone add it in. Also this article seems very short bfor such an important topic. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.91.117 (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Varieties Of Symbioses

First, thanks ConfuciousO for all the work on this article.

Do we need the Symbiosis#Varieties of Symbiosis section. There's not much detail there that isn't in the article in other places. Mutualism and such have their own sections and are also mentioned in the intro. Maybe create little sections about endo/ecto-symbiosis that summarize and link to those articles and drop this section? Jmeppley 14:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, I was planning on nuking that section once I'd finished filling out the subsections. I just left it there so I wasn't leaving the reader with nothing. I think ther should be a section on ecto-endo symbiosis, maybe another on obligate and facultative relationships, and perhaps a subsection to evo on endosymbiotic theory. Once that's done, it's just a matter of providing a few more examples and making sure everything is properly cited.  –  ornis⚙ 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation

"Endosymbiosis, is any symbiotic relationship in which the symbiont lives within the tissues of the host."

"The term Mutualism, describes any relationship between individuals of different species where both individuals derive a fitness benefit."

English isn't my native speech, so I would like to ask, if commas after words "endosimbiosis" and "mutualism" are really needed (in my language they wouldn't be needed). I'm going to work with this text, so I'd like to fix it before printing if it's a mistake.

Vikte 15:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The commas are not needed and are incorrect. Hardyplants 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Objection?

I've read through all the articles cited under the objection section which state that symbiosis is used as an arguement against evolution. Could someone link the correct articles or remove this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.112.189 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

First usage of term

-->Sorry I had to write this here, could not find how to open up a new topic. I am writing a essay about bacteria symbiosis and are currently reading through some articles concerning symbiosis. On this page it says that the therm symbiosis was first used by Anton de Bary in 1879, but the term symbiotismus was first introduced in 1877 by A. B. Frank. If someone want to change this or investigate, use this article and look in the references:

Rai, A. N., E. Soderback, et al. (2000). "Tansley Review No. 116. Cyanobacterium-Plant Symbioses." New Phytologist 147(3): 449-481.

May 6 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.242.201.21 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitions Revisited

If "Mutualism is a biological interaction between individuals of two different species, where both individuals derive a fitness benefit", and "symbiotic" is a sub-classification within "mutualism", how can "parasitic" be a sub-classification within symbiosis, as written on the Wikipedia "Symbiosis" page? Commensalism is also listed as a type of symbiosis on the "Symbiosis" page, being defined as "a kind of relationship between two organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped". If these other definitions are correct, then the definition of "mutualism" must be incorrect.

Are there, in fact, no universally accepted definitions? Is this a matter of different schools of biology having their own definitions? Can a coherent set of working definitions not be formulated?

[This note has been added to both the "Mutualism" and "Symbiosis" Talk pages.] Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: "Symbiosis" as originally defined in the 19th Century by Anton de Bary refers to any close association by two or more species, regardless of the outcome of the association for those species. Therefore symbiosis can be mutualistic (for example lichens, anemonefish-anemone interactions, fig pollination, etc.), commensalistic, parasitic (most parasitic relationships are symbiotic in the sense that the parasite can only exist in or on the host)or wholly neutral. However, in the 20th century, "symbiosis" came to be used exclusively for what should really be termed "mutualistic symbiosis". Biologists are now divided on the issue; some (myself included) believe that we should refer to symbiotic relationships using the original definition (symbiosis simply refers to "living with" and says nothing about the outcome of that living together). Other biologists happily go along with the change in definition. I think they're wrong, but hey ho, there's no pleasing everyone all of the time! In that sense, therefore, there's not a "universally accepted definition". Hope that's clarified the issue? Speakingofcities (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Symbiote / Symbiont

The article still uses the word "symbiote". The "Hard SF" author Hal Clement, in the foreword to "Through the Eye of the Needle" (ISBN 0-345-25850-9), apologises for using the word "symbiote" in the previous book "Needle" and promises to use the correct word "symbiont" in future.

Interestingly, he also comments that his mistake seems to have propagated, and the effect of his correction, if any, will possibly be of interest to those who study social phenomena. That would be about us, I guess. 81.107.126.162 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've changed the only use of symbiote to symbiont. Smartse (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Commensalism vs. Parasitism

There seems to be an error under parasitism. The definition states that a parasite benefits at the expense of the host, but the example of the remora and the shark is commensalism, the remora benefits but the shark is unharmed.143.238.91.98 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Holobiont

I came looking for information on holobionts, which are the sum of the creatures of symbiosis. Maybe it could be a subsection or a new article someday. --Trakon (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Would that be a species that evolved as a result of symbiosis, or would it as you say be the 'sum' which I would take to mean something along the lines of 'fusion' which sounds more like endosymbiosis <- this is already covered.1812ahill (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mistletoes are endoparasites

in the intro, mistletoes are used as an example for ectosymbiosis. This is incorrect. Mistletoes are generally considered parasites or hemiparasites by those who work with them. Certain genera (Arceuthobium in particular) are known to cause serious growth reductions and mortality in their hosts. Other genera derive their water and mineral requirements from their hosts, in some cases causing severe growth reductions and mortality- particularly in drought stressed hosts. Hundreds of peer reviewed publications support these statements. See articles in forestry journals by Hawksworth, Wiens, Mathiasen, Geils among many others. An alternative good example of ectosymbiosis in the plant world would be epiphites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patho11 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

chemoautotrophic symbionts

Usually found in the gills of snails on the ocean floor near black smokers, chemoautotrophic symbionts oxidize minerals, allowing animals to survive in oxygen poor waters. True or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.235.210 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

References

The references are quite poor - just the author's name and year. I would like to see some titles in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsnelson (talk • contribs) 11:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Humans and various animal species

I'm somewhat surprised that this article lacks mention of the symbiotic relationship between humans and various animal species. We should work to include at least a small section on this aspect.   — C M B J   05:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Symbiosis is not altruistic

I think it should be noted somewhere that symbiosis is not altruistic. The organisms in symbiosis may benefit from each other but it is purely out of a need to survive and not from a desire to help the other. Cleaner fish consume parasites off of sharks but do not do this to benefit the shark but simply as a source of food. And likewise, a shark doesn't allow a cleaner fish to get close enough simply so the fish can have a meal. It allows the fish to do this so that the shark itself can be free of parasites. There are many other examples that can be given.

Also, I think in the amensalism section of the article, it should be stated that there are two types of amensalism: competition and antibiosis. In competition, one organism excludes another from a resource. In antibiosis, one organism secretes a chemical killing the other while the one that secreted the chemical is unaffected.

Lastly, the examples for commensalism could be better. For example, epiphytes growing on a woody plant. The epiphyte uses the woody plant as support and for access to sunlight. The woody plant is unaffected by this. Sumner.44 (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate Header

The header/subtitle of the article defines mutualism, not symbiosis. As noted in the article, by consensus symbiosis now refers to parasitic or commensalistic or mutualistic relationships- not just the latter. Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory Definitions

The definitions of symbiosis used in the introduction and in the section on mutualism are at odds. Can someone in the know decide whether an association need be lifelong to be considered symbiotic and update the article please! Jayarava (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you're completely right. The article text has reflected the long-running war among biologists about the definition; so, incidentally, has the table of contents, which for example missed out Competition, presumably because it obviously wasn't mutualistic. Biologists have at last agreed that symbiosis is any persistent (long term) relationship, mutually beneficial or not. The whole article needs cleanup and reorganisation to tell this story simply and cleanly. In the process, we are getting rid of several overlapping articles which more or less told the same tale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia states that the more narrow definition is standard in Europe, while the broad definition is standard in the US. I never heard the broad definition before, but I am not a bilogist. Though I think the claim in this article that the narrow definition is no longer used is just wrong. 134.36.250.95 (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Definition used in business and in machine learning?

I've been hearing this term used in both business and in neurology, specifically when referring to machine learning algorithms. In business I've heard people use it in the sense on how they work closely with their clients and in machine learning how species evolve. Is there anyone who has more knowledge about this who could elaborate? --Neuronetx (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Is mimicry generally considered exploitative?

Hey guys, i'm new to editing on Wikipedia and have probably already annoyed one or more of you in how i edited mimicry under the exploitation section. The edit was rightfully deleted for misrepresenting Müllerian mimicry as essentially exploitative. Though there is a general air of ambiguity regarding types of symbiosis (and many other aspects of science), it seems fair enough to categorize mimicry as exploitative while noting the exceptions as the majority of its derivatives do involve exploitation. The definition for biological mimicry does not explicitly state it is exploitative. The definition(s) of exploitation contribute to its negative connotations, but it is not exclusively such. So, should the subsection be moved, edited, or can it stay? Monsieureeee (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We aren't (or shouldn't be) saying mimicry-in-general is exploitative: Mullerian mimicry in particular certainly is not, while Batesian and several other forms certainly are. In any case, the point we need to make is not that benefit is involved (selective advantage, Darwinian selfishness): it certainly is; the point is that mimicry can be one-sided or to mutual benefit, i.e. different classes of symbiosis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. Thank you. Your edit looks ideal, though if it isn't generally thought to be exploitative, should it be moved to a different section/made into its own? Monsieureeee (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I see what you mean, we can lose the 'Exploitation' heading which isn't serving any useful purpose – I've removed it. Best not to speak of 'generally', generally.... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Interspecific interaction" redirect page

Interspecific interaction is a redirect page to this article (symbiosis). This redirect might be misleading, since interspecific interactions can also include non-symbiotic interactions. It should probably be redirected to another article, but I don't know if Wikipedia has an article about this topic yet. Jarble (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Red link it or link it to Biological interactions. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

organogram of symbiotics

Hi,
i would like to start a total mapping off al symbiosis known.
Many is known already, yet in pieces, disconnected.
Those need to be connected in a giant puzzle called the map of symbiotics.
but how do i have to do this and how should this work.
any subject about LIFE and living BEINGS should be connected by labels and special intresse by symbiosis.
so
clownfish and anamones,
tomatoos and basil,
oinions and carrots,
wolf with ants and wild advocado triplets symbiosis,
rare brazil nut with blue/green glansing bee,
etc,
and thats is not a start yet.
85.149.83.125 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The definition of Symbiosis

"The term was subject to a century-long debate about whether it should specifically denote mutualism, as in lichens. Biologists have now abandoned that restriction."

This fragment is not correct, while yes, there is a discussion about on the exact definition of symbosis, saying that it is a settled discussion is simply not correct when different colleges and institutions use and teach different definitions of the term, for now I'll edit that section a bit. 181.9.144.110 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to log in before making the post 2-Voyager (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Business relationships

The section in this article titled "Business relationships" seems partially out of place. I would suggest either adding more relevance to how it relates to symbiosis and replacing it somewhere else within the article, or just take it out completely.Kailynw (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Kailynw (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)