Talk:Commensalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Can this concept be applied to the relationship between humans and computer? The distributed processing of the computer would be the host, due to it's larger size. Delegation of procedural work to the computer and creative work to humans as division of labor within the symbiosis.
- It's a stretch in my opinion since computers are really just a tool. But I think I see where you are coming from and it's an intriguing idea. I would wager we're not the first to discuss it, though. If you do want to view computers and humans as interacting species, the relationship would be one of mutualism or even symbiosis since (at least to date) computers need humans for survival and computers are becoming increasingly necessary in many areas. You could make a case that computers aren't all that helpful, in which case commensalism would be an appropriate term. You could also argue that computers are parasitic. They use resources we collect and have modified our behavior in a way that increases their chances of survival. Jmeppley 19:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Back on topic, I think this page should be merged into biological interaction. See talk:biological interaction for any debate on this. Jmeppley 19:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Symbiosis
I added a reference to symbiosis, perhaps it should be merged with that page. Although there is no reason it couldn't just retain its own page. --ColdFeet 09:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Symbiosis is a very long lasting, close interaction. This interaction is usually implied to be mutualistic but many definitions of symbiosis also extend to commensalism and amensalism and even parasitism. However, not all mutualisms are symbiotic (Nor are all commensalisms, amensalisms, or parasitisms). Most interactions in nature are not direct, and many are only significant for part of the organisms' life histories. Jmeppley 16:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Permanent phoresy?
Can someone explain to me what permanent phoresy is? It seems to me that phoresy cannot be permanent, as it serves an animal to disperse from one place to another. Therefore staying on the host defeats the purpose. Also, phoretic individuals cease all feeding behaviour and ontogenesis during the travel, so a permanently phoretic animal would also be a dead animal, as it wouldn't be able to eat, grow or reproduce. This is a definition of phoresy by Farish and Axtell (1971): "phoresy is a phenomenon in which one animal actively seeks out and attaches to the outer surface of another animal for a limited amount of time".
I'm going to change the sentence in the article to "phoresy can be either obligate or facultative". IronChris | (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EXAMPLES
YOU MUST GIVE EXAMPLES,TO HELP US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT DO THOSE TERMS MEAN.THANK YOU
DAN CRISTINA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.46.0.6 (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] split article
I think there should be seperate articles on Phoresy and Metabiosis which currently both redirect to this article. --Benjamin Mako Hill 17:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
