Talk:Parasitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 It would be cool to have a Guinea Worm article 2 Parasites 3 Parasitic Mushrooms 4 Are parasites useful at all? 5 Slight reorganization 6 Cut the genomic exception phrase? 7 Proposed merger 8 Parasitic embryo merger 9 Carl Zimmer

[edit] It would be cool to have a Guinea Worm article

If I have time in the next few weeks I'll try to write one, though there are probably people who visit this site that know much more about it than I do... Clay

[edit] Parasites

Could be good to put in a description of the different prasitic/host adaptations that have evolved to deal with immune responses/parasitic infection respectively.

[edit] Parasitic Mushrooms

I notice only one kind of parasitic fungus is mentioned here, I was hoping to find a little information on either the 'caterpillar mushroom' which grows on burrowing larvae, or a surely similar mushroom I've heard of which grows when an ant inhales its spores, draining its nutrients until the ant dies with two big mushrooms growing out of its back. These were surely the influence for the pokémon Paras and I was hoping to add said connection to the articles involved.

[edit] Are parasites useful at all?

If a major species of parasites, like lice, became extinct, would it have negative consequences to the environment or any ecosystem or species relation at all?

Eje211 00:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From The Amazing Ichneumon by Connie Hjelmeng-Johnson:

All parasites are not bad. Ichneumon wasps are economically and environmentally important because their larvae feed on and destroy many insects injurious to humans and plants, especially to food crops. Ichneumons are important in the control of clinch bugs, boll weevils, codling moths and asparagus beetles, just to name a few. The value of parasitic ichneumon wasps in the control of agricultural pests is incalculable. They are extremely helpful to the environmental in general, and farmers in particular.

  — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C July 8, 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Parasites are useless... just like humans and other free-living groups. From a zoological perspective, the question of utility isn't very relevant. However, considering ecosystems as whole, some trematodes have been shown to facilite feeding by animals that are important to us (like egrets, which are more likely to be able catch killifish if these are parasitized than otherwise; these trematodes cause little (or unknown) pathology to egrets, so on balance they seem to benefit the pretty birds we like).

[edit] Slight reorganization

Some of the parasites listed in the Animals section are actualy protozoa, which are properly Protists (I believe). Historically, there has been different categorizations, and of course many of our classifications, even of separate kingdoms, are pretty arbitrary. But I'm creating a new set of bullets for the protozoa.

Nabarry 23:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cut the genomic exception phrase?

The sentence "However, some definitions of symbiosis exclude parasitism, since certain types of DNA, such as transposable elements and B chromosomes, may also be considered as parasites of the host genome" seems to me to be out of place, and confusing. Sure, these genetic elements may live at the expense of a 'host', but the 'parasitism' here is really metaphorical (the entry was written, I'm guessing, by a geneticist or cell biologist) as these elements are inherited, not transmitted. And in any case, why aren't they considered symbionts? I think I just answered my own question, and this comment will serve as rationale for deleting the sentence.

[edit] Proposed merger

The Parasitism article should not be merged with the Parasite article. Because it would make it difficult to be able to sepratly research each one. comments to: 2smart4myself@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.235.87.153 (talk • contribs) .

I'm doing a project for my biology class, and one of the requirements is to explain the difference between mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism. They just belong together. Basically, I agree with the above opinion. -zaybex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.146.36.188 (talk • contribs) .

Oppose - Parasitism is fine as an article seperate from Parasite. →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no problem about have both articles. If there was only one article it would be a looot of solid text, having two articles makes it easier to read. And what's more, most of the parasite article is taken up by a list of parasites, which would just make the article too long if the 2 were merged. But I think that both articles could do with a bit of improvement, starting with some pictures and an example of a parasitic cycle. IronChris | (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge – the articles should be merged, as they cover essentially the same subject. As for the article being "hard to read", it would not be if the article was properly sectioned. Its true that "Parasites" has an extensive list of links, however, in my opinion that list should be broken off into its own article, "List of parasitic organisms", or something like that. Peter G Werner 01:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it - better to ask forgiveness than permission. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any objections. Peter G Werner 01:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to note - I copied the entire Talk:Parasite page to this page and placed it before this section, since the "merge" thread was the only one on this page before the merge. Peter G Werner 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I do admit that the resulting page is a better article than the previous one, still maybe you could have reopened the merger discussion and given reasoning. I guess the point I'm opposed to is that you unilaterally decided to override the opinions of other wikipedians that had already "voted". →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 04:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it was a bit unilateral and I was slightly displeased when I first noticed the merge, but the article looks good so I forgive him! Good job. IronChris | (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry – unlike a Vote for Deletion, there really is no process for is no clear process for deciding when there's a consensus to merge or not merge. My actions were a bit unilateral, you're right, however, all of my edits are reversible, and if somebody reverts my changes, I won't get into a revert battle over it. Before reverting, though, ask yourself which version you like better. Peter G Werner 05:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah! I've already said I like the new article... :) →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 05:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool – in any event, apologies to all for "jumping the gun". Peter G Werner 05:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parasitic embryo merger

There's been a proposal to merge the Parasitic embryos article into this one. I'm not terribly fond of the idea because, honestly, I don't think "parasitic embryo" is a very good article to begin with and its questionable whether it belongs in Wikipedia at all. Has the theme of "parasitic embryos" been written about by an outside source, or is this somebody's original research? In general, I really don't like the fact that the balance of this article is being shifted from the biological concept of parasitism to an article about parasites in science fiction, which is definitely a secondary topic. Peter G Werner 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the editor who added the merge taga. Yeah, I see what you're saying. I wasn't sure what to do with the page myself. I wouldn't oppose a WP:PROD on parasitic embryo, frankly. — TKD::Talk 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I just blakned out the page and turned it into a redirect page pointing here. If somebody really wants to expand on the topic in a substantial way, its always possible to expand "Parasites in fiction" into a breakout article. (By "substantial", I mean more than a simple list of science fiction movies and video games that include parasites.) I don't mean to denigrate other editors contributions, but there have been a several biology-related articles over the last couple of months ("Spore" being another one) that have suffered from drive-by editing from 14-year-old video game enthusiasts. As somebody who's trying to raise the quality of biology articles on Wikipedia, it gets on my nerves a bit. Peter G Werner 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Zimmer

Deleted the reference to Carl Zimmer's book Parasite Rex from the "Parasites in Fiction" section, because it's not fiction. (Also, dead link.) However, I think Parasite Rex is more deserving to be on this page than Alien, so where to put it? Sanguinity 23:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)