Talk:Parasitism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

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

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. →ΣcoPhreekΔ 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". →ΣcoPhreekΔ 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... :) →ΣcoPhreekΔ 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)

Mmmm... all animals have embryos. So thats not original research.Tourskin 02:26, 19 February 2007 (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)

[edit] Intro

This lacks a good intro - it goes of too quickly into symbiotic relationships other than parasitism. It should start of with something like "Parasitism is a form of symbioism in which one or organisms obtain nutrition from another at the expense of the host". Basically, it should introduce what parasitism is, which it doesn't. Tourskin.

[edit] Rubbish

This article has so little. It could easily be a featured article. Someone get an encyclopedia (not this one!) and add some stuff. Better still, if I get time, I'll try. Tourskin.

[edit] Parasites In My Back Yard! I.D. Please!

Ok I left a large bucket under a plant for a month or two. Right before guests came over, I wanted to put it away. It was full of water, leaves and dead flowers. On the inner wall of the bucket there were three ot four worm like creatures that "swollen heads" like when you start to blow up a long party baloon and the tip is more inflated than the rest of the baloon. Anyways, I moved the bucket from under the shadow to the sun and these things started bobbong up and down! When I moved the bucket back into the shadow they stopped and when I moved the bucket into the sun they started to bob up and down again! It was totally disgusting!! And yet fascinating! I think that they are parasites because only parasites would want to make themselves more visible to predators in the sunlight. I dumped the bucket. Now that I think of it, I should have taken pictures! I live in Vancouver, Canada. Does anyone know what they are?24.83.178.11 09:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker

It depends on how big they were, but I'm pretty sure that they were some kind of insect larva, not a worm. The description sounds like mosquito larvae (see Image:Culex sp larvae.png), but that would be really small (under 1 cm), though they do bob up and down like crazy when disturbed. Otherwise it could be some kind of fly larva; see for example this Stratiomyidae larva. They were definitely not parasites, though. IronChris | (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanx for the reply! I'd have to say that they were about the size of an average earthworm. Laso As far as i can recall (it was a while ago) the re were no distinguishing features other than what I described. i.e. no eyes, mouth,... etc. I am thinking that they defenitely had to be parasites because only parasites would make themselves more visible in light in order to get eaten. Such as those parasites that take over a snail's "antenna" and start pulsating all the colours.24.83.178.11 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)KnowledgeSeeker
Your description definitely sounds like a type of fly larva (ie. a maggot, with no eyes or visible head). I have never heard of parasites that large that would be likely to be floating around in a bucket of water, and I'm doing my MSc in biology. Maybe they just wiggled around because they wanted to get out of the sun and into the shade, and therefore stopped all the fuss when you put them back in the shade. IronChris | (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ultra cool!!!Tourskin 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More....

Now how about how deadly they are? Does someone know how much parasites are causing harm? I hear that billions of litres of blood is lost to worms every year or something. Or was it day? If about half the world's population are infected (3 billion) and a person 1/3 of a litre of blood a day...if thats possible, or they could die. But 1/3 of a litre sounds too much. Well I will remain stupid...

By the way, I'm sure they kill many people in Africa. Sleeping sickness for example.Tourskin 02:24, 19 February 2007]

Parasites can kill. Many many people have them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.67.116.248 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Lenin's Theory of Imperialism

I wanted to point out that parasitism is also a term used by Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism; in fact, chapter eight is entitled "Parasitism and the Decay of Capitalism". He takes the term from Hobson. Here is an excerpt:

Further, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have seen, to 100,000-50,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by "clipping coupons", who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies. Timocrates 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Including this would be a digression from the topic of biological competition, much the way a section on economic competition would be out of place in an the article on biological competition. Not to mention, needless introduction of POV into this article. Peter G Werner 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it doesn't belong in this article. And it has nothing to do with POV; it is just a term used by Marxist theorists. Does it belong in the disambiguation page? Timocrates 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/r/Talk%7EParasitism_1fe7.html"