Symbiotic Relationshsips

[Darby]

Here's a tip for anyone interested in a career in biology, especially areas touching on ecology -

Get used to running into a lot of different definitions (and pronunciations) for terms and concepts. Some things vary from subfield to subfield, some from person to person. Some things aren't ever clearly defined, or the details are ignored - for instance, I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere, someone has to the nth degree differentiated between vesicles and vacuoles, but I've never run into people in the field who had anything but a very fluid idea of which was which. You wanna call a big one a type of vesicle and a little one a sort of vacuole? Yeah, okay.

Biologists, many of them, are used to this and just try to figure out what the folks in the room are talking about. Some do get pretty intense about their terms - I'm not sure how they keep their heads from exploding.

[vk4vfx]

I don't believe mimicry is a form of symbiosis. Is there interaction with the leaf and the gecko? Or is it the gecko and the predator? Otherwise that falls under predation.

I believe symbiotic relatioship is the close association between different species of animal (*edit - my mistake.. should be organisms - thnx to vk4vfx for pointing it out)-- and that include all types of relationship listed in wikipedia. Predation and even grazing may sound like harmful to one species but in the long run is beneficial to the ecosystem as a whole. Lions for example have to keep in check the number of herbivores in plains. Giraffes have to munch on the lower leaves of trees (usually the old unproduvtive leaves).

That is just my two cents; I know other minds might disagree.

G'day

Yes ok, all noted but think about it "mimicry" is definitely a form of symbiosis no matter how small it is in this case it still remains a "symbiotic relationship" not on a grand scale but still is what it is, "mimicry" as a form of symbiosis is often over looked as being insignificant that does not change the fact it still does occur only on a much smaller scale in the background.

[mkwaje]

Hi vk4vfx,

Its been 3 years now and we're still at it..ha ha.
I understand that you are raising a valid point. But I'm still convinced that any relationship accruing from mimicry has to have resulted from another form of relationship.

My main points are:
1. The gecko that mimics a leaf would NOT evolve that appearance IF there is no predator to hide from.
2. That resulting mimicry is due to the gecko and the predator(bird for example) and NOT gecko and tree.
3. A chameleon, that changes color when its in the tree, leaf or GROUND, or any other background, doesn't have a relationship with the background (or the original material where it copies its appearance or characteristic), rather its is a distinct relationship between that organism and its predator.
4. Therefore, mimicry is an ADAPTATION, not a relationship.

[jwalin]

i think it could be considered symbiosis although there is no permanent body contact.
but it doesn't make a big difference. does it. name it whatever you want cause its vague. you don't know when you cross the border

a similar scene is seen in a cow and crow relation.

[Darwin420]

ahhhh

This is symbiosis how is it not?

As mystery said the direct translation is "living together"...how are they not living together?

The goat benefits from getting the insects off the fur while the goose gets a healthy meal.

This is analogous to ox peckers and giraffes and rhinos.

The goat benefits and goose benefits...thus it is mutualistic.

This is a form of symbioses....the end.

[firechild]

Hi vk4vfx,

Its been 3 years now and we're still at it..ha ha.
I understand that you are raising a valid point. But I'm still convinced that any relationship accruing from mimicry has to have resulted from another form of relationship.

My main points are:
1. The gecko that mimics a leaf would NOT evolve that appearance IF there is no predator to hide from.
2. That resulting mimicry is due to the gecko and the predator(bird for example) and NOT gecko and tree.
3. A chameleon, that changes color when its in the tree, leaf or GROUND, or any other background, doesn't have a relationship with the background (or the original material where it copies its appearance or characteristic), rather its is a distinct relationship between that organism and its predator.
4. Therefore, mimicry is an ADAPTATION, not a relationship.

Ok, I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here. What you are describing is camouflage, not mimicry. Both are forms of physical crypsis but camouflage is when an animal replicates the form of its surroundings, whereas, mimicry is where an amimal replicates a whole or partial form of another animal. Mimicry IS a form of symbiosis since one animal has a reliance on the presence of another.

Defensive mimicry:

The most common form is Batesian mimicry, where one animal simply mimics another that is less likely to be attacked by a predator. Such as one that is faster (more adept at avoiding predators) or one that congregates (flocks or shoals for example, the mimic will join the congregation).

Müllerian mimicry is where 2 or more animals look alike and share a common defense such as a toxin or venom. A predator learning to avoid one species will benefit both species.

Mertensian mimicry is where a lethal species mimics a toxic/venomous species that is not lethal. A predator learns nothing by being killed but if it learns not to attack the non-lethal species, it will avoid attacking the lethal species.

Aggressive mimicry is where one animal mimics another in order to appear less conspicuous to prey. The mimic may replicate the prey item in order to get close (this is extremely common in fish) or may replicate a non-threatening species to the prey.

All forms of mimicry require the presence of the model species so this can certainly be classified as symbiosis.