I do not think that is simbiosis. It is simply a mutualist relationship between the 2. But the deffinition of symbiosis is pretty vague so you could consider it that

yeah, but mutualisitc realtionships are symbiotic. Aren’t they?

Andrew must have remembered wrong. Yes, mutualism is a kind of symbiosis.

Ok guys, this problem is not as easy as you might think. What you are thinking about are interspecies relations. They can be of many types: mutualism(++), neutralism(00), competition(–), parazitism(+-), comensalism(+0), hunting(+-) and amensalism(-0). Now both parazitism and hunting are a form of relation where one species benefits and the other loses(+-) but only parazitism is symbiosis. Competition is also not symbiosis. In the case of mutualism, in some cases we are dealing with simbyosis and in some cases we are not. If i only have nuts and you only have apples and we trade we both have a balanced diet. So this is a form of mutualism but it is deffinetly not symbiosis. Where the border is, i do not know, nor does anybody else

We learned mutualism is a kind of symbiotic relationship. Maybe professors are wrong. I don’t know…

I’ve always learned that symbiosis was the close association of 2 or more organisms, which could mean commensalism, mutualism and parasitism.

I agree with Andrew..because we can’t see all the relationships between organisms can be considered into symbiosis. but I’m a little bit disagree with hunting relationships. I can say that it’s a symbiosis which that we know as a predation symbiosis. what do you think?

this link may help us…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

There is such a thing as a mutualist symbiosis. Actually some (not very bright) teacher restrict the term symbiosis to this mutualist symbiosis. But simbyosis comes from latin “living together” and is generally used for species that have a physiscal contact- like that page on weekepedia said: andosymbiosis or ectosymbiosis. Ectosymbiosis is defined as one organsim living on the surface of the other or in it’s digestive tract.
Stop being the slaves of the system and think logically. Even if we are dealling with a very tight interspecial mutualist relation we can not call it symbiosis mainly because there is no permanent body contact between the 2.
On the other hand we can call it symbiosis because the goose is dependent for food.
As i said, the deffinition of symbiosis is vague. What you guys should remember from all this is that there are some mutualistic relations that can not be classified as symbiosis.

I’ve always been told that a symbiotic relationship was between 2 organisms or something like that. like…

Mutualism – Both organisms benefit
Parasitism – One organism benefits and the other is harmed
Commensalism – One benefits and the other is not afftected.

The need for physical contact between symbiotic organisms is somewhat dated. Rightly or not, the definition has moved toward the ones mostly referred to here, as a relationship (usually obligate, but even that can vary) between different species that doesn’t harm either.

My professors always stressed that a symbiotic relationship was a general term used for interaction between two living organisms, in which could be further narrowed down by their interaction (i.e. mutualism, parasitism, commensalism). . . So i figured any case of mutualism, parasitism, and commensalism would automatically be labeled as a symbiotic relationship. However, i think it is only those three catagories in which are symbiotic…and not say hunting. Is this wrong also?

Symbiotic relationships definitely involve mutualism, parasitism and so on but there is one other that is often overlooked and that is Mimicry.

Since your member name is "123Herpatology" I will use Herpetofauna for an e.g. a Leaf tailed Gecko mimicking a leaf or part of a tree trunks bark benefits from this behavior thus gaining protection from predators, mimicry is also very common in the insect world as well.

Stu

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.

I haven’t read anything about mimicry is a form of symbiosis.

http://www.ms-starship.com/sciencenew/symbiosis.htm

Now you can say you have read something about "Mimicry" as a form of symbiosis.

Stu

I have browsed the posted article, I still maintain my belief that mimicry is not a form of symbiosis. Without due offense to the author, Dave Abbott, I am not saying its a mistake but we have differing opinions. Just because one orgnism mimics the form or color of another, doesn’t mean that they interact. Wihtout a predator of some kind would you think there is any interaction between the gecko and the leaf? Still the interaction is between the prey and predator; not the prey and environment.

Next thing you’re going to tell me, moths have a symbiotic relationship with concrete walls because the moth mimics its color.

See what I mean.

"Next thing you’re going to tell me, moths have a symbiotic relationship with concrete walls because the moth mimics its color"

Let me know when a concrete wall is classified as a living organism and I will get back to you on that one ok.

“I believe symbiotic relatioship is the close association between different species of animal”

Not just animal different organisms, a tree is an organism!

Definition of Symbiosis is a close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms (Gecko and tree) of different species (Gecko and tree) that may, but DOES NOT necessarily, benefit each member. A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.

So… tree (organism) Gecko (organism) = association between two or more different organisms = “Symbiosis”

My quick post may not of been the best example of another form of Symbiosis but that does not make it incorrect, I used the example for "123Herpatology" benefit and used the first thing that popped into my head not word for word off Wikipedia.

Depending on the species of tree and the Leaf tails insectivorous diet what’s to say it was not feeding on harmful invertebrates threatening the survival of the tree?

Then the tree would benefit by the Gecko’s presence in or on the tree, and the Gecko benefits and gains protection from the tree thus ensuring its survival, but remember Symbiosis does not necessarily have to benefit each member of organisms within the relationship.

See what I mean.

Stu

That was meant to be sarcastic you know so you can clearly see that mimicry is not a symbiotic relationship.

Exactly what I’ve been telling you, what you posted above is not mimicry, is it? Its a classical example of mutualism. And in no instance have you mentioned mimicry.

Yep that was the response I anticipated this is where I can see I am wasting my breath good luck.

Stu

I really wanted to just drop this topic. I thought we were discussing scientifically about symbiotic relationships. I am an open minded biologist; if you have proof that mimicry is a symbiotic relationship besides the fact that it is published in a website, I can change my mind. Inquisitive minds of students and collegues are encouraged; I don’t see you as wasting your breath on me/us. I did learn from the posts above. Not all biologists certainly view it the way I see it though.

i think both mkwaje and vk4vfx have valid arguments
the answer may lie in which definition of symbiosis are they using
if u define symbiosis as ‘close interaction’, then i would say mimicry is not a type of symbiosis
if u define it as ‘living together’, then it may be.

however the term interaction does not necessarily means anything physical.

this is the definition of ‘interaction’ from wikipedia

so, i would disagree with MrMistery and say that competition is symbiotic

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.