From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ecology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Should ideally have a Commons category on this too. Richard001 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Egocentric POV[edit]

"The question of whether the relationships between humans and some types of our gut flora is commensal or mutualistic is still unanswered." our gut flora? very human-shity. what if a non-human were to read this? perhaps one with no gross gut flora? -Jaardon (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

._. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to them as gross, just because of their species? how human centric. Michael1115 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Box under Types[edit]

There's something very wrong, but I don't know how to edit that sort of thing. Volunteers? (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC) ↔ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cum mensa[edit]

I don't think so. "Cum mensa" means "with table". All the dictionaries I can find say it is from "com-" (together) and "mensa". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC) what up dog — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing a relationship type[edit]

Yes this relationship type may not be common or perhaps even non-existent, but theoretically fathomable. What would the relationship type be called where one organism is unaffected and the other is harmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I found it, it's called fuckyoulism for the record —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

another example[edit]

A few days ago I was at Fort lauderdale beach, and I noticed while snorkeling that there were small fish following me, eating bits of detritus out of the sand I kicked up while walking. There were anywhere from 3 to 6 of them, and they followed me for a long time. Has anyone ever heard of this, or did I discover a new behavior in fish? Michael1115 (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


The human-cow example in the Types section isn't parasitism, it's predation. You could argue that predation is a special case of parasitism, but that would be an original conclusion.

05:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

It reeks of having been added by someone with an agenda.--Elvey (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed — it sounds like an original conclusion (especially the idea of leather as commensalism. What?), and it's not sourced. I cut it; if somebody's got a reputable source for the idea, please add that. -- (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find an RS to support my view, but it seems odd to me that phoresy is considered a form of commensalism. The hydrodynamic or aerodynamic profile of an animal is going to be radically altered for the worse by phoresy. The side-view mirrors on a modern car cause 3-6% of total vehicle drag ([1] via [2]) so a remora on a shark, for example, could easily be the difference between catching and not catching prey. I'd call that 'harm'. Just a thought.--Elvey (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


The year of publication in reference no. 2 should be 1991, not 2001. I clicked 'edit' but couldn't seem to see the references appearing in the edit box, just keywords. Would be grateful if anyone could make the change or advise me as to how to bring up to correct edit box. Qowirmclvxdnhv (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


When big boats leave or enter a harbor their motors cause the fish to surface. The seagulls get the fish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No such bird as a "seagull" it's always "gull." Cf. Autodidact1 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Article introduction[edit]

Why does this article have two introductory paragraphs, one supposedly for an ecological and the other for a biological meaning, regardless of the fact both meanings are exactly the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardorejorge (talkcontribs) 18:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Remoras must increase drag on their host[edit]

a remora attaching itself to a larger fish increases drag and uses up the larger animal's energy. Predators in the wild manage their energy to conserve in a variety of ways, it doesn't seem reasonable to say that a remora is harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)