Moontanman Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 Some birds have been found to cooperate in multi species group that guards against invasion from other birds new to the area of both species! https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180521143827.htm Quote When these territories overlap, the two species interact with each other. They forage together, travel together, and seem to be aware of what the other species is doing. They also help each other defend their territory from rivals. Variegated fairy-wrens will defend their shared territory from both variegated and splendid outsiders; splendid fairy-wrens will do the same, while fending off unfamiliar birds from both species.
Prometheus Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 Isn't human society a multi-species society? We support many kinds of livestock and have promoted their spread across the globe to a much greater extent than they would naturally attain. We employ dogs for a variety of rolls, even bestowing awards upon them for acts of valour, or just keep them as companions. We keep cats, because... Why do we keep cats? Or do they keep us?
Sensei Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Prometheus said: We keep cats, because... Why do we keep cats? Or do they keep us? They used to eat mice and rats ... 32 minutes ago, Prometheus said: Isn't human society a multi-species society? We support many kinds of livestock and have promoted their spread across the globe to a much greater extent than they would naturally attain The same could be said about ants which have livestock aphids or fungi.. Edited May 27, 2018 by Sensei 1
Moontanman Posted May 27, 2018 Author Posted May 27, 2018 25 minutes ago, Prometheus said: Isn't human society a multi-species society? We support many kinds of livestock and have promoted their spread across the globe to a much greater extent than they would naturally attain. We employ dogs for a variety of rolls, even bestowing awards upon them for acts of valour, or just keep them as companions. We keep cats, because... Why do we keep cats? Or do they keep us? I am not prepared to call human society a multi species society due to the fact that all the species we tolerate do not live independent lives separate from us and cooperating with us. If wild wolf packs lived among humans as separate and independent entities who would cooperate without losing their independence I would have to rethink this... 1
CharonY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 Symbiotic relationship are per definitionem relationships across species. Whether you wan to call those "societies" is a different matter.
Moontanman Posted May 27, 2018 Author Posted May 27, 2018 Just now, CharonY said: Symbiotic relationship are per definitionem relationships across species. Whether you wan to call those "societies" is a different matter. Symbiotic relationships are not the same as two independent and equal species cooperating and living together by choice. The OP at least seems to be suggesting this...
dimreepr Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Moontanman said: Symbiotic relationships are not the same as two independent and equal species cooperating and living together by choice. The choice may be questionable, but the relationship isn't.
Sensei Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: The choice may be questionable, but the relationship isn't. There are relationships which are required in e.g. cycle of reproduction, and relationships which are voluntary by specie..
dimreepr Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Sensei said: There are relationships which are required in e.g. cycle of reproduction, and relationships which are voluntary by specie. 2 Symbiosis is neither.
CharonY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, Moontanman said: Symbiotic relationships are not the same as two independent and equal species cooperating and living together by choice. The OP at least seems to be suggesting this... That does not make a lot of sense to me. Symbiotic relationships are not always essential, hence they are often by choice. What is different is that in this case the cooperation is on the individual level. That is not unique, but seems not to have been observed in birds before.
Moontanman Posted May 27, 2018 Author Posted May 27, 2018 1 minute ago, CharonY said: That does not make a lot of sense to me. Symbiotic relationships are not always essential, hence they are often by choice. What is different is that in this case the cooperation is on the individual level. That is not unique, but seems not to have been observed in birds before. Can you elaborate and give some examples?
CharonY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 13 minutes ago, Moontanman said: Can you elaborate and give some examples? There many options to choose from. Famous ones are cleaning symbioses known in fish, birds and even some mammals. Defensive symbioses are also pretty common, including various species with sea anemones (hermit crabs, clownfish). Even endosymbioses can be optional (though quite a few are essential). Examples include Root nodule symbioses which typically only occurs when the plant is nitrogen limited. But again, it depends on what you define as choice in this regard. But then we would be in the area where we would need to discuss consciousness and the ability of make choices etc...
Moontanman Posted May 27, 2018 Author Posted May 27, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, CharonY said: There many options to choose from. Famous ones are cleaning symbioses known in fish, birds and even some mammals. Defensive symbioses are also pretty common, including various species with sea anemones (hermit crabs, clownfish). Even endosymbioses can be optional (though quite a few are essential). Examples include Root nodule symbioses which typically only occurs when the plant is nitrogen limited. But again, it depends on what you define as choice in this regard. But then we would be in the area where we would need to discuss consciousness and the ability of make choices etc... I have to agree the key word is choice, all of the examples you've alluded to so far seem to be short on the choice side... IMHO all the ones you offered are evolutionary instead of a choice... A choice would be closer to a pod of dolphins who cooperate fishing with humans and both are free not to do so but instead choose to do it. Of course this already exists but it is much closer to what the OP IMHO is talking about than clownfish and anemones or hermit crabs and anemones, neither of them is a choice for the animal but represent clearly established evolutionary relationship that comes about through mindless natural selection rather than choice... Edited May 27, 2018 by Moontanman
CharonY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 57 minutes ago, Moontanman said: I have to agree the key word is choice, all of the examples you've alluded to so far seem to be short on the choice side... IMHO all the ones you offered are evolutionary instead of a choice... I think you are making an artificial distinction. After all, how would you tell the difference without projecting human experience on them? The ability to make friendship could be considered an evolutionary feature, after all there are plenty of species who are solitary for most of their lives. Specifically to the study in OP, on what basis would you categorize it as "choice" rather than "evolutionary" (and again, I think this distinction does not make a lot of sense to me in the first place)?
Moontanman Posted May 27, 2018 Author Posted May 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, CharonY said: I think you are making an artificial distinction. After all, how would you tell the difference without projecting human experience on them? The ability to make friendship could be considered an evolutionary feature, after all there are plenty of species who are solitary for most of their lives. Specifically to the study in OP, on what basis would you categorize it as "choice" rather than "evolutionary" (and again, I think this distinction does not make a lot of sense to me in the first place)? In examples as you have given the animals evolved their relationship over large stretches of time, they have no choice in the matter and cannot survive independant in the wild away from these relationships. The dolphin example I gave is of independent organisms choosing to work together for mutual benefit that normally do not associate with each other nor do they need to.
Sensei Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Moontanman said: A choice would be closer to a pod of dolphins who cooperate fishing with humans and both are free not to do so but instead choose to do it. Dolphins actually cooperate with birds to catch fishes.. Shoal of fish is attacked from one side by dolphins, and from other side they are attacked by birds (or sharks).. Either side of predators win this game, and they both eat.. "Voluntary and altruistic cooperation" is not equal "using opportunity".. If you would see animal rescuing other specie animal from death threatening situation (e.g. sinking in swamp), it would be example of true altruistic voluntary cooperation between species.. A dolphin saving a man drowning in the sea is yet another example.. ("no immediate and obvious reward for doing it").. (orthodox religious person would say God ordered Dolphin to save somebody life ) Edited May 27, 2018 by Sensei
CharonY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 50 minutes ago, Moontanman said: In examples as you have given the animals evolved their relationship over large stretches of time, they have no choice in the matter and cannot survive independant in the wild away from these relationships. The dolphin example I gave is of independent organisms choosing to work together for mutual benefit that normally do not associate with each other nor do they need to. Actually no, I specifically picked examples in which the relationship benefits survival, but is not essential. Others, such as symbioses of various animals with protozoans for the digestion of ligning or the dependency of lichens on cyanobacteria are examples of obligate symbioses. 55 minutes ago, Moontanman said: The dolphin example I gave is of independent organisms choosing to work together for mutual benefit that normally do not associate with each other nor do they need to. So this is a completely different criterion. Here you seem to state that you are considering symbiotic relationship that are only short-lived. However, cleaning symbioses would fall under this group.
Moontanman Posted May 27, 2018 Author Posted May 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Sensei said: Dolphins actually cooperate with birds to catch fishes.. Shoal of fish is attacked from one side by dolphins, and from other side they are attacked by birds (or sharks).. Either side of predators win this game, and they both eat.. I think it's more of a case of each using the other to their own ends. When a bait ball forms in the ocean via whatever method a great many animals will join in one the feast from baleen whales to tuna often at the same time but usually one species heards the bait fish into a ball at the surface and other animals take advantage of the opportunity. Two different species of birds actively cooperating to protect a common home range against invaders even of the same species is a bit more than than simply taking advantage of each other... 1 minute ago, Sensei said: "Voluntary cooperation" is not equal "using opportunity".. If you would see animal rescuing other specie animal from death threatening situation (e.g. sinking in swamp), it would be example of true altruistic voluntary cooperation between species.. The example of the OP is voluntary and depends on both species wanting it to happen. 1 minute ago, Sensei said: A dolphin saving a man drowning in the sea is yet another example.. ("no immediate and obvious reward for doing it").. Lots of animals do that but the reasons are not as cut and dried as you seem to be indicating... 1 minute ago, Sensei said: (orthodox religious person would say God ordered Dolphin to save somebody life ) Or ordered an elephant to save a buffalo? 3 minutes ago, CharonY said: Actually no, I specifically picked examples in which the relationship benefits survival, but is not essential. Others, such as symbioses of various animals with protozoans for the digestion of ligning or the dependency of lichens on cyanobacteria are examples of obligate symbioses. You mentioned clown fish and hermit crabs, neither of which are choices from individuals but examples of species developing cooperating systems over time via evolution. Even if you claim that the fish and the crabs are making a choice it's certain the anemones are not... Both of those examples are animals coevolving a relationship with no choice in the matter. 3 minutes ago, CharonY said: So this is a completely different criterion. Here you seem to state that you are considering symbiotic relationship that are only short-lived. However, cleaning symbioses would fall under this group. I disagree, cleaning symbiosis is not a choice for any of the organisms involved, this behavior has evolved over millions of years. Some crab, shrimp, or fish didn't just decide to risk cleaning his own predators to see if they would cooperate. This behavior is quite complex for sure but it is innate, not a choice made by individuals... 9 minutes ago, CharonY said: Actually no, I specifically picked examples in which the relationship benefits survival, but is not essential. So you think clown fish can live in the ocean successfully without their symbionts? You do realise that many fishes show these relationships to some degree during some stage of their lives. Clown fish cannot survive without an anemone but an anemone can live quite well without clown fish.. Same is true for the crabs you mentioned. 9 minutes ago, CharonY said: Others, such as symbioses of various animals with protozoans for the digestion of ligning or the dependency of lichens on cyanobacteria are examples of obligate symbioses. Agreed but the anemone fishes are just as obligate to their hosts. 9 minutes ago, CharonY said: So this is a completely different criterion. Here you seem to state that you are considering symbiotic relationship that are only short-lived. However, cleaning symbioses would fall under this group. No it would not...
CharonY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Moontanman said: You mentioned clown fish and hermit crabs, neither of which are choices from individuals but examples of species developing cooperating systems over time via evolution. Even if you claim that the fish and the crabs are making a choice it's certain the anemones are not... Both of those examples are animals coevolving a relationship with no choice in the matter. Not sure what you mean. Hermit crabs and clownfish can live without their respective partners (certainly the hermit crab and for clownfish at least in captivity). So it is not an physiological necessity. Also, any cooperative behaviour can be framed within the context of evolution. 31 minutes ago, Moontanman said: No it would not... Why not? Animals doing the cleaning are not reliant on clients for survival. Likewise, clients do not need to tolerate the grooming. Again, I think you have a fairly narrow definition of co-evolution in your mind that creates an false dichotomy with your thoughts about "choice". Note that you are also changing goalposts where you started with a vague definition of choice (and note, OP was not talking about that, rather the ability of recognizing individuals, which has not been recognized yet) then you added temporal restrictions and finally mutal dependency. I do think that the reason is for this is poorly defined boundaries of definitions more than anything else. In my definition I make a clear distinction between obligate and facultative symbioses, where in the letter case, depending on situation a relationship may or may not form. In the obligate case, they are necessary for at least one of the partners for survival. Edited May 27, 2018 by CharonY
Scott of the Antares Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 The recent series of Blue Planet had a bit where an octopus and a fish worked together to flush prey out from under cover. The best bit was after success, the pair swam off together to the next rocky outcrop; a true team:) https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5072371/amp/Blue-Planet-fish-octopus-clever-chimps.html
Moontanman Posted May 27, 2018 Author Posted May 27, 2018 7 minutes ago, CharonY said: Not sure what you mean. Hermit crabs and clownfish can live without their respective partners (certainly the hermit crab and for clownfish at least in captivity). So it is not an physiological necessity. Also, any cooperative behaviour can be framed within the context of evolution. No they do not, anemonefish and anemone crabs or anemone hermit crabs cannot persist in the wild without their perspective symbiotes. If I must I can show you links to this but it is old and established science... 7 minutes ago, CharonY said: Why not? Animals doing the cleaning are not reliant on clients for survival. Likewise, clients do not need to tolerate the grooming. Again, I think you have a fairly narrow definition of co-evolution in your mind that creates an false dichotomy with your thoughts about "choice". Note that you are also changing goalposts where you started with a vague definition of choice (and note, OP was not talking about that, rather the ability of recognizing individuals, which has not been recognized yet) then you added temporal restrictions and finally mutal dependency. I do think that the reason is for this is poorly defined boundaries of definitions more than anything else. Yes in fact obligate cleaners cannot persist without their main food source. It has been shown that removing the cleaners from a reef spells, if not doom, then unhealthy large fishes. Now some fish only do this cleaning thing during a small part of their lives and some even use the cleaning station as a ruse to bite chunks off bigger fish. Cleaner shrimp also depend on their hosts for food almost exclusively. The way these traits and actions evolved slowly over time can be shown, it's not a case of a fish choosing to clean a shark at the top point of a reef... 7 minutes ago, CharonY said: In my definition I make a clear distinction between obligate and facultative symbioses, where in the letter case, depending on situation a relationship may or may not form. In the obligate case, they are necessary for at least one of the partners for survival. No you do not, go back and check again... 7 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said: The recent series of Blue Planet had a bit where an octopus and a fish worked together to flush prey out from under cover. The best bit was after success, the pair swam off together to the next rocky outcrop; a true team:) https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5072371/amp/Blue-Planet-fish-octopus-clever-chimps.html Now that is a new one! In captivity I have seen fish of wildly different species form what for lack of a better word a friendship..
CharonY Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 (edited) Ok, I think we are to hung up on a specific examples, and I am indeed unsure about clownfishes in the wild. But the fact that they can survive implies that their relationship is beneficial but not essential. With regard to hermit crabs, it is actually described as a classic facultative symbiosis (specifically, facultative mutualism) in lit (read e.g. Patzner et al 2004 . Ophelia 58:1–11 for a review). Cleaning symbioses can be both. In non-fishes it is (AFAIK) entirely facultative. Note that increase in fitness for both species cannot be seen as something other than what you describe as "choice" in direct opposition to "evolution". After all, the result of cooperation behaviour is the mutual increase in fitness, too. Otherwise why engage in that behaviour? But again, that does not address the situation in the OP. What, do you think does the cooperation outlined in OP make it entirely different from all the other symbiotic behaviours we have observed. Perhaps maybe define where you see the dichotomy? Edited May 27, 2018 by CharonY
Moontanman Posted May 27, 2018 Author Posted May 27, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, CharonY said: Ok, I think we are to hung up on a specific examples, and I am indeed unsure about clownfishes in the wild. But the fact that they can survive implies that their relationship is beneficial but not essential. With regard to hermit crabs, it is actually described as a classic facultative symbiosis (specifically, facultative mutualism) in lit (read e.g. Patzner et al 2004 . Ophelia 58:1–11 for a review). Cleaning symbioses can be both. In non-fishes it is (AFAIK) entirely facultative. Note that increase in fitness for both species cannot be seen as something other than what you describe as "choice" in direct opposition to "evolution". After all, the result of cooperation behaviour is the mutual increase in fitness, too. Otherwise why engage in that behaviour? But again, that does not address the situation in the OP. What, do you think does the cooperation outlined in OP make it entirely different from all the other symbiotic behaviours we have observed. Perhaps maybe define where you see the dichotomy? First of all I am indeed sure of clown fishes, you would have to specify the species of crab for me to be sure what example you are using, there are a great many with varying degrees of dependence on their hosts https://seaunseen.com/porcelain-anemone-crab/ . Cleaner wrasse https://seaunseen.com/cleaner-wrasse/ Cleaner goby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elacatinus Cleaner shrimp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenopus_hispidus is the one i am most familiar with but there are a great many of them, some only feed through cleaning and others do and don't. The Birds in the OP are not my cup of tea and I am relying much on the article but what makes me think this is different is this https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180521143827.htm Quote "But when we realized they were sharing territories with specific individuals and responding aggressively only to unknown individuals, we knew this was really unique. It completely changed our research and we knew we had to investigate it." Quote When these territories overlap, the two species interact with each other. They forage together, travel together, and seem to be aware of what the other species is doing. They also help each other defend their territory from rivals. Variegated fairy-wrens will defend their shared territory from both variegated and splendid outsiders; splendid fairy-wrens will do the same, while fending off unfamiliar birds from both species. "Splendid and variegated fairy-wrens are so similar in their habitat preferences and behavior, we would expect them to act as competitors. Instead, we've found stable, positive relationships between individuals of the two species," said Christina Masco, PhD, a graduate student at UChicago and a co-author on the new paper. I would think that two species that share the same basic niche would compete rather than cooperate... Edited May 27, 2018 by Moontanman
Recommended Posts