On 15 Feb 1995, Steve G. Kayes wrote:
> Anyway, I believe that any movement of energy as it pertains to
> the three laws of thermodynamics that is influenced in one organism by
> another (read that diverted from one to another) is a parasite. The
> question raised by Mr. Faulkner about commensalism and its practioners is
> only a matter of degree. We say that the equation in this case is that
> commensals do not have a net negative effect on the energy economy of the
> host (the example of organisms in the termite intestine). What we really
> mean is that the typical host parasite system is not deleterious but this
> begs the question because the host still expends its energy carrying
> around the commensal population. Even if the host derives the use of
> cellulose breakdown products the host expended its ATP currency to do so.
I personally feel that a nutritional dependence on a host is an important
character for defining a parasite. Including the energy loss caused by
phoresis creates more confusion...for example, is the spanish moss
parasitic on the plants it uses or is it merely a competitor? Are
angiosperms parasites of their pollenators? At a quantam level everything
affects everything else and there are no definitions, but I believe that
our definitions should be based on a level that has measurable biological
significance...in other words they should be limited by what we can test
and observe. - Derek A. Zelmer
