text:
Eva Gore-Booth

Eva Selina Laura Gore-Booth (22 May 1870 – 30 June 1926) was an Irish poet, theologian, and dramatist, and a committed suffragist, social worker and labour activist. She was born at Lissadell House, County Sligo, the younger sister of Constance Gore-Booth, later known as the Countess Markievicz.

Family background and early life

Eva Selina Laura Gore-Booth was born in County Sligo, Ireland, to Sir Henry and Lady Georgina Gore-Booth of Lissadell. She was the third of five children born to the 5th Baronet and his wife and the first of her siblings to be born at Lissadell House. She and her siblings, Josslyn Gore-Booth (1869–1944), Constance Georgine Gore-Booth (1868–1927), Mabel Gore-Booth (1874–1955), and Mordaunt Gore-Booth (1878–1958), were the third generation of Gore-Booths at Lissadell. The house was built for her paternal grandfather, Sir Robert Gore-Booth, 4th Baronet, between 1830 and 1835 and three generations of Gore-Booths resided there during Eva's childhood, including her paternal grandfather and her maternal grandmother Lady Frances Hill.

Both Eva and Constance were educated at home and had several governesses throughout their childhood, most notably Miss Noel who recorded most of what is known about Eva's early life. She learned French, German, Latin and Greek and developed a love of poetry that was instilled by her maternal grandmother. Eva was troubled by the stark contrast between her family's privileged life and the poverty outside Lissadell, particularly during the winter of the Irish Famine (1879) when starving tenants would come to the house begging for food and clothing. Esther Roper later remarked that Eva was "haunted by the suffering of the world and had a curious feeling of responsibility for its inequalities and injustices."

Eva's father was a notable Arctic explorer and, during a period of absence from the estate in the 1870s, her mother, Lady Georgina, established a school of needlework for women at Lissadell. The women were trained in crochet, embroidery and darn-thread work and the sale of their wares allowed them to earn a wage of 18 shillings per week. This enterprise had a great influence on Eva and her later women's suffrage and trade union work.

In 1894, Eva joined her father on his travels around North America and the West Indies. She kept diaries and documented their travels in "Jamaica, Barbados, Cuba, Florida, New Orleans, St Louis, San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto, Niagara, Montreal and Quebec." On returning to Ireland she met the poet W. B. Yeats for the first time. The following year she traveled around Europe with her mother, sister Constance, and friend Rachel Mansfield and, while in Venice, fell ill with a respiratory condition. In 1896, while recuperating at the villa of writer George MacDonald and his wife in Bordighera, Italy, she met Esther Roper, the English woman who would become her lifelong companion. Roper was also the secretary of the North of England Society for Women's Suffrage. Believing that she was dying of tuberculosis, Eva Gore-Booth and Roper settled in Manchester to serve working women throughout the remainder of her life.

Eva became a vegetarian in 1900.

Political work
The work of Eva Gore-Booth, alongside that of Esther Roper was responsible for the close link between the struggle for women's rights in industry and the struggle for women's right to vote. As a middle class suffragist representing Manchester, the work of Gore-Booth was mainly recognized in the Lancashire cotton towns from 1899 to 1913. Her struggle began when Eva became a member of the executive committee of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies. Carrying out work at the Ancoats settlement, Eva became co-secretary of the Manchester and Salford Women's Trade Union Council.

1902 saw Eva Gore-Booth campaigning at the Clitheroe by-election on behalf of David Shackleton, a Labour candidate that promised Eva he would show support for the women's enfranchisement. Shackleton was elected yet he did not act upon his promise made to Eva. This led to the founding of the Lancashire and Cheshire Women Textile and Other Worker's Representation Committee by Eva Gore-Booth, Esther Roper and Sarah Reddish. The setting up of this committee led to Eva Gore-Booth meeting Christabel Pankhurst who also felt strongly about women's rights. However, in 1904, Christabel caused some controversy in the Women's Trade Union Council as she attempted to force the council to make women's suffrage one of its aims to which they refused. This led to the resignation of Eva Gore-Booth from the council. Resigning from that particular council, Eva Gore-Booth alongside Sarah Dickenson who had also resigned, set up the Manchester and Salford Women's Trade and Labour Council. As part of this council, Eva and other suffragists used constitutional methods of campaigning. In the general election of 1906, they put forward their own candidate, Thorley Smith yet he was defeated. In May 1906 Eva was present in the suffrage deputation to Campbell Bannerman. Her true feeling of helplessness after the failure of this deputation was captured in two poems, which she wrote. These poems were titled 'Women's Trades on the Embankment' and 'A Lost Opportunity'.

In 1907 Eva Gore-Booth, reluctant to give up hope, contributed an essay "The Women's Suffrage Movement Among Trade Unionists" to The Case for Women's Suffrage. In this essay Eva gave a summary of reasons for the methods of the LCWTOW campaign to gain a vote for working women. In 1908 Eva was a delegate to the Labour Party Conference at Hull where she proposed a motion in favour of women's suffrage. This motion was defeated in favour of one for adult suffrage. The end of 1909 saw Eva Gore-Booth help to run the radical suffragist general election campaign at Rossendale where once again a candidate was put forward but was defeated. In 1910, Eva showed her support for the New Constitutional Society For Women's Suffrage and in 1911 with Esther Roper, she attended a meeting in London of the Fabian Women's Group. On 17 November of the same year Eva was a member of the deputation representing the working women of the north of England. This deputation called upon Lloyd George not to drop the Conciliation Bill. 1911 was also the year that Eva put herself in the shoes of the working women when she worked for a short time as a pit-brow lass to sample the working conditions for herself. However, as war broke out, Eva and Esther took up welfare work among German women and children in England. In December 1913, Eva signed the "Open Christmas Letter" to women of Germany and Austria. 1915 then saw Eva Gore-Booth become a member of the Women's Peace Crusade and in 1916 the No-Conscription Fellowship.

Eva Gore-Booth continued to work for peace, writing poetry and for a privately circulated journal, Urania, for the rest of her life.

Poetry
When Eva was embarking on her writing career she was visited by W. B. Yeats who was very much taken with her work. In his own letters he states that he sent her a book to inspire her. Yeats was hoping that she would take up his cause of writing Irish tales to enchant and amuse. Instead Eva takes Irish folklore and put emphasis on the females in the story. Her widely discussed sexuality in later years is never declared but her poetry reflects it quite overtly. In her Triumph of Maeve she makes a minor scene between Maeve and a wise woman almost erotic. While in her legend of Deirdre she subverts the masculine nationalist identity of Ireland's heroic tales. In her early work she uses the same poetic devices that her male counterparts do such as writing a love poem to the goddess of Nature. In these she does not take a male voice though. She is writing love verse from one woman to another. Eva Gore-Booth was also one of a group of editors of the magazine Urania that published issues three times a year from 1916 to 1940. It was a feminist magazine that reprinted stories and poems from all over the world with editorial comment. A lot of prominent New Woman authors including Mona Caird were involved with the project. Each issue declared that sex was an accident and there were no intrinsic characteristics of the female or the male. Many New Woman issues were discussed such as gender equality, suffrage and marriage but Eva Gore-Booth went further than that to write poetry about women loving women. Even the title of the magazine Urania can refer to heavenly or Uranian another term for homosexual. Eva and Esther allowed their names to be used in connection with the periodical and Eva was considered to be an inspiration for Urania.

Later life and death
Meeting political activist Esther Roper in Italy in 1896, where Eva was sent to recover from respiratory ailments, was a deciding factor in Eva's active involvement in women's rights of the suffrage movement. The two women formed a strong attachment during the weeks spent together at the villa of writer George MacDonald and his wife in Bordighera which led to a partnership, privately and professionally, until Eva's death in June 1926. How intimate her relations were with Roper is controversially discussed; however, letters and poems Eva dedicated to Esther suggest a romantic love between the two women. One of those poems appears in a collection of Eva's poetic work "The Travellers, To E.G.R" which was published by Roper in 1929 in which Eva uses analogies of music and song to express how deeply she was struck by Esther's personality and charisma.

After years of playing a lead role in the Women's Suffrage Movement and fighting for equality of women's rights in the UK as well as staying true to her literary roots, Eva and Esther relocated to London from Manchester in 1913 due to Eva's deteriorating respiratory health. During World War I, Eva and Esther were actively involved in the British Peace Movement along with fellow suffragists, such as Sylvia Pankhurst and Emily Hobhouse. At the Women's International Congress which took place at the city of Hague in 1915, she jointly composed an open Christmas letter entitled "To the Women of Germany & Austria" urging to "... join hands with the women of neutral countries, and urge our rulers to stay further bloodshed ..." and appealing to a sense of sisterhood to prevent further atrocities and the war from escalating.

Just weeks after the 1916 Rising, Eva traveled to Dublin accompanied by Esther and was pivotal in the efforts to reprieve the death sentence of her sister Constance Markievicz awarded for her instrumental role in the 1916 Rising, which was successfully converted to a life sentence. Her poetry composed during this period reflects the personal trauma and horror she was exposed to visiting her sister in solitary confinement. She further campaigned to abolish the death sentence overall and to reform prison standards and attended the trial of Irish nationalist and fellow poet Roger Casement thus showing solidarity and support for the overturning of his death sentence.

During the remaining years of her life, which was claimed by cancer on 30 June 1926, she remained devoted to her poetry, dedicated time to her artistic talents as a painter, studied the Greek language and was known as an anti-vivisectionist and supporter of animal welfare. She also became a Theosophist and animal rights activist. Eva died in her home in Hampstead, London she shared with Esther until her death. She was buried alongside Esther Roper in St John's churchyard, Hampstead.

Sexuality
Eva Gore-Booth's sexuality has been a topic for debate among academics, and it is increasingly considered that she and Esther Roper were in a same-sex relationship, while some believe that the two women merely cohabited.

After being told that she was close to death in 1896 Eva took a trip to the home of George MacDonald in Bordighera, Italy, to recuperate. It was there where she met Esther Roper who was also recovering from illness. They formed a strong mutual bond and were partners in life and work from then on. After the time they spent there together Eva further rejected her privileged rural life in Ireland and moved into the urban Manchester environment. There she purchased property with Esther, who became her partner in her sexual politics activism and suffrage work. Although Eva and Esther lived together till Eva's death they slept in different rooms and there is no way of proving or disproving a sexual relationship or any sort of sexual encounters between them. However, it was also commonplace in this era for married couples (particularly among the upper class) to have separate bedrooms so this detail is superfluous. After knowing each other for four years Eva made Esther the sole beneficiary of her estate.

Both Eva and Esther worked with a team of professionals to establish and edit Urania, a sexual politics journal that was circulated between 1916 and 1940. The formation was due to the editors being connected through a feminist revolutionary group known as the Aëthnic Union which was formed in 1911. Urania was a radical journal that contributed to the discussion on sexual politics of the Suffrage era. It was established to document and enhance the progress of the first wave feminist movement. Its aim was to promote the elimination of the glorification of heterosexual marriage and sex and gender distinctions altogether. It also became a point of reference for those worldwide who shared the editors' radical, Uranian Philosophy. 'Sex is an Accident' a term coined by Eva regarding biological gender distinction was used to sum up the Uranian philosophy.

The journal for most of its publication was privately circulated worldwide but was sent free to anyone who requested it to establish a network and register of supporters. Eva was seen as the figure head and founder of this journal as it tied into her theosophical feminist beliefs. Urania was ranged from eight to sixteen pages of compositions, magazines clippings, extracts and reports about sex changes and scientific methods, lesbian women in history as well as challenging and overcoming society's gender norms.

Urania monitored birth and marriage rates worldwide and celebrated when the rates fell. It also promoted the idea of same-sex love being the ideal particularly between females and it being spiritual in nature rather than physical. Throughout all this discussion Eva was noted in Urania as an inspiration and her words and her poetry was quoted in it long after her death.

Eva is buried alongside Esther in Hampstead in England and her tombstone reads "Life that is Love is God".

Despite the debate on her sexuality Eva Gore-Booth has been honoured for her work by the LGBT community including an award in her honour at the Dublin Gay Theatre Festival. Eva has also been acknowledged by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as LGBT and Worker's Rights role model. Along with Cumann na mBan revolutionary lesbians Kathleen Lynn and Madeleine ffrench-Mullen, Margaret Skinnider and Nora O'Keeffe, and Elizabeth O'Farrell and Julia Grenan,   Gore-Booth was featured in a 2023 TG4 documentary about "the radical queer women at the very heart of the Irish Revolution": Croíthe Radacacha (Radical Hearts).

Posthumous recognition
Her name and picture (and those of 58 other women's suffrage supporters) are on the plinth of the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, London, unveiled in 2018.

Selected publications

 * Poems (1898)
 * Unseen Kings (1904)
 * The One and the Many (1904)
 * The Three Resurrections and The Triumph of Maeve (1905)
 * The Egyptian Pillar (1907)
 * The Sorrowful Princess (1907)
 * The Agate Lamp (1912)
 * Whence Come Wars? (1914)
 * Religious Aspects of Non-Resistance (1915)
 * The Perilous Light (1915)
 * The Death of Fionavar from The Triumph of Maeve (1916)
 * Rhythms of Art (1917)
 * The Tribunal (1917)
 * Broken Glory (1918)
 * The Sword of Justice: A Play (1918)
 * A Psychological and Poetic Approach to the Study of Christ in the Fourth Gospel (1923)
 * The Shepherd of Eternity and other Poems (1925)
 * The House of Three Windows (1926)
 * The Inner Kingdom (1926)
 * The World's Pilgrim (1927)
 * The Buried Life of Deirdre (1930)

title: Eva Gore-Booth


text:
Killisnoo Island

Killisnoo Island is a small island in the Alexander Archipelago in southeastern Alaska, at 57.46972°N, -134.59056°W. It is located just off the central west coast of Admiralty Island, south of the city of Angoon. Killisnoo Island, an unincorporated area, is a settlement on the island.

History
In 1878, the North West Trading Company established a trading post and whaling station on nearby Killisnoo Island and villagers were employed to hunt whales. Whaling, a BIA school and a Russian Orthodox Church attracted many Tlingits to Killisnoo.

In 1882, The first commercial herring fishery begins at Killisnoo; near Angoon and the first two canneries are built in Central Alaska.

In 1886, Alaska Northwest Trading Company was built within the Tlingit Village on Killisnoo Island. The site again was chosen due to the prosperous fishery and the calm inside passage of Chatham Strait.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Killisnoo Island


text:
Bremgarten District

Bremgarten District is a Swiss district in the Canton of Aargau, corresponding to the valleys of the Reuss and Bünz rivers in the area known as the Freiamt.

Geography
Bremgarten District has an area,, of 117.47 km2. Of this area, 48.7% is used for agricultural purposes, while 30.9% is forested. The rest of the land, (18.1%) is settled.

Demographics
Bremgarten District has a population of (as of ).

, there were 2,402 homes with 1 or 2 persons in the household, 11,781 homes with 3 or 4 persons in the household, and 9,773 homes with 5 or more persons in the household. The average number of people per household was 2.43 individuals. there were 10,969 single family homes (or 37.2% of the total) out of a total of 29,488 homes and apartments. There were a total of 479 empty apartments for a 1.6% vacancy rate.

Of the school age population, there are 5,276 students attending primary school, there are 1,992 students attending secondary school, there are 1,349 students attending tertiary or university level schooling, and there are 30 students who are seeking a job after school in the municipality.

Economy
there were 33,414 residents who worked in the district, while 25,027 residents worked outside the Bremgarten district and 11,621 people commuted into the district for work.

Religion
From the, 32,805 or 53.2% were Roman Catholic, while 16,065 or 26.1% belonged to the Swiss Reformed Church. Of the rest of the population, there were 70 individuals (or about 0.11% of the population) who belonged to the Christian Catholic faith.

Mergers
The following changes to the district's municipalities have occurred since 2000:

 * Hilfikon became part of Villmergen in 2010 (the area figure above includes Hilfikon).
 * On 1 January 2014 the former municipality of Hermetschwil-Staffeln merged into the municipality of Bremgarten (AG).

title: Bremgarten District


text:
Piasecki Helicopter

Piasecki Helicopter Corporation designed and manufactured helicopters in Philadelphia and nearby Morton, Pennsylvania, in the late 1940s and the 1950s. Its founder, Frank Piasecki, was ousted in 1956 and started a new company, Piasecki Aircraft. Piasecki Helicopter was renamed Vertol Corporation in early 1956. Vertol was acquired by Boeing in 1960 and renamed Boeing Vertol.

History
The Piasecki Helicopter Corporation was founded in 1940 by Frank Piasecki and fellow aeronautics student Harold Venzie as the P-V Engineering Forum (shortened from Piasecki-Venzie); the other partners were F.J. Kosloski, Donald N. Meyers, Elliott Daland, and Walter Swartz. The first design from P-V Engineering was the PV-1, a rotorless-tail design that used a tapering tail cone and pressurized air to suppress main rotor torque. Venzie left the firm in 1943.

The PV-2 (NX-37061) was a more conventional design and became the third helicopter flown in the United States (following Igor Sikorsky's VS-300 and Sikorsky R-4). It was designed and flown by Frank Piasecki on April 11, 1943. Piasecki had limited pilot experience; the PV-2 was tethered to the ground as a safety measure, but the clothesline he used broke. He towed the helicopter behind his car in October 1943 to Washington, DC to demonstrate it to federal government officials; because the wheels had no bearings, he had to stop every 10 to 15 minutes to cool them. When asked to show his pilot's license following the demonstration in Washington, Piasecki admitted he did not have one and he was issued the first helicopter pilot's license on October 20, 1943, by the Civil Aviation Administration.

Tandem rotor designs
With the successful demonstration of the PV-2, Piasecki convinced the United States Navy to fund the development of a follow-on prototype, signing a contract on January 1, 1944; this marked the start of the design and sale of a series of tandem rotor helicopters to the Navy. The resulting PV-3 became the world's first successful tandem rotor design. The PV-3 first flew on March 7, 1945 and bore the Navy designation XHRP-X; it was larger and capable of lifting more than the contemporary Sikorsky designs.

Because P-V Engineering lacked the capital to fund production, the company was reorganized and renamed to the Piasecki Helicopter Corporation in 1946, with Laurance Rockefeller and A. Felix du Pont Jr. taking a controlling interest of 51% in exchange for $500,000. After constructing two more prototypes (designated XHRP-1), the PV-3 would go into production as the HRP-1 in 1947. The HRP-1 was commonly nicknamed the "flying banana" because of the upward angle of the aft fuselage which ensured the large rotors did not hit each other in flight. The nickname would later be applied to other Piasecki tandem-rotor helicopters of similar design.

An evolutionary follow-on design to the HRP-1, designated HRP-2, used an all-metal skin and switched crew seating to side-by-side instead of tandem; however, the limited power meant only five were built, all for the Coast Guard. In 1949, Piasecki provided the H-21 Workhorse to the United States Air Force, an improved version of the HRP-2 with a more powerful Wright R-1820 Cyclone radial engine. Piasecki's tandem-rotor helicopters flew higher than competing single rotor designs, and offered a smoother ride.

At approximately the same time the HRP-1 and HRP-2 were being developed, the Navy commissioned Piasecki to design a smaller tandem-rotor utility helicopter; the resulting prototype, which Piasecki called the PV-14, was designated XHJP-1. These went into production as the HUP-1 (PV-18), with the first variants delivered to both the Navy and the United States Army (as the H-25) in 1949; in total, 339 were delivered to the militaries of the United States, Canada, and France by 1954. The HUP was designed with overlapping main rotor blades, which reduced the size so they could be carried on aircraft carrier elevators.

Piasecki is forced out
Don R. Berlin was brought in as president and director of Piasecki Helicopters in 1953, while Frank Piasecki was chairman of the board. Under Piasecki, the company began the PV-15 large transport tandem helicopter project (designated H-16). The prototype PV-15 was first flown in 1953, but a fatal crash in January 1956 led to the cancellation of the project.

The majority owners eventually lost faith in Frank Piasecki's leadership and by May 1956 he was forced out of the company. He had formed a new company, Piasecki Aircraft Corporation to pursue the development of compound helicopters and other rotorcraft. In two successive special stockholders' meetings the board then changed the name of Piasecki Helicopter to Vertol (for vertical take-off and landing) Aircraft Corporation and amended the bylaws to bar Piasecki's re-election as a director, on the grounds that he was running a rival company.

Acquisition by Boeing
In 1956, Vertol began developing a successor to the HUP with improved lift capacity by using turboshaft engines. The project was designated Vertol Model 107 (V-107), and a prototype first flew on April 22, 1958. Impressed, the Army awarded a contract for ten production aircraft (then designated YHC-1A) in June and later asked Vertol in March 1959 to produce a larger version, which was designated V-114. With the pressure to produce two relatively new designs, Vertol again ran into financial pressure and was acquired by Boeing on March 30, 1960, who renamed it Boeing Vertol. It became the Boeing Helicopter Division in 1987.

title: Piasecki Helicopter


text:
CEFOR

The Central Union of Marine Underwriters (CEFOR) was founded August 15, 1911 by Norwegian and foreign insurance companies and is the marine insurance market organization of Norway.

The members of CEFOR engage in hull and machinery insurance (blue water and coastal), protection and indemnity insurance, cargo insurance, legal defense, and war risks.

title: CEFOR


text:
Trucks (band)

Trucks were a short-lived British/Norwegian pop punk band, whose most popular release was the 2002 novelty single, "It's Just Porn Mum". The single was a top-five hit in Norway, and peaked at No. 35 on the UK Singles Chart. Its music video starred Ron Jeremy.

Members

 * Olav Iversen – vocals, guitar
 * Mark Remmington – guitar
 * Tor Bjarne Bjelland – drums
 * Steve Ryan – bass

Albums

 * Juice – released 26 May 2003
 * 1) "Kickin'" (Shridhar Solanki, HP Aaserud, Geir Luedy, Trucks)
 * 2) "The Village Bike" (Shridhar Solanki, HP Aaserud, Geir Luedy, Trucks)
 * 3) "Monkey See, Monkey Do" (Shridhar Solanki, Sidh Solanki, Trucks)
 * 4) "Easy" (HP Aaserud, Geir Luedy, Trucks)
 * 5) "Lovin' the Laughter" (Shridhar Solanki, HP Aaserud, Geir Luedy, Trucks)
 * 6) "Fuzz About It" (HP Aaserud, Geir Luedy, Trucks)
 * 7) "Sad Song" (Shridhar Solanki, HP Aaserud)
 * 8) "Psychos" (Shridhar Solanki, HP Aaserud, Trucks)
 * 9) "It's Just Porn Mum" "(Shridhar Solanki, HP Aaserud)
 * 10) "The Chasers" (Shridhar Solanki, HP Aaserud, Geir Luedy, Trucks)
 * 11) "I'm Okay" (Shridhar Solanki, HP Aaserud,Trucks)
 * 12) "Coming Over" (HP Aaserud, Geir Luedy, Trucks)

Many promo versions of the album were released, including songs not to be featured on the main album itself, such as a cover version of The Tom Robinson Band's hit, "2-4-6-8 Motorway".

title: Trucks (band)


text:
Talk:Mutualism (biology)

merge with biological interaction ?
Can this be merged into Biological interaction? Use Talk:Biological interaction to discuss. Jmeppley 19:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps merge with Symbiosis? --203.26.206.129 09:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree, see Talk:Commensalism Jmeppley 16:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Definitely worthy of its own article. Mutualism and symbiosis overlap but neither is a form of the other. Richard001 07:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rm of paragraph
It sucks last paragraph from the article that read "also, those trees with the ants that protect it.". It is clearly half a sentence and poorly worded. However if anyone does know what "those trees with the ants that protect them" are then it does imho deserve a mention in the article. Thryduulf 15:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Genes transfer
This article is very interesing, and could be a perfect example of what Wikipedia is able to achieve. I say this from a philosophical pov, having stumbled here and immediately linked it with Gilles Deleuze's notion of rhizomes: Deleuze often talked about the mutualism between the wasp & the orchid, especially in A Thousand Plateaus. I could look up references for that to deepen the article's span; but what would really be interesting is a more thorough biological introduction to it. I may be wrong, but I kind of remember from all those discussions about this concept, really interesting since it involves cross-species phenomenons, that, in particular cases, genes could also be transfered through this process. This would thus a bit cross it (this being an extrapolation...) with Genetically modified organism (i'm not refering to cross-breeding which has nothing to do with mutualism). Anyone out there? Lapaz 01:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I found this on horizontal gene transfer: "There is also recent evidence that the adzuki bean beetle has somehow acquired genetic material from its (non-beneficial) endosymbiont Wolbachia."

 * "Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes."

Shouldn't it be included here? Lapaz 15:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Peter Kropotkin
would making refrences to peter kropotkins book mutual aid: a factor in evolution be appropriate? Im thinking of making it a subsection or atleast paying tribute to it as one of the first scientific addings of the concept mutual aid to darwinian evolution.
 * I strongly concur. His work might seem a tad dated now, but he was very likely the pioneer of this branch of ecology/biology.  --Smilo Don 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to agree. It was a really popular work in the early part of the 20th century. Perhaps because noone could think of a model which would explain the evolution of interspecific cooperation in contexts like the prisoner's dilemma, people went on seeing competitive models like the survival of the fittest as the default for nature despite the abundant evidence to the contrary. But all of this is original research unless we find some work that talks about it.Brinerustle (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why this still haven't been added? Mutual Aid really is one of the first books on this subject. --Rastapunk (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 * It seems not; feel free to add something, citing suitable secondary sources (i.e. not just Kropotkin, but what biologists wrote about his mutual aid ideas). Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

ToDo - References
Someone with a modicum of knowlege of the subject matter needs to embed some of the references, per MoS. - Tiswas (t/c)

Category
We seem to have a problem with cats - there is no Category:Mutualism, but some non-symbiotic interactions are being added there. For example pollination is generally not symbiotic. I don't think mutualism itself should be in the symbiosis category anymore than symbiosis should be in the mutualism category, though it might help as a navigation aid. Richard001 05:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Plants & Animals
There should be a section about the mutual symbiotic relationship between plants and animals (including human beings). Plants use the solids, liquids and gases (CO2) we excrete and we use the oxygen and food provided by plants. We need to grow more plants to feed an ever growing population, and to clean up our wastes...Friendlyinnovators (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

 * To grow more plants for food would basically require cutting down more forests, which would kind of go against the 'cleaning up our wastes' thing. We might also consider why populations are so high in the first place, i.e. availability of food. Richard001 (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Hydroponics enables the growth of plants using much less space and much less water than conventional methods. Oceans cover over 70% of the earth's surface and could be used to grow algae, which can be converted to biofuel and food.  Reducing population is not a solution.  I'm not willing to offer, are you?  We need to use creativity to solve problems.Friendlyinnovators (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

 * There is no long term solution that doesn't involve stopping population growth. Your ideas are unrealistic and don't address the source of the problem. But this has gotten completely off topic, so let's take it elsewhere if you wish to continue. Richard001 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Definitions
If "Mutualism is a biological interaction between individuals of two different species, where both individuals derive a fitness benefit", and "symbiotic" is a sub-classification within "mutualism", how can "parasitic" be a sub-classification within symbiosis, as written on the Wikipedia "Symbiosis" page? Commensalism is also listed as a type of symbiosis on the "Symbiosis" page, being defined as "a kind of relationship between two organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped". If these other definitions are correct, then the definition of "mutualism" must be incorrect.

Are there, in fact, no universally accepted definitions? Is this a matter of different schools of biology having their own definitions? Can a coherent set of working definitions not be formulated?

[This note has been added to both the "Mutualism" and "Symbiosis" Talk pages.] Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: "Symbiosis" as originally defined in the 19th Century by Anton de Bary refers to any close association by two or more species, regardless of the outcome of the association for those species. Therefore symbiosis can be mutualistic (for example lichens, anemonefish-anemone interactions, fig pollination, etc.), commensalistic, parasitic (most parasitic relationships are symbiotic in the sense that the parasite can only exist in or on the host)or wholly neutral. However, in the 20th century, "symbiosis" came to be used exclusively for what should really be termed "mutualistic symbiosis". Biologists are now divided on the issue; some (myself included) believe that we should refer to symbiotic relationships using the original definition (symbiosis simply refers to "living with" and says nothing about the outcome of that living together). Other biologists happily go along with the change in definition. I think they're wrong, but hey ho, there's no pleasing everyone all of the time! In that sense, therefore, there's not a "universally accepted definition". Hope that's clarified the issue? Speakingofcities (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mutualism in humans
Maybe we should change "without which we would not be able to digest food efficiently" to "without which we are not be able to digest food efficiently". As this does happen frequently : it's a side effect of several antibiotics therapies DrYak (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

An example
Killer whales of Eden, Australia should be added somewhere. --92.1.175.38 (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Move article

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Mutualism → Mutualism (biology) — REason: Hatnote: "This article is about the biological..." Mutualism should be made a Disambiguation page. Discussion began at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_26. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I see no evidence other than page hits under the current setup that the biological theory is the primary topic, and those figures are measuring the effect of the current setup. Creating a disambiguation page will allow all the links to point to the correct article, and will avoid the current breach WP:NPOV (by favouring a scientific theory over a socio-economic theory). Closing admin please note the who have expressed support for this move at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 26. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mutualism is the primary topic by a factor of better than 6:1, based on pageviews. Dab pages are not needed or recommended when there are only two articles. The hatnote is performimg its function, directing the minority to the secondary use of the term. Station1 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename. It's unsurprising that the article currently labelled as primary topic get more page views than one that isn't, partly because readers typing in "mutualism" land here and partly because when one article is given primary slot, internal links tend not to be properly disambiguated (because they don't show up in the lists maintained by WP:DPWL, and even if they are spotted, they cannot be fixed by popups).
 * Rename. The current setup is confusing for readers. There are at least three mutualisms: biological mutualism, economic mutualism and organizational mutualism. Each are interrelated but distinct, a relationship best established with a disambig. - N1h1l (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether to rename or not. You all raised good points! I created this disambiguation page. Is it ok? Please revise it, if necessary. thanks! Difu Wu (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename. Even as a Bio teacher, I can see this as being a equally valid (i.e. no real primary article/topic). Moogwrench (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleaning inter-language links?
Currently there is a mixture of links to articles to other languages about Mutualism and Mutualism (biology). Since Mutualism exists, wouldn't make sense to delete here all the links to generic Mutualism pages, keeping only those referring to Mutualism (biology)? --Qgil (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong picture? Red0Billed Oxpecker
"The Red-billed Oxpecker feed on ticks off the impala's coat" is in the mutualism article, yet the article on the Oxpecker suggests it is really commensalism or even parasitism, since the Oxpecker also pecks open wounds since it likes eating blood in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.24.24 (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mycorrhiza image
Does that really belong here? For one thing, it's got captions in Czech. In the image description, the image's contributor says he "can provide you with my image without the words", so maybe someone should contact him and take him up on that? Or maybe the image would better be removed from the article entirely -- even without the captions, or with English captions, it's apparently hand-drawn with markers, and, at the risk of offending the contributor, may not really be up to encyclopedic standards. (Aside from which, the description of the image implies he may have copied it from a picture in a textbook, which means, depending on how closely he copied it, it may have copyvio issues as well...) Smeazel (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is not an appropriate image here --Epipelagic (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mutualism/symbiosis relationship statement not correct
The statement "Mutualism and symbiosis are sometimes used as if they are synonymous, but this is strictly incorrect: symbiosis is a broad category, defined to include relationships which are mutualistic, parasitic or commensal. Mutualism is only one type."

It seems to me that mutualism is a symbiosis. So calling mutualism a symbiosis is fine. It is just a 'type of'. I think this needs to be reworded as the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism also makes the statement that it is wrong to call mutualism a symbiosis. That needs to be reworded too. User:benjaminDHolland

File:Impala mutualim with birds wide.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Impala mutualim with birds wide.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 9, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-11-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New Edit
Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I added a hyperlink for Amphiprion ocellaris into your article. I am a part of a Behavioral Ecology Class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Washington_University_in_St._Louis/Behavioral_Ecology_%28Fall_2013%29) Washington University and our assignment was to create hyperlinks from our articles to other articles as examples. Best of luck with your article!! Gseehra123 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question re: Special:MobileDiff/877442231

 * I suppose each species would experience some reduction of fitness as you describe, but wouldn't one of the species experience a net increase in fitness? E.g. a tapeworm might have some injury inflicted by its unwilling host, but without that relationship, have no means of survival. Or am I misunderstanding something? (I'm not a subject-area expert, just reading the article as a layperson.) It would be nice to have the article be extra clear about what it means, anyway, I think, since this wording seems counterintuitive to me. Thanks! :) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮｜John 15:12｜🍂 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. The competition in and of itself inflicts a cost on both parties (whatever they invest in fighting, basically). There is in addition sometimes a reward for the winner, but often the result is just back to where things were before, so no gain on either side. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * : Having looked over this again, it makes a lot more sense to me. Not least because the tapeworm in my example above is, I now suspect, only an example of parasitism, and not also of interspecies competition. (I'm not sure why I was trying to lump them together before, as the article seems pretty clear now and this makes a lot more sense.) Sorry for the trouble. Thank you for fixing my mistake, and thank you again for your patient and elucidating reply above! :D —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮｜John 15:12｜🍂 14:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mutualism is thought to be the most common type of ecological interaction, and it is often dominant in most communities worldwide ???
Quote from lead:
 * "Mutualism is thought to be the most common type of ecological interaction, and it is often dominant in most communities worldwide."

I am absolutely no expert and have consulted no sources, but I find this statement hard to accept (though it may all depend on how "ecological interaction" is defined), and it does not seem to be directly sourced.

There must be innumerable examples of: To undermine my own point slightly, if species A feeds on B which feeds on C, relations A-B and B-C may follow pattern 2., but the relation A-C may be (indirectly) mutualistic as, perhaps a little naively, more C's => more B's => more A's, and more A's => fewer B's => more C's.
 * 1) species A is dependent on species B, but species A has virtually no effect on species B (e.g. an small organism living in the shade of a tree, but with little impact on the ecosystem the tree "sees")
 * 2) species A is dependent on species B, but species A is harmful to species B (e.g. a predator-prey relationship, or the small organism living in the shade of the tree happens to, on the balance, have more negative than positive impact)
 * 3) as 1. or 2., but species A merely derives advantage from B without being wholly dependent

It may be a lot more interesting to study relationships that are wholly or partially mutualistic, because relationships that are not mutualistic may be rather trivial, but do the mutualistic ones really outnumber the trivially non-mutualistic ones?--Nø (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so now I've shortened it down to
 * "Mutualism is a common type of ecological interaction."
 * --Nø (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

consacration What word was intended?
The final paragraph of the first section contains “ consacration”. What word was intended, do you think? Wprlh (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed! The text is unintelligible, so I have removed it for now - i.e., the following source text has been cut-and-pasted from the end of the lead:
 * Despite the importance of mutualism in both evolution and ecology, some authors have argued that mutualism has been less studied than other interspecific interactions such as predation or parasitism, with the main argument being a smaller consecration of ecology and biology textbooks towards mutualism. Other authors have argued that this is not the case when considering the primary research literature.
 * I think it would be nice to put it back, but it has to be made intelligible first!--Nø (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Consistency of notation
To avoid the risk of confusing the reader, we should use consistent notation throughout the article, e.g. either M and N, or N1 and N2, but not a mixture.--- Ehrenkater (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Unclear and contradictory categorization of types of mutualism
I think the distinction between "service" and "resource" interactions should be exchanged for an explanation of various major types of mutualism, such as cleaning symbiosis, zoochory, etc, because sometimes, it is unclear whether something counts as a "service" or a "resource." For example, if a plant provides nesting sites for a species of ants that in return cultivate and defend the plant, is this a "service" or a "resource"? Also, multiple of the examples offered are not strictly a single type, but include different aspects. PerytonMango (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mutualism (biology)