Talk:Organism

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Organism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Saw lichens mentioned in the text and couldn't resist taking this one! Comments in a few days. Esculenta (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here's my initial set of comments. The article is different than the usual taxon article I'm used to reviewing, so I'm still coming to grips with what I think "should" be in an article like this. Still not entirely sure, but this should at least get the discussion started. Esculenta (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a concept article doesn't have an automatic structure like a taxon... the first essential is to undo what people think they "know", and then to outline the main proposals (including the view that the whole thing makes no sense). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Esculenta ? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• will check later
• I'm not convinced that the Greek etymology of the word is so vital that it needs to appear in the lead sentence, before defining what the word means (plus, the double parenthesis is slightly awkward). What does ismós mean? (not given in etymology)
  • Removed.

• link individual, colonial organism
  • Linked.

• should decide an English variety (e.g., organised/organized & others)
  • BE is mandated.

• gloss uncommon term siphonophore
  • Added, at the price of raising the sentence's klunkiness rating.

• it occurred to me that "organismality" is never defined in the article, so perhaps a gloss in the lead wold be appropriate? ("the qualities or attributes that define an entity as an organism")
  • Let's give it a go.

Etymology

• should use language templates for Greek text
  • Done.

• "…first appeared in the English language in 1703 and took on its current definition by 1834 (Oxford English Dictionary)." This pseudo-citation should be converted to a real one. So if the word was first used in English in 1703, how were organisms referred to before that?
  • Redone, cited.

• do we know the 1703 and 1834 publications (and their authors) that seem to be seminal in the modern etymology of the word? It would be interesting to see the context of their first uses, if that info is readily available.
  • Removed.

• "It is directly related to the term "organization". source?
  • Cited.

• The connection between "organism" and "organization" could be elaborated to explain how the concepts are interrelated, especially considering their etymological roots. For example, it might be useful to discuss how both terms imply a structured or ordered system.
  • Possibly, but I doubt that would be useful here; if it happens to correspond to Shannon or whoever, that's basically a coincidence given the distance in time between the meanings.

• "There is a long tradition of defining organisms as self-organizing beings, going back at least to Immanuel Kant's 1790 Critique of Judgment." This is vaguely cited to Kant 1790, but we'll need a secondary source.
  • Redone: quoted and cited.

• The section states the term took on its "current definition by 1834." It might be helpful to specify what this "current definition" entails (is it "any living thing that functions as an individual" as per the lead sentence? Probably should be repeated here), or how it compares to earlier uses.
  • Removed.

Whether criteria exist, or are needed

• the heading seems clunky to me, have you considered alternatives? ("Defining criteria for organisms"?)
  • It's a bit more than that, as it reflects the text by casting doubt on the matter.

• who is Jack Wilson and why do we care that he specifically stated an obvious fact?
  • He's properly introduced as a philosopher, and yes, those guys always start by asking pre-school questions and sure enough, they're hard to answer. Why are birds? Why is anything?

• Erwin Schrödinger is linked and given first name, unlike poor Shannon.
  • OK OK. Information theory was of course already linked.

• link mutualistic, anglerfish, superorganism (earlier)
  • Done.

• I'm confused as to how the image with the caption "One proposed criterion is that an organism cannot be divided without losing functionality.[5] This cutting of a basil plant, a small piece of stem, is however developing new adventitious roots, becoming a new plant." is relevant. It seems that the caption and the image are meant to challenge the "can't divide" criterion by showing that some organisms, like plants, can indeed be divided and still retain the capability to grow into a new, fully functional organism. However, the caption does not make it clear that the basil cutting, while temporarily non-functional as a complete plant, does not permanently lose its organismal functionality—it enters a transitional phase. Maybe a tweak to the caption to make the point more clearly? E.g. "One criterion proposes that an organism cannot be divided without losing functionality. This image of a basil plant cutting, which is developing new adventitious roots to become a new plant, illustrates that some organisms can indeed regenerate lost parts and maintain functionality, challenging traditional notions of organismal integrity."
  • OK let's try that.

Organisms at differing levels of biological organisation

• the two-species concept of lichens is a bit outdated, and reference should be made to the more modern concept of "miniature ecosystem". There's more modern definitions available here doi:10.1007/s13225-021-00477-7 or doi:10.1111/nph.16630.
  • Added.

• link David Queller, Joan Strassmann, nectophore, palpon, gastrozooid
  • Done.

• not GA related, but it seems that "organismality" should redirect to this article
  • Yes. Extra-GA addition performed. Beep.

• "He comments that whereas in 1983, Claudiu Bandea claimed that a virus "shows the major physiological properties of other organisms: metabolism, growth, and reproduction." incomplete sentence
  • Read on, it finishes tidily.

• "Therefore, life is an effective presence"", not sure is this was intended as a quote, but there's an extra or missing quotemark.
  • There's a quote at the start and at the end?
    • Sorry, the sentence break in the quote seems to have thrown my text parser off. Esculenta (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• I think the section might benefit from some examples of about how multicellular organisms' cells are often specialized for different functions, with examples to illustrate these roles.
  • Not sure how that would help; organisms don't have to be multicellular so at best it would be illustrative of one branch of the concept, at worst seriously misleading. We already have a list of organisms at differing levels, of which multicell is one, and I don't feel that we need to elaborate that one item here.

• The views of Queller and Strassmann are central to this section; I wonder how their views contrast with those of other evolutionary biologists, or how these ideas have been received or challenged within the scientific community.
  • They seem to have been widely accepted, everyone face-palming how did we not think of that. I've added Díaz‐Muñoz et al's accept-and-go-further ideas from 2016.

• The section on viruses ends on a controversial note about whether viruses should be considered living organisms. Might it be beneficial to mention giant viruses and the now largely discounted idea that they could represent a "fourth domain of life"?
  • Possibly straying off-topic in a red-herringish direction?

• Images: all images are properly licensed
  • Noted.

Musings

• there's no mention of bioengineered or synthetic organisms. These blend organic and synthetic components, challenging traditional definitions and expand the scope of what may be considered an organism. To this end,

• how about introducing the concept of teleonomy to explain how organisms and synthetic beings exhibit goal-directed behaviors, an important aspect in defining organismal behavior across both natural and engineered forms.

• could discuss the inherent robustness and plasticity of biological systems as highlighted through examples like salamanders' regenerative abilities and the functional integration of unexpected traits (e.g., ectopic eyes on tadpoles).

• how about examples of organisms that integrate biological and artificial components, such as biohybrid beings or organisms that incorporate nanomaterials and electronic interfaces, which are becoming increasingly relevant in fields like regenerative medicine and synthetic biology.

• how about the concept of multi-scale competency architecture, where various biological levels (from molecular to organismal) show goal-directed behaviors, contributing to the organism's overall functionality and adaptation capabilities.

• might I suggest checking out doi:10.1093/biolinnean/blac116, which is recent, open access, and discusses these items?

• Well, I'm not totally sure that writing about (e.g.) salamander regeneration is going to tell the average reader much about what an organism is, but the paper is interesting and I've added a section on synthetic organisms. No doubt we can tweak it slightly but it should not get much longer for this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• please check if my edits are ok. Esculenta (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• in the table, "mushroom" should really be "mushroom-forming fungus"
  • Done.

• another definition of organism I found is "any individual living entity that can reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis". Homeostasis is not mentioned in this article and I'm wondering if it should be?
  • I can't find your definition; and I don't see homeostasis used in a definitional way, though some note that organisms (excluding viruses, hah) always do the h-thing. I think what's going on here is a turf-war or world-view thing between evolutionary biologists who are interested in change at levels from molecules (DNA) all the way up to populations; and physiologists who believe in mechanisms that make cells, organs and whole bodies work. Tinbergen's four questions gives the clue: Darwinists ask "why?" and look at change, while the physiologists ask "how?" and look at (homeo)stasis. But I don't see the physios being terribly interested in defining the organism; I guess from the point of view of an animal/medical physiologist, the whole lab rat is plainly the top level of homeo-control (though homeostasis is found at all levels e.g. cell), and there's nothing that needs defining as it's obviously a rat, nothing to see here. From the Moreira et al 2009 position - reproduction, growth, metabolism - homeostasis could be seen as a subset of metabolism, so we could at a pinch mention it in passing there.

• if there's any thought being given to expand the article further for FAC, I think a section about the historical development of the meaning of the term might be interesting. It could discuss early philosophical and religious concepts like the ladder of life, the Great Chain of Being or scala naturae; and the shift from hierarchical to evolutionary thinking after Darwin. Not required for GA. Esculenta (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, there's always bits to quibble over, but I think the article meets all of the criteria required to become a good article. I made several spot checks of sources during my review and didn't find any problems, so am happy to promote this article now. Esculenta (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Composed of cells

I don't think all organisms are composed of cells is correct, unless you're allowing a cell to have more than one nucleus. For example, I was taught that fungi don't have cells, just hyphae containing multiple nuclei. But a fungus is still an organism. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

and do all organisms function as an individual? Perhaps the definition and the suitability of its source needs to be reconsidered. Plantsurfer 20:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed, it does show exactly what the rest of the article argues, that attempts at simple all-encompassing definitions always go a bit wonky around the edges. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Musiconeologist's complaint is bizarre. Prokaryote cells don't have any nuclei. Fungal hyphae are typically described as cellular. Aseptate hyphae with many nuclei are "weird" (as are the multinucleate plasmodia of slime molds). Dikaryotic (septate) hyphae with exactly two nuclei per cell are also a little weird in the grand scheme of things. But "a cell is a thing with exactly one nucleus" is not a definition of a cell that is used.

I assume all organisms are composed of cells was intended to distinguish the topic of this article from non-cellular life (which primarily covers viruses and viroids). I don't know, maybe there's a whole literature I'm not aware of out there that parses the difference between organisms and (forms of) life. I am inclined to think of viruses as maybe being "organisms" (individual and lineages affected by evolution) but maybe not so much as "life" (having self contained metabolic/chemical processes working against entropy is a part of how I would define life). Plantdrew (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

There's undoubtedly a whole lot wrong with the complaint. The attempt to delineate life-as-opposed-to-viruses is possibly attractive, but in several ways barking up the wrong tree, not much to do with organismality anyway (i.e. there is a cloud of woolly sheep in a fog -- life, organism, individual, cellular, ...) none of which throw much light on any of the others, but rather each seek definition by waving vaguely into other parts of the cloud). The cellular thing is not even seen as logically necessary: it just happens that that's how life-on-earth is, out of a total number of samples=1, i.e. we've no idea really. The rest of the article doesn't go into the cellular thing, and since being cellular is neither necessary nor sufficient for organismality, that's probably just as well. I suppose you could argue that being a single free-living cell makes you an organism... which leaves you having to decide if you're happy treating a spermatozoon as an organism, in that case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)