Talk:Remora

Remora received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SeanGosselin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does a remora attached to a filter feeder eat?

I have also heard that remoras often eat the scraps of what their host eats, that sounds very good for hosts eating fish, but what about whale sharks and manta rays? They are pelagic fish and they eat plankton and very small fish, there is no scraps!?. Does the remora also eat the plankton or small fish? It is one species of remoras that take a 'hike' on filter feeders and others that hike on fish eating fish? This does not make sense to me since I have had a remora trying to attach it self to me, so obviously at least that remora could not even tell the difference between a human and a fish, how could it then tell the difference between a filter feeder and a 'normal' fish? :-) Also do remoras stick to the same host for a long time, or do the switch often? Obviously since I had one try to attch it self to me, they do get lost and try to find new hosts, but does this happen often? Do they stay for a day, a week, a month or a year per host? Anyway, thanks for a good article! Stefan 14:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..  Maybe Regurgitated Non-Sense? Žena Dhark…·°º•ø®@» 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoresy

I don't think that remoras can be considered phoretic. Most definitions of phoresy are very specific that phoretic behaviour is for the purpose of dispersal from unsuitable habitats only, and that phoretic animals cease feeding behaviour and ontogeny during that time (definition by Farish and Axtell (1971), among others). According to Athias-Binche (1991), phoresy requires, in addition, that phoronts become quiescent or dormant during phoresy. This is not the case of remora, that actively feed during their attachment to their host. Generally, I get the impression that phoresy is used only for arthropods (especially mites, pseudoscorpions and centipedes). I'm no remora specialist, so I don't want to remove the mention of phoresy here. However, after searching several databases, including google scholar, I haven't found a single peer-reviewed article that mentions phoresy in remora. Try searching google scholar for "remora+phoresy"; it yields 3 results, none of which are about remora. For the moment I'll just add a citation needed tag, but I'd appreciate if someone could clear up the situation. IronChris | (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Here is one of many, many instances of phoresy describing remora. If at some time the term had some bizarre, arbitrary qualifications, it seems now to be any sort of non-parasitic hitchhiking. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1679-62252006000100014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:344:4000:DF12:84C9:CD29:AFB5:B68E (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to second this, primarily because the Phoresy article specifically lists remoras as an example of a creature that is NOT phoretic. TricksterWolf (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uses

Are remora fish good for anything like food or fishing bait? Emperor001 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you eat a sucker fish

hi all i catch these things all the time on the central coast qld and just want to know if they are eatable . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.118.137 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parasitism, not commensalism

"The relationship between remoras and their perfect hosts is most often taken to be one of commensalism, specifically phoresy. The host they attach to for transport gains nothing from the relationship, but also loses little."

The host does not lose little; the attachment of significantly large fish-like objects is clearly detrimental to the host's survival. If it was not, there would be little evolutionary pressure preventing the evolution of large fish-like growths on the host's skin. Where the remora does not clean other host parasites, the remoras themselves are parasites. This is not commensalism. Kernow (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remoras do not negatively impact the wellbeing of their hosts: remoras don't feed on their hosts, nor does their clinging appear to impair the host's ability to feed or reproduce. If they were parasites, then how come we see very few adaptations by large marine animals for removing or discouraging remoras from attaching? If you insist claiming that remoras really are parasites and not commensals, then please find some reputable sources that agree with what you're saying.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lampreys? Why lampreys?

Lampreys are no more closely related to remoras than they are to trout, or turtles or turtledoves. They're a sister group to all the animals with true bone. Why are they linked here?IAmNitpicking (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Physiology Section

As per the requirements of my physiology class, I've been spending some time preparing a physiology section for this article. Although activity on the page is near zero, I thought it would be good practice to post anyways. If anyone wants to change any of the content therein and has better sources by all means do so.

Capitalization

I've reverted the change to capitalize "remora" everywhere. I believe "remora" is the common name for the family Echeneidae, right? We also have a genus Remora, but that's not what the article is about. We don't normally capitalize common names; see for example MOS:LIFE, which says "Neither capitalize nor italicize plain-English forms of the name of a taxon". This is just a proposed standard but it reflects current WP usage. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article conflicts image subtitle

Under "Characteristics" it says: "Although it was initially believed that remoras fed off particulate matter from the host's meals, this has been shown a falsehood; in reality their diets are composed primarily of host feces instead."

But the description of one image (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Remora#/media/File:Remora_SI.jpg) says "The remora gets free transportation and feeds on ectoparasites and “leftover” scraps from the host." That's a direct contradiction. 213.143.110.250 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mutualism or commensalism?

The article contradicts itself by firstly, in the 'Characteristics' section, calling its symbiotic relationship mutualistic (with a source that no longer exists), then in the next section calling it commensalistic (with no source). Perhaps some species are mutual and some are commensal but this needs mentioning. From a quick search it seems scientific material refers to it as mutualistic (e.g. Norman et al, 2021, https://www.publish.csiro.au/PC/pdf/PC20043) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanaut (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]