Mushroom or alien life form?

[chappy]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Dyslectics of the world, untie!

My mother is a lifetime supporter of DAM. Mother's Against Dyslexia.

[Brian-E]

Clearly some edible mushrooms have evolved Batesian mimicry of their toxic distant cousins (thanks, bsquared, for the links).

What about hallucinogenic mushrooms? This species would seem to me to have developed something completely counter-productive if the aim was to avoid being eaten.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Clearly some edible mushrooms have evolved Batesian mimicry of their toxic distant cousins (thanks, bsquared, for the links).

What about hallucinogenic mushrooms? This species would seem to me to have developed something completely counter-productive if the aim was to avoid being eaten.

Organisms tend not to eat such psychoactively potent chemicals more than once except, possibly, in very small quantities.

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

Organisms tend not to eat such psychoactively potent chemicals more than once except, possibly, in very small quantities.

Well, non-human organisms at least. The human variety of organisms seems to disobey this tendency and actively seek it out on occasion.

[bsquared]

Originally Posted by retina

Well, non-human organisms at least. The human variety of organisms seems to disobey this tendency and actively seek it out on occasion.

Some would seem to have even made seeking such things out their primary motivation, and perversely, have thrived doing it (think: Keith Richards). Survival of the funnest?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

Well, non-human organisms at least. The human variety of organisms seems to disobey this tendency and actively seek it out on occasion.

I stand by my statement of "more than once except, possibly, in very small quantities"

Some of those humans who do ingest only small quantities nonetheless suffer fatal side effects on occasion. The specific example of flying out of an upper-floor window may or may not be apocryphal but there are certainly individuals who have killed themselves one way or another when stoned on mescaline, lysergamides, ergotamine and anabasine.

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

I stand by my statement of "more than once except, possibly, in very small quantities"

Some of those humans who do ingest only small quantities nonetheless suffer fatal side effects on occasion. The specific example of flying out of an upper-floor window may or may not be apocryphal but there are certainly individuals who have killed themselves one way or another when stoned on mescaline, lysergamides, ergotamine and anabasine.

I guess it depends upon one's definition of "small" and "very small" as to how one interprets your statement.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by xilman

Organisms tend not to eat such psychoactively potent chemicals more than once except, possibly, in very small quantities.

Yes, I have no trouble believing this. Being stoned or high is hardly conducive to survival in the natural world. The mushroom, if eaten in foolish quantities, will punish the animal's greed in such a way that it is likely to perish to its predators. The animal will be wary of allowing this, and the mushroom is therefore more likely to survive uneaten.

Something else along those lines - altering other species' behaviour - which also fascinates me is the parasite toxoplasma gondi which infects animals' brains and alters their behaviour. Its desired final host is a cat, and if it infects a mouse it will make the mouse lose its natural fear of cats to increase the chance of the mouse being eaten by a cat, which is the parasite's desired outcome.

[Batalov]

There's also this: parasitic fungi in insects.
(I once saw a fascinating documentary covering this material as well.)

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

What about hallucinogenic mushrooms? This species would seem to me to have developed something completely counter-productive if the aim was to avoid being eaten.

That sounds to me as an even better adaptation. If you eat it once and die, you will not eat it again. If you eat once and "almost" die, or have terrible nightmares, crawling in your bed for weeks in front of all your tribe, then you, your friends, and everybody in your tribe, or to who you and they can tell about, will not eat it again...

A virus that kills its host is a stupid virus, in most of the cases the virus die with the host, or a bit later. The best virus is that one which live inside of its host producing as less damages as possible, eventually doing good things, to extend the life expectancy of its host. In this case the virus can live longer and reproduce/evolve/develop for a longer time inside of that host, and spread longer, to more places, and at more different time moments. This is also true for computer viruses (that's my domain! ).

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by LaurV

That sounds to me as an even better adaptation. If you eat it once and die, you will not eat it again. If you eat once and "almost" die, or have terrible nightmares, crawling in your bed for weeks in front of all your tribe, then you, your friends, and everybody in your tribe, or to who you and they can tell about, will not eat it again...

This makes the interesting, and for many species very likely correct, assumption that other members of the species will take more notice if the individual displays extraordinary and unpleasant symptoms than if the individual just dies quickly. Yes, good point.

A virus that kills its host is a stupid virus, in most of the cases the virus die with the host, or a bit later. The best virus is that one which live inside of its host producing as less damages as possible, eventually doing good things, to extend the life expectancy of its host. In this case the virus can live longer and reproduce/evolve/develop for a longer time inside of that host, and spread longer, to more places, and at more different time moments. This is also true for computer viruses (that's my domain! ).

Yes, and this can also be true of larger organisms than viruses, which are more commonly known as parasites. As for doing "good things", they will of course only be good from the point of view of the virus or parasite rather than the host. Increasing life expectancy might be one of them, but for the host it might be a very miserable life, reduced to one of nurturing its parasite and helping the parasite to reproduce itself and possibly spread its offspring to other hosts for as long as possible.

The book "Parasite Rex" by Carl Zimmer, which describes many kinds of internal parasites, many of them affecting humans, had me enthralled from cover to cover.