Hi
I recently came across two organisms that are not “classically” observed ( no actual observation of the organism) but are inferred from their host, or their hosts association.
I don’t think these should merit an observation and i will try to make my point with examples. but first lets look at what got me here :
https://inaturalist.org/taxa/1538531-Bracoviriform-glomeratae
this is a viriod (some consider it a virus) that facilitates the parasitic life style of Cotesia glomerata on larvae of Pieris brassicae (i wrote P. machon but got the two mixed up)
"An important aspect of the symbiotic polydnavirus is the fact that the virus does not and cannot replicate on its own- it does not contain the genes necessary to replicate itself " (Wikipedia) So in fact , every observation of the parasite ( the parasitic wasp C. glomerata) or its assosiation with P. Machon can be replicated to include the virus, since infection is mediated by it, and cannot happen with out it.
the second example is Wolbachia https://israel.inaturalist.org/taxa/356524-Wolbachia
Wolbachia itself isn’t observed , rather the host is documented and the presence of the symbiont is inferred.
again in both examples ( maybe more out there) the organism is not observed directly. indirect observation of symbionts or parasite is not bad on its own, however if all members of a taxon are known to harbor a symbiont, what’s the point in observing them both ?
I thinks these should not merit an observation , in my opinion this is akin to duplicating every animal observation with enteric bacteria such as E. coli ( that are 100% present in the gut microbiome) . It gives no additional biological data , and the organism in question isn’t really observed but inferred from the mere presence of the host or association, as opposed to observing symptoms of a disease
Would love to hear other opinions, what do you think ?