Search Results

Predation has been given many different definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, it is an interaction in which one free-living individual kills and derives resources from another organism. This definition includes finches that consume seeds but does not include fish that eat the siphons of clams that are unable to retract them quickly enough (assuming the clam usually survives the loss of tissue). Both broader and narrower definitions of predation are possible, and a variety can be found in ecology textbooks. Because broad definitions include herbivory and parasitism as forms of predation, the definition used here was chosen to minimize overlap with other chapters in this section. Predation probably arose early in the history of life, and since then, it has been a major source of natural selection on both parties in the interaction. Given the lethal consequences of predation, it is clear that predators will usually have some effect on the rate of increase of their prey. If prey differ in their susceptibility to predators due to heritable differences in characteristics, evolutionary change in antipredator traits will ensue. Because predators must consume prey to survive and reproduce, the selective importance of predation-related traits is obvious. Predators have undergone considerable change and diversification since the first predatory protocell evolved from what was probably a scavenging ancestor. Darwin regarded some of the clearest cases of natural selection as due to the interactions between predator and prey, and that viewpoint is also held by many current-day evolutionary biologists (e.g., Dawkins and Krebs 1979; Vermeij 1994). Predation can be regarded as the most basic interaction between populations. Herbivory and parasitism share the basic property of predation, that one organism consumes some or all of another living organism. Many cases of competition involve predation on the same set of prey species by two or more different predator species. Even when competitors consume nonliving foods, many aspects of the consumption process are similar to consumption of prey by predators. Even mutualism frequently involves one organism eating parts or products of another.

The Central district in Hong Kong is a scene of wealth and prosperity, a glamorous picture of the vivacious city and those who live within it. Against this overwhelming cityscape, a striking transformation takes place every Sunday. Picnic rugs and vibrant dresses bring colour to the usual sea of dark suits of the week; while music and lively banter replace the dull march of heels on marbled surfaces. Underneath the imposing government and office towers, thousands of domestic workers from the Philippines congregate on their day off. Beneath the arches of Norman Foster’s HSBC building, on the overhead walkways that connect office towers, Statue Square and Chater garden, passageways become destinations. This chapter first traces the various geographies of Little Manila, bringing the lenses to examine the activities, economies and exchanges that take place through Michel de Certeau’s work on The Practice of Everyday Life. The second section looks at the Filipino population and its relation to Hong Kong, engaging with Michel Serres’ work on The Parasite as a new theoretical tool that could offer an alternative perspective of the fluid relations between places, people and relationships at different junctures.

Drawing on Serres’ concept of the parasite and its point of departure in the history of linguistics and mathematical theory of communication, the chapter develops a concept of Cultural Techniques as a filtering operation which produces the distinction between sign and signal. In three case studies, one about the discovery and the first printed edition of the Res Gestae of Augustus in the sixteenth century, another about Franz Kafka’s famous “Pontus letter” to Felice Bauer, and a third about a radio play by Max Bense which starts with computer generated language on the basis of transition probabilities or Markov chains, it is demonstrated how in typographical, analog, and digital media the encoding of disruption (or noise) becomes constitutive for the idea that texts, telephones, or radio are media of communication. The methodological gain derived from using the cultural techniques approach is most apparent when the ontological distinction between symbols (as defined by logic) and signals (as defined by communications engineering) is replaced by the practical problem of distinguishing between them.

In Act 3 scene 1, we see Mosca’s narcissism for the first time. In the language of Lacan, narcissism is inseparable from the concept of ‘mirror image’, which is how a subject gains his (mis)recognition. This chapter analyses the parasite’s joy and the connection between the ‘mirror image’ and comedy, examining the parasite’s role and how his self-indulgence constitutes an integral part in the study of Volpone. Even though the parasite may think that he is different from the dwarf, the androgyne and the eunuch, he may just be another Volpone’s bastard. Drawing references to the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup, this chapter examines how comedy plays upon the logic of the ‘para-site’. Finally, it compares the use of the ‘mirror stage’ in comedy and tragedy by making a brief discussion of Hamlet.

If biological interactions, such as competition and predation, have any effect on population dynamics, or if abiotic factors alone determine which organisms, how many of them do we see in a specific ecosystem, was for long a controversial question. This chapter aims at providing the basis for the understanding of biological interactions, as well as showing ample examples of how important those interactions are in shaping both population dynamics and ecosystem function of natural systems. In addition to the many examples, the reader is introduced to the history and the theoretical basis for biological interactions.