Talk:Biomimetics

message: I'm doing some research on biomimicry to try and improve this article. I think that we should distinguish between the "term" (which was coined by Jane Benyus) and the "concept" which has been around as long as humans have been around. I think as others have proposed, we should include the term and concept of biomimetics  since the root words and concepts are the same. I'm still looking for credible sources to verify how much these two terms overlap and if there are any significant differences (anyone know of any?). It appears that the Biomimicry Institute uses the word biomimetics somewhat interchangeably with biomimicry although I found no reference to Otto Schmitt (who coined the word biomimetics) in BI's website or affiliated websites (http://biomimicryinstitute.org, http://asknature.org, http://biomimicry.typepad.com) If anyone has thoughts about making a clear distinction between the "term" and "concept" of biomimicry and its relationship to biomimetics, I would love to discuss! Thanks,Flybmr (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Terms

message: The introductory part of this article seems like a book advertising. Chmyr (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: See: Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature by Janine Benyus
also go to: http://www.biomimicry.org
Seriously, Janine Benyus did not introduce this concept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.175.108 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Lyn Margulis 

message: Biomimicry really should be a unique entry in Wikipedia.
As a current MBA candidate at Bainbridge Graduate Institute studying this important field in sustainability, I must argue against merging biomimicry with bionics.  While I have not been able to cite all the current literary references to biomimicry a simple search on Amazon results in three (3) pages of books, music and other works citing the term.
Amazon Search Results of Biomimicry.
Biomimicry is clearly a major field of science in its own right and bionics is too easily confused with Prosthetic Enhancement,  the bionic man and the bionic woman (inaccurate or unscholarly as that may be) it is human nature to think of bionics in this manner.  If Wikipedia is meant to teach people about the true meaning of its encyclopedia entries, then it's important we keep biomimicry separate so they have a better opportunity to learn about this important emerging field.
Thank you for keeping this entry unique.
Toddrawlings (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: I, too, think that biomimicry , although currently in its infancy, is going to be extremely important in the years and centuries to come.  It is unique and should not be lumped together with bionics.  This new paradigm in engineering, architecture, materials science, and agriculture is going to help usher in the New Industrial Revolution and has the potential to save our race from destroying the planet that we call home.  Blueelectricstorm (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: I agree it should be merged, maybe not with Bionics, as that term apparently has two different meaning, so it can be confusing, so I think it should be merged with Biomimetics. I really wonder why the term Biomimicry was created as it has the exact same etymological origin so it seems. It would be interesting to hear somebody explain why that was done other then for marketing purposes for the book and the consulting firm. Especially calling it a "new field in science" sounds a bit off to me, thinking about Gaudi, Da Vinci, Colani etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.53.146 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: Agree with other posters that the intro is unbalanced. Benyus deserves ample credit as one who has raised the issue in the public eye, but there are quite a number of other groups that have been active in making fundamental and systematic contributions overe the years. Julian Vincent, George Jeronimides, Steven Vogel come to mind, as well as the organizations Bionis and the EU Biofutures program. Additionally, the link to sustainability is not universally accepted. Although clearly important, and a major thread through Benyus' writing and work, quite a few people use biomimetics for innovative engineering design. Indeed-this is implicitly acknowledged in the current wiki via the reference to the bat cane. Innovative yes, geared to sustainability, no. The present wiki reflects one contributer's idea, not the consensus of the state of the field. 
Second, I also oppose the merger. Bionics, although not strictly defined, is more associated with engineering interventions in the human body-such may or may not be biomimetic (if the defining property here is the use of a biological principle). Again, it is not an issue with regard to an emphasis on sustainability or sustainability as an enpoint, as has been suggested. 
Mjweiss (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose merger-other issues 

message: You know, when harmless insects look like poisonous ones?  You know, where the term was actually first put into place, before it was co-opted.  You know, science?  Elijahmeeks (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the hell is actual biomimicry?

message: From what I understand, after having read the talk pages of both articles as well as other pages on the internet, "biomimicry" and "biomimetics' are the proper scientific terms for most of the stuff on the "bionics" page, so I suggest we merge most of the material in Bionics into this article and leave the term "bionics" to the few areas where it's actually properly used (beside the Hollywood usage). From previous discussions on this page there seem to have been a proposed merger the other way around a couple of years ago, but it obviously didn't happen, for understandable reasons, as "bionics" is regarded an unscientific term. Perhaps it's time to merge the proper way? Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind a side-by-side comparison of the terms. "Bionic" is defined as something " having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices," according to Webster's. But "biomimicry" seems to refer more to the design and engineering phase, as opposed to the finished product. They're almost like the two sides of a coin. Biomimicry is a design concept sometimes used to create bionic devices. It might confuse people to see the terms made synonymous.  --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would really like a side-by-side comparison of the term. It could very well end up as "biomimetics is really bionics with a new name (reason: Hollywood corrupted the word to the extent where a bionicist cannot be taken seriously anymore")". As long as it is clear, it is fine with me.--David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Seems to be quite simple; we are transferring the idea from biology to technology; transferring the movements and functions of body parts - biology to mimicking the movements and functions of body parts - technology.  I realize that I am making this simpler than the scholars of late would like, but there you have it.--User:Mr. Michael Greer (User_talk:Mr. Michael Greer) 22:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[Bionics]] into Biomimicry 

message: I've tried several times to add an excellent example from the display field, a field from which one example, Mark Miles use of the etalon, was already in place:
Another display technology to use biomimicry is the PenTile Matrix family of subpixel layouts that were inspired by the human retina and its sophisticated neural processing to enable higher resolution displays with fewer subpixels per pixel. The human retina has nearly equal numbers of L and M Cones (which roughly respond to red and green colors respectively) while there are very few S Cones (which roughly respond to blue colors). These novel layouts use fewer blue subpixels and sometimes fewer red subpixels as well. The subpixel rendering algorithms use the very same center vs. surround fields as early vision processing in the retina to allow higher definition appearance.
Mr.Ollie keeps deleting it, unnecessarily... and I believe, incorrectly, stating that he believed that it was not "mimicking" the retina, only "corresponding" to it.  This would seem to be pedantic at best.  Especially since the article itself quotes a source that says, "Biomimicry is defined in her book as a "new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems." "
"takes inspiration from" would negate Mr.Ollie's objection to inclusion of this example, even if the pedantry was correct regarding being only in "correspondence to" rather than strictly mimetic, which I dispute.  DisplayGeek (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that a rather large portion of your edits are related to Pentile pixel layouts. Are you associated with this technology in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Example 

message: Biomimetics or biomimcry (I believe they are the same) is growing in every profession. The word is recently coined in architecture as biomimetic architecture (www.biomimetic-architecture.com). 
I believe it's different from bionics because it's changing how we are looking to everything. this word will be the new area we will search our science in. I believe Vincent is the first one who coined this word as his articles show.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messmanreturns (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biomimicry in every profession 

message: A camera seems an obvious example of biomimicry.  OK, so the camera as we know it now has come a long way, but I have trouble believing that our own eyes weren't a major contributor to the basic design.  Unless it wasn't until the 20th century that anybody studied eyes to see how they work, in which case the level of similarity is an interesting coincidence.  Anyway, can anyone here confirm or refute the camera's eligibility for inclusion among the examples here? — Smjg (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camera? 

message: ..it will make Wikipedia look ridiculous. They are not the same, and any sort of research on the history of how they are applied would show that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.49.242.164 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Bionics is merged with Biomimicry 

message: I think a more linguistic approach should be adopted as to the question whether the right term is "biomimicry" or "biomimetics". Both "mimicry" and "mimetics" stem from the Greek word "mimesis", meaning imitation. Now "mimicry" (which is basically the English adaptation of the Greek term) in biological science already had taken the specific meaning of "the similarity of one species to another which protects one or both" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry). "Simple" imitation of nature (without being concerned too much with the consequences for the environment, maybe?) would be "biomimetics", whereas "biomimicry", as I conceive it now, is also concerned with this aspect of protection, of "blending into nature" and making the human society eternally recyclable without damaging nature, so to speak). Correct me if I'm wrong (needless to say).
O yes, and "bionics" is, in my view, in fact a blending of an organism and technology, prothesis, pacemakers, you name it. We know it from scifi, of course, but science in that respect is starting to catch up with scifi.
Please elaborate on this new turn I try to give to the discussion
--Joekiedoe (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Biomimicry or biomimetics

message: The merge between Biomimetics and Biomimicry is in the incorrect direction with the primary name being Biomimetics and not Biomimicry. The comparative size of the articles and the fact that Biomimicry was written first on Wikipedia is not a suitable criteria for the direction of the merge since the term Biomimetics takes precedence both historically and in it's level of use internationally in the scientific community. The field had a well established name with university departments created prior to the promotion of the more recent term Biomimicry. Biomimetics also specifically concerns innovation of ideas from nature for technological and scientific progress whereas Biomimicry is concerned with the same thing but with it's use in social and environmental sustainability. Although they both fall under a common banner the term Biomimetics (again) has historical precedence and widespread adoption by almost 30 years SylvanD (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You were specifically instructed not to do this.  We do not do cut and paste moves, and you have failed to move the primary page history.  I am now reversing your changes and requesting a page move per the proper process. The stub was correctly redirected to the primary topic which would allow for a complete page history move. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect direction merge 

message: If Biomimetics is generally agreed to be a synonym of Biomimicry, shouldn't we merge the articles? Redirects will take care of any searches on either title (indeed, on any of the various titles for this concept), so we won't lose anything, but would gain in clarity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are the source citations?  What do the experts in these fields say?  Are there separate academic fields with their own university departments and journals?  (Again, provide source citations).  Start with the references, and act from there.  Please don't merge until sufficient proof is presented in the form of facts backed by citations of reliable sources. Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Biomimicry was the first article on the subject created and has the most complete coverage of this topic. This stub was created after biomimicry as an unintentional duplicate fork of the same topic.  It remained a stub for 10 years without any expansion, with much of the content consisting solely of external links and quotes.  For these reasons, I've redirected the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to [[Biomimicry]]?

message: …because there relationships to the title subject are unclear, and so near to practically useless to readers (and so they are not easily reviewable by editors). Please, if interested in having these appear, check the link, and add them back with a parenthetical expression making very clear the actual relationship to the title concept. E.g., though the Benz model has a parenthetic expression, its perceived relationship to the title subject us not clear (and I am one relatively familiar both with the car and the article).
* Bright green environmentalism
* Holistic management
* Mercedes-Benz Bionic (concept car)
* Mimicry
* Technogaianism
* Biomorphism
* Bionics
* The Water Cube (Beijing National Aquatics Center)
Le Prof  Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect that the common factor in all of these is a certain amount of unsubstantiable (hence, uncited) greenwash, which makes use of the sales value of the term "natural" to imply unstated benefits from the vague imitation of some aspect of nature. The Water Cube, for instance, makes use of a sort of foam bubble structure which is not unlike certain kinds of pith or parenchyma. Whether that qualifies as biomimetic would require PhD-level quantities of further research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links moved to Talk section 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Biomimicry →  – Cleaning up after a bad copy and paste merge that failed to move the correct, primary page history.  Target was a duplicate stub created two years after the primary topic.  It remained a stub from 2004-2013 while this topic (Biomimicry) was the primary topic. Recently, an editor decided to copy this material from here to biomimetics instead of requesting a proper move. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

text: So, just throwing this out for consideration: the top journal for this specific area is titled "Bioinspiration and Biomimetics" (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-3190/).  I've heard "biomimicry" used as synonymous to both.  However, I'm only associated with the field via collaborators, so take that with a grain of salt. HCA (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , it sounds like you are supporting this move request.  Please make that support explicit. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, put me down as Support. HCA (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

text:  you need to explicitly say Support, which is what you intended.  I'm not at all sure what SmokeyJoe is talking about as the article on mimicry has nothing to do with biomimetics.  It's very possible that SmokeyJoe briefly glanced at this move request and left a passing comment, but considering the evidence, I think it is safe to say that his comment should be completely disregarded as it is entirely erroneous  In other words, biomimetics is not a fork of mimicry, accidental or not, nor is it ambiguous.  Further it does not have any original research.  Finally, the term "biomimetics" is the correct descriptive title, and a cursory search of Google Scholar, Google Books, and university websites will show this to be true. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Viriditas I've corrected the note above to show support.
*Support.  OK, yes, it is quite different to mimicry.  But yes, the current title is ambiguous with mimicry, and then when I scanned the article I saw what seemed to be a weird extrapolation of mimicry.  Yes, actually reading the article helped, but renaming to "Biomimetics" makes it sound like what it is.  As an aside, I do maintain that it has a small WP:NOR issue, with excessive treatment of examples, citing primary sources, with little secondary source material on the general topic.  But this is no great problem.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

text: * Drop the s and see what happens.  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=biomimetics%2Cbiomimicry%2CBiomimetic&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cbiomimetics%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbiomimetics%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBiomimetics%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBIOMIMETICS%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cbiomimicry%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbiomimicry%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBiomimicry%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CBiomimetic%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbiomimetic%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBiomimetic%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBIOMIMETIC%3B%2Cc0  The ngram tool is very clumsy, is biased, and requires a lot more care than this.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. Changed to support per my omission to look at the adjective --Epipelagic (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
--Gary Henscheid (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Biomimetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213022851/http://www.swedishbiomimetics.com/biomimetics_folder.pdf to http://www.swedishbiomimetics.com/biomimetics_folder.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121218010854/http://www.abi.auckland.ac.nz:80/uoa/home/about/our-research/projects/biomimetics to http://www.abi.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/about/our-research/projects/biomimetics
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817164045/http://www.bath.ac.uk:80/mech-eng/biomimetics/ to http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/biomimetics/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140507042100/http://biomimetics.mit.edu:8100/wordpress/ to http://biomimetics.mit.edu:8100/wordpress/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925071450/http://www.reading.ac.uk/biomim/home.htm to http://www.reading.ac.uk/biomim/home.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104095655/http://www2.esm.vt.edu:80/~staplesa/ to http://www.esm.vt.edu/~staplesa/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After a decade of trying to develop the two articles separately, they seem to be very similar now.  Bionics is bolded in the lede here (!) and appears 16 times in the article + its references; on the bionics page biomimetics or biomimicry appears 18 times.
Both articles spend far too long talking about the confusion between the terms.  It would be better to have a single article with a thoughtful Etymology and Usage section and a more coherent and balanced set oc sections addressing both chemical/molecular mimicry and engineering/mechanical mimicry. – SJ + 03:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Bionics? 

message: Hi- I had this topic for a college course, called Technology and Culture. I chose biomimicry. I added research about Venus flytrap and added a few wikilinks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlysEder (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Project