user25523: This edit was rejected for the following reasons:

Several terminologies like symbiosis are included that are arguably incorrectly applied. 
Making such drastic changes to an answer is unadvised.

I thought (possibly incorrectly) that it would be better to do such significant edits rather than posting an answer that overlapped so much with an existing answer. (I also succumbed to the temptation to do stylistic edits, which might have muddied the water.) Would it be best to post a new answer that includes my amplifications of the existing answer, or better to give up on this?

user9943: When you propose substantive changes on an existing post from another user, it is better to either suggest them to OP as a comment, or discuss it in chat. 
With substantive I mean the introduction of new terminology, new elements, additional questions, different premise and so on. This as opposed to adding links to a wiki page for clarification, or type setting suggestions. 
And of course you are more than welcome to write your own answer, barred it's not a copy-and-pasted answer with type-set changes only. 

25523: <p><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/36117">This edit</a> was rejected for the following reasons:</p>

<ul>
<li>Several terminologies like symbiosis are included that are arguably incorrectly applied. </li>
<li>Making such drastic changes to an answer is unadvised.</li>
</ul>

<p>I thought (possibly incorrectly) that it would be better to do such significant edits rather than posting an answer that overlapped so much with an existing answer. (I also succumbed to the temptation to do stylistic edits, which might have muddied the water.) Would it be best to post a new answer that includes my amplifications of the existing answer, or better to give up on this?</p>
 9943: <p>When you propose substantive changes on an existing post from another user, it is better to either suggest them to OP as a comment, or discuss it in chat. </p>

<p>With <em>substantive</em> I mean the introduction of new terminology, new elements, additional questions, different premise and so on. This as opposed to adding links to a wiki page for clarification, or type setting suggestions. </p>

<p>And of course you are more than welcome to write your own answer, barred it's not a copy-and-pasted answer with type-set changes only. </p>
