Talk:Triactis

A fact from Triactis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 March 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the boxer crabs Lybia tessellata and Lybia edmondsoni carry a sea anemone such as Triactis producta in each claw for protection from predators?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lybia tessellata, Lybia edmondsoni, Triactis.

Wikipedia

Animals Low‑importance

Triactis is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Marine life (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life

Mutualism?

This article and its related articles about the crabs describe the crab-anemone relationship as mutualistic, yet none of them explains how the anemone benefits (one advances a couple of apparently untested hypotheses). The relationship, while clearly symbiotic, isn't mutualistic unless both species receive a net benefit. Thus, it seems to be overstating the known facts to call it mutualistic; commensal, certainly (the crab sure seems to benefit), but "mutualistic" is more than I'm comfortable with.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that other similar relationships like that of Dardanus pedunculatus (which carry Calliactis tricolor anemones on their shells) are definitely known to be mutualism (see Giraud, 2011), it really is more justified to assume mutualism than to assume commensalism. Assuming that the anemone really was getting nothing from it would actually need stronger proof. It's a hypothesis, yes, but the assumption of benefit on the anemone's part is a bit of common sense really, the anemones derive benefit by facilitated nutrition from leftovers by the crab's feeding and added mobility. This has been the general scientific assumption since at least 1910, and will remain so unless proven otherwise. In Wikipedia's terms, it would be a case of WP:BLUE.

The Lybia/Polydectus and Triactis etc. pairings are also mentioned pretty commonly as examples of mutualism, rather than commensalism. Even in works that compare different types of associations. They're actually favorite examples in textbooks for mutualism.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]