Talk:Triactis

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)


 * 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.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)