Talk:Pea crab

Howdy, I created a page on pinnotheras ostreum, under [Oyster crab]. It seems there are more than one creature that lives inside an oyster that is a crab. Should we merge the articles, perhaps?? I had no idea these things even existed until I found one inside an oyster I shucked a week ago.

hi everyone

I was wondering, in the beginning of the article, it says that the pea crab lives in a bivalve through symbiosis, yet at the end of the article, it says recent studies shown that it damages the gills of the mollusks, thus making it a parasite, should I or someone change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.10.1 (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Symbiosis technically includes parasitic relationships 76.5.130.65 (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, what you say is true according to the original definition. However, there is no consensus and some biologists define symbiotic relationships to be equivalent to mutualistic ones. This should probably be addressed. For now I have only added a link to the symbiosis page, but that is a temporary fix. Mad2Physicist (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Two articles on pea crabs in general

I don't know if that article was perhaps originally intended to be about one species of pea crab in particular, or one genus? We also have an article on Pinnotheridae, the pea crabs. Maybe the two articles should either be merged, or perhaps differentiated in some way? Invertzoo (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. This article was originally about Pinnotheres pisum in particular, and I have returned it to that. Accordingly, I have taken out the otter photo which, having been taken in California, cannot show P. pisum. It is still in place on the Pinnotheridae article, where it belongs. We may have to think about renaming some of these articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)