Although MacGinitie (1939), the principal authority on these animals, suggests that the fish make no return to the shrimps, he himself gives two examples which are clear, if small scale and possibly insignificant, assistances: It is clear that the relationship is not synechthran but it may be either of the other two. Synoekete – Indifferently tolerated guests Synechthran – Scavangers or predators tolerated or unsuccessfully challenged in the nest Symphile – Welcome guests that make some return to their host The residence of individuals of one species within the nest of another species ( Blackwelder and Garoian 1986:469), with the addition of three separate subterms which better define the nature of the association: Living in the home of, or in close association, of another (Chambers Dictionary 2008), or The term inquilinism (inquiline) is defined as: However, there are other terms available that allow a more refined and precise definition of how the two species involved are interrelating. It also seems clear that we could use the term commensalism for this situation. It seems clear that, if we accept that the fish gains shelter while the crustacean is neither advantaged or disadvantages by the presence of two fishes in its burrow, we cannot consider it to be symbiosis. Symbiosis – A mutually beneficial partnership betweem organisms of different kinds (Chambers Dictionary 2008).Ĭommensalism – An organism living in partnership or association with another of a different species without affecting or benefiting it (Chamber Dictionary 2008). McCosker 2006), with the following definitions of these terms being: The relationship between the fish and crustacean host is usually referred to as either a symbiotic relationship or a commensal realtionship (e.g. (2014), Trypaea biffari (superseded recombination) The following list, which does not pretend to be complete, gives some of them.Ĭallianassa affinis by MacGinitie (1939), Zander (2012), Callianassa biffari by Ahnelt and Scattolin (2003), Thalianassa californiensis by Van Tassell (2011) Neotrypaea affinis by Ellingson et al. Over the c.120 years since its description the Crustacean host of Typhlogobius has been known by numerous names. So the crustacean host is now called Neotrypaea biffari (Holthuis 1991) Manning and Felder 1991. In the same year, during the revision of the American Callianassidae, Manning and Felder (1991) errected the genus Neotrypaea to contain four American species (plus four others) which they deemed were not in the genus Callianassa. No new name was forthcoming until Holthuis (1991) provided Callianassa biffari Holthuis 1991. To solve his immediate problem Biffar (1972) referred to the species as “ Callianassa sp. Milne Edwards 1860, which is a fossil species from the Lutetian of central France. thesis Biffar (1972) discovered that Callianassa affinis Holmes 1900 is a junior primary homonym of Callianassa affinis A. During research on the genus Callianassa for a Ph.D. The crustacean host of Typhlogobius californiensis was described as a new species, Callianassa affinis Holmes 1900, to differentiate if from another species, Callianassa californiensis Dana 1854, found in the same area. The host is so critical that it is also covered in detail in the following account. In captivity, with good conditions and sufficient food supplied, it can live without the host as shown by MacGinitie (1939). Click it for a much better view ORDERĪs described below, Typhlogobius californiensis lives in a perpetual obligate relationship with a crustacean host with which it shares a burrow for most of its life, and in the wild it appears to be unable to live except in this symbiotic state.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |