This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arthropods Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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

According to Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology, 33, 1–40. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260101800034

Another case in point is the small sea creature belonging to the order of Balanomorpha. This creature leads a curious life. For a while, it does nothing but float with the currents. When it eventually reaches a solid surface, it performs the only action of its life -- it attaches itself to this surface. Once the perceptual system has performed its function (detecting a solid surface), it ceases to function and dies. Action is not called for anymore, so perception is thrown overboard (in fact, the creature devours its own brain at this point).

I have added this interesting fact to the article.--Timtak (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a tricky case. The authors of that paper are psychologists, rather than carcinologists, and they don't cite any sources for that claim. It seems plausible that there would be a reduction in the ganglia after settlement, although I can't even find a reference for that at the moment. Most importantly, the wording is simply misleading. Both "devour" and "eat" suggest a very different process to the kind of developmental mechanism that is actually being employed. For all these reasons, I have removed your text, although I will carry on looking for a replacement reference. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

The above is a peer reviewed journal of excellent academic standing[1]. I am not aware that one can only cite sources in the specialist field pertaining to the subject. Why not just change the "eat" and or "devour" to a word or words that would satisfy a "carcinologist?"--Timtak (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply