Purple SPS growth

[Ashlar]

Not exactly sure what this guy is, but it's growing..

7/17/2010


Today

[Blazinreef]

Looks like a pocillipora

[Ashlar]

Not a pocillipora (wrong branch size- I had a monster head of that I gave to a friend), don't think it's a stylophora..

This was my garden variety pocillipora.. small branches..

[Wall_Tank]

Sure looks like a stylophora.    Could be a Montipora Digitata, but they are normally a little more branching.

[Ashlar]

Under the scope, you can see that the coralite arrangement is all wrong for a stylophora. I need to find who I last loaned my AIMS coral CD to so that I can look it up again.

[HUNGER]

looks cool

[Blown76mav]

How about a Purple Porites? 

[lazylivin]

Looks very similar to the ORA Purple Stylophora.

[kattz]

It is stylophora pistillata.  Absolutely no frickin' doubt.  I had a maricultured one I'd ordered special.  It's now sleepin' with the Clorox.

[Ashlar]

Nope, the coralites have no well-defined septa.



Go to this link and scroll to the last picture on the right.

http://coral.aims.gov.au/speciesPages/species_metadata/0345/view#

[coral ranch]

It's a stylophora

[Ashlar]

It's a stylophora

Then it's a whole new species not known to science!

Seriously, though. I bleached a piece of this and checked it out under the scope. It does not match any of the stylophora species.

It does not have radial primary septa, nor any secondary septa.

[DarinSchmidt]

Its a Stylophora, there are different types, but that shows the characteristics of the species. The main Characteristic having rounded branches with blunt ends. Heres a good place to see if it can be identified with what you have concluded with your microscope. http://coral.aims.gov.au/speciesPages/species_metadata/0345/view

[Ashlar]

Yup, the AIMS site is based on Venon's books (massive tomes, 3 volumes, if I recall.) Venon is the definitive reference, at this point.

AIMS used to put out a Coral ID CD that has a nice interface for identifying corals, and it walks you through a series of multiple choice questions ("e.g. is the coral branching, flabello-meandroid, or encrusting?", "Are the coralites hooded, impressed, or evenly raised?", etc) and with each question you answer, the possible corals it could be diminishes.

Unfortunately I loaned out my CD a while back, and I need to chase it down.

But the coral ID site lets you browse the same data, albeit in a not-as-nice interface.

If you read the entries for all of the stylophora species (go to http://coral.aims.gov.au/speciesPages/ and click on 'stylophora' then pick one of the seven identified species)-- one of the defining characteristics of the coral is that they all have six septa in each coralite. So when viewed under the microscope, each polyp skeleton should have six spikes (septa) pointing to the center of the polyp.

This doesn't, so it's not stylophora.

[DarinSchmidt]

Under Stylophora pistillata it says sometimes 6, so possible no?

[Ashlar]

Well, the 'sometimes' is for 6 secondary..

Colonies are branching with blunt-ended branches becoming thick and submassive. Corallites are immersed, conical or hooded. They have a solid style-like columella, six primary septa which may be short or fused with the columella, and sometimes six short secondary septa. The coenosteum is covered by fine spinules.

Branching? Yep.
Blunt-ended branches becoming thick and submassive? Yep.
Coralites immersed? Yep.
Six primary septa? Nope. Not even short ones.
Optional six secondary septa? Nope.
Coenosteum covered in fine spinules? Nope.



eta: Added a large picture of s.pistillata skeleton.

eta2: Here's a link on the different parts of a coral, if anyone's interested- http://www.agrra.org/background/coralback1.html

[DarinSchmidt]

it was kind of hard to tell in your picture of your bleached coral but i thought the top right hole was showing some deteriorated septas, but i must be wrong. Guess i'll have to look around because im interested in knowing. Though, at least the general characteristic helps narrow it down.

[Ashlar]

Yeah, my picture wasn't the best. I'll see if I still have the bleached sample laying around.

The other candidate that I seem to recall was m.digitata..

Colonies are digitate or arborescent with anastomosing upright branches. Corallites are immersed and small, especially in colonies from shallow water. The coenosteum is smooth.

Arborescent (tree-like)? Yep.
Anastomosing branches (they separate then join back together)? Yep.
Coralites immersed? Yep.
Coenosteum smooth? Yep. ('smooth' in this case being having no well defined spicules.)

Compare the photo I posted earlier to this-

[DarinSchmidt]

that does seem more similar. maybe then you have found your coral. Any other types similar?

[Ashlar]

I can't recall at the moment.

The CD helps you narrow it down to two or three species, then you have to make a determination.

Here's a dirty little secret that a coral biologist will tell you if you ply him/her with enough alcohol..

Sometimes you have to guess. The descriptions and determining factors between some corals (especially acropora sp.) overlap.

[DarinSchmidt]

yeah i have noticed that with many corals, they look so similar to the eye and unless you have a micro, you just have to make an educated guess and/or hope where you got the coral from, they havent got anything mixed up.

[Ashlar]

Well, another big determining factor that the CD asks that we can rarely answer with any certainty is - 'where did the coral come from?' (geographically).

Eric Borneman did a presentation for our club a couple years ago, and he has some amazing pictures- side by sides of two corals that look exactly the same in a tank and are totally different species from different sides of the planet, and two corals that look nothing alike that are the same species (growth form was affected by where it grew.)

That's why this whole business of identifying stony corals (especially acropora) via pictures on the internet makes me giggle.

[DarinSchmidt]

That's why this whole business of identifying stony corals (especially acropora) via pictures on the internet makes me giggle.

Sometimes you can only do your best with the data supplied to you, somtimes its just a picture.

[Ashlar]

*nod* But I've seen multi-page flame wars over a.something vs a.somethingelse -- when there's no way to make a distinction without a skeleton, and sometimes not even then.

I think a lot of the self-proclaimed experts need to be taken down a peg or two. Especially when the identification of species is used to justify care requirements that could kill a specimen- e.g., "Oh that's a deep water acro, put it in the shade.."