2 Mature Clowns in a Biocube 14g??

[MelloW33]

+1

Asexual reproduction has been reported among many other hobbyists in times of stress. I've seen this in my own systems as well as others'. It also happens when conditions are optimal and the animals are large enough to do so.
You asked why they would do it in a time of stress where conditions weren't optimal. The answer is because it doubles it's chances of keeping its DNA in existance. Another thing they often do is release from the substrate and float away. If the anemones split then float away their DNA is twice as likely to survive in a more favorable location.

Walt, nice to see you jumping in here. I've come to respect a lot of your posts and particularly your clowns. I too mentioned that splitting would increase the chances of one survivng. Unfortunately it was compared to me dropping offspring and dying in a house fire, hope that doesn't happen to your comment.

 

[MelloW33]

I can give you my theory. Times of plenty are what stimulate asexual reproduction in anemones, in tropical intertidal zones it has been shown that anemones frequently divide during low tide, there are a variety of factors why this may be prefferential to high tide, which is of course associated with temperature fluctuations, drop in DO levels etc...all of which you simulated when you placed the anemone in a bucket.

Awesome, thanks. I plan on doing this again this week/weekend to see if it induces asexual fission.

 

[Toddrtrex]

Walt, nice to see you jumping in here. I've come to respect a lot of your posts and particularly your clowns.....

I have to agree too.




This whole thing have me wondering, why are there a lot more posts/threads about people's E. Quads splitting, and not spawning if they spawned during stress?

 

[MarineBioHSU]

+1

Asexual reproduction has been reported among many other hobbyists in times of stress. I've seen this in my own systems as well as others'. It also happens when conditions are optimal and the animals are large enough to do so.
You asked why they would do it in a time of stress where conditions weren't optimal. The answer is because it doubles it's chances of keeping its DNA in existance. Another thing they often do is release from the substrate and float away. If the anemones split then float away their DNA is twice as likely to survive in a more favorable location.

Again, I pose the question, why do you think this is related to stress? If the animal were actually in a compromised situation, the last thing it would do would be intentionally injure itself. My point being the assumption that "stress" causes division illustrates the fact that there is a fundamental lack of the understanding as to what and how external stimuli are interpreted by cnidarians.

 

[MarineBioHSU]

I have to agree too.




This whole thing have me wondering, why are there a lot more posts/threads about people's E. Quads splitting, and not spawning if they spawned during stress?

My guess is that more folks do not experience spawning events in their systems due to various factors, to include lack of essential stimuli and more likely a lack of both sexes present in the system. Recent findings indicate that E. quadricolor displays a degree of sexual dimorphism, primarily indicated by pigment differences, and most folks do not have multiple BTA's of different forms from different locals in their systems.

 

[MarineBioHSU]

Awesome, thanks. I plan on doing this again this week/weekend to see if it induces asexual fission.

Sweet, please record all water parameters in the tank etc and in the bucket when you do this. It would be interesting to note the change in temp, pH and DO levels etc that occur in the bucket.

 

[MelloW33]

My guess is that more folks do not experience spawning events in their systems due to various factors, to include lack of essential stimuli and more likely a lack of both sexes present in the system. Recent findings indicate that E. quadricolor displays a degree of sexual dimorphism, primarily indicated by pigment differences, and most folks do not have multiple BTA's of different forms from different locals in their systems.

That makes me assume that if both sexes are not present, they obviously wouldn't be able to sexually reproduce. That they would resort to asexual fission instead?

 

[MelloW33]

Sweet, please record all water parameters in the tank etc and in the bucket when you do this. It would be interesting to note the change in temp, pH and DO levels etc that occur in the bucket.

I don't think I have the equipment to be able to document all of that, but I'll see what I can do.

 

[Banff]

The essential problem with using evolutionary biology as the sole means to come to a conclusion here is that you have no record of the events in which a strategy was unsuccessful. Evolutionary biology relies on anemones having access through the water column to gametes of the opposite sex. Much of the anecdotal evidence found in these forums is based on observations of animals that do not have access to other gametes.

The repeated attempts to refer to anenomes choosing between methods of reproduction as though they are making an informed decision is introducing fallacies to the discussion.

Furthermore, anyone who is a true bone fide scientist should be open to evidence from multiple disciplines and allow it to inform their hypothesis.

If we're to go back to very basic biology here, then surely redundancy of physiology should be one of the fundamentals that is considered?

To be quite frank, none of you are acting like scientists are supposed to act. Take advantage of this opportunity to bring many areas of expertise to bear on a subject which no single one of us yet completely understands. Open your minds.

 

[MarineBioHSU]

The essential problem with using evolutionary biology as the sole means to come to a conclusion here is that you have no record of the events in which a strategy was unsuccessful. Evolutionary biology relies on anemones having access through the water column to gametes of the opposite sex. Much of the anecdotal evidence found in these forums is based on observations of animals that do not have access to other gametes.

The repeated attempts to refer to anenomes choosing between methods of reproduction as though they are making an informed decision is introducing fallacies to the discussion.

Furthermore, anyone who is a true bone fide scientist should be open to evidence from multiple disciplines and allow it to inform their hypothesis.

If we're to go back to very basic biology here, then surely redundancy of physiology should be one of the fundamentals that is considered?

To be quite frank, none of you are acting like scientists are supposed to act. Take advantage of this opportunity to bring many areas of expertise to bear on a subject which no single one of us yet completely understands. Open your minds.

Banff, I am not sure I am clear on your points here. Regarding your statment "using evolutionary biology as the sole means to come to a conclusion", what exactly are you trying to convey here? Are you implying that anemones would not be able to transfer/mix gametes in an aquarium? I'm not sure if that is what you mean, so please clarify for me if you will.

You stated: "The repeated attempts to refer to anenomes choosing between methods of reproduction as though they are making an informed decision is introducing fallacies to the discussion."

How so? It is a bold statement, however I do not see how my inference that anemones use different methods of reproduction dependant upon environmental conditions is fallicious...?

You also stated: "Furthermore, anyone who is a true bone fide scientist should be open to evidence from multiple disciplines and allow it to inform their hypothesis."

Very much agreed, however I do not think that anybody involved in this conversation has been close minded in regards to examining evidence from other areas/aspects of study. For example, the question was posed to me regarding why an anemone would split in a bucket, and I did my best to answer the question, focused on captive observations, with scientific evidence. In otherwords, multiple disciplines.

Again you said: "If we're to go back to very basic biology here, then surely redundancy of physiology should be one of the fundamentals that is considered?"

Please elaborate...

And regarding your last point, I agree that this is an opportunity to share experiences and learn. However, are you implying that I have not been "acting like a scientist?" Of course, I would disagree with that point.

 

[MarineBioHSU]

+1

Asexual reproduction has been reported among many other hobbyists in times of stress. I've seen this in my own systems as well as others'. It also happens when conditions are optimal and the animals are large enough to do so.
You asked why they would do it in a time of stress where conditions weren't optimal. The answer is because it doubles it's chances of keeping its DNA in existance. Another thing they often do is release from the substrate and float away. If the anemones split then float away their DNA is twice as likely to survive in a more favorable location.

I understand your point, but have to disagree. If as you propose an anemone is faced with "stress", then it is clearly being subjected to something to which its genotype is not suited for. If it "senses" this then it will release gametes in order to not only increase the passing of its genes through sheer numbers, but also increase its chances via genetic recombination. Basic evolutionary biology.

Again, I am saying that while many aquarists many observe anemones splitting during a time that they feel is "stressful", there is no solid control, and most importantly given the misunderstandings of their reproductive biology it is likely a misinterpretation of what is actually occuring. And again, I fail to see the logic behind the assertion that anemones can "be induced by overfeeding"...backwards logic, if you provide them with food, they will split...and I think we all know that anemones will not ingest food if they "don't want to."

 

[Toddrtrex]

From your unlinked post,

Thus, seeds, spores, eggs, pupae, cysts or other "over-wintering" stages of sexual reproduction ensure the survival during unfavorable times and the organism can "wait out" adverse situations until a swing back to suitability occurs."

So, if I am reading that correctly, both you and the author are claiming that fertilized anemone eggs now have the ability to "wait out" the adverse situations, similar to seeds in the desert?

MarineBioHSU -- you might of missed this, care to address it?

......

To be quite frank, none of you are acting like scientists are supposed to act. Take advantage of this opportunity to bring many areas of expertise to bear on a subject which no single one of us yet completely understands. Open your minds.

I can only speak for myself -- I never claimed that I was a scientist, and if I did, please show me.

 

[cgauer5]

So using your ridiculous comparision, I would sexually reproduce with something fireproof in order for an offspring to survive?

hahahahahaha

 

[MarineBioHSU]

Toddtrex: Sorry, I did miss that, thanks for pointing it out. My interpretation of that is simply that it is highlighting the different strategies undertaken in sexual reproduction, i.e. spores and cysts, just as there are alteration of generations and other such alternate themes of sexual and asexual reproduction, but I don't think that it really has any bearing on the issue at hand. To be more clear, hopefully, that is simply illustrating one of the potential advantages to sexual reproduction in times of crisis, but not the only advantage.

And you did not state that you were a scientist, and while you may not have any formal training (which I do not know if you do or not), but your experience and knowledge gained from the hobby by de facto sort of makes you a biologist, and to that extent I do appreciate your observations and theories. Input such as that is the only way to brisge the gap between academia and the hobby etc.

 

[MelloW33]

I don't think I have referred to myself as a scientist either.

 

[MarineBioHSU]

MelloW33, haha no you did not, but again I assert that to successful in this hobby you sort of end up becoming a biologist, to an extent anyway. But, I am not sure where Banff's statement came from...

 

[Banff]

Banff, I am not sure I am clear on your points here. Regarding your statment "using evolutionary biology as the sole means to come to a conclusion", what exactly are you trying to convey here? Are you implying that anemones would not be able to transfer/mix gametes in an aquarium? I'm not sure if that is what you mean, so please clarify for me if you will.

I am saying that the vast majority of anemones kept in tanks by marine aquarists are solitary creatures with no access to mixing of gametes, and no access to chemical signals from other anemones, so applying general axioms about creatures with both asexual and sexual means of reproduction is not necessarily the be-all and end-all here. And of course I'm not suggesting that anemones are unable to transfer and mix gametes in an aquarium, how about we start out with the ground-rules here that we treat each other's contributions with respect and consideration and abandon all of the "my good sir" and "are you suggesting magical unicorn-pony gamete courier systems?". There is a high-degree of haughtiness in this thread on both sides that can only detract from the academic discussion.

You stated: "The repeated attempts to refer to anenomes choosing between methods of reproduction as though they are making an informed decision is introducing fallacies to the discussion."

How so? It is a bold statement, however I do not see how my inference that anemones use different methods of reproduction dependant upon environmental conditions is fallicious...?

The key part of my statement is "informed decision". Unless someone here is arguing that the individual anemones in question are cognitively weighing the pros and cons, then comparing them to a human caught in a housefire is a bit of a straw-man. Nothing about evolution involves a logical choice.

You also stated: "Furthermore, anyone who is a true bone fide scientist should be open to evidence from multiple disciplines and allow it to inform their hypothesis."

Very much agreed, however I do not think that anybody involved in this conversation has been close minded in regards to examining evidence from other areas/aspects of study. For example, the question was posed to me regarding why an anemone would split in a bucket, and I did my best to answer the question, focused on captive observations, with scientific evidence. In otherwords, multiple disciplines.

Again you said: "If we're to go back to very basic biology here, then surely redundancy of physiology should be one of the fundamentals that is considered?"

There are often multiple paths to the same physiological goal. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Homeostatic control of blood glucose in mammals, for example.

And regarding your last point, I agree that this is an opportunity to share experiences and learn. However, are you implying that I have not been "acting like a scientist?" Of course, I would disagree with that point.

I think you're acting like a scientist. But I don't think you're acting like a scientist is supposed to act.

This is not the law of gravity we're discussing here, and even if it were, what you are doing is reading a post that says that someone is letting go of a rock and it's not falling. You are then explaining in excruciating detail why rocks fall and why they always will and then providing links to wiki.rocks.fall.duh and suggesting people go buy a basic physics textbook. What you are not doing is considering the fact that they are posting from the space station.

And that attitude is present on both sides of this argument.

Be the willow, not the oak.

By the way, I think both sides have valid points and that the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. I have no expertise in the specific area, but if academic and professional dick-waving is required to dispense with the "unicorn-pony" treatment, I have an undergraduate degree in Zoology and Comparitive Physiology, a postgraduate degree in Neuroscience and have been working professionally as a research biologist for 20 years. Oh, and I have a tank full of nems.

 

[Banff]

Also, I was suggesting that everyone here who is interested in solving this scientific question, should employ whatever tenets of science are at their disposal. This makes them a scientist. Trying to piece of of these tenets together is what will make us good scientist.

PAX

 

[WDLV]

MarinebioHSU, I thoroughly enjoyed your arguement. Even the bovine fecal matter about scientists being open minded. They're some of the most pig headed people on the planet! I will say thos about your statement though; I think marine biologists need to be a little more patient with hobbyists. I have had some really awsome people take the time to discuss a point with me and I was able to walk away with something from the conversation. Conversely I have spoken with others who would carry out a decent conversation with me until they discovered what my education and work background consisted of and essentially poo pooed everything I said from that moment on. Hobbyists can be the same way at times. Both sides need to give equal credit to the other. We do things differently but we help one another tremendously. A marine biologist steaight out of a masters or doctorate may know all the theory in the world and be able to pull facts out of their arse but they have no idea how to keep the animals they know so much about alive much less happy. Research and husbandry are two very different modalities that sometimes overlap but stand to gain a lot from one another of each would just shut his mouth for a brief tome and listen to the other. I think I'm rambling now.... Good night.

 

[MarineBioHSU]

Let me clarify, again. From Walt's post/reaction, I am afraid I may have come off exactly as I had hoped not to. What I mean is, I had hoped to have this discussion in a manner that reflected my appreciation of the knowledge earned and shared by hobbyists, not as a "pig headed" scientist. I am sincerely sorry if I failed in this regard.

Long before I started into my academic career I was a hobbyist, by the time I was ten I had started into saltwater and I was hooked. In fact I loved aquatic life for as long as I can consciously remember. Long story short, when I began pursuing academics I was absolutely floored by the seemingingly immense lack of practical hands on knowledge and applicable experience illustrated by many research biologists. I have seen first hand on numerous ocassions failures of epic proportions on the side of science due to an underniable close mindedness, be it conflict over environmental issues or failed experiments on sea anemones due to an unwillingness to consult the hobbyist community. I am accutely aware of the issue and it drives me crazy, I have constantly strived to not become that kind of scientist, the proverbial arm chair scientist. And in all fairness I feel that I have done a decent job, I have a large amount of experience in Ornamental Marine Aquaculture in addition to lots of experience in the industry. My goal was to pursue academic training to expand the breadth of my knowledge, and more-over to try and bridge the gap between the hobby fish industry and the scientific community. So, to that extent I think I have done well.

My objective in initiating this discussion was to try and help provide some of the knowledge I have gained to my fellow hobbyists and share experiences in an attempt to establish a better understanding of the animals we keep.

I will again state that I do not maintain the same train of thought as some other members who have posted on this thread in regards to certain aspects of how and why anemones behave the way they do. However, I do think that I have displayed consistently throughout the discussion my appreciation for the value of other members experiences and observations, even if I feel there is an error in their logic. Furthermore, I have tried to illustrate that regardless of what technical or formal training a hobbyist may have, I tend to regard anyone who is successful in this hobby as somewhat of a biologist, or atleast a naturalist (a title that has unfortunately lost prestige in the scientific community).

So, if I have left any contributing members of this discussion with the impression that I so not respect your opinions then I apologize. And again I did not intend to come off as "holier than thou" by any means, I will work harder to convey this through my word choice. I have not at all felt hostile while engaged in this dialog and have attempted to convey that, but perhaps I need to be more careful.

Of course though, I am as entitled as any other member to sate and defend my point of view, and if questioned about my experience or background, I feel no shame in citing my formal training/education in conjunction with my vast hands on experience. So please do not take offense to that.

And lastly, "Banff" : if you are in fact a scientist as you claim, wonderful, I should hope that you can pull your head out and be more productive instead of dropping in and telling everyone how they should act. Your hostile pop-off statements and useless anecdotal metaphors are not required, or for that matter appreciated. Frankly, I think you are the only one displaying any academic or professional "dick-waving" as you so delicately put it. I feel this discussion can be very intriguing and helpful to all involved. So if you continue to show up, please dispense with the rude remarks and use your education/training and "20 years as a research biologist" to contribute productively. Otherwise, stay away.