20 species of coral added to the US Endangered Species List

[Willistein]

What's happening here is politics vs. science.

If you follow this link https://www.pijac.org/ADF and go to the downloads section, read the PIJAC letter (first item). key quotes:

"Dr. Veron is cited more than 750 times in NMFS' status review of the 66-coral species, and his work was extensively relied upon by NMFS in the proposed listing determinations."

"...NMFS failed to contact Dr. Veron to solicit his views of his data proir to issuing a proposed rule."

"Dr. Veron's report, including an analysis of his data prepared by WESPAC and enclosed as Appendix A to his report, clearly demonstrate that none of the 66 coral species proposed by NMFS for protection under the ESA warrant listing. Indeed, Dr. Veron stated...that NMFS' proposal to list 66 species "is based on either incorrect data, or no data at all.""

FYI: Dr. Veron is a world renown coral expert and author of Corals of the World.

 

[Ztrain]

Well looking at the other links. I am glad to see that NOAA while maybe taking actions on species that according to Dr. Veron are not endanger at all is not doing a knee jerk reaction. Basically my take on the NOAA things is yes we need to take notice that things are harming the reefs here is our wake up call. But they see the real problem is green house emissions and what is really hurting the reefs not the aquarium hobby.

Unless my interpretation of those ruling is wrong, which it very well maybe since I'm new to looking at all this stuff, The real problem is the Center for Biological Diversity. Actions speak louder then words. Their actions do nothing to protect aquatic life in the wild but yet would also ensure their extinction in captivity. Ensuring the total elimination of the species they claim to want to protect.

 

[that Fish Guy]

I just read this today and am very very confused.

Since that 4(d) rule has been published Elkhorn and Staghorn corals have been illegal to own, and difficult for researchers to work with. Interestingly, since some of you might not believe the ESA has “no effect” on CITES listings. Elkhorn and Staghorn corals are currently listed under CITES Appendix II which applies worldwide. So technically even though Elkhorn and Staghorn corals are not listed as endangered they are illegal to work with because of the threatened + the additional 4(d) rule provision.




If Elkhorn and Staghorn are illegal then why do I see them in LFS's?

Why does ORA Sell it?

Doesn't the no Elkhorn/Staghorn mean you cannot collect it in the Caribbean where it is quite rare aparently but it is not rare in other parts of the world?

Somebody please explain this.

 

[that Fish Guy]

Also, I was reading up on some other animals.

Apparently Axolotyls are almost extinct in the wild (Not threatened, not endangered, but almost completly gone from the wild).

Yet you can still buy them.

White Clouds are a Freshwater Fish that is Extinct in the Wild yet you can find them in any Pet Store (There are Zillions of them due to Captive Breeding - They are like 2.00 each).

So how can they say that Corals Labeled Threatened or Endangered will be Illegal to even own when there are so many other animals that are sold all the time and nobody talks about them like they are talking about Corals now?

 

[Steveb]

I just read this today and am very very confused.

Since that 4(d) rule has been published Elkhorn and Staghorn corals have been illegal to own, and difficult for researchers to work with. Interestingly, since some of you might not believe the ESA has “no effect” on CITES listings. Elkhorn and Staghorn corals are currently listed under CITES Appendix II which applies worldwide. So technically even though Elkhorn and Staghorn corals are not listed as endangered they are illegal to work with because of the threatened + the additional 4(d) rule provision.




If Elkhorn and Staghorn are illegal then why do I see them in LFS's?

Why does ORA Sell it?

Doesn't the no Elkhorn/Staghorn mean you cannot collect it in the Caribbean where it is quite rare aparently but it is not rare in other parts of the world?

Somebody please explain this.

The ban is for Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis. These are corals native to the Caribbean. Not the indo pacific region. You can get them as incidental take off of farmed Atlantic/Caribbean live rock.

You can't just say elkhorn coral. You have to look at the scientific naming/classification.

 

[that Fish Guy]

The ban is for Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis. These are corals native to the Caribbean. Not the indo pacific region. You can get them as incidental take off of farmed Atlantic/Caribbean live rock.

You can't just say elkhorn coral. You have to look at the scientific naming/classification.

The Article States all Elkhorn and Staghorn.

 

[billsreef]

The Article States all Elkhorn and Staghorn.

Yes, however, they are in reality only talking about the Tropical West Atlantic species which are commonly called by those two names.

 

[accordsirh22]

learning to differentiate between virtually useless common names and proper scientific names is your friend

 

[that Fish Guy]

learning to differentiate between virtually useless common names and proper scientific names is your friend

Common names are easier to understand so I do not think that trend will ever happen.

 

[Steveb]

Spend some time studying them. I do, I have a BA in business mgmt. and yes its work but isn't it something you should strive for? Given that you where confused by this very thing - common names vs. correct biological nomenclature.

 

[syrinx]

there is no difference learning a latin name or a common name. Common names really are a problem in the marine industry. Back in the day when I imported corals, common names could mean several, if not a dozen, different animals.

 

[KafudaFish]

Common names are easier to understand so I do not think that trend will ever happen.

Though the trend will continue, I disagree with them being easier to understand because anything can be used as a common name and in the hobby you can go online and find five stores selling the same species under five common names. If you bought all five how many species are there in your tank?


Most jobs or areas of study have specific terms to fit a specific piece of information or object and this is no different.

 

[Luiz Rocha]

I disagree with them being easier to understand because anything can be used as a common name and in the hobby you can go online and find five stores selling the same species under five common names. If you bought all five how many species are there in your tank?

You can also probably go online and find five stores selling five different species under the same name. I see it with fish all the time (not the most popular fish though), so much so that I don't even know most fish common names.

 

[KafudaFish]

Good point.

 

[that Fish Guy]

there is no difference learning a latin name or a common name. Common names really are a problem in the marine industry. Back in the day when I imported corals, common names could mean several, if not a dozen, different animals.

I disagree common names make it easier to identify Coral.

For instance if you say Rastas or Blue Hornets People know exactly what you are talking about.

Trying to describe a Zoanthid without a common name would be a real pain.

Yes, I am looking for Blue Dot Center Orange Inner Ring Green Outer Ring Yellow Skirt.

Who wants to say all that when you can just say I need Rastas and be done with it.

Plus the person you are talking to needs to process it and may not be thinking about exactly what you are thinking.

That is why common names are better than scientific names in my opinion.

 

[KafudaFish]

I disagree common names make it easier to identify Coral.

For instance if you say Rastas or Blue Hornets People know exactly what you are talking about.

Trying to describe a Zoanthid without a common name would be a real pain.

Yes, I am looking for Blue Dot Center Orange Inner Ring Green Outer Ring Yellow Skirt.

Who wants to say all that when you can just say I need Rastas and be done with it.

Plus the person you are talking to needs to process it and may not be thinking about exactly what you are thinking.

That is why common names are better than scientific names in my opinion.

That is the flaw with common names. You believe that you are taking about Rastas but in reality someone else thinks that you are discussing something different because it is a different common name in their local circles.

By using a species name there can be only one and it makes the discussion specific to it.

Also if you know Latin then you know something about that species.

There is nothing wrong with using common names but it does not make it easier to communicate compared to a species name.

 

[that Fish Guy]

That is the flaw with common names. You believe that you are taking about Rastas but in reality someone else thinks that you are discussing something different because it is a different common name in their local circles.

By using a species name there can be only one and it makes the discussion specific to it.

Also if you know Latin then you know something about that species.

There is nothing wrong with using common names but it does not make it easier to communicate compared to a species name.

Rastas are Rastas I have yet to see anybody mislabel them and I have talked to many many people about them.

So you mean to tell me that Rastas have their own scientific name?

If so what is it?

Communication is a two way street.

Even if I know every scientific name out there it does not help when nobody else knows the names as well.

I might as well be speaking Klingon because nobody is going to understand me.

Hence another good reason for common names everyone that I have ever talked to (A lot of people by the way) know what Rastas are yet none of them knew the scientific name (Of which I am sure there is none).

There are a zillion types of zoanthids and none of them are differentiated scientifically but they all are by common name.

Unless I am wrong please let me know.

 

[BlueFyre]

Also, I was reading up on some other animals.

Apparently Axolotyls are almost extinct in the wild (Not threatened, not endangered, but almost completly gone from the wild).

Yet you can still buy them.

White Clouds are a Freshwater Fish that is Extinct in the Wild yet you can find them in any Pet Store (There are Zillions of them due to Captive Breeding - They are like 2.00 each).

So how can they say that Corals Labeled Threatened or Endangered will be Illegal to even own when there are so many other animals that are sold all the time and nobody talks about them like they are talking about Corals now?

The reason you can still buy these species is they are not listed on the ESA. They are pretty much extinct in the wild but not listed so they are legal to breed and distribute.

 

[that Fish Guy]

So looking up the scientific name for Rastas I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoantharia

Scientific classification

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Cnidaria
Class: Anthozoa
Subclass: Hexacorallia
Order: Zoantharia

Families

Epizoanthidae
Neozoanthidae
Parazoanthidae
Zoanthidae

After all those words how do you get to Rastas?

It stops at Zoanthidae of which there are hundreds if not thousands of morphs none of the scientific terms lets you know what Rastas are.

So Nine Words get me absolutly nowhere when just one word gets me there perfectly.

All the scientific classifications do is break down different types and traits similar to each other.

It does not break down color morphs and patterns.

To a scientist a Rasta is the same as Radioactive Dragon Eyes even though Rastas are much much rarer and more attractive (Hence the higher price).

They are in the same family that is all scientists care about.

But that does not help us when talking about them (It hinders conversation).

Go to a Frag Swap and say you want to buy.

Scientific classification

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Cnidaria
Class: Anthozoa
Subclass: Hexacorallia
Order: Zoantharia

Families

Epizoanthidae
Neozoanthidae
Parazoanthidae
Zoanthidae

All he dealers will look at you like you are crazy.

But mention Rastas and they all will know what you want.

So with that being said how does using scientific names make it easier on us than using common names?

 

[Willistein]

Fish Guy - you're spot on. Communication is the key. If two different corals are called by the same common name, then there may be some potential miscommunication, but common names are very helpful, as you point out. Also, many, many corals are unknown/possibly unnamed species, so scientific names don't help much there either.