A modest proposal...

RCS

In Memoriam
In reading a recent post in the Propagation forum about what corals are good options to keep and grow, there was some minor debate on whether or not LPS are good choices.

That got me to thinking about the question (which I know is on a lot of people's minds): what exactly is an LPS?

Okay, I know that the designation of a "PS" as either "L" or "S" is simply a matter of relevant size. Not very helpful though. I mean, is an Elegance coral comparable to a colony of Tubastrea? When dicussin "LPS" care, which species do you take into account?

So, here's my solution. I haven't thought through all the finer points yet, but figured it would be a good discussion starter. And yes, I know it's not perfect, but it may give us some more insights on the whole than the current labeling standards we have.

MPS

Yes...a nice, happy middle ground (well, as happy as ground can be in this hobby). I would argue there's a distinct difference between medium-sized "colonial" polyps, a la the aforementioned Tubastrea, Acanthastrea, etc. versus the "classic" LPS corals-elegance, bubble, euphyllia-that are generally a single large polyp.

So, we've got SPS and we've got LPS...why not introduce MPS? ReefCentral is one of the top forums on the internet, and I'd hazard a guess to say one of the top couple of forums with regards to Reefing, period. We have a say in this people! We don't need to keep lumping obviously different corals under the same generic headings. Granted, there are many more possible groupings to use, but at least it would be a small step in the right direction.

What are everyone else's thoughts? Is it time to bring about some change? We've got sub-compacts and full-size SUVs...and a whole slew in-between. Why not for our corals?

You wouldn't want anyone calling your sports car a compact, would you?
 
Fred,
You got waaaaaayyyyyy too much time on your hands. BUT go ahead and start a new windmill tilt (classical reference). I have had the argument on RC in the past regarding the validity of LPS, SPS and any other commonly used name that may or may not have any basis in scientific taxonomy. I believe the original debate was around Hydnophora and what it should be classified as.
So sorry!!!!!! I won't be joining the debate as I was not pleased with the way the last one was going and I wish you oodles of luck with this one.
Jon
 
Having a third (albeit still imprecise) category would just make discussions so much simpler in many cases. There will always be resistance, but change needs to start somewhere. Personally, if EVERYONE could refer to EVERYTHING by its scientific name (at least the genus or a close match), it would make my life a lot easier. :D
 

Similar threads

Back
Top