Acropora ID mini-class
- Thread starter EricHugo
- Start date
Mantis: no worries! No, it really sin;t that easy..wish it was!
David: The ground color of the coral is hard to judge...normal or somewhat bleached?
The growth form for this piece would be a total gues...probably confounding to even attempt that trait.
The axials are as you describe, and it appears to have a good set of directive septa, too.
On your radials, good assessment, but it appears some are dimidiate, too...are they or am I just not seeing them correctly. I would say your coenosteum is not really costate, but tending towards it - probably from the spinules lining up in rows, but it doen't appear they have formed solid ridges, have they?
Mantis:
nice work. So, it doesn;t look to me like round openings on your radials althoughs some are...try to take note of all types, and then decide which are the majority, too. Are some dimidiate? Also, agree on the nariform - mostly appressed. Any smaller ones in there between the primary radials? Those are unusual axials. Can you see the septa at all in them?
David: The ground color of the coral is hard to judge...normal or somewhat bleached?
The growth form for this piece would be a total gues...probably confounding to even attempt that trait.
The axials are as you describe, and it appears to have a good set of directive septa, too.
On your radials, good assessment, but it appears some are dimidiate, too...are they or am I just not seeing them correctly. I would say your coenosteum is not really costate, but tending towards it - probably from the spinules lining up in rows, but it doen't appear they have formed solid ridges, have they?
Mantis:
nice work. So, it doesn;t look to me like round openings on your radials althoughs some are...try to take note of all types, and then decide which are the majority, too. Are some dimidiate? Also, agree on the nariform - mostly appressed. Any smaller ones in there between the primary radials? Those are unusual axials. Can you see the septa at all in them?
davejnz
In Memoriam
sorry Eric,its hard for me to get accurate septa counts on radials and axials with my poor lens.coenosteum does appear reticulate and costate near the radials.It is hard to pick a group as not many are arborescent but if i had to guess it would be A.aspera.
I'm trying to borrow a better magnifying device so bear with me
I'm trying to borrow a better magnifying device so bear with me
cabrerad
New member
Eric,
Sorry for the late reply, internet at home was down for the weekend.
To answer your questions: The coral is light blue on the top 2/3 and is brown at the base. No bleaching is apparent.
After looking at the coral again I would agree some of the radials are mildly dimidiate. As for the coenosteum, you are correct, the spinules are lined up, but do not form plates on the radials.
I am not sure if the lack of costate structure on the radials knocks the A. robusta complex/group id out, but I have now added A. divaricata and A. nasuta to the mix. I have Veron's Corals of the World, but am hesitant to use it to narrow down further and possibly be led astray by some coral looking like mine.
So that's where I am.
David
Sorry for the late reply, internet at home was down for the weekend.
To answer your questions: The coral is light blue on the top 2/3 and is brown at the base. No bleaching is apparent.
After looking at the coral again I would agree some of the radials are mildly dimidiate. As for the coenosteum, you are correct, the spinules are lined up, but do not form plates on the radials.
I am not sure if the lack of costate structure on the radials knocks the A. robusta complex/group id out, but I have now added A. divaricata and A. nasuta to the mix. I have Veron's Corals of the World, but am hesitant to use it to narrow down further and possibly be led astray by some coral looking like mine.
So that's where I am.
David
JB NY
Active member
EricHugo said:
OK, I got my 20X loop and looked my branch a bit more.
Same extra info
Radials
Nariform with elongate openings (picture I on p 56)
No septa in radials, Larger radials that look as if they will form axials, have 4 radials.
Coenosteum
Costate with spinule development. Closest to picture E on p 57
As to the grouping, if you think that latistella group is more appropriate, I'll stick with that. It was just that, after looking at the groups again, I wasn't sure if the best grouping was latistella or nasuta.
firefish15
New member
I was waiting for delivery of Wallace's book but I'll give it a shot.EricHugo said:
Axials - 2.5mm outside diameter and 0.8 inside diameter.
Septa.
2 cycles. 6 primary extending to 75% of radius, 6 secondary.
Radials - variable in size from 2mm x 2.5mm to 1 mm x 0.7 mm outside diameter.
Four types of radial corallite
1. tubular nariform opening.
2. nariform elongate opening.
3. appressed tubular
4. immersed.
Septa. also variable but all have 2 cycles. the majority having 6 primary and 6 secondary. Some having 2 primary, 4 barely visible secondary.
Coenosteum
Coenosteum around radials is costate. Between radials it is reticulate.
The costae around the axial and radial corallites are similar with shark-like teeth.
Grouping
Acropora humilis group. Even though you describe the axial corallite as being "large and dominant", there is one species in this group with small axials (globiceps).
I took some closeup pictures of the coenosteum, this one of the coenosteum between the corallites.
Attachments
firefish15
New member
Mantis
Active member
As far as radial openings are concerned, I would say 50/50 oval to round. If I had to make a choice I would say the majority is round.
No dimidiate radials, though I may have chipped a couple handling the piece, man made dimidiate.
No small radials between primaries, but there are some sub-imersed, round radials on the undersides of the branches.
No visible septa in axials under 30 power microscope.
Does the high number of oval radial opening disqualify my coral from the Latistella group?
I've looked at all of the corals in that group on the Whelk coral search web page and think all of those corals look similar to mine but none are exact. I know there is much greater variability that source simply can't handle.
Brad
piercho
New member
Heck, I don't know. If I work by process of elimination, I seem to eliminate them all. So... latistella??
3-branch skeletal fragment
Front quarter shot of branches
Radial detail
3-branch skeletal fragment
Front quarter shot of branches
Radial detail
- Growth form: corymbose. Branches rising from fused base with anastomose branches between bases. Branches of 'mature' colony mine came from rising to uniform level like a tabletop.
- Axials: very distinct and contribute the majority of branch width. Septa: 12. Cycles: 2. Primary series are distinct but with inconsistent protrusion. Each of the secondary series cannot be made out in each corallite. Septa do not protrude very far into corallite.
- Radials: distinct from axials and tend to be consistent within zones. Septa: 12. Cycles: 2. The majority are appressed tubular much like fig 33 category C, a few are rounded tubular and are judged to be incipient axials.
- Corralites in the fused area below the branches are sub-immerssed or immersed.
- Coenosteum: This is where I get confused. I would call the entire branch, including radials costae, costate with simple spinnules. This doesn't fit with any of the group descriptions that otherwise match my piece. Below the branches, reticulate. Help with this would be appreciated.
[/list=1]
All right.
So, we are now to a species level, hopefully. If any of you have any questions about your respective corals and you want me to take a look and confirm or deny your analysis, please show the photos.
I have uploaded three documents to my website which I will need you to print. You will probably want to print multiple copies so you can write on them as you go.
This is the systematics key for Acropora. It does not work like other keys, and I actually like it better than most types. But, there are a lot of characters, and I know you guys will have questions about some of the categories. If you are not sure on your specimen, or it appears to have more than one character trait in a category, its ok.
What you will do is work through each category, and then put a black dot over every species in the list that does not have that character. Then, move to the next category and do the same. Eventually, you will have a list of one to several (or maybe many) species with the characters you have described.
If you are comfortable with your grouping designation based on the characters, you can get a big leg up by eliminating all species that do not appear in that group (I listed them earlier in this thread). If you are unsure, or have eliminated all but a few groups, it will still behelpful to eliminate down to the potential species of that group.
Once you are finished, let me know. Then, we can look at comparative photos for that group and do a final reanalysis by comparison to see if you can get the species from your sample.
The pages are at www.bchs.uh.edu/~coralreef
Click on graduate student research / my page "here"/research/aquarium related work/Acropora ID class
Have fun!!
So, we are now to a species level, hopefully. If any of you have any questions about your respective corals and you want me to take a look and confirm or deny your analysis, please show the photos.
I have uploaded three documents to my website which I will need you to print. You will probably want to print multiple copies so you can write on them as you go.
This is the systematics key for Acropora. It does not work like other keys, and I actually like it better than most types. But, there are a lot of characters, and I know you guys will have questions about some of the categories. If you are not sure on your specimen, or it appears to have more than one character trait in a category, its ok.
What you will do is work through each category, and then put a black dot over every species in the list that does not have that character. Then, move to the next category and do the same. Eventually, you will have a list of one to several (or maybe many) species with the characters you have described.
If you are comfortable with your grouping designation based on the characters, you can get a big leg up by eliminating all species that do not appear in that group (I listed them earlier in this thread). If you are unsure, or have eliminated all but a few groups, it will still behelpful to eliminate down to the potential species of that group.
Once you are finished, let me know. Then, we can look at comparative photos for that group and do a final reanalysis by comparison to see if you can get the species from your sample.
The pages are at www.bchs.uh.edu/~coralreef
Click on graduate student research / my page "here"/research/aquarium related work/Acropora ID class
Have fun!!
piercho
New member
Ugh..frames. For others trying to find these downloads, follow this path once you get to the "The Lab Of G.M. Wellington" page linked by Eric, above:
->Graduate Student Research
->Eric Hugo Borneman; visit his page
here
->Research
->Aquarium Related Works
And you will be on a page with links with these titles:
Wallace characters p. 1.
Wallace characters p. 2
Wallace characters p. 3
->Graduate Student Research
->Eric Hugo Borneman; visit his page
here
->Research
->Aquarium Related Works
And you will be on a page with links with these titles:
Wallace characters p. 1.
Wallace characters p. 2
Wallace characters p. 3
piercho
New member
Well, I need some clarification with some character numbers.
2. Branching orders: ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œTertiary or later orders present.ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ Donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t know what this means.
7 & 8. The coenostenum on mine has spinnules in rows, there is a low ridge along the row (ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œbroken costateââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â, right?). The spinnules are tooth-like and separate. I would call them costate with simple spinnules. Would this character be ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œcostateââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ or ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œopen spinnulesââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â?
11. Radial corallite inner wall: What is ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œdevelopedââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â?
17. Branch thickness: My branch taper is conical. Would this be the average thickness, or at the base, or other?
TIA
2. Branching orders: ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œTertiary or later orders present.ââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ Donââ"šÂ¬Ã¢"žÂ¢t know what this means.
7 & 8. The coenostenum on mine has spinnules in rows, there is a low ridge along the row (ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œbroken costateââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â, right?). The spinnules are tooth-like and separate. I would call them costate with simple spinnules. Would this character be ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œcostateââ"šÂ¬Ã‚ or ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œopen spinnulesââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â?
11. Radial corallite inner wall: What is ââ"šÂ¬Ã…"œdevelopedââ"šÂ¬Ã‚Â?
17. Branch thickness: My branch taper is conical. Would this be the average thickness, or at the base, or other?
TIA
OK
A single branch or the main branch is primary branching. A second set (major limbs) that comes off the main branch is secondary branching. Tertiary has branches off the second branch, etc.
Probably costate. Open spinnules are where the coenosteum is very open and proous and the spinnules just sort of seem to come up from the reticulate network.
A developed inner wall means its solid and flush, like a wall. If you look at others, the inner wall is rather concave and the septa just sort of appear from inside. Kind of hard to describe. Picture a coffee mug for a developed inner wall.
On tapering branches, I don't know. I would tend to take a middle branch reading. I might write to Carden and ask her that question...its a good one.
A single branch or the main branch is primary branching. A second set (major limbs) that comes off the main branch is secondary branching. Tertiary has branches off the second branch, etc.
Probably costate. Open spinnules are where the coenosteum is very open and proous and the spinnules just sort of seem to come up from the reticulate network.
A developed inner wall means its solid and flush, like a wall. If you look at others, the inner wall is rather concave and the septa just sort of appear from inside. Kind of hard to describe. Picture a coffee mug for a developed inner wall.
On tapering branches, I don't know. I would tend to take a middle branch reading. I might write to Carden and ask her that question...its a good one.
piercho
New member
I went through the list and identified character states that I felt were strong eliminators. Then I went through the list and identifed the characters states I felt were strong identifiers. I was left with these specie:
acuminata (rare)
hyacinthus
anthocercis
cytherea
microclados
paniculata
indonesia
subulata
acuminata is far outside the grouping so I discarded it. The strongest distinguishing characteristic of those left was whether the radial coralite shape was nariform or dimidiate. Although I felt they were appressed tubular, nariform seemed the closest, so I picked that. That left microclados and indonesia
My branch pics are just a couple of posts back.
acuminata (rare)
hyacinthus
anthocercis
cytherea
microclados
paniculata
indonesia
subulata
acuminata is far outside the grouping so I discarded it. The strongest distinguishing characteristic of those left was whether the radial coralite shape was nariform or dimidiate. Although I felt they were appressed tubular, nariform seemed the closest, so I picked that. That left microclados and indonesia
My branch pics are just a couple of posts back.
Hi Howard:
Um, I'm not sure you are on the right track here. The radials are spaced quite far apart, and that whole group is quite similar. Nicely done on the grouping, though. I think there is some character, though, that you have misinterpreted that put you into this group. This group tends to have more labellate and flaring radials that are more crowded. Ordinarily, you would expect some variability, but I'm really not seeing the similarity with your photos. Take another look if you want and see what you might have missed.
Um, I'm not sure you are on the right track here. The radials are spaced quite far apart, and that whole group is quite similar. Nicely done on the grouping, though. I think there is some character, though, that you have misinterpreted that put you into this group. This group tends to have more labellate and flaring radials that are more crowded. Ordinarily, you would expect some variability, but I'm really not seeing the similarity with your photos. Take another look if you want and see what you might have missed.
piercho
New member
Agreed.
I thought the character state was radials not touching, but I couldn't make it fit with the way I was going, so I rationalized I must be looking at them wrong. Same thing are the radial shape.
I did and came up with different grouping. Where I ended up, the coralites and branchlets seem better described, but the growth form seems wrong. I'll go through each character and maybe somebody can steer me in a better direction. TIA
I'll color some character states as follows:
picked state that is strong identifier
(state that is an eliminator)
- branch formation: around single axial around more than one axial
- branching orders: tertiary not present
- colony outline: determinant
- Predominant outline: corymbose (cuneiform, encrusting, elkhorn, plate, free-living aborescent)
- Branch diameter: axial dominated (radial dominated)
- Coenosteum: same on and between different coralites
- Radial coralite coenosteum: broken costate
- Between radials coenosteum: broken costate
- Spinule shape:
- Radial corallite sizes: one size or graded
- Radial corallite inner wall:
- Radial corallite: apressed tubular (dimidiate, conical, immersed)
- Radial corallite openings: oval to rounded (chocleaform, dimidiate)
- Axial/radial ratio: (many) (few)
- Axial coralite outer diameter: small (2.5 mm) (big)
- Radial coralites: small (very large, large)
- Branch thickness: thin (super thick, thick)
- Branch taper: tetrete (wedge)
- Max branch length: (super short)
- Radial crowding: don't touch (crowded)
- Axial corallite syn rings: 2
- Skeletal porosity: porous
- Radial cor syn rings: 2
[/list=1]
That leaves me with these guys, mostly by elimination:- acuminata - no
- horrida - no
- vaughani - not really
- kirstyae - sort of except growth form
- derawanensis - no
- halmeaherac
4. outline: I had to leave arborescent in to avoid eliminating everything. In my first attempt at this I eliminated that state.
5. branch diameter: I eliminate radial-dominated types, which eliminates a whole group of corymbose candidates starting with latistella. This is where I thought that my coral would be found. Maybe this is where I'm screwing up.
12 & 13. radials: I eliminate dimidiate candidates. I don't see notches in my radial cups, but maybe I don't understand this state.
18. taper: visually, conical. Measuring at below the first radials and above the last, tetrete.
19. max branch length: I added super-short as an eliminator. This knocks out my earlier picks of indionesia and microlados.
Similar threads
