corallimorphs

cfockler

New member
Your Relative Trophic Level chart did not include the lowly corallimorphs. From what I've learned so far I believe they are highly autotrophic and would be grouped with the Zoanthus and Xenia. Is this correct?

I had the impression that the corallimorphs were generally the most autotrophic of all corals.

It's funny how I hated Biology in high school, but now that I'm free to study and discover the topics that interest me at my own pace I find it so fascinating. :D
 
Follow up...

From my reading of your book, I remember you saying that the corallimorphs obtain a lot of their nutrients through direct absorption from the water.

Is this method considered autotrophy, heterotrophy, bowlingtrophy, or something else altogether? :confused:
 
Depends on the corallimorph - some have very strong prey capture responses - some of the Rhodactis=Discosoma and certainly the fish-catching Amplexidiscus have no problems eating large prey items.. The smooth ones (Actinodiscus=Discosoma), Ricordea and some like D. inchoata and the like, have no, or almost no visible prey capture response, and their food may be acquired my mucociliary transport of tiny particles and direct absorption. Given that many of these animals live in very shaded conditions, I don't think they are highly autotrophic at all. I could be wrong.
 
Thanks. I realize the question was a little vague. I read about the Amplexidiscus in your Corals book last night. Pretty cool picture of the coral wrapping around the fish. For the sake of my Ocellaris, I think I'll leave the Amplexidiscus in the ocean.

I'm thinking of the Discosomas and Actinodiscus in particular. To focus the question even more lets assume we're talking about a species that absorbs a lot of dissolved nutrients from the water and has minimal usage of zooxanthellae and minimal prey capture.

How would you classify such a beast? Neither Heterotropic nor Autotrophic seems correct to me.
 
Back
Top