Latest And Greatest!
- Thread starter gasman059
- Start date
ReeferMadnessUS
In Memoriam
i agree...
RM team...
dots
Premium Member
Acropora caroliniana:
http://whelk.aims.gov.au/coralsearch/html/001-100/Species pages/15.htm
Acropora turaki:
http://whelk.aims.gov.au/coralsearch/html/701-800/Species pages/714.htm
http://whelk.aims.gov.au/coralsearch/html/001-100/Species pages/15.htm
Acropora turaki:
http://whelk.aims.gov.au/coralsearch/html/701-800/Species pages/714.htm
Kolognekoral
New member
It's beautiful! I have what I believe is the same thing, but it is more green-pink and lightly flourescent under actinics. I think it may be A. paniculata, as it cannot be A. caroliniana from the coralite structure, which doesn't taper as in A. caroliniana. Mine, and yours appears similar, has a lightly built coenosteum, which A. caroliniana doesn't have, being rather plump, also, the coenosteum/skelteon is reticulate, which A. caroliniana isn't. A. turaki has the same problems in general form, but does have a reticulate skeleton. However, mine is definitely a plating form, somewhat thick, at 35mm+. It is definitely a deeper lagoon species, enjoying strong current and extending itself into the shaded area. Mesenteric filaments are often seen from the axials for feeding.
If anything, it more resembles A. batunai, which is similar to the A. echinata group (A. turaki), but has a growth form resembling the A. loripes group (A. caroliniana).
In using the skelton shots in Wallaces book, it appears that there is a group of similar corals with reticulate coenosteum containing A. jacquelineae, A. desalwii and A. batunai, which all, in my eyes, have a similar build. Until now, what I have seen offered as A. desalwii does not match Wallace's description, rather that gived by Veron, which is a bit different. How can this be? After all, Wallace originally described this and the other two species?! She also described A. turaki. In attempting to define this group of species, I always refer back to her book, as this is the official description!
Not that this helps matters
As one member has asked for a thread discussing ID corals, perhaps we should start a thread discussing those methods we do use and what we are seeing. I can only speak for myself, but there is a lot of gut feeling often shown, which doesn't take into account the actual skeletal characteristics, rather that which one has been told through the web...and forums just like this one. Ultimately, the ID is not nearly as important as recognizing the need of the particular coral. I find it a fun mental exercise! :fish2:
If anything, it more resembles A. batunai, which is similar to the A. echinata group (A. turaki), but has a growth form resembling the A. loripes group (A. caroliniana).
In using the skelton shots in Wallaces book, it appears that there is a group of similar corals with reticulate coenosteum containing A. jacquelineae, A. desalwii and A. batunai, which all, in my eyes, have a similar build. Until now, what I have seen offered as A. desalwii does not match Wallace's description, rather that gived by Veron, which is a bit different. How can this be? After all, Wallace originally described this and the other two species?! She also described A. turaki. In attempting to define this group of species, I always refer back to her book, as this is the official description!
Not that this helps matters
As one member has asked for a thread discussing ID corals, perhaps we should start a thread discussing those methods we do use and what we are seeing. I can only speak for myself, but there is a lot of gut feeling often shown, which doesn't take into account the actual skeletal characteristics, rather that which one has been told through the web...and forums just like this one. Ultimately, the ID is not nearly as important as recognizing the need of the particular coral. I find it a fun mental exercise! :fish2:
gasman059
The OG mad scientist
Yup<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9729813#post9729813 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kolognekoral
It's beautiful! I have what I believe is the same thing, but it is more green-pink and lightly flourescent under actinics. I think it may be A. paniculata, as it cannot be A. caroliniana from the coralite structure, which doesn't taper as in A. caroliniana. Mine, and yours appears similar, has a lightly built coenosteum, which A. caroliniana doesn't have, being rather plump, also, the coenosteum/skelteon is reticulate, which A. caroliniana isn't. A. turaki has the same problems in general form, but does have a reticulate skeleton. However, mine is definitely a plating form, somewhat thick, at 35mm+. It is definitely a deeper lagoon species, enjoying strong current and extending itself into the shaded area. Mesenteric filaments are often seen from the axials for feeding.
If anything, it more resembles A. batunai, which is similar to the A. echinata group (A. turaki), but has a growth form resembling the A. loripes group (A. caroliniana).
In using the skelton shots in Wallaces book, it appears that there is a group of similar corals with reticulate coenosteum containing A. jacquelineae, A. desalwii and A. batunai, which all, in my eyes, have a similar build. Until now, what I have seen offered as A. desalwii does not match Wallace's description, rather that gived by Veron, which is a bit different. How can this be? After all, Wallace originally described this and the other two species?! She also described A. turaki. In attempting to define this group of species, I always refer back to her book, as this is the official description!
Not that this helps matters
As one member has asked for a thread discussing ID corals, perhaps we should start a thread discussing those methods we do use and what we are seeing. I can only speak for myself, but there is a lot of gut feeling often shown, which doesn't take into account the actual skeletal characteristics, rather that which one has been told through the web...and forums just like this one. Ultimately, the ID is not nearly as important as recognizing the need of the particular coral. I find it a fun mental exercise! :fish2:
I would have guessed A. jacquelineae over A. caroliniana due to the longer stem ends but there seems to be very little polyp extension so perhaps you're correct in the id. They are both quite similar. The A. jacquelineae in my reef is very fragile and doesn't grow as flat as this looks to be.
I personally use Veron-(Corals of the World) as my main id resource. I also use my own (limited) experience, remembering to take into consideration reticulate evolution. I've witnessed many pieces that if I didn't know were the same, would never have guessed they are, even in my own reef.
I think much of the time all we can really do is give our best guess without a bare skeleton to look at. I find even then it can be a little sketchy for me.
I personally use Veron-(Corals of the World) as my main id resource. I also use my own (limited) experience, remembering to take into consideration reticulate evolution. I've witnessed many pieces that if I didn't know were the same, would never have guessed they are, even in my own reef.
I think much of the time all we can really do is give our best guess without a bare skeleton to look at. I find even then it can be a little sketchy for me.
Last edited:
WWC
Registered Member
Re: Latest And Greatest!
http://www.splash-sea.co.jp/zukan/zukan01.html
here check out these picture of a caroliniana acropora in japan,is the 6th pics down on the left<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9706051#post9706051 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by gasman059
[/IMG] :smokin:
http://www.splash-sea.co.jp/zukan/zukan01.html
Similar threads
