Micro? new Taxon???

[Amphiprion]

Hmm, as of 2000 (at least), Micromussa and Acanthastrea remain as discrete genera. I am not a coral taxonomist, but that is the latest date that I have seen these corals being separate in scientific literature, etc. Even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't be a new taxon, though. A taxon is the unit of the taxonomic hierarchy (i.e. Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). "amakusensis" isn't a taxon by itself (it is a species used to specify a particular complex of organisms, in this case, corals).

 

[ReefDoctorMicromussas]

Welllllll,

To correct you to the very best of my ability
If you will check the CITES information that I posted above, you will find that Amakusensis and the others are taxons of the Genus Acanthastrea.. at least per the listed CITES information...I understood that the CITES info was basically how we / I identify the proper groupings of coral classes. I am familiar with the Micromussa vs. Acanthastrea debate If this has been updated ? as I posted I would gladly like to see a link to it so that I may correctly differentiate terms. Undoubtedly though, taxons are subclasses within a genus.

"Taxon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A taxon (plural taxa), or taxonomic unit, is a grouping of organisms (named or unnamed). Once named, a taxon will usually have a rank and can be placed at a particular level in a hierarchy."

Kingdom : ANIMALIA
Phylum : CNIDARIA
Class : ANTHOZOA
Order : SCLERACTINIA
Family : MUSSIDAE
Genus : Acanthastrea
Taxon : Acanthastrea amakusensis Veron, 1990
Synonym : Micromussa amakusensis

 

[baja_01]

I would consider this site to be fairly up to date. It shows micros with their own genus.

 

[gflat65]

The interesting thing is that the CITES website in the post above shows that the info is from Veron, who manages the whelks page, if I understand correctly, so I figured that CITES was just behind the times if their current info shows Micros as Acan...

 

[Amphiprion]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8036621#post8036621 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by doctor64776
Welllllll,

To correct you to the very best of my ability
If you will check the CITES information that I posted above, you will find that Amakusensis and the others are taxons of the Genus Acanthastrea.. at least per the listed CITES information...I understood that the CITES info was basically how we / I identify the proper groupings of coral classes. I am familiar with the Micromussa vs. Acanthastrea debate If this has been updated ? as I posted I would gladly like to see a link to it so that I may correctly differentiate terms. Undoubtedly though, taxons are subclasses within a genus.

"Taxon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A taxon (plural taxa), or taxonomic unit, is a grouping of organisms (named or unnamed). Once named, a taxon will usually have a rank and can be placed at a particular level in a hierarchy."

Kingdom : ANIMALIA
Phylum : CNIDARIA
Class : ANTHOZOA
Order : SCLERACTINIA
Family : MUSSIDAE
Genus : Acanthastrea
Taxon : Acanthastrea amakusensis Veron, 1990
Synonym : Micromussa amakusensis

Check other major taxonomy sites and you will quickly see differently. The term generally refers to the different levels of the hierarchy. Less often, it can be used to describe specific names in taxa. For example, while 'genus' is a taxon, so is 'Amphiprion'. It can be generalized or specific. I am afraid that the CITES site is a misusage of this system. A. amakusensis is a binomial, not a taxon--Acanthastrea is a taxon and amakusensis is a taxon (genus and species, respectively), not both. You will find that, according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, that is the definition.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8037133#post8037133 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by baja_01
I would consider this site to be fairly up to date. It shows micros with their own genus.

It is, to my knowledge, also the most up to date site. If CITES draws upon Veron as a source, Veron has since changed that. The last update on that coral was in 2000. However, M. amakusensis was originally described and found as A. amakusensis, as found on the site.

 

[cee]

Taxanomic reference: Micromussa amakusensis, Veron, 1990.
Identification guide: Acanthastrea amakusensis, Nishihira and Veron, 1995.

Source: Veron, Corals of the World, Volume 3, 2000.

 

[gflat65]

So it has more to do with what it looks like for collection (after all, Micro amak's are basically small Acan lord's). I guess that makes it easier. Interesting.

 

[ReefDoctorMicromussas]

Ok, I am willing to learn

So the words Amakusensis, Minuta, Diminuta ect. are they not Taxons? within a genus?
Taxon being a specific type of organism within a genus?

 

[Amphiprion]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8039012#post8039012 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by doctor64776
Ok, I am willing to learn

So the words Amakusensis, Minuta, Diminuta ect. are they not Taxons? within a genus?
Taxon being a specific type of organism within a genus?

They could all be called taxons. The word 'genus' is a taxon, as well as any more specific word that fits into that taxon. Those names are specific names (relating to species, as opposed to generic=genus) and are a taxon all unto themselves. Acanthastrea is a taxon, Mussidae is a taxon, etc. etc. I just don't like CITES' way of putting it on paper, as it is terribly misleading.

 

[ReefDoctorMicromussas]

Firstly, Very good info Thank You

Roger.. Point taken...as I originally posted Taxon amakusensis... taxon being in this case the "specific" grouping within the genus an acceptable use of the word through CITES and Wilkepedia although a better and more accurate wording choice would be "binomial"


So back to the original point of this thread.... Rather than pulling back into the skeletal structure when irratated the micro closes up at the top through utilization of an entirely separate set of muscle groups than does the usual Amakusensis... it pulls it entire top closed to eat food much like a dendro rather than the typical amak retracting its tentacles to pull the food in. Is this not atypical amak behavior? another "binomial" perhaps?