tonyespinoza
Premium Member
awesome... funny how mine changed the moment i switched to 20K's... wonder if there was some other reason mine was less colorful before. maybe feeding or something since the water parameters are identical.
Montipora Undata care
- Thread starter jgatmaitan
- Start date
Justin74
New member
The "True Undata" looks like a denae or verrucosa to me..Or has this already been discussed? The tuberculae just look to big to be an undata
small dots or tuberculae
For classification it is suggested to move onto Montipora danae, if large tuberculae are formed, for example:
Then if even larger than that move onto Montipora verrucosa.
Cool part though is all 3 come from the same general vacinity; predominantly upper reef slopes while some are also in lagoons.
-Justin
small dots or tuberculae
For classification it is suggested to move onto Montipora danae, if large tuberculae are formed, for example:
Then if even larger than that move onto Montipora verrucosa.
Cool part though is all 3 come from the same general vacinity; predominantly upper reef slopes while some are also in lagoons.
-Justin
fishboarder
New member
justin - do verrucosa an danae plate? i thought they were just encrusting types.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Justin74,
This pictures in question are indeed M. undata. The two other montipora you mentioned have very specific Coenosteums which have tuberculae predominantly over the coral. In M. danae, it is sometimes hard to see the polyps they are so crowded within the tuburculae. However, with the undata, the tuberculae, will not be covering the coral in entirety, and they will occasionally form rdiges (a la M. confusa). The first pic you posted, looks like undata to me (maybe confusa), but I think it is just an extreme closeup. Whereas the other look nothinglike undata (at least to me).
This pictures in question are indeed M. undata. The two other montipora you mentioned have very specific Coenosteums which have tuberculae predominantly over the coral. In M. danae, it is sometimes hard to see the polyps they are so crowded within the tuburculae. However, with the undata, the tuberculae, will not be covering the coral in entirety, and they will occasionally form rdiges (a la M. confusa). The first pic you posted, looks like undata to me (maybe confusa), but I think it is just an extreme closeup. Whereas the other look nothinglike undata (at least to me).
Justin74
New member
The first pic is a real undata. The second is a danae, and the last is a verrucosa. These arent my pics, but taken from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, those pics are used for ID purposes to show everyone here what is what
What I was trying to make the correlation between was Tyree's "true undata" looks more like a verrucosa than an undata, and used the pictures and def's to illustrate my presumption -Justin
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12699695#post12699695 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
The first pic is a real undata. The second is a danae, and the last is a verrucosa. These arent my pics, but taken from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, those pics are used for ID purposes to show everyone here what is what
-Justin
I dont follow. Which pic do you think is misidentified as undata that you think is verrucosa?
Justin74
New member
I was never referring to a pic in particular but the labeling ID of the "true undata LE" coral itself. With that in mind if you go back and re-read what I was saying it will make more sense. I see how you may have thought that I was referring to a particular picture, but am not, well, in that regard I would be disputing any picture of Tyree's "True Undata" from anyone's personal collection as a true undata,not it's lineated name, just the identification of the name it was given
But like was mentioned, pretty much too late for that now
Whether it is or not, it's always going to be commonly known and exchanged as an undata.
-Justin
But like was mentioned, pretty much too late for that now
Whether it is or not, it's always going to be commonly known and exchanged as an undata.-Justin
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12700302#post12700302 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
I was never referring to a pic in particular but the labeling ID of the "true undata LE" coral itself. With that in mind if you go back and re-read what I was saying it will make more sense. I see how you may have thought that I was referring to a particular picture, but am not, well, in that regard I would be disputing any picture of Tyree's "True Undata" from anyone's personal collection as a true undata,not it's lineated name, just the identification of the name it was given
But like was mentioned, pretty much too late for that now
-Justin
gotcha. I agree that ID is absolutely lacking in the hobby now. Unfortuantely, its through laziness and greed in my opinion. I DESPISE the stupid nicknames that are given, as it "dumbs down" the actual ID, or, at least boosts the price for no particular reason. I just read a for sale thread that EVER coral the guy had listed had some dumb name associated. Just my opinion, though.
tacocat
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12700302#post12700302 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
in that regard I would be disputing any picture of Tyree's "True Undata" from anyone's personal collection as a true undata,not it's lineated name, just the identification of the name it was given
-Justin
Many of the LE corals were named prior to the availability of biological classification being available to the laymen. That being said, if you have Veron's books at hand turn to page 87 in Volume 1.
In the photographic examples of Montipora undata, picture no.7 (taken in Cebu, PI) looks identical to the "True undata" - species name is not capitalized
. I think the AIMS site uses photographs 5 and 6, but I'm too lazy to confirm.
Justin74
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12700655#post12700655 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tacocat
Many of the LE corals were named prior to the availability of biological classification being available to the laymen. That being said, if you have Veron's books at hand turn to page 87 in Volume 1.
In the photographic examples of Montipora undata, picture no.7 (taken in Cebu, PI) looks identical to the "True undata" - species name is not capitalized
Nah, I was going of the sights database.
Far as my capitalization..You know that, I know that
And if you notice my reference to specie, I am conscious of that But where it's capitalized was in reference to the collector coral, which is capitalized on there sight -Justin
tacocat
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12701064#post12701064 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Justin74
Nah, I was going of the sights database.
Far as my capitalization..You know that, I know that
-Justin
Of course, but it is mandatory that I mess with you. That's what makes biological classifaction tough. There are SOOO many different subspecies/phenotypes/etc. I gave up.
Just look at the fishes. Squammipinnis vary from region to region. Regal tangs have several variants, Midas blennies are sold as different varients, etc.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Wait, are you saying that common names are less confusing that scientifics? I disgaree with that, extensively! Common names suck!
FWIW, biologocial classification does not consider phenotypes, variants, etc. Almost all fish are clkassified by meristics (scale and fin ray counts), not by colors. The examples you gave are color variants, and play no role in determination opf species. What fish do you know of that has a subspecies?
Sorry to be so defensive, but this topic is in my wheelhouse.
I did need that!!
tacocat
Premium Member
*Hi-jack time*
No worries, and I understand where you come from. My BA is in ecology, and I specialized in aquatic ecology and ichthyology, of course that was a long time ago, an things have changed.
You are correct in fish identification from the physical measurements of holotypes, but it still leads to some confusion. There are subspecies of fish:
A case in point are the golden trout complex and cutthroat complex here in California. The golden trout was divided into at least two subspecies Volcano Creek golden (Oncorhynchus aguabonita) and the Little Kern golden (O aguabonita whitei).
I went to do some spellchecking and it turns out O. aguabonita is now a subspecies of rainbow trout O. mykiss (no doubt because of DNA analysis). So now our state fish is formally O. mykiss aguabonita. What becomes of the Little Kern golden? These fish differ very little in their DNA, but looks world's apart.
The cutthroats are the coastal cutthroats (Oncorhynchus clarki), the Lahontan cutthorat (O. clarki henshawi), and the very interesting Paiute cutthroat (O. clarki seleniris). The Paiute differs from the Lahontan in that it has almost no spots.
The biological classifications add confusion when the government tries to implement protection plans for these fishes, plus these fish are extremely prone to hybridzation with rainbows.
The rainbow trout family is fun to study, probably because I'm an avid flyfisherman. To add more confusion to the fire, the genus name was changed rather recently from Salmo to Oncorhynchus.
