People eaters = Zoanthus gigantus

[surfnvb7]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7160595#post7160595 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Reef Junkie
You must be married...:lmao:

Sorry man, I couldn't resist.

Yep, your alk, keep it stable. 8-10, that's kosher.
Why do you spike it on the weekends? No time with work?

nope, not married yet.... i'll just leave it at that before she hands me a shovel i find myself digging a deeper hole :lol:

i do the cheapo method of keeping up my chemical parameters (grad student method). the only chemical filtration/maintenance i do is add baking soda (in small amounts) to make up for lost dkH, and dry Kent Turbo Calcium. nothing else. no carbon, no nothin

i am heavily influenced by my reef club to turn over to the dark side and stock heavily with sps. so i do have quite a few sps, and it will easily get knocked down from 10 to 7 in a week (~40g).

but yeah, i just mix in about 3 teaspoons of some baking soda with fresh water every weekend to make up for the evap in the sump. been doing it this way for over a year, and usually have better looking sps than most people in my area with the high tech equipment etc. so I must be doing something right.

i think i am going to look into doing randy's 2 part dosing system on my next tank, which will hopefully be set up in the next 6months after i move. i have no motivation to buy a kalk reactor and/or calcium reactor for my tank. i am hoping a litermeterII dosing pump(s) would work better, and can leave it alone for long periods of time before having to service and make new batches.

but yeah, after doing a planted tank for a couple of years, and constantly having my hands in the tank, i try to take the approach of "set it up and forget it" with the saltwater tank. seems to work well as long as i test calcium and alk on weekends.

 

[Reef Junkie]

Ah, I know another Grad student zoa junkie on this board.
Yes, drop the marriage talk. It's like mentioning the nameless one... :furious: Trust me brother, I'm married and I love my wife and RUN! :eek1:

I couldn't agree with you more on the simple part. I get made fun of all the time because my tank is so simple, but only because it's simple, not because how it looks.

Reactors are great, but really it's hard to justify the cost if you don't have a really large tank. Otherwise dosing a large tank will cost you more in one year then a reactor would cost to buy. Oh, and don't think you can get away with using baking soda in a large tank either. The amount of baking soda you'll need and the mess it'll make.

If you can swing it, use a two part system, you'll be shocked how much nicer your corals will look. I went back to b-ionic a while ago and won't change until I get another big tank. Then I'll just buy a reactor.

Hey, I want to see your reef.

Bill

 

[Fcwham]

James Reimer sent some pics of zoas that he used in the research, here is a pic of the zoa:

They are RPE, IMO they are definatly People Eaters
and these have been ID as Z. gigantus

 

[Azurel]

I have some just like that.....so those are zoanthids now? instead of palythoas? Well good to know...Thanks for sharing the info and article.

 

[Jovreefer]

Ok... Call me retarted or whatever... I have not read this article... but I just dont think I can believe this new classification just yet.

I have some VERY tiny red zoa's that display the SAME exact white bands when closed as PE's. The red's are the absolute smallest zoa in my tank.

What does this mean? Does it help to suport this gentilman's classification that PE's are zoanthids? Or could it mean that he has not done quite enough research if he's saying that only these PE's will have the white band? <--- I'm not personally saying anything here!!!! just asking a bunch of questions.

 

[Reef Junkie]

Retard! :lmao:
jk

Good points Jove. This is a step in the right direction to better understanding these animals. Especially when it comes to classification.

 

[gflat65]

It sounds to me (and haven't thoroughly read the article from the post) that the whole Protopalythoa genus is no longer, but what I gathered from scanning it was that everything was now Palythoa instead of Protopalythoa. I'll read more thoroughly this time to see if I misunderstood. Odd that animals that are genetically almost identical (well, enough to be placed in the same genus according to these new findings) can vary so much. I guess Reticulate Evolution may need to be studied more, as it seems to separate the differences between like species that have completely different appearances... It was nice to be able to call something a Protopalythoa and know it was different than a Zoanthus or a Palythoa. I guess there always has to be a wrench in the gears...

 

[gflat65]

Nope, it seems as though I read it correctly. Borneman says in the linked article that Palythoa and Protopalythpa (from his findings) are congeneric and nearly conspecific, so they would not be Zoanthus sp. He only tested 24 specimens, but it seems as though we have two differing results from the genetic re-evaluation studies (if the other guy is saying that Protopalythoa are actually Zoanthus sp.). Once again, the waters are muddied... There is no question that they belong to the Zoanthidea order, but are clearly not described as Zoanthus sp but Borneman (unless you want to argue that the 'PE' type corals were not ever called Protopalythoa, but all the documentation I've seen from people like Sprung indicate that what we refer to as Protos are the RPE's, PPE's, GPE's, etc.)... I'd like to see the other article, if possible...

 

[Fcwham]

you ar misunderstanding, borneman did not do any research the articul linked was to an abstract from a paper published in a scientific journal by James Reimer. Borneman was just reporting this.
The original paper this thread was published about was also writen by james Reimer.

He wrote both papers

the linked abstract paper compairs the DNA of protopalythoa to palythoa and show that they are not geneticly distinct enough in some cases to be in a differant genus

the one I am posting about taks dna from a zoanthid and compairs them to other zoanthids to showing their phylogony. it then places them in the genus zoanthus and gives them the speices name gigantus

these papers are conclusive and there realy is no muddy water

it is scientificly clear that the group of zoanthids we call people eaters are in the genus Zoanthus it is almost imposable that this data would be overturned, the phylogenetic distance between these newly clasifyed zoanthids and protopalythoa is simply too great

 

[Fcwham]

also what we call PE have never been scientificly discribed, untill now.

 

[Fcwham]

also classification is nolonger done by traits it is done by compairing DNA and RNA

 

[Fcwham]

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=821821
here is what is scientificly known as protopalythoa and may now be re classifyed as palythoa

 

[Jovreefer]

Ok... so I have another question then.

If the PE type coral is now Zoanthid Gigantus, that would mean zoanthid is a genus, and Gigantus is the species correct?

So what is the species of the regular zoanthids?

 

[surfnvb7]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7168044#post7168044 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Fcwham
also classification is nolonger done by traits it is done by compairing DNA and RNA

yup:thumbsup: so my guess is that if they are to be classified as the same species, they would have to have DNA that is only different by like 0.001%, versus being classified as the same genus having DNA different by 0.01% (numbers may not be correct but something like that).

if someone has a zoology or ecology book on hand they can correct me

i think the original zoanthid species was just zoanthid sp. the "sp." standing for species? or did the "sp" just stand for "special" b/c it was unclassified, or classification undetermined at the time.

 

[twon8]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7168806#post7168806 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Jovreefer
Ok... so I have another question then.

If the PE type coral is now Zoanthid Gigantus, that would mean zoanthid is a genus, and Gigantus is the species correct?

So what is the species of the regular zoanthids?

there are hundred, maybe thousands of other species of zoanthus,

it is a very poorly studied area taxonomy-wise, so we don't really know how many species there are. i am basing the hundreds on my own judgement, based on how many different sizes and designs i have seen.

 

[twon8]

also since they don't have skeletal components, there aren't fossil records, and id up to this point has been subjective, based on color of the mat, growth form, etc., which i know can vary based upon tank conditions.

sp. stands for species, and it is used when an identification to the species level cannot be made with certainty. (borneman's book)

i believe a hallmark of a species is it's ability to sexually reproduce, though some similiar species are able to cross-breed, such as some angels and tangs. i imagine the same holds true for zoanthus.

 

[gflat65]

Looks like I stand corrected, and I'll just have to take your word for it. I went the physics route(engineering), so I haven't had a Biology class since high school...

It makes sense, I am just one of those zoa nazis everyone is so fond of. I have a friend with a tank full of zoas that all have long stalks and big oral discs (no, not bragging). They could easily have been viewed as what used to be what I called Protopalythoa (including the one shown from the link from Fcwham and all people eater types). I guess they were just looking for more light, so they plumped up. It is interesting that something hat has a difference in DNA of only 0.001% can look so different, but look at the human animal and there are all kinds of differences...

 

[jreimer]

Zoanthids/Zoanthus identification

Zoanthids/Zoanthus identification

First ever post here - feel like I am in first grade.

Was very surprised to see the discussion on Zoanthus gigantus in this forum, and happy too - great to see people who have tons of experience with zoanthids debating the pros and cons of classification ideas. Anyways - fcwham's comments on the two papers and the overall conclusions are completely in line with what we stated in the papers, namely:

1. based on the DNA we examined from the Palythoa and Protopalythoa spp. samples we used, all should be classified as Palythoa spp.

2. from the pics I have seen, the "people eaters" are what we have described as Zoanthus gigantus (see the pic fcwham posted earlier).

Would love to here from people on our conclusions - you never know when and where you'll get your next research idea!

Cheers,

James Reimer

 

[gflat65]

James,

Great to hear from you.

Does that mean that what was once classified as Protopalythoa grandis is now a Palythoa grandis or something along those lines? As I understand this, the genus Protopalythoa is bunk and void now, right?

 

[surfnvb7]

Nice to speak to you James,

How did you go about comparing the DNA? Just the whole restriction enzyme mapping and then running gels?

would love to see some pics of your "lab tanks"