Toadstool ID?

[smcnally]

Anyone seen a toadstool with polyps like this before?
This little leather has been growing in my tank for a few months now. I have no idea where it came from because it's polyp structure doesn't match any leathers I've had in my tank. It definitely seems to be a toadstool, but I've never seen polyps like that on a toadstool before. Has anyone seen one of these?

 

[tinyreef]

agreed, it looks like a sarco but it's much too young for a ID imo. very nice polyp coloration though. let us know what it grows into.

btw are those corynactis anemones at the lower left? purty!

 

[smcnally]

Thanks for the help. Those are actually hidden cup corals that hitched on my rock.

 

[smcnally]

Anyone else? I don't seem to have any luck with leather IDs here...

 

[JamesJR]

It is near impossible to identify them with great certainty when they are that small.

 

[smcnally]

Well, I guess I'll let nature do it's magic and see what it groes into. Thanks for the help.

 

[mhltcob]

You might find this link interesting.

http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic55213-11-1.aspx

It's impossible to identify them to even genus level at any size.

 

[smcnally]

That's pretty crazy...I guess I can just call it a "Really cool toadstool"

 

[tinyreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8810162#post8810162 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mhltcob
You might find this link interesting.

http://forum.marinedepot.com/Topic55213-11-1.aspx

It's impossible to identify them to even genus level at any size.

positive ID'ing for some species is almost impossible but some are relatively easy to ID (or narrow down to a few choices).

i would agree that discerning between lobophytum and sarcophyton can be very difficult at times though. otoh, michalek-wagner showed hybrids between the two genus are possible, assuming the originals were positively ID'ed, of course (let's try to avoid circular arguements). so there's trading of species back and forth in the literature (from what i've seen).

but some species of sarcophyton are relatively easy to ID or narrow (i ignore lobos ). the fact that there's disagreement of the number of species and that difference is wide (between 35~60) shows that narrowing "borderline" species by the experts is very difficult/contentious. throw in hybridization and you've got a really ugly mess. (s. digitatum was always a suspicious one for me :hmm2: )

two things i would hold (somewhat) true though:

baby/frag sarcos basically all take the typical "toadstool shape" and are thus nearly impossible to positively ID or even narrow choices at that young stage/age. they take adult forms and show their "true selves" then. although some of which are the typical toadstool shape. *smacksforehead*

once they reach sexual maturity we should be able to see if "borderline" species are hybrids or true pure species (if we use the model that hybrids can't sexually reproduce, that is).

but i would suggest that environment alters outward and inner structures. hence, i don't like the absolute reliance on sclerites for ID'ing. i'm also a little shocked alderslade partook of that blanket position of both genera (maybe it's only the 35 "species" being mentioned that are being discussed?). hmm, i gotta get my hands on that article.

 

[tinyreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8814454#post8814454 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tinyreef
i'm also a little shocked alderslade partook of that blanket position of both genera (maybe it's only the 35 "species" being mentioned that are being discussed?). hmm, i gotta get my hands on that article.

ok, i read the abstract and some of the review comments. (someone want to pay the document fee? )

i think they're only questioning the 35 ambiguous species "caught in-between" the lobo and sarco genera. the two distinct clades of sarco and lobo doesn't seem to be in dispute (from what i can tell).

it seems to be the third clade that they examined that is of questionable speciation.

that sounds more logical and more in-line with alderslade. but frankly, there have always been many "question mark" species between those two genera. heck, there's some sinularia i could throw into that mix too (as well as two or three more exotic genera).

i have to assume there's more than my simple viewpoint going on in that paper but that's what i got quickly from the abstract. *sigh* maybe i'll have to just suck it up and pay for another doc fee.

but i'm still (trying to) translating tixier-durivault's french papers. ugh! :fun5:

 

[smcnally]

Interesting. Thanks for looking into it.

 

[mhltcob]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8815790#post8815790 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tinyreef
ok, i read the abstract and some of the review comments. (someone want to pay the document fee? )

i think they're only questioning the 35 ambiguous species "caught in-between" the lobo and sarco genera. the two distinct clades of sarco and lobo doesn't seem to be in dispute (from what i can tell).

it seems to be the third clade that they examined that is of questionable speciation.

that sounds more logical and more in-line with alderslade. but frankly, there have always been many "question mark" species between those two genera. heck, there's some sinularia i could throw into that mix too (as well as two or three more exotic genera).

i have to assume there's mo

re than my simple viewpoint going on in that paper but that's what i got quickly from the abstract. *sigh* maybe i'll have to just suck it up and pay for another doc fee.

but i'm still (trying to) translating tixier-durivault's french papers. ugh! :fun5:

Huh, how would a lack of reliable genus defining characteristics only only effect certain species?

 

[tinyreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8819402#post8819402 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mhltcob
Huh, how would a lack of reliable genus defining characteristics only only effect certain species?

some species straddling either genus share characteristics.

for instance, you can set as part of the genus characteristics of sarco, a distinct stalk devoid of polyps (autozooids) and prominent siphonozooids. then you may come across a lobo that fits those requrements (either naturally, mutation or hybrid) and then you have a problem with your basic definition. again. d'oh!

some sarco species are very easily defined (essentially identical holotypes) whereas other species or specimens are a bit more iffy in ID'ing species or even genus at times (e.g. s. tortuosum or s. digitatum). speciation is very disputed so those two examples could be lobos or hybrids.

i'm not sure what they used in their research paper (methodology) so i can't comment on why they carved their studies into three clades. i.e. i don't know if they were only studying a region's genera or the entire known listings. i think they used some genetic ID'ing so that may have thrown a bunch of overtly looking lobos or sarcos into a grey area if they showed opposing genetic signs.

but i can comment on what i've seen/think. i can tell about 20 species of sarcophyton at a glance. another 20ish would be hard to place definitively or they may even be included/rerouted back among the first 20ish, i.e. wrong ID or just variants of the first 20. the last 20ish (imo) are more likely crossovers/hybrids or flat out lobophytums or sinularia or maybe another genus (and vice versa).

actually, i'm not surprised they have the confusion. it's nothing new. there's been at least two major overhauls of both genera in the past 40-years. some eliminated species, some added, some transferred, some transferred back! it's like a scorecard. :lol:

at least they're sure of the separate two clades. i'm curious which species they included in that distinction.

 

[smcnally]

Thought I would update this with a new picture. This this is going to be a beauty!

 

[smcnally]

My baby has been growing up...It lost it's nice "flowery" polyps and is starting to look like a standard toadstool though.