True Superman Montipora Danae?? Pics

[Pyrrhus]

I have had both wild colonies of SM and the real deal. There is no comparison. The true SM keeps color no matter what and grows nicely for me, I would say it is easy to keep. Just like Arconom said the wild ones usually turn brown, bleach out, and eventually die. I would call the wilds very difficult to keep. I have seen them die before my eyes for no reason while the true SM kept going strong.

Best of luck to you if you decide to purchase the wild colony.

 

[MikeEe]

since it is a wild colony I would definitely worry about it browning out or even dieing..

 

[neyugn0w01]

^ correct. it will most likely brown out and/or die if you are not careful. make sure to start them low. i have seen many wild colonies coming in and either bleach out (too high light) or brown out (different enviroment). good luck though.

 

[bozu]

i saw this piece listed listed in ebay a week or so ago.....i last saw this at about 100 bucks with a few days left.

heres a similar piece i think from the same person

http://cgi.ebay.com/Superman-Montip...ameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

 

[VikeBron]

The last time I saw it on ebay it was at $1200 or so and it had not reached the reserve. I have one major concern with it though. I am not sure, but I think I have seen that blown up shot on another website. If they are using another closeup pic and not from the colony itself I would be very hesitant. I am going to look for the pic I saw before and let you know if I find it.

 

[SPStoner]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8323524#post8323524 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by arconom
From what I have read a large majority of Wild Colonys of the "Superman" fade within a year or even die. From what I have seen in person Wild Supermans usually don't keep the vibrant color that the Original has.

But when you do sell it represent it as a wild colony if it is.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I have several colonies of both the original and the lookalikes that are doing great. While the original has extremely bright polyps and base color, some of the lookalikes are virtually indistinguishable. The main thing people do wrong with this coral is rush it too quickly into the higher light areas of their aquariums. Take it very slow, starting in the bottom third of your tank and move it up just a few inches a week. In fact, most do quite well staying in the bottom half. They don't need the super high light to maintain the colors, but can be acclimated to it.

FWIW, the "original" was a wild colony, too, at one point

Which brings up a question probably best suited for another thread, but I'll ask it anyway..... At what point is a wild colony, or a frag from a wild colony, not considered wild anymore? My thought has always been hat if you have a wild colony, and frag off NEW GROWTH that occurs in your aquarium, then you can call it captive grown. I have seen people taking wild colonies that they have had for a few months and chopping a few branches off to sell as captive grown. I say that is just chop shop stuff.

ok, the end of my rant.

peace.

 

[Sullivmw]

If you can, you should take the advice of others and see it in person. Just looking at the second photo and enlarging it in Photoshop, there appears to be some strange things going on. Not saying it is touched up, but it really have odd reflections, and colors where you normally do not see them.

Try it yourself, focus on the eggcrate, and some of the glass. There is purple where you normally would not see it. That could be explained if they are using mirrors, but still the purple is an odd color for MH-T5-VHO's to produce.

 

[REEF-DADDY]

I think its crazy to buy a coral for well over 1000 thats clearly color enchanced either by actinic only lighting or photoshop. You can find 3-4" pieces for 200-300 from reputable shops all the time. Dr Macs and liveaquaria to name a couple. just my .02.

 

[GreshamH]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8324932#post8324932 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SPStoner
I agree with you to a certain extent. I have several colonies of both the original and the lookalikes that are doing great. While the original has extremely bright polyps and base color, some of the lookalikes are virtually indistinguishable. The main thing people do wrong with this coral is rush it too quickly into the higher light areas of their aquariums. Take it very slow, starting in the bottom third of your tank and move it up just a few inches a week. In fact, most do quite well staying in the bottom half. They don't need the super high light to maintain the colors, but can be acclimated to it.

FWIW, the "original" was a wild colony, too, at one point

Which brings up a question probably best suited for another thread, but I'll ask it anyway..... At what point is a wild colony, or a frag from a wild colony, not considered wild anymore? My thought has always been hat if you have a wild colony, and frag off NEW GROWTH that occurs in your aquarium, then you can call it captive grown. I have seen people taking wild colonies that they have had for a few months and chopping a few branches off to sell as captive grown. I say that is just chop shop stuff.

ok, the end of my rant.

peace.

You've been around long enough to know we've had the f2,f3 debate a billion times IMO f1 is not, and should not, be considerred "captive". F2 should only be considerred IF it's new growth from the f1. HTH :lol:

____back to the original thread_________

 

[Ti]

looks awesome

 

[SPStoner]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8326282#post8326282 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GreshamH
You've been around long enough to know we've had the f2,f3 debate a billion times IMO f1 is not, and should not, be considerred "captive". F2 should only be considerred IF it's new growth from the f1. HTH :lol:

____back to the original thread_________

Are you accusing me of stirring up trouble? Me??? LOL

It was nice meeting you at Macna, Wish I wasn't working and could have spent more time looking around.


Tony

 

[GreshamH]

Didn't I see you working at Backer as well :lol: Ditto on that though, I didn't even see all the booths

 

[SPStoner]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8327381#post8327381 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GreshamH
Didn't I see you working at Backer as well :lol: Ditto on that though, I didn't even see all the booths

Yeah, that was me! Only one day in Chicago, though. I have about had it with shows this year.....One more to go and that's it till spring.

 

[reefez]

It's probably allready starting to brown out. I would not buy it sight unseen for anything over a couple hundred bucks.

 

[acarson19]

Because these animals (corals) are not likely sexually reproducing once they are in an aquarium environment, the 'offspring' or 'growth' would actually be genetically identical to the parent colony making the terminology 'F1 and F2' generations inaccurate since this terminology is used solely to describe sexually reproduced offspring .

Someone harvests a coral from the ocean, someone obtains that coral sticks it in their aquarium, either it lives and grows or it dies, the owner of that coral then has the chance to grow it and sell it which is ultimately good as that will hopefully decrease pressure on coral reefs. I guess we should just hope that the individual that obtains a wild coral gives it plenty of time (however long that may be is the question!) to acclimate it to the aquarium environment before selling the coral so they first, know if the wild coral’s needs can be met so it can grow and thrive in a closed system and second, what the coral’s phenotype will be once it is acclimated to their system. But once in captivity a coral is captive. If it does well in captivity then it’s asexually reproduced offspring or buds should do well in the same environment because they are identical to the parent coral. This is the case for a coral that has been propagated one time or a thousand times as it is unlikely genetic changes have occurred within one coral and it's asexually reproduced offspring in the short amount of time, evolutionarily speaking, that people have been keeping corals in captivity.

I think it is funny that the F1, F2, etc. debate has happened “a billion times” on here considering there is no such thing as an F1, F2 generation in asexually reproducing corals. If the debate is about sexually reproducing corals then there is a real discussion to be had.

My sole purpose in writing this post is to point out that we need to be careful using the terminology F1 and F2 when speaking about asexually reproduced populations. Sorry for getting off topic from the original intent of this thread.

 

[GreshamH]

F as in frag my friend IIRC though, some had suggested Fr1, CF1, etc. Would you have understood what I was saying had I said CF1? You sure did when I used F1 :lol:

 

[Unarce]

W T F?

 

[bennyinca]

Did you endup bidding for it, it was sold yesterday.

http://cgi.ebay.com/GIANT-SUPERMAN-...ryZ46308QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[acarson19]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8328148#post8328148 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by GreshamH
F as in frag my friend IIRC though, some had suggested Fr1, CF1, etc. Would you have understood what I was saying had I said CF1? You sure did when I used F1 :lol:

My bad then. I thought you were refering to generations and a genetics term. Now I have no idea what you are talking about. I still hope my post was informative.

 

[neuroslicer]

I knew what you were talking about Amy. I've been working with fruit flies for a lot longer than I have with coral. Hey, check out my M. danae in my gallery. Didn't you get a piece of one while in Houston? How about posting a pic of it in your gallery?
J.