the808state
New member
In Hawaii... not really. I did collect a really nice Palythoa caesia off the north shore last year. It had the boring tan mat, but the polyps when opened were a bright green.
What is the Difference between Zoa and Paly
- Thread starter mdodso00
- Start date
In Hawaii... not really. I did collect a really nice Palythoa caesia off the north shore last year. It had the boring tan mat, but the polyps when opened were a bright green.
the808state
New member
Your experiences of all those years are just your experiences.
As mine, too.
Your word, and my word.
I believe in experiences also.
Yes, I'm trying to find the scientific proof to help myself understand what I find. I hope someone out there can help me in this regard.
Zoas CAN have substrate particles in their tissue. Sorry.
I love to learn too. That's why I'm here.
I didn't mean to make you upset. Sorry, if I did.
Grandis.
The only thing i'm upset about is the "Sandwich Islands" listed as your location. lol
Please show me your zoas with sand particles in the tissue. Please not let it be one or two grains. I want to see full incorporation of substrate like palythoa do.
submersible
Member
...
Last edited:
submersible
Member
I just learned alot about zoanthids. Good read. :reading:
In general (and pending any further, albeit likely, inevitable changes):
Palythoa species are recognized by having a coenenchyme that contains bits of debris and reef elements that help to support the polyp. The colonies may form large tracts of individual colonies that often grow in a curved convex shape and usually remain less than a foot across. They have polyps with wide flattened oral disks and variously shaped tentacles surrounding the outer margin of the oral disk. Their colors are typically more muted shades of brown with some fluorescent elements to the tentacles and oral disks common. They may also have a marbled or striated pattern on the oral disk. Palythoa are normally voracious feeders, accepting food willingly. The overall need for feeding is somewhat questionable, although most zoanthids do not produce enough energy from photosynthesis to meet their daily needs. They reproduce by budding from their stolons, remaining attached and connected by the coenenchyme.
Protopalythoa is different from Palythoa in that the polyps are not immersed in the coenenchyme. They are undoubtedly closely packed together, but they remain individual. These animals can form small or even solitary colonies, though they are far more commonly found in huge landscapes that encrust the reef substrate. Their polyps are most frequently brown, with usually shorter and blunted tentacles surrounding the oral disk. The tentacles and oral disk (often marbled of striated) are often of contrasting color to the polyp body. These species have prolific mesenteries, often numbering more than sixty.
Zoanthus are normally much smaller polyps and they do not incorporate sediment into their bases. A divided sphincter muscle is the heretofore base of their classification. They reproduce by budding from the base of the parent colony to form very large mats of stoloniferous polyps which encrust the reef substrate. They are not normally seen to feed on large prey. Zoanthus are normally brightly colored animals, usually with oral disks 1/2" or less across their diameter.
Sphenopus are very similar to Protopalythoa without sand encrusted polyps. They are found on sandy bottoms, small pieces of rubble, or attached to sea grass blades They are not found on the reef itself. Sphenopus are solitary polyps and never colonial.
http://www.reefs.org/library/aquarium_net/0198/0198_1.html
In general (and pending any further, albeit likely, inevitable changes):
Palythoa species are recognized by having a coenenchyme that contains bits of debris and reef elements that help to support the polyp. The colonies may form large tracts of individual colonies that often grow in a curved convex shape and usually remain less than a foot across. They have polyps with wide flattened oral disks and variously shaped tentacles surrounding the outer margin of the oral disk. Their colors are typically more muted shades of brown with some fluorescent elements to the tentacles and oral disks common. They may also have a marbled or striated pattern on the oral disk. Palythoa are normally voracious feeders, accepting food willingly. The overall need for feeding is somewhat questionable, although most zoanthids do not produce enough energy from photosynthesis to meet their daily needs. They reproduce by budding from their stolons, remaining attached and connected by the coenenchyme.
Protopalythoa is different from Palythoa in that the polyps are not immersed in the coenenchyme. They are undoubtedly closely packed together, but they remain individual. These animals can form small or even solitary colonies, though they are far more commonly found in huge landscapes that encrust the reef substrate. Their polyps are most frequently brown, with usually shorter and blunted tentacles surrounding the oral disk. The tentacles and oral disk (often marbled of striated) are often of contrasting color to the polyp body. These species have prolific mesenteries, often numbering more than sixty.
Zoanthus are normally much smaller polyps and they do not incorporate sediment into their bases. A divided sphincter muscle is the heretofore base of their classification. They reproduce by budding from the base of the parent colony to form very large mats of stoloniferous polyps which encrust the reef substrate. They are not normally seen to feed on large prey. Zoanthus are normally brightly colored animals, usually with oral disks 1/2" or less across their diameter.
Sphenopus are very similar to Protopalythoa without sand encrusted polyps. They are found on sandy bottoms, small pieces of rubble, or attached to sea grass blades They are not found on the reef itself. Sphenopus are solitary polyps and never colonial.
http://www.reefs.org/library/aquarium_net/0198/0198_1.html
Scopus Tang
New member
thanks Submersible, but I don't think that that is going to satisfy A. Grandis either, he's looking for scientific evidence, and there is no reference documenting the scientific research that validates Borneman's statement.
A. Grandis, question for you, you state that
"I've seen Zoanthus spp. with some sand particles in their bodies. I've seen Protopalythoa spp. with sand only, out of their bodies, attached to them."
Since you want to challenge the accepted norm within the hobby as stated by two different recognized coral experts, I would like to know what you are basing your statement on? You state that you have seen Zoanthus ssp. with sand particles in their bodies. Could you please share with the rest of us the qualify characteristics that you used to positively ID these Zoanthus spp that you saw as Zoanthids? How can we be assured that you were not mistaken in your ID and what you thought were Zoas were in fact Palys? Do you perhaps have some DNA analysis of your respective zoas to post up to prove that they are Zoas and not Palys?
Sprung and Borner both agree on this defining characteristic (while they in fact don't agree on much of anything else) without reference specific scientific research, which would in my mind indicate that is generally accepted common knowledge by marine biologists.
Lets take your thoughts/statements just a bit further. Can you please find me the scientific research that states conclusively that Zoanthidae are in fact animals and not plants as is commonly stated and believed within the hobby. Despite having a degree in biology (which FYI does not in any way, manner, or form qualify me as a marine biologist, nor do I claim to be such), I've never seen scientific data to back this up. Based on my observations of the photosynthetic processing of light by these organisms, I believe that we cannot conclusively classify them as animals.
Not trying to be rude here, just trying to have a mature discussion between gentleman. Scientific research is all well and good, but there is a limit to things that we can expect to view the research on. Based on the statements of the aforementioned scientists I'm sure that there is in fact scientific research to validate their statements. However, asking hobbiests who for the most part are not going to have access to the University libraries which may yield such information from past research get scientific validation for your challenge is not likely.
A. Grandis, question for you, you state that
"I've seen Zoanthus spp. with some sand particles in their bodies. I've seen Protopalythoa spp. with sand only, out of their bodies, attached to them."
Since you want to challenge the accepted norm within the hobby as stated by two different recognized coral experts, I would like to know what you are basing your statement on? You state that you have seen Zoanthus ssp. with sand particles in their bodies. Could you please share with the rest of us the qualify characteristics that you used to positively ID these Zoanthus spp that you saw as Zoanthids? How can we be assured that you were not mistaken in your ID and what you thought were Zoas were in fact Palys? Do you perhaps have some DNA analysis of your respective zoas to post up to prove that they are Zoas and not Palys?
Sprung and Borner both agree on this defining characteristic (while they in fact don't agree on much of anything else) without reference specific scientific research, which would in my mind indicate that is generally accepted common knowledge by marine biologists.
Lets take your thoughts/statements just a bit further. Can you please find me the scientific research that states conclusively that Zoanthidae are in fact animals and not plants as is commonly stated and believed within the hobby. Despite having a degree in biology (which FYI does not in any way, manner, or form qualify me as a marine biologist, nor do I claim to be such), I've never seen scientific data to back this up. Based on my observations of the photosynthetic processing of light by these organisms, I believe that we cannot conclusively classify them as animals.
Not trying to be rude here, just trying to have a mature discussion between gentleman. Scientific research is all well and good, but there is a limit to things that we can expect to view the research on. Based on the statements of the aforementioned scientists I'm sure that there is in fact scientific research to validate their statements. However, asking hobbiests who for the most part are not going to have access to the University libraries which may yield such information from past research get scientific validation for your challenge is not likely.
A. Grandis
Active member
I'll take back on the "in their bodies". It's actually grains around the body, and partially in the body. The grains were exposed to the outside.
They were zoanthus spp.! Not palythoa, not protopalythoa and not Parazoanthus.
Too bad I don't have any pictures to share.
My bad.
I changed my location for you.
Grandis.
They were zoanthus spp.! Not palythoa, not protopalythoa and not Parazoanthus.
Too bad I don't have any pictures to share.
My bad.
I changed my location for you.
Grandis.
Last edited:
thats whats kind of funny to me about all of the large colorful zoanthids always being misidentified by vendors and hobbysits simply because of their size.
true palythoas are all pretty bland(bright green at best) and cant touch the insane color variations that zoanthids can
Scopus Tang
New member
Whose definition of "true" palythoa are we using? Bornemans or Sprungs, or are we going with Reimer who has proposed a complete revision of the entire family with palythoa and protopalythoa being congenic?
stoneroller
New member
Where's that show off thread calling for pics of Palythoa spp.?
SIR PATRICK
New member
Bump......
FragIt Dan
Marine Biologist
The Scientific literature answer we have all been waiting for...
Although I am a marine biologist, I have only hobby level knowledge of zoas and palys (and notably less than the big sticks swinging around in this thread). I do, however, have access to peer reviewed scientific journals through my work (Canadian Federal Government: Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and will try to share some of the findings I have come across in my research on the topic, which I hope, provides an answer to the question posed by the OP and hopefully passes the scrutiny appropriately applied in the previous posts.
1. Burnett et al present a dichotomous key for a Great Barrier Reef local based on genetic/DNA analyses. This key presents a distinguishing feature based on sand encrusting of polyps (highest level key dichotomy):
A) Polyps sand encrusted: Sphenopus, Palythoa and Protopalythoa
B) Polyps not sand encrusted: Isaurus and Zoanthus
Reference: Burnett et al. Coral Reefs (1997) 16gs 55-68
My thoughts:
I believe some of the 'hobby level' confusion lies in the phylogenetic classification. The hobby term "Zoanthid" is unclear as to whether it refers to the:
1) Order: Zoantharia (which includes the genera Sphenopus, Palythoa, Protopalythoa, Isaurus and Zoanthus)
2) Family: Zoanthidae (which includes genera Isaurus and Zoanthus, but NOT the others listed in 1)
or 3) Genera: Zoanthus (which includes a multitude of species, but NOT any of the other Genera listed in 1)
Essentially, it would be accurate to say Zoanthids have sand encrusted in the polyps IF you are using the term "Zoanthid" to refer to the Order, as both generas Palythoa and Zoanthus are included. I don't believe it is appropriate to do so as the comparison is being made between Zoas and Palys, implying you are speaking at the level of Genus.
However... based on genetic analyses (n=355), Burnett et al conclude it would be inaccurate to say Zoanthids have sand encrusted in the polyps if you are using the term "Zoanthid" to refer to the Genus.
Conclusions:
Everyone is 'kind of' correct! More seriously though, when people are referring to Zoanthids in comparison to Palys, I would conclude they are referencing things at the Genus level (and thus Burnett et al concluded sand is a distinguishing feature in their sample):
Zoanthids= NOT sand encrusted
Palys= sand encrusted
Other notes of interest...
i) The information presented by Burnett et al. is in partial contradiction to submersible's comment of Jan. 31 (which appears to be a referenced quote) which states "Sphenopus are very similar to Protopalythoa without sand encrusted polyps". Burnett et all list Sphenopus as indeed being sand encrusted with this being a distinguishing feature in their sample.
ii) Reimer et al (2012) state "Sphenopus is unequivocally within the Palythoa generic level". Data presented in books seems to be outdated before they are published (as clearly acknowledged by submersible in his post). I have tried to use more recent findings, but take it as the current belief and not the 'answer'.
Reference: Reimer et al. Zoological Studies 50(3): 363-371 (2011)
HTH
Dan
Although I am a marine biologist, I have only hobby level knowledge of zoas and palys (and notably less than the big sticks swinging around in this thread
). I do, however, have access to peer reviewed scientific journals through my work (Canadian Federal Government: Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and will try to share some of the findings I have come across in my research on the topic, which I hope, provides an answer to the question posed by the OP and hopefully passes the scrutiny appropriately applied in the previous posts.1. Burnett et al present a dichotomous key for a Great Barrier Reef local based on genetic/DNA analyses. This key presents a distinguishing feature based on sand encrusting of polyps (highest level key dichotomy):
A) Polyps sand encrusted: Sphenopus, Palythoa and Protopalythoa
B) Polyps not sand encrusted: Isaurus and Zoanthus
Reference: Burnett et al. Coral Reefs (1997) 16
gs 55-68My thoughts:
I believe some of the 'hobby level' confusion lies in the phylogenetic classification. The hobby term "Zoanthid" is unclear as to whether it refers to the:
1) Order: Zoantharia (which includes the genera Sphenopus, Palythoa, Protopalythoa, Isaurus and Zoanthus)
2) Family: Zoanthidae (which includes genera Isaurus and Zoanthus, but NOT the others listed in 1)
or 3) Genera: Zoanthus (which includes a multitude of species, but NOT any of the other Genera listed in 1)
Essentially, it would be accurate to say Zoanthids have sand encrusted in the polyps IF you are using the term "Zoanthid" to refer to the Order, as both generas Palythoa and Zoanthus are included. I don't believe it is appropriate to do so as the comparison is being made between Zoas and Palys, implying you are speaking at the level of Genus.
However... based on genetic analyses (n=355), Burnett et al conclude it would be inaccurate to say Zoanthids have sand encrusted in the polyps if you are using the term "Zoanthid" to refer to the Genus.
Conclusions:
Everyone is 'kind of' correct! More seriously though, when people are referring to Zoanthids in comparison to Palys, I would conclude they are referencing things at the Genus level (and thus Burnett et al concluded sand is a distinguishing feature in their sample):
Zoanthids= NOT sand encrusted
Palys= sand encrusted
Other notes of interest...
i) The information presented by Burnett et al. is in partial contradiction to submersible's comment of Jan. 31 (which appears to be a referenced quote) which states "Sphenopus are very similar to Protopalythoa without sand encrusted polyps". Burnett et all list Sphenopus as indeed being sand encrusted with this being a distinguishing feature in their sample.
ii) Reimer et al (2012) state "Sphenopus is unequivocally within the Palythoa generic level". Data presented in books seems to be outdated before they are published (as clearly acknowledged by submersible in his post). I have tried to use more recent findings, but take it as the current belief and not the 'answer'
.Reference: Reimer et al. Zoological Studies 50(3): 363-371 (2011)
HTH
Dan
V4Vendetta
New member
and then he drops the mic...
reefzone123
New member
Typically zoas are small and palys are larger. They vary in classification and is hard to obtain a definitive name. Generally polyps are referred to as zoas/zoos.
Similar threads
