what is this sps?
- Thread starter reneeccrn
- Start date
Kolognekoral
New member
Montipora cactus. A very interesting species. Not often seen, although it is common where it occurs. probobly not so popular due to its lack of bright colour. Very architechtural, though.
Kolognekoral
New member
Process of elimination. No other Montipora has a similar growth pattern. Your Monti has a base plate, which elliminates the other branched Montis, such as M. samarensis or M. digitata. Then, it is pretty smooth, no visible verrucae or tuberculae, therefore we can rule out M. hispida, M. gaimardii, M. hemispherica, etc. Now, I considered M. spongodes, but it is always noted as being dark in colour, having verrucae on the colony edges, as well as more spacing between the corallites. Therfore, I find M. cactus the most likely.
Of course, I could be wrong. Montipora is a difficult genus to place species in. Look at all the supposed M. capricornus, M. tuberculosus and M. danae circulating.
Of course, I could be wrong. Montipora is a difficult genus to place species in. Look at all the supposed M. capricornus, M. tuberculosus and M. danae circulating.
acrohead500ppm
New member
its actually is M. digitata- it does encrust in certain conditions
Kolognekoral
New member
acrohead,
do you really think so? I've never had a digitata produce such a base plate BEFORE producing branches. Also by M. samarensis, such massive plating before branching strikes me as very untypical. I currently grow 4 different types and none grow like this.
do you really think so? I've never had a digitata produce such a base plate BEFORE producing branches. Also by M. samarensis, such massive plating before branching strikes me as very untypical. I currently grow 4 different types and none grow like this.
Kolognekoral
New member
Acrohead, I have all of Veron and Wallaces books (among others). Unless one can actually examine a piece of the skeleton, most Montis are extremely difficult to place correctly. I have one Monti, which was sold to me as M. capricornis, but cannot be. It has gone through various growth phases in the last 6 months and has changed its apparent form so that one would have thought it was M. palawensis or M. danae, then became finer and resembled more M. undata. Now, I am pretty sure it is M. monasteriata. As I had received it as a frag, it needed time to 1) grow out and 2) adapt to my tank current and lighting. I have since fraged it and have some pieces under T5 lighting, but you would hardly recognise it. It is almost cream with blue polyps, while the mother is deep green with deep blue polyps. What I believe I've learned from this frag is that it will build its base form and then elaborate on it. M. monasteriata resembles all of the previously considered species, but shows a much more complex final picture. Based on similar experiences, I found the frag in question above to be much less likely to be a form of M. digitata, as it was not showing the basic characteristics of elaborate branching. All the frags I've set of M. digitata have built a small base, then a main branch in the middle, that directly started to branch at the apex, then it continues to build its base and add new branches. I've never had one produce such an undulating base.
Of course, I could be basing my observations on too small a selection of M. digitatas and M. samarensis. Of these two species, M. samarensis seems to have the more spreading base characteristic, but just slightly more so.
I hope more fotos will be posted of this coral as it developes further, so we can assess the morphological changes. Even with all the books and resources I possess, they can't compare to actual comparisons.
Of course, I could be basing my observations on too small a selection of M. digitatas and M. samarensis. Of these two species, M. samarensis seems to have the more spreading base characteristic, but just slightly more so.
I hope more fotos will be posted of this coral as it developes further, so we can assess the morphological changes. Even with all the books and resources I possess, they can't compare to actual comparisons.
I would tend to disagree with Kolognekoral's assessment. I have a very similar Montipora that seems to best fit with M. porites.
M. cactus is characterized by a dense cover of papillae of uniform length, which this coral does not have. M. porites has tuberculae fused into ridges, which are visible in the photos on the branches. These would be even more noticeable with the polyps retracted. Veron also lists M. porites as having an encrusting base.
If you read Veron's books carefully, you'll come to realize that the presence and positioning of 3 coenosteum characters in relation to the corallites are the single most important means of identification of Montipora.
papillae - bumps or spines on the skeleton smaller than the corallite (make some species appear "rough" in texture)
tuberculae - bumps or spines larger than the corallites...see many of the "superman" and "pokerstar" encrusting montis to see great examples of tuberculae
verrucae - dome-shaped bumps much larger than the corallites...as in M. verrucosa and M. danae
These three different "bumps" can then be fused into ridges, or be located around the polyp (thecal) or apart from the polyp elsewhere on the skeleton (on the coenosteum).
There are WAY too many corals out there called "M. danae" which do not have verrucae as defined in the book. I have never seen a "superman" that could be accurately identified as M. danae by a long shot. I would strongly suspect that many of these are M. tuberculosa.
Another very helpful tool for identification is the size of the corallites...some of which are included with a scale bar in Veron. Paying close attention to those little diagrams can quickly exclude many species as possibilities in identification due to totally different sized polyps/corallites.
HTH
-Tim
M. cactus is characterized by a dense cover of papillae of uniform length, which this coral does not have. M. porites has tuberculae fused into ridges, which are visible in the photos on the branches. These would be even more noticeable with the polyps retracted. Veron also lists M. porites as having an encrusting base.
If you read Veron's books carefully, you'll come to realize that the presence and positioning of 3 coenosteum characters in relation to the corallites are the single most important means of identification of Montipora.
papillae - bumps or spines on the skeleton smaller than the corallite (make some species appear "rough" in texture)
tuberculae - bumps or spines larger than the corallites...see many of the "superman" and "pokerstar" encrusting montis to see great examples of tuberculae
verrucae - dome-shaped bumps much larger than the corallites...as in M. verrucosa and M. danae
These three different "bumps" can then be fused into ridges, or be located around the polyp (thecal) or apart from the polyp elsewhere on the skeleton (on the coenosteum).
There are WAY too many corals out there called "M. danae" which do not have verrucae as defined in the book. I have never seen a "superman" that could be accurately identified as M. danae by a long shot. I would strongly suspect that many of these are M. tuberculosa.
Another very helpful tool for identification is the size of the corallites...some of which are included with a scale bar in Veron. Paying close attention to those little diagrams can quickly exclude many species as possibilities in identification due to totally different sized polyps/corallites.
HTH
-Tim
Kolognekoral
New member
Tim, you may see something in those shots that I'm missing. I see no sign of any tuberculae, even what I believe to be fine papillae are hard to be sure about. The coenostreum is pretty smooth, which made me first think of M. digitata, but the curious growth-habit made me want to discard it.
I agree with you totally, there are too many misidentified Montis out there, although I have seen some 'superman' forms that are definitely D. undata, others that I would think are M. danae. The different sizes of the verrucae are clear side by side. In a photo, however, one can be easily mislead. The 'superman' coloration is apparently possible in many species of Montipora. I have a M. samarensis that gets pretty close, but is more grey-blue and orange. Lighting and nutrients seem to be a major influent on the colouration.
To be sure, we must simply wait and see how this coral developes. I find it very interesting how we all see certain/various attributes in corals, while others seem to miss our eyes.
I agree with you totally, there are too many misidentified Montis out there, although I have seen some 'superman' forms that are definitely D. undata, others that I would think are M. danae. The different sizes of the verrucae are clear side by side. In a photo, however, one can be easily mislead. The 'superman' coloration is apparently possible in many species of Montipora. I have a M. samarensis that gets pretty close, but is more grey-blue and orange. Lighting and nutrients seem to be a major influent on the colouration.
To be sure, we must simply wait and see how this coral developes. I find it very interesting how we all see certain/various attributes in corals, while others seem to miss our eyes.
Sorry, I probably wasn't clear in the first post. This coral is actually pretty widespread in the hobby here in the U.S., and is a very fast growing and commonly traded morph. I have what I would bet money on is the same species, and I am describing its features from my personal experience with it.
Here's a photo of mine:
There's actually another recent post in this forum which is, IMO, the same coral also.
The general features of my coral are:
- a very sporadic branching structure
- an extensive encrusting and sometimes plating base that is largely smooth, devoid of papillae, and only slighly raised ridges between polyps
- branches with the complex ridges of fused tuberculae virtually identical to the photo in Veron of M. porites
- large brown polyps that are rarely retracted
- a uniform highly fluorescent light green coloration
- polyps which seem to occur all the way to the end of some branches, without a bare light-colored area where you'd expect to see new growth as on many other Montipora
Anyone else have this coral that could add their experiences to this thread?
Here's a photo of mine:
There's actually another recent post in this forum which is, IMO, the same coral also.
The general features of my coral are:
- a very sporadic branching structure
- an extensive encrusting and sometimes plating base that is largely smooth, devoid of papillae, and only slighly raised ridges between polyps
- branches with the complex ridges of fused tuberculae virtually identical to the photo in Veron of M. porites
- large brown polyps that are rarely retracted
- a uniform highly fluorescent light green coloration
- polyps which seem to occur all the way to the end of some branches, without a bare light-colored area where you'd expect to see new growth as on many other Montipora
Anyone else have this coral that could add their experiences to this thread?
Kolognekoral
New member
Tim, I follow you! I've not seen this coral in Europe, may be here, but not well distributed. Looks very much like M. porites, indeed. Nice colour, as well, very rich butter-gold.
You may have nailed this one! It would be nice to see how this coral developes over the next months. I'm gonna keep my eye out for some over here. Frags are rare in comparison with the States, but imports are common, both collected and mariculture.
You may have nailed this one! It would be nice to see how this coral developes over the next months. I'm gonna keep my eye out for some over here. Frags are rare in comparison with the States, but imports are common, both collected and mariculture.
Hi Jamie,
I actually had this coral in a tank back in 2000 as well, so it's certainly one that thrives longterm in captivity.
It is a shame that it's not easier to trade frags across borders. Do you know of anyone who has done it, or what the process entails? I imagine within the EU might be simpler, but I can also imagine the opposite to be true!
-Tim
I actually had this coral in a tank back in 2000 as well, so it's certainly one that thrives longterm in captivity.
It is a shame that it's not easier to trade frags across borders. Do you know of anyone who has done it, or what the process entails? I imagine within the EU might be simpler, but I can also imagine the opposite to be true!
-Tim
Kolognekoral
New member
Tim, we've hijacked this thread....just a bit!
Actually, trading within the EU is just like in the USA. We have no borders, but some areas do have a few rules (such as CA in the USA). Even getting corals into the EU is not a problem with proper paerwork and liscence, but it is expensive for the paperwork. I have a good buddy who imports weekly from the classic areas, including Kenia (no corals from Kenia, just fish, inverts, etc). I'll have to ask how it works. I know a few people simply bring corals from the States, as we do not control for that in most EU countries. They are clearly cultured corals and not under protection. I've regularly imported plants from all over the world without problems.
Unfortunately, the climate between the US and the rest of the world is a bit stressed and there are a few political games going on, so what was OK yesterday, may be criminal tomorrow! I wish we could just get on with life.
Actually, trading within the EU is just like in the USA. We have no borders, but some areas do have a few rules (such as CA in the USA). Even getting corals into the EU is not a problem with proper paerwork and liscence, but it is expensive for the paperwork. I have a good buddy who imports weekly from the classic areas, including Kenia (no corals from Kenia, just fish, inverts, etc). I'll have to ask how it works. I know a few people simply bring corals from the States, as we do not control for that in most EU countries. They are clearly cultured corals and not under protection. I've regularly imported plants from all over the world without problems.
Unfortunately, the climate between the US and the rest of the world is a bit stressed and there are a few political games going on, so what was OK yesterday, may be criminal tomorrow! I wish we could just get on with life.
Yup, totally hijacked, but at least we ID'ed his coral!
I'll start a new thread about this in the main sps forum. All hard corals are listed as CITES appendix II, so they are regulated. Legally it would take permits to cross borders with them even if they are captive raised I think.
I'll start a new thread about this in the main sps forum. All hard corals are listed as CITES appendix II, so they are regulated. Legally it would take permits to cross borders with them even if they are captive raised I think.
