Would like to confirm several id's
- Thread starter thorsky
- Start date
wentreefgirl
New member
1. A. Multiacuta. The rest are correct.
fijiblue
Active member
1. Looks like an Acropora fenneri
wentreefgirl
multiacuta us a very shallow coral and hard to come by.
http://www2.aims.gov.au/coralsearch/html/001-100/Species pages/49.htm
wentreefgirl
multiacuta us a very shallow coral and hard to come by.
http://www2.aims.gov.au/coralsearch/html/001-100/Species pages/49.htm
wentreefgirl
New member
But fenneri has thinner squarer branches. Rare but seen more of these lately.
http://www2.aims.gov.au/coralsearch/html/701-800/Species pages/788.htm
http://www2.aims.gov.au/coralsearch/html/701-800/Species pages/788.htm
Kolognekoral
New member
I have to come to Fijis rescue, as I am certain it's not A. multiacuta. OK, maybe A. fenneri is questionable, it is a small frag.
Also, Number 2 is possibly Montipora. Do you have a shot with the closed polyps? Although it strongely resembles Porites porites, seeing the skeleton would make it 100%. I've been fooled before!
The 'birds nest' looks to be Stylopora subseriata, but could be a Seriatopora, and then S. guttatus. They can look very similar, depending on habitat.
Also, Number 2 is possibly Montipora. Do you have a shot with the closed polyps? Although it strongely resembles Porites porites, seeing the skeleton would make it 100%. I've been fooled before!
The 'birds nest' looks to be Stylopora subseriata, but could be a Seriatopora, and then S. guttatus. They can look very similar, depending on habitat.
wentreefgirl
New member
Ok, I have the corals of the world 3 book set. In my book, Fenneri is thin. You dont have to rescue your friend because im not bashing anyone. Just my opinion that Fenneri is too thin. Perhaps not Multiacuta though.
fijiblue
Active member
Like I said, do the search on google and you will see! I don't know the rules on posting other websites and stores, but you will see those are flooding the market right now and are aquacultured A. fenneri. The coral of the world is a great set, but you must remember that aquacultured coral, regardless of species, are grown on racks in the ocean at a specific depth. This can change how some coral species grow if they are usually found at a different depth.
Kolognekoral - good to see ya:beer:
Kolognekoral - good to see ya:beer:
Kolognekoral
New member
Wentreefgirl,
that was no slag on my part. And I use the same books along with Wallace, etc. If you look closely at the radial on A. multiacuta and the frag in question, you will note the different form and spacing of them. A. multiacuta has hardly any radials, but the cultured piece does. Also, A. multiacuta does not really have branches. It can't be A. multiacuta in my opinion.
As to it being A. fenneri, I am, also, not convinced, but it is a better bet based on the general structure. As you say, the flatness of the Veron examples is missing in this frag (this could be a photographic artifact!), but there is really no other possibility based on what I see. It would be interesting to see how this frag developes. As Justin (Fijiblue) mentioned, these are cultured at an unnatural depth and current for the specific coral. Not to change the coral, just to simplify the aquaculture. I always keep in the back of my mind that these corals are often cultured and sent out under incorrect names, just to help the marketing. If it's attractive and can be maricultured, then give it a name and sell it. Some of these may not even have been described, yet! I have one coral that is currently being aquacultured, although my piece is collected, and I cannot truly ID it. It could be A. paniculata...or not. Depnding on the book you use. Mine developes plates aroun 35 mm thick, which is too large for the general description. If it had tapered axials, I would put it under A. caroliniana, but it clearly doesn't.
Also, while carrying on about books, many of the skeletons shown in Veron's set are poor examples of the species. Apparently, he often chose to use the oldest possible example instead of the best possible example. His reasoning for his choices is unknown to me. Wallace has the advantage of showing multiple examples in most cases, which gives a better overview of the species. Still, there are quite a few less nominant species in Wallace's book. It's always a compromise.
Please don't take any of this personally. I enjoy particularly your enthusiasm on this forum! Go for it. I think various points of view make us all think (most of us, anyway!).
Prost to you all :beer:
that was no slag on my part. And I use the same books along with Wallace, etc. If you look closely at the radial on A. multiacuta and the frag in question, you will note the different form and spacing of them. A. multiacuta has hardly any radials, but the cultured piece does. Also, A. multiacuta does not really have branches. It can't be A. multiacuta in my opinion.
As to it being A. fenneri, I am, also, not convinced, but it is a better bet based on the general structure. As you say, the flatness of the Veron examples is missing in this frag (this could be a photographic artifact!), but there is really no other possibility based on what I see. It would be interesting to see how this frag developes. As Justin (Fijiblue) mentioned, these are cultured at an unnatural depth and current for the specific coral. Not to change the coral, just to simplify the aquaculture. I always keep in the back of my mind that these corals are often cultured and sent out under incorrect names, just to help the marketing. If it's attractive and can be maricultured, then give it a name and sell it. Some of these may not even have been described, yet! I have one coral that is currently being aquacultured, although my piece is collected, and I cannot truly ID it. It could be A. paniculata...or not. Depnding on the book you use. Mine developes plates aroun 35 mm thick, which is too large for the general description. If it had tapered axials, I would put it under A. caroliniana, but it clearly doesn't.
Also, while carrying on about books, many of the skeletons shown in Veron's set are poor examples of the species. Apparently, he often chose to use the oldest possible example instead of the best possible example. His reasoning for his choices is unknown to me. Wallace has the advantage of showing multiple examples in most cases, which gives a better overview of the species. Still, there are quite a few less nominant species in Wallace's book. It's always a compromise.
Please don't take any of this personally. I enjoy particularly your enthusiasm on this forum! Go for it. I think various points of view make us all think (most of us, anyway!).
Prost to you all :beer:
wentreefgirl
New member
None taken, and thanks. I love posting. And iding. And your right, there are no other choices.
