Acros that have been in the hobby for a long time generally are not able to be IDed to the species level because of deformation.
A. convexa is millepora-like, and given PC rainbows have thick, rounded radials, they're probably not convexa.
What do you mean by deformation though, do corals overtime in captivity get deformed in the physical sense? or in the sense of different tank conditions will produce different growth patternsAcros that have been in the hobby for a long time generally are not able to be IDed to the species level because of deformation.
A. convexa is millepora-like, and given PC rainbows have thick, rounded radials, they're probably not convexa.
Madrepora convexa Lectotype USNM 236 | Singapore | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
PC Rainbow Acro | Aquarium | Credit: @Pieces of the Ocean
As for Paletta Pink Tip, that one's also not A. tenuis given Paletta's (also) rounded radials in contrast to tenuis's labellate, flared radials.
Paletta Pink Tip | Aquarium | Credit: @maroun.c
Madrepora tenuis Holotype USNM 259 | Fiji | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
As for Fox Flame, A. appressa is a a valid guess, but there are also other species to rule out, like valida, nana, willisae, etc.
Fox Flame Acro | Aquarium | Credit: @Battlecorals
Heteropora appressa Type Specimen (?, catalog number unknown, possibly ZMB 878) | either unrecorded or Singapore (presumably, according to Veron (1984)) | Credit: CotW
Madrepora valida Holotype USNM 272 | Fiji | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
Acropora (Acropora) willisae Holotype MTQ G49313 | Great Barrier Reef | Credit: CotW
On the note about DNA analysis, DNA analysis is not the end-all-be-all, as molecular methods alone cannot identify a coral species. Corals thought to be of the same species but either from different localities or of slightly differing morphology will often produce differing DNA results with genetic analysis. This is because many of what are thought to be distinct species are actually cryptic species complexes which need detangling. Modern coral taxonomists have to use not just use DNA analysis, but also compare with type specimens and original descriptions, and collect from type localities whenever possible to produce topotypes which most closely match the studied species for molecular sampling whenever possible.
Corals tend to become deformed overtime in aquariums for reasons beyond our knowledge or control. By deformation I mean morphologically "softening": corals tend to lose corallite definition as flesh/polyps inflate/extend more. In Acropora this is expressed by more rounded thecae and irregular branching/growth form.What do you mean by deformation though, do corals overtime in captivity get deformed in the physical sense? or in the sense of different tank conditions will produce different growth patternsAcros that have been in the hobby for a long time generally are not able to be IDed to the species level because of deformation.
A. convexa is millepora-like, and given PC rainbows have thick, rounded radials, they're probably not convexa.
Madrepora convexa Lectotype USNM 236 | Singapore | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
PC Rainbow Acro | Aquarium | Credit: @Pieces of the Ocean
As for Paletta Pink Tip, that one's also not A. tenuis given Paletta's (also) rounded radials in contrast to tenuis's labellate, flared radials.
Paletta Pink Tip | Aquarium | Credit: @maroun.c
Madrepora tenuis Holotype USNM 259 | Fiji | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
As for Fox Flame, A. appressa is a a valid guess, but there are also other species to rule out, like valida, nana, willisae, etc.
Fox Flame Acro | Aquarium | Credit: @Battlecorals
Heteropora appressa Type Specimen (?, catalog number unknown, possibly ZMB 878) | either unrecorded or Singapore (presumably, according to Veron (1984)) | Credit: CotW
Madrepora valida Holotype USNM 272 | Fiji | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
Acropora (Acropora) willisae Holotype MTQ G49313 | Great Barrier Reef | Credit: CotW
On the note about DNA analysis, DNA analysis is not the end-all-be-all, as molecular methods alone cannot identify a coral species. Corals thought to be of the same species but either from different localities or of slightly differing morphology will often produce differing DNA results with genetic analysis. This is because many of what are thought to be distinct species are actually cryptic species complexes which need detangling. Modern coral taxonomists have to use not just use DNA analysis, but also compare with type specimens and original descriptions, and collect from type localities whenever possible to produce topotypes which most closely match the studied species for molecular sampling whenever possible.
You especially see this in systems with low intensity lighting, overly blue lighting, low flow. Any environment drastically different from their natural environment.
Appreciate the in-depth explanation, just further serving to illustrate why species identification is tough, especially for hobbyist corals. I'm not surprised I was likely wrong on my assertions.Acros that have been in the hobby for a long time generally are not able to be IDed to the species level because of deformation.
A. convexa is millepora-like, and given PC rainbows have thick, rounded radials, they're probably not convexa.
Madrepora convexa Lectotype USNM 236 | Singapore | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
PC Rainbow Acro | Aquarium | Credit: @Pieces of the Ocean
As for Paletta Pink Tip, that one's also not A. tenuis given Paletta's (also) rounded radials in contrast to tenuis's labellate, flared radials.
Paletta Pink Tip | Aquarium | Credit: @maroun.c
Madrepora tenuis Holotype USNM 259 | Fiji | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
As for Fox Flame, A. appressa is a a valid guess, but there are also other species to rule out, like valida, nana, willisae, etc.
Fox Flame Acro | Aquarium | Credit: @Battlecorals
Heteropora appressa Type Specimen (?, catalog number unknown, possibly ZMB 878) | either unrecorded or Singapore (presumably, according to Veron (1984)) | Credit: CotW
Madrepora valida Holotype USNM 272 | Fiji | Credit: Smithsonian Collections
Acropora (Acropora) willisae Holotype MTQ G49313 | Great Barrier Reef | Credit: CotW
On the note about DNA analysis, DNA analysis is not the end-all-be-all, as molecular methods alone cannot identify a coral species. Corals thought to be of the same species but either from different localities or of slightly differing morphology will often produce differing DNA results with genetic analysis. This is because many of what are thought to be distinct species are actually cryptic species complexes which need detangling. Modern coral taxonomists have to use not just use DNA analysis, but also compare with type specimens and original descriptions, and collect from type localities whenever possible to produce topotypes which most closely match the studied species for molecular sampling whenever possible.
Just my opinion on the subject... Deformities found today are mostly related to LED light in my observations. The distorted colony formation we see today is a new thing, a new type never seen before. The projections are very messed up with tips going different directions and staghorn Acros very weird. The defects are emphasized with lower intensity/extra blue/absence of white diodes. It is very clear to me that LEDs are the culprit to what's going on today. There were deformities in much less numbers under halides and T5s, but they were all related to flow in the past. And we all knew and sometimes pointed those cases. That's why I see that it's absolutely related to LEDs what we see today. T5s are the very best technology to have uniform colonies. The very best! But they only cover well tanks up to 24" deep. I love T5s! Halides will give the best spectrum and with T5s we have the very best to offer.
So do you think that the JF flame and Garth bonsai is due to deformities or due to grafting?
