Gaufl
Community Member
Hey there! 
I need to clear this up.
The last weeks, I tried to find an Astralomussa and came to the conclusion that there is quite a confusion between it and Parascolymia vitiensis in the hobby. I searched a few scientific papers just to be more confused in the end.
Lets begin by saying that both species have been reclassified scientifically into the Lobophyllia genus, which means that the correct names for these two are now Lobophyllia rowleyensis and Lobophyllia vitiensis.
As names tend to stick in the hobby I will be referring to both in their former scientific nomenclature.
Lets start with Parascolymia vitiensis
(Copyright CoralZone)
this type of LPS is often solitary and thus easy to distinguish from Australomussa, the Problem starts when you come accross a polystomatous Parascolymia vitiensis.
This coral should be a polystomatous Parascolymia vitiensis, not an Australomussa.
According to the paper:
Phylogenetic relationships and taxonomy of the coral genera Australomussa and Parascolymia (Scleractinia, Lobophylliidae) (Arrigont et alii),
Australomussa rowleyensis is much more dome shaped ("3D") and looks like this:
(Copyright western australian museum)
As you can see, it looks nothing like the Australomussas often seen in captive care. So that basically leads me to the conclusion that a lot of Australomussas sold in the hobby are actually Parascolymia vitiensis.
Trying to find a "real" Australomussa rowleyensis has prooven to be quite difficult, and even that is an understatement, as the are quite rare in the wild and even more rare in Imports.
As you can see, It differs quite a bit from the majority of "Australomussas" sold in the hobby.
But then there is this:
This is the typical coral sold as Australomussa in the hobby. (This one actually is one from Indo, but it does not differ a lot from Aussie ones). As you can see, it greatly differs from both, the actual Australomussa and Parascolymia. Maybe we are talking about a third species that adds to the confusion?
I hope I could clear up a bit of confusion anyways (or maybe I added to it).
I am really looking forward to opinions regarding this topic to stop my head from smoking
Greetings,
Flo
I need to clear this up.
The last weeks, I tried to find an Astralomussa and came to the conclusion that there is quite a confusion between it and Parascolymia vitiensis in the hobby. I searched a few scientific papers just to be more confused in the end.
Lets begin by saying that both species have been reclassified scientifically into the Lobophyllia genus, which means that the correct names for these two are now Lobophyllia rowleyensis and Lobophyllia vitiensis.
As names tend to stick in the hobby I will be referring to both in their former scientific nomenclature.
Lets start with Parascolymia vitiensis
this type of LPS is often solitary and thus easy to distinguish from Australomussa, the Problem starts when you come accross a polystomatous Parascolymia vitiensis.
This coral should be a polystomatous Parascolymia vitiensis, not an Australomussa.
According to the paper:
Phylogenetic relationships and taxonomy of the coral genera Australomussa and Parascolymia (Scleractinia, Lobophylliidae) (Arrigont et alii),
Australomussa rowleyensis is much more dome shaped ("3D") and looks like this:
As you can see, it looks nothing like the Australomussas often seen in captive care. So that basically leads me to the conclusion that a lot of Australomussas sold in the hobby are actually Parascolymia vitiensis.
Trying to find a "real" Australomussa rowleyensis has prooven to be quite difficult, and even that is an understatement
, as the are quite rare in the wild and even more rare in Imports.As you can see, It differs quite a bit from the majority of "Australomussas" sold in the hobby.
But then there is this:
This is the typical coral sold as Australomussa in the hobby. (This one actually is one from Indo, but it does not differ a lot from Aussie ones). As you can see, it greatly differs from both, the actual Australomussa and Parascolymia. Maybe we are talking about a third species that adds to the confusion?
I hope I could clear up a bit of confusion anyways (or maybe I added to it
). I am really looking forward to opinions regarding this topic to stop my head from smoking
Greetings,
Flo
