kenniole
Active Member
I thought so as well.. It took awhile to take the picture with all the moving around the fish did... had to turn up my whites to 100% as well..
Bad hobby terms.
- Thread starter Kershaw
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I thought so as well.. It took awhile to take the picture with all the moving around the fish did... had to turn up my whites to 100% as well..
Good points!Well I'm sure as long as it's kept far away from the kryponite coral it would be okay
Being new to the hobby I can say it can really be difficult to search for things when you may not have a clue what exactly it is your trying to search for. I can definitely agree with the "what is this?" with a blurry pic or reefers asking what's wrong without posting there parameters for those to help. There is a wealth of information on this forum and excellent dedicated members who want to help in any way they can. But they can't lift a finger without knowing what is going on.
cdmckinzie
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 201
Hahaha, lol
cdmckinzie
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 201
I think this is a spell check issue. When I typed zoas earlier it corrected me and changed it to zoos. Spellcheck is a pain in the butt!!!Mine is probably going to hit close to home for some up here... I hate seeing Zoanthids called "zoos", zoa is the correct abbreviation ZOAnthid. A zoo is a place that houses exotic animals, you cannot keep a zoo in an aquarium, the animals would drown
cdmckinzie
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 201
As a newbie, it's easier to start a new post and ask questions than to search an entire site, especially if said site has a mobile site (which is what I use here) and a browser site (which some of you use here but I do not because I have a tablet, not a laptop). It could take us weeks to search through old posts that may or may not answer the exact question we have.
cdmckinzie
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2017
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 201
I have an easier time of knowing which coral you are talking about if you say acropora or zoanthid, but people and websites want to name every color variation something else so we get 1000 different names. I know what people are saying when they refer to a pulsing xenia or a Kenya tree, those are soft corals, I like them. I understand the difference between a flame angel and a coral beauty angel, but I will have a terrible time remembering the difference between a Centropyge Loricula and a Centropyge Bispinosa, especially when you throw in spell check on any phone, tablet, laptop and desktop. So telling people they should learn the scientific names of everything just doesn't make it easier for everyone. Neither do these weird names for corals. But as a hobby No one is going to figure out the "best" way for everyone
tyler1503
2500 Club Member
Pfft, I ain't never seen no one use no double negatives...
klp
Active Member
klp
Active Member
It is like using initials rather than the term which we do quite often. Consider BBT. What in the world does that mean? It means bare bottom tank to most here at R2R. The correct way is to say BBT (bare bottom tank) and then once the definition is made you can use BBT or bbt in your comments, thread etc. We ASSume that everyone knows the lingo. Same with corals. If we gave the common name with the scientific name in parenthesis we have a solid ID and can then continue to use the common name. Solution simple is we follow it. I have another pet peeve then is those that do not explain acronyms be they corals or "Reef Tank" slang.
tyler1503
2500 Club Member
Yes!!! That's a great point!
It makes it even more difficult when there are multiple corals called superman. There is a superman montipora, ricordea, rhodactis, zoa, discosoma, acro, blasto, scoly, chalice and probably many others.
How is a beginner who doesn't know the difference between a monti and a blasto supposed to research that?
Rick.45cal
2500 Club Member
just thought I would throw this out there for all the "alkalinity" haters... but Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley describes TA (Total Alkalinity) which is actually what most of us measure using an acid titration with a simple pH endpoint of 4.5. http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/2/chemistry
So alkalinity is a perfectly acceptable term.
Coral taxonomy in the past was almost exclusively done using coral skeletons. So it takes time for scientists to change errors that were made, sometimes they make many errors naming/renaming something. It's not hard to make lots of mistakes when you only look at an organisms skeleton. Reefkeeping as a whole has probably been a positive effect in those regards. You also have to remember that now there is genetics available, and a real way to trace lineage of species, so as more information is obtained names get more accurate.
The most frustrating thing to me in this hobby is seeing how many people systematically starve their fish and corals just because they don't want their tank to get "dirty". Let be honest, that isn't an acceptable practice, it's something that needs to change in this hobby. If we were raising any other animals, it would be criminal!
So alkalinity is a perfectly acceptable term.
Coral taxonomy in the past was almost exclusively done using coral skeletons. So it takes time for scientists to change errors that were made, sometimes they make many errors naming/renaming something. It's not hard to make lots of mistakes when you only look at an organisms skeleton. Reefkeeping as a whole has probably been a positive effect in those regards. You also have to remember that now there is genetics available, and a real way to trace lineage of species, so as more information is obtained names get more accurate.
The most frustrating thing to me in this hobby is seeing how many people systematically starve their fish and corals just because they don't want their tank to get "dirty". Let be honest, that isn't an acceptable practice, it's something that needs to change in this hobby. If we were raising any other animals, it would be criminal!
Ok... some pet peeves
several people talk about inverts and corals (e.g. this treatment is safe for corals but not invertebrates).... ERRRRR... Corals are invertebrates!!!
One LFS owner once told me that Nems are not corals, they are invertebrates... Both Corals and Nems are in the phylum Cnidaria... both have nematocysts (stinging cells)
Also, Softies vs. LPS vs. SPS.... big ERRRRRR. Imagine ornithologists classifying birds as either flightless, flapping or gliding.
Another thing that really annoys me, and one that i think our community needs to get better at, is the adoption of fluffy coral names.... you know the ones (i've purchased many; pink caddy, blue voodoo, blue eyed blond something, etc etc etc). Can we please start using proper names (i know this is hard, but doable) ... i think we would be doing SCIENCE a big favour if we start taking taxonomy of our corals seriously... I am sure that we observe and keep records on our tanks more than any natural reef has been studied. we have collected years of precious data on the different conditions that corals (and algae thrive in, but this information is not immediately useful because we don't know the proper taxonomy of our tank inhabitants. Not good!
several people talk about inverts and corals (e.g. this treatment is safe for corals but not invertebrates).... ERRRRR... Corals are invertebrates!!!
One LFS owner once told me that Nems are not corals, they are invertebrates... Both Corals and Nems are in the phylum Cnidaria... both have nematocysts (stinging cells)
Also, Softies vs. LPS vs. SPS.... big ERRRRRR. Imagine ornithologists classifying birds as either flightless, flapping or gliding.
Another thing that really annoys me, and one that i think our community needs to get better at, is the adoption of fluffy coral names.... you know the ones (i've purchased many; pink caddy, blue voodoo, blue eyed blond something, etc etc etc). Can we please start using proper names (i know this is hard, but doable) ... i think we would be doing SCIENCE a big favour if we start taking taxonomy of our corals seriously... I am sure that we observe and keep records on our tanks more than any natural reef has been studied. we have collected years of precious data on the different conditions that corals (and algae
thrive in, but this information is not immediately useful because we don't know the proper taxonomy of our tank inhabitants. Not good!
Ok... some pet peeves
several people talk about inverts and corals (e.g. this treatment is safe for corals but not invertebrates).... ERRRRR... Corals are invertebrates!!!
One LFS owner once told me that Nems are not corals, they are invertebrates... Both Corals and Nems are in the phylum Cnidaria... both have nematocysts (stinging cells)
Also, Softies vs. LPS vs. SPS.... big ERRRRRR. Imagine ornithologists classifying birds as either flightless, flapping or gliding.
Another thing that really annoys me, and one that i think our community needs to get better at, is the adoption of fluffy coral names.... you know the ones (i've purchased many; pink caddy, blue voodoo, blue eyed blond something, etc etc etc). Can we please start using proper names (i know this is hard, but doable) ... i think we would be doing SCIENCE a big favour if we start taking taxonomy of our corals seriously... I am sure that we observe and keep records on our tanks more than any natural reef has been studied. we have collected years of precious data on the different conditions that corals (and algae
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
There IS another person like me. It's good to hear someone else say that the LPS/SPS/Softy terms are downright ridiculous. Also for being another great person to say that we need to use actual scientific names.
And to Rick.45cal for mentioning genetics. The changes to coral taxonomy that some are using as an excuse to not keep up with names because it's confusing. The methods used are mostly soft tissue analysis, so these new names actually put them right where they belong, and they should stay there. Anyway, that's all, thanks again to both of you.
I always cringed at that one. It would be easier if there were 2-3 oz bottles of pure ammonia available for a couple of bucks at aquarium shops. I can get a bottle of pure ammonia at the dollar store, but I have no other use for it after establishing the nitrogen cycle.
I admit to building a 2x4 stand for a ten gallon aquarium. I have no idea how that thing didn't tip over.
Knowing what I know now, I cringe at the sight of them, but until I read a few threads from some carpenters and cabinet makers on here I had no real idea of what is reasonable to build a stand. If you think about it, your house is mostly built with 2x4s.
I have a professor that wrote an extremely comprehensive book on probability and statistics. Out of 25 references, only 6 were not Wikipedia. The scientific, math, and engineering based Wikipedia pages are getting to be quite serious references. Have you ever tried to look up a math term on Wikipedia? It is beyond intense. More in depth than doctorate level math courses.Didn't your teacher ever tell you not to cite Wikipedia?
I still haven't been able to get beyond this either. Or people that think corals don't need to be fed, that light is enough. Try keeping them in a pristine tank with no fish to feed, see how quickly they fade away.
I'll have conversations with people that insist that corals don't need to be fed, that they thrive with sufficient ligh and fish poop, but if they have tried directly feeding their corals they are blown away with the improvement in color and growth. But they stopped because they started seeing nutrients when they tested despite not having any issues due to the barely detectable levels of nutrients.
Reefs are low in dissolved nutrients because there is so much life that is competing for every scrap of usable energy. Everything is consumed as fast as it is generated. Non-detectable levels on a reef doesn't mean that it is ideal in a tank. There is not the food reserves in our tank like there is on an actual reef.
I get the comments about the crazy names and wanting to use scientific names, but those are two distinct things. The crazy names are not substitutes for scientific names. The crazy names cover color morphs of a specific species of coral. They would not recieve their own scientific name. The scientific name should still accompany the crazy names. Those names do serve a purpose to trace the lineage if they stick with the frags instead of having the name attached later as people guess at what they have from poorly taken photos (peeve also). If the coral truly is what is stated, it gives an expectation of the coloration and growth pattern... to a point, as both color and growth pattern vary with conditions. I definitely don't care for the pricing that goes along with those names.
Also seeing the same question asked in the same sub forum two to three times a week when that same question appears multiple times on the first page, often with almost the same exact thread title.
I think what a lot of us are saying is we should go back to the good old days when a genus and color was enough, and a morph was a just a cool morph. Before there were so many vendors just trying to capitalize on it by giving them stupid names making people ignore what they really are. I'd love to just see a scientific name and a color. It would even still be worth more but it's idiotic to call them these goofy names.
Rick.45cal
2500 Club Member
I love scientific names, I think we should use more of them, but I am totally for all the goofy stupid names that people assign to corals for one singular reason... it has promoted captive aquaculture to a point that it is economically viable.
It's frustrating to remember the size of colonies and prices we paid 25 years ago, but there is also something pretty cool about watching an entire reef grow from little fragments too.
It's frustrating to remember the size of colonies and prices we paid 25 years ago, but there is also something pretty cool about watching an entire reef grow from little fragments too.
RobertN
Active Member
YES! I was looking through all the posts, page by page, to see if anyone had mentioned this yet.....and you did. If you hadn't, I was going to say it. I often shake my head and chuckle when I see a coral for sale that says "rainbow" and it's lucky if even a 3rd color can be seen. The excessive use of hyperbole is just unbelievable when corals are being sold. And every coral is either "ultra," "super," "insane," "rare" or "extreme." And those terms are used even more so when a coral is rather unattractive and the seller is trying to grasp at straws to say something positive about it....I'm thinking, "Hmmm, yes, that coral is extreme--extremely brown and undesirable....
Last edited:
SBlisters
Active Member
As a beginner, it's more difficult to find these names out. I have coral that I've not found the exact match for online or in my reef books. I call it what it seems to be and assume they are just color variants, not a completely different species. I'm taking a pledge here and now: I'm going to try to use only the scientific names from now on.
Goodbye candy cane, hello, Caulastrea Furcata.
OP
OP
Kershaw
Valuable Member
to each is own. I'm not trying to change your mind. I don't mess with any acrylic unless it's for sumps, frag racks, or reactors etc. I prefer polycarbonate. I have used "plexiglass" and it warps and discolors over time. Polycarbonate in MY experience dose not. But I don't want to argue, you may be right I have limited experiance with it all. Calling hook and loop fastener Velcro is fine because it's not used in things that hold hundreds of gallons of water. But calling a plastic by a brand name could cause some one allot of headache, if they attempt a diy project using the wrong type.
Similar threads
