Bye Cyanobacteria!

[BeanAnimal]

...and whatever it is eating!
I just wish someone could tell us what it really is so we could have a more productive discussion about it.

Given this is marine biology and the shapes and visible features, I would lean toward two different types of ciliates. I spent a little while looking for specific IDs but moved on to a different project. It is kind of pointless here.

I don't see any evidence of anything "eating".

 

[sixty_reefer]

Hi Robert:

There is no dispute that there are amoebas that graze on marine cyanobacteria. However, citing that as an answer to his claim mischaracterizes his claims.

There is no dispute that there may even be amoebas grazing on algae in the OPs tank. The observations extend to explanations resting on one another is part of the issue.

Interesting note, the research that I have seen shows most to be tiny heterotrophic species that you wouldn't be able to identify at 1000x, let alone see their gut load. There may be larger species also. But that is beside the point for now.


Observations and cool photos are fine. The problem occurs when those observations are turned into a stack of conclusions (claims) the poster will not substantiate or retract when challenged, and escalates when deflection and reframing are used to avoid accountability.

In this thread the claims rest on two amoebas that are more than likely not amoebas. This was kindly pointed out by EnterName, and the OP carefully worded a partial concession, then reframed it as being polite, not a concession when it was used to challenge him. Same pattern as above, a deflection instead of accountability.

So it's binary: the OP stands by the original stack of claims, even though the image shows they're likely not amoebas and can't support the claims, or he admits the ID was wrong and retracts the claims it supported.

The bottom line: we have moved from claims he refuses to support to claims that can't be supported, but refuses to retract.

These are science centered threads yet the OP refuses to be held to the most basic standards of evidence, let alone peer review.

The real damage is to information. People are ready to bottle something, joking or not, that was never confirmed to exist, based on claims that the poster made and will not retract or defend.

Are you serious right now? How many times have you looked down my microscope mate? It’s not an amoeba? Ask @EnterName if you can identify one without seeing it move!

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal must be really fun at parties.

Don’t know at parties, but he participated and contributed in more closed threads on reef2reef than any other member.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Thanks Bean, appreciate your perspective as always. I have no interest in getting caught up in any dispute you might have with OP!

I do own a microscope but don't know how to tell an amoeba from another microorganism. I still think that is a cool photo of whatever that thing on the left is is and whatever it is eating! I just wish someone could tell us what it really is so we could have a more productive discussion about it.

Hi, Robert this thread is not going to be as informative as I wished, any member that agrees or thinks in a similar manner to me, will receive a harsh comment from BeanAnimal. Unfortunately this is the reality now.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Given this is marine biology and the shapes and visible features, I would lean toward two different types of ciliates. I spent a little while looking for specific IDs but moved on to a different project. It is kind of pointless here.

I don't see any evidence of anything "eating".

About time. Calling it a cilliate from that picture is a stretch.

 

[RobertK]

Given this is marine biology and the shapes and visible features, I would lean toward two different types of ciliates. I spent a little while looking for specific IDs but moved on to a different project. It is kind of pointless here.

I don't see any evidence of anything "eating".

OK maybe I should not have said it was eating! I am referring to that long greenish filamentous-looking thing that appears to be inside the narrow end of that pear-shaped thing on the left. It appears to be something that was ingested. But what do I know?

 

[EnterName]

Hi Robert:

There is no dispute that there are amoebas that graze on marine cyanobacteria. However, citing that as an answer to his claim mischaracterizes his claims.

There is no dispute that there may even be amoebas grazing on algae in the OPs tank. The observations extend to explanations resting on one another is part of the issue.

Interesting note, the research that I have seen shows most to be tiny heterotrophic species that you wouldn't be able to identify at 1000x, let alone see their gut load. There may be larger species also. But that is beside the point for now.


Observations and cool photos are fine. The problem occurs when those observations are turned into a stack of conclusions (claims) the poster will not substantiate or retract when challenged, and escalates when deflection and reframing are used to avoid accountability.

In this thread the claims rest on two amoebas that are more than likely not amoebas. This was kindly pointed out by EnterName, and the OP carefully worded a partial concession, then reframed it as being polite, not a concession when it was used to challenge him. Same pattern as above, a deflection instead of accountability.

So it's binary: the OP stands by the original stack of claims, even though the image shows they're likely not amoebas and can't support the claims, or he admits the ID was wrong and retracts the claims it supported.

The bottom line: we have moved from claims he refuses to support to claims that can't be supported, but refuses to retract.

These are science centered threads yet the OP refuses to be held to the most basic standards of evidence, let alone peer review.

The real damage is to information. People are ready to bottle something, joking or not, that was never confirmed to exist, based on claims that the poster made and will not retract or defend.

Thanks Bean, appreciate your perspective as always. I have no interest in getting caught up in any dispute you might have with OP!

I do own a microscope but don't know how to tell an amoeba from another microorganism. I still think that is a cool photo of whatever that thing on the left is is and whatever it is eating! I just wish someone could tell us what it really is so we could have a more productive discussion about it.

Frontonia spp. ciliates sometimes stuff themselves with large cyano filament sections and their cilia can be hard to see:
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/...enus-free-living-unicellular-ciliate-protists

Frontonia atra for example has this pointy anterior end similar to the specimen in the image: https://mikrokosmos.gallery/organismen/frontonia-atra/

They do fine with reef tank temperatures and salinity and would look as dark as in OPs image with a very closed diaphragm.
I would not feel comfortable claiming this to be a definite ID, it just shows that there are multiple organisms that are known to eat cyanobacteria filaments this way.

The amoeba I know of would extend their pseudopoda to engulf a filament section and then probably coil/fold it to fit better into its body. The eating process would therefore be a good hint if it's an amoeba. The shape itself doesn't look like an amoeba at all (to me), but I might be missing something.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Are you serious? How many times have you looked down my microscope mate? It’s not an amoeba? Ask @EnterName if you can identify one without seeing it move!

Are you retracting this and now saying that you have made a positive ID?
What about the follow on claims that extend beyond observation?
All of that still stands open.

About time. Calling it a cilliate from that picture is a stretch.

I said I would lean toward ciliates given the photo. I also said it was kind of pointless ( it is a single photo with no scale bar).

That is different from claiming an identification. I am perfectly open to being wrong.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Frontonia spp. ciliates sometimes stuff themselves with large cyano filament sections and their cilia can be hard to see:
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/...enus-free-living-unicellular-ciliate-protists

Frontonia atra for example has this pointy anterior end similar to the specimen in the image: https://mikrokosmos.gallery/organismen/frontonia-atra/

They do fine with reef tank temperatures and salinity and would look as dark as in OPs image with a very closed diaphragm.
I would not feel comfortable claiming this to be a definite ID, it just shows that there are multiple organisms that are known to eat cyanobacteria filaments this way.

The amoeba I know of would extend their pseudopoda to engulf a filament section and then probably coil/fold it to fit better into its body. The eating process would therefore be a good hint if it's an amoeba. The shape itself doesn't look like an amoeba at all (to me), but I might be missing something.

I’ve just had a quick look at Frontonia. The movement doesn’t seem to match what I’m observing as they appear much faster. These organisms move very slowly and seem to move by extending their body.

Below is a video I shared at the beginning of the thread. The top one remains still while the bottom one slowly extends its body to move. If you watch closely, you can see it happening.

Of course there’s still a chance I’m wrong, as with everything I’m observing here. But if BeanAnimal’s intention is genuinely to question the ID, surely the aim should be to discuss it and try to identify the organism further, rather than turning it into another battle over claims.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Are you retracting this and now saying that you have made a positive ID?

I said I would lean toward ciliates given the photo. I also said it was kind of pointless ( it is a single photo with no scale bar).

That is different from claiming an identification. I am perfectly open to being wrong.

No, I’m still calling it an amoeba like organism. In which image have you actually seen cilia?

 

[EnterName]

Frontonia spp. ciliates sometimes stuff themselves with large cyano filament sections and their cilia can be hard to see:
https://www.shutterstock.com/video/...enus-free-living-unicellular-ciliate-protists

Frontonia atra for example has this pointy anterior end similar to the specimen in the image: https://mikrokosmos.gallery/organismen/frontonia-atra/

They do fine with reef tank temperatures and salinity and would look as dark as in OPs image with a very closed diaphragm.
I would not feel comfortable claiming this to be a definite ID, it just shows that there are multiple organisms that are known to eat cyanobacteria filaments this way.

The amoeba I know of would extend their pseudopoda to engulf a filament section and then probably coil/fold it to fit better into its body. The eating process would therefore be a good hint if it's an amoeba. The shape itself doesn't look like an amoeba at all (to me), but I might be missing something.

I’ve just had a quick look at Frontonia. The movement doesn’t seem to match what I’m observing as they appear much faster. These organisms move very slowly and seem to move by extending their body.

Below is a video I shared at the beginning of the thread. The top one remains still while the bottom one slowly extends its body to move. If you watch closely, you can see it happening.

Of course there’s still a chance I’m wrong, as with everything I’m observing here. But if BeanAnimal’s intention is genuinely to question the ID, surely the aim should be to discuss it and try to identify the organism further, rather than turning it into another battle over claims.

I was referring to the teardrop-shaped specimen in the first image with a quite well-defined shape. The videos you posted are something different.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I was referring to the teardrop-shaped specimen in the first image with a quite well-defined shape. The videos you posted are something different.

The one on the right and the one on the left are the same organisms so is the one on the video. Their shape changes as they move or feed. Picture below of a different one engulfing the Cyanobacteria.

All the brown organisms in this picture are the same amoeba like organisms not just the one eating.

 

[EnterName]

I was referring to the teardrop-shaped specimen in the first image with a quite well-defined shape. The videos you posted are something different.

The one on the right and the one on the left are the same organisms. Their shape changes as they move or feed. Picture below of a different one engulfing the Cyanobacteria.

All the brown organisms in this picture are the same amoeba like organisms not just the one eating.

Hm, I understand. This wasn't apparent to me from the pictures and videos.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@EnterName, the first image is a still from the video and the second is the picture you shared. In both, you can see what appears to be the same pseudopodia extending from the organism.

And this is the video from where I screen shot the picture you shared.

The movement alone should tell is not Frontonia or any other ciliate.

 

[EnterName]

@EnterName, the first image is a still from the video and the second is the picture you shared. In both, you can see what appears to be the same pseudopodia extending from the organism.

And this is the video from where I screen shot the picture you shared.

The movement alone should tell is not Frontonia.

Well it doesn't really move much at all in the last video, but I would agree that this doesn't appear to be a Frontonia ciliate based on that. The footage is much more helpful than the image alone regarding identification.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Well it doesn't really move much at all in the last video, but I would agree that this doesn't appear to be a Frontonia ciliate based on that. The footage is much more helpful than the image alone regarding identification.

I could have provided the video in post two if anyone had taken the time to ask.

Does anyone also want to challenge the observation that the cyanobacteria mats are being colonised and replaced by these organisms? For those who have used chemical treatments in the past and watched cyanobacteria mats slowly disintegrate, change colour and eventually detach, visually I’m observing something very similar here.

 

[sixty_reefer]

OK maybe I should not have said it was eating! I am referring to that long greenish filamentous-looking thing that appears to be inside the narrow end of that pear-shaped thing on the left. It appears to be something that was ingested. But what do I know?

These organisms are ingesting Oscillatoria, one of at least three types of cyanobacteria present in this experimental aquarium. In a matter of days, I can see the Oscillatoria mats decreasing while these amoeba like organisms are increasingly occupying that space.

The green filamentous looking material on the left is the Oscillatoria mat. On the right, the brown looking organisms are the amoeba like organisms, with only some Oscillatoria remaining between them.

 

[EnterName]

Well it doesn't really move much at all in the last video, but I would agree that this doesn't appear to be a Frontonia ciliate based on that. The footage is much more helpful than the image alone regarding identification.

I could have provided the video in post two if anyone had taken the time to ask.

Does anyone also want to challenge the observation that the cyanobacteria mats are being colonised and replaced by these organisms? For those who have used chemical treatments in the past and watched cyanobacteria mats slowly disintegrate, change colour and eventually detach, visually I’m observing something very similar here.

I asked at the very beginning whether you were sure about the ID, and implicitly, how you would be sure.

I personally would rather challenge the Oscillatoria ID and the claim of having found three different cyanobacteria, since color is pigment-based rather than species-specific, and morphology alone often isn't even sufficient for cyanobacteria ID down to the family level to my current knowledge, which admittedly has its limitations.

But I would rather engage in arguments in good faith and avoid investing the energy and stay away from what feels like defensive or even passive aggressive responses. Especially considering revhtree's recent post and my response to it. https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/a...-and-behavior-thank-you.1166412/post-14469339

It reminds me of the last thread, where I felt critical questions were sometimes seen as personal attacks and some important objections were seemingly ignored.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I asked at the very beginning whether you were sure about the ID, and implicitly, how you would be sure.

I personally would rather challenge the Oscillatoria ID and the claim of having found three different cyanobacteria, since color is pigment-based rather than species-specific, and morphology alone often isn't even sufficient for cyanobacteria ID down to the family level to my current knowledge, which admittedly has its limitations.

You asked if I was sure they were amoebas and I said no. That’s exactly why I’ve continued calling them amoeba like organisms. If I had said yes, the obvious next question would be what type of amoeba they are and that’s something I couldn’t realistically determine with what I have available.

If you want to challenge the Oscillatoria ID or the different cyanobacterial morphologies, that’s fine. I can also try to get better videos of these organisms so we have more to work with and can move the identification forward.

But I would rather engage in arguments in good faith and avoid investing the energy and stay away from what feels like defensive or even passive aggressive responses. Especially considering revhtree's recent post and my response to it. https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/a...-and-behavior-thank-you.1166412/post-14469339

It reminds me of the last thread, where I felt critical questions were sometimes seen as personal attacks and some important objections were seemingly ignored.

That would be nice if it applied to everyone participating in the thread. Unfortunately, crowd reinforcement can sometimes look a lot like crowd correction. I think there’s a culture here where discussions too easily become about someone needing to be right and someone needing to be wrong, rather than everyone working through the observations together. That can stop potentially good discussions from going anywhere.