Bye Cyanobacteria!

[sixty_reefer]

When I first saw the pictures with the claim that the Oscillatoriales like strings was engulfed - I could not decide if the strings was inside or below the unidentified and partially transparent organism - see the image below where obviously the lower unidentified and partially transparent organisms are above the Oscillatoriales like strings - and probably the others too - that in this picture seems likely to be a member of the family Oscillatoriales.

But in the video - its clear that the green string is inside the unidentified and partially transparent organism. You can see that when the fast moving organism hit the unidentified and partially transparent organism

But - IMO - its not possible to 100 % identify it as an Oscillatoriales like string cause you can´t see the cell walls - they may be there but I can´t see them even in high magnification.

I use the order name Oscillatoriales instead for family name Oscillatoriaceae or genus name Oscillatoria here because this genus is normally only a fresh and brackish water genus. I know that I earlier in my life had use the genus name Oscillatoria but will stop with this because the genus has been reclassified and many previously saltwater Oscillatoria species now belong to other genera. There is a few saltwater species still classified as Oscillatoria but its not IMO possible to identify on species level for us aquarists - therefore I will use the order name in the future.


IMO - these type of comparison is worthless because you do not have any reference point that show that they are taken over the same area and it needs to be taken at the same time.

Its another problem with the pictures - I cannot see any transverse cell walls which all Oscillatoriales have - however, there are some species where it is difficult to see these walls with a light microscope.

If you can´t see any transverse cell walls in higher resolution - you can´t even claim that it is some type of Oscillatoriales - if you can see these cell walls - its likely a individual from the order Oscillatoriales

Sincerely Lasse

I should have mentioned that I’ve also observed the filaments gliding under the microscope, which was part of the reason I was using Oscillatoria as a working ID. I take your point about the newer classification though, so Oscillatoriales would probably be the safer term going forward. I’ll also try to get a clearer image where we can show the transverse cell walls, below is a random old pic with bad focus.

Regarding the samples, both were taken from the same area of the tank. Of course there’s always the possibility that one sample contained more of one organism than the other. I can take a few more samples from that same area tonight and share the images if there’s any interest in comparing them.

I’d also like to point out that this isn’t the first time I’ve observed these amoeba like organisms. A few weeks ago I was finding colonies of them surrounding phytoplankton and smaller Cyanobacteria (only visible at 1000x). I usually spend two or three hours most days looking at different samples and watching the microscopic world that has developed in this system, so these observations aren’t based on a single sample or image.

And a random videos of a different type of filament Cyanobacteria

 

[EnterName]

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.

I'm afraid recordings won't help us with further identification:

"In “Oscillatoriales” cyanobacteria (Cyanophyceae), relatively simple and uniform morphology superimposes on high genetic diversity that impedes reliable identification." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0026261718030141)

Hydrocoleum, Kamptonema, Lyngbya, Leptolyngbya, Symploca, Tychonema, and many more have mat-forming species and show segmented filaments in different sizes and pigmentation. They all have been reported in tropic marine environments and some in reef tanks like Lyngbya.

I'm reasonably certain that with the modern DNA-based classification we won't even be able to determine the family of these cyanobacteria, which is also why Lasse rightfully chose to stay on Order-level.


There is nothing wrong with staying corrected, I'm absolutely certain I will be corrected in the future many times and had also no problem admitting that the previous suggestion of Frontonia spp. didn't match after seeing the video with additional context. I think crowd correction is important and can be very beneficial, just like Randy explained in another thread of yours recently.

Edit: Oscillatoria was not a working ID before but is now, and I think that is what is being criticized.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I'm afraid recordings won't help us with further identification:

"In “Oscillatoriales” cyanobacteria (Cyanophyceae), relatively simple and uniform morphology superimposes on high genetic diversity that impedes reliable identification." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0026261718030141)

Hydrocoleum, Kamptonema, Lyngbya, Leptolyngbya, Symploca, Tychonema, and many more have mat-forming species and show segmented filaments in different sizes and pigmentation. They all have been reported in tropic marine environments and some in reef tanks like Lyngbya.

I'm reasonably certain that with the modern DNA-based classification we won't even be able to determine the family of these cyanobacteria, which is also why Lasse rightfully chose to stay on Order-level.


There is nothing wrong with staying corrected, I'm absolutely certain I will be corrected in the future many times and had also no problem admitting that the previous suggestion of Frontonia spp. didn't match after seeing the video with additional context. I think crowd correction is important and can be very beneficial, just like Randy explained in another thread of yours recently.

Edit: Oscillatoria was not a working ID before but is now, and I think that is what is being criticized.

Out of curiosity, when you identify cyanobacteria in an aquarium, do you always run DNA analysis to confirm it? We’re looking at a general observation of an amoeba looking organism apparently feeding on cyanobacteria, not trying to publish a taxonomic identification.

And to be fair, “crowd correction” on my threads sometimes feels more like “crowd reinforcement” than correction, something that’s already been noticed and commented on by several members of the forum.

 

[Lasse]

Out of curiosity, when you identify cyanobacteria in an aquarium, do you always run DNA analysis to confirm it? We’re looking at a general observation here, not writing a scientific paper.

What you mean - what both I and @EnterName stress is that is useless and not possible to identify cyanobacteria even on the family level by aquarist without using DNA or other expert tools. If you do not know - science works with a system of Taxonomic rank first created by Linnaeus 1735 so it has been actual for quite some time. How it works today - please read this article

Even if you look at general observations its important that there is some evidences for the things you claim. If you claim that its Oscillatoria in your samples - there is - and can not be - any thing in your pictures which proves it. There is not either evidence that you can say that is the specific family named Oscillatoriaceae - the nearest you can in identification of the pictures you shown come is the order level - Oscillatoriales - if you can identify transverse cell walls and no nucleus - if you can´t - you can´t even be sure that this is bacteria at the 100% level - you must consider the possibility that it could belong another domain - Eukarya - that contain algae.

To be true - your pictures not even is a 100 % evidence that this is a cyanobacteria - there is similar micro algae around - like Ulothrix

I can´t tell if they have nucleus or not. But your saying that you have seen movements of the string indicate strongly that it is a cyanobacteria from the order Oscillatoriales - if they also form slimy mats - you can be more convinced that it is cyanobacteria and not algae.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[EnterName]

I usually don't ID cyanobacteria past Phylum (so nothing more specific than "these are cyanobacteria"). I'll sometimes point to similar looking genera or species that I learned about during my research, but I mark those clearly as unverified guesses, often with a question mark next to the name or careful wording that makes the uncertainty obvious.

To me there is a real difference between showing something and pondering about its identification, versus making claims about an organism's behavior, exact classification, role in the ecosystem, or if it could be used as a solution for the same problem in other tanks.

This thread hasn't gotten as bad as the last one imo, but I think people are more careful now after what happened. The last one ended in a locked thread and a bunch of unanswered questions that exposed the fragility of some made claims.

Criticism on overgeneralizations or basing observations on shaky facts isn't limited to you at all. As an example, I recently criticized the well known and respected dinoflagellate identification guide for generalizing toxicity and night migration behavior across entire genera. I've also said in several dino ID threads that I'm hesitant to assign a genus to a specimen without a disclaimer, since these organisms are so abundant that we might not even notice if a lookalike species or genus showed up in our tanks.

To go forward instead of looking at the history of how the involved parties came to the rather heated tone in the recent threads, I would love to hear how you came to the conclusion that you are dealing with Oscillatoria spp. and how you know you are dealing with more than two different ones?

 

[sixty_reefer]

Ok, let’s start over. I’ll add a few videos and you all can tell me what I’m seeing.

Algae, bacteria or something else, video starts at 400x - 100x - 40x

 

[EnterName]

Ok, let’s start over. I’ll add a few videos and you all can tell me what I’m seeing.

Algae, bacteria or something else, video starts at 400x - 100x - 40x

With reasonable certainty phylum Cyanobacteriota (no one questioned that under the assumption they are moving)

With reasonable certainty order Oscillatoriales (see Lasse's great comment on taxonomy)

And now your turn: Why genus Oscillatoria sp.?

 

[sixty_reefer]

With reasonable certainty phylum Cyanobacteriota (no one questioned that under the assumption they are moving)

With reasonable certainty order Oscillatoriales (see Lasse's great comment on taxonomy)

And now your turn: Why genus Oscillatoria sp.?

I’m not finished uploading all the videos yet, but thanks for the confirmation that we are looking at cyanobacteria.

 

[EnterName]

With reasonable certainty phylum Cyanobacteriota (no one questioned that under the assumption they are moving)

With reasonable certainty order Oscillatoriales (see Lasse's great comment on taxonomy)

And now your turn: Why genus Oscillatoria sp.?

I’m not finished uploading all the videos yet, but thanks for the confirmation that we are looking at cyanobacteria.

It's just my guess, if Lasse says something different you might be better off listening to him than me.

I doubt additional videos will help with family or even genus level identification but I'm excited to hear and see your assessment.

 

[sixty_reefer]

What’s happening in this slide? Is something eating the filament or not?

 

[EnterName]

I would stick with the cyanos first.
This is the exact spot at which the last thread ended. In that thread you were able to distinguish heterotrophic bacteria from autotrophs, now you identified Oscillatoriales down to family level, which based on morphology is not possible to my knowledge.
I would be interested in how you achieved that before proceeding because my question got skipped last time already.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Last question. What is this organism? Amoeba, cilliate or something else?

 

[sixty_reefer]

I would stick with the cyanos first.
This is the exact spot at which the last thread ended. In that thread you were able to distinguish heterotrophic bacteria from autotrophs, now you identified Oscillatoriales down to family level, which based on morphology is not possible to my knowledge.
I would be interested in how you achieved that before proceeding because my question got skipped last time already.

So you’re fixed on something that I can quite easily acknowledge may be a mistake in identification? In the same way you spent much of the thread questioning whether these were amoeba like organisms and suggesting ciliates instead?

You shared Rev’s thread asking everyone to be nice but do you honestly think that’s what’s happening here? This is exactly what I meant by crowd reinforcement. The focus seems to be on finding something wrong with the observation rather than working together to understand what is actually being observed. I don’t see much of the friendly support that you would expect from a forum discussion.