Sure, the photo's enhanced, but that shade of purple is the shade I was talking about, even if it's a little more dull.And this vendor would NEVER post an enhanced photo... smh
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure, the photo's enhanced, but that shade of purple is the shade I was talking about, even if it's a little more dull.And this vendor would NEVER post an enhanced photo... smh
I've seen those torches in person; they're more pink than purple. The purple acrospheres that occur in Fimbriaphyllia is deeper and more blueish.
Credit: Sunnyside Corals
![]()
No, I'm showing that photo to show the purple I'm talking about, not about your torch. The green and purple are drastically different because I am contrasting your pink-tip torch with the color morph of Fimbriaphyllia I am talking about, not comparing your torch as similar. Yeah, that photo is likely edited--didn't think about that when finding a photo; here is a less edited photo with the same morph I am talking about.My torch is not from this vendor nor does it look like that at all. The green and purple are drastically different.
Also feel that photo is edited to appear more vibrant
There's also the tentacle length; Euphyllia have longer tentacles than Fimbriaphyllia; your coral's tentacles are about regular length for a hammer, but too short for a cristata.I have not seen or read one thing that convinces me it’s a hammer.
I have not seen or read one thing that convinces me it’s not a type of torch
Hardly! It's called a "short torch" for a reason...There's also the tentacle length; Euphyllia have longer tentacles than Fimbriaphyllia; your coral's tentacles are about regular length for a hammer, but too short for a cristata.
Hardly! It's called a "short torch" for a reason...
The tentacles of all those torches when compared to the polyp size are all longer than your coral. Tentacle length was one of the morphological characteristics used to delineate Fimbriaphyllia from Euphyllia in the reclassification study.Plenty of short stem torches out there
![]()
![]()
![]()
Also there are variables such as age and flow that affect tentacle length
Same torch different flow settings
![]()
![]()
I have a hammer that can extend tentacles 3” also
You're gonna die on this hill I guess...The tentacles of all those torches when compared to the polyp size are all longer than your coral. Tentacle length was one of the morphological characteristics used to delineate Fimbriaphyllia from Euphyllia in the reclassification study.
The one I showed is a baby with 1/2” headsThe tentacles of all those torches when compared to the polyp size are all longer than your coral. Tentacle length was one of the morphological characteristics used to delineate Fimbriaphyllia from Euphyllia in the reclassification study.
You're gonna die on this hill I guess...
My point still stands. Compared to its polyp size, the tentacles are too short to be a Euphyllia.The one I showed is a baby with 1/2” heads
Not you, lol
Irrelevant as pointed out before because flow and age influence sizeMy point still stands. Compared to its polyp size, the tentacles are too short to be a Euphyllia.
Bottom is not a torch. For the top one, when compared to the polyp size, is not actually that wrong.Here is a very long stem hammer that doesn’t meet the norm and has “torch length” tentacles
![]()
And here is the item in question, I suspect a torch variation that has short tentacles.![]()
The corals you showed are not juvenile polyps, so the age is irrelevant. There isn't any source that mentions any specific ratio for tentacle length, as that trait was noticed very recently, only after the reclassification of Euphyllia.Irrelevant as pointed out before because flow and age influence size
Please tell me the acceptable range of ratios for
(polyp diameter) : (tentacle length)
that is considered acceptable for both cristata torch and hammer, with sources cited, knowing that COTW is not fully trustworthy as proven prior.
I bet there is an overlap.
Not really. Inflated oral discs and ovate/circular acrospheres in hammers are really only an in-captivity thing; I suspect your coral originally had flattened acrospheres. Could you possibly ask the original owner of your coral for a photo of it when it was freshly imported?So…formerly, could this be classified as torch
Not really. Inflated oral discs and ovate/circular acrospheres in hammers are really only an in-captivity thing; I suspect your coral originally had flattened acrospheres. Could you possibly ask the original owner of your coral for a photo of it when it was freshly imported?
Take a side-profile photo of the corallite when closed up. That is usually a good way to tell septal exsertness. From your top-down photo of it closed up, the amount of septal protrusion is closer to a hammer. The characteristic of exsert septa is not my guidelines, but an actual characteristic used to identify Cristata torches.