"List" of Zoanthids that have/don't have palytoxins...?

[BeanAnimal]

Sure, but when someone has expertise in the matter, they are able to tell such distinct differences. I should think that being able to correctly identify a species by morphology would be less obfuscating than repeatedly saying “we can’t know unless we have the DNA”. Given that we’re not going to conduct such analyses with each ID thread, the best we can do is make an educated observation based on the data that we do have. To consider this method of identification as objectively wrong is simply irrational and damaging to the conversation.

IMHO what is "damaging to the conversation" is somebody entering it somewhat out of context and being blatantly obtuse for the sake of argument.

Of course nobody is going to DNA test every specimen. That fact furthers the simple point at hand. You can't tell toxicity by looking at a photo of a zoanthid or palythoa and you don't have biological data to assist. Therefore, you should treat it as toxic.

If you want to make a guess based on observation, that is up to you but it is contrary to the science that indicates that visual traits are not definitive. There is nothing irrational about that.

 

[encrustingacro]

Thank you. Enjoy your zoa's and be safe!

I DMed you a question a few weeks ago. Could you look at it please

 

[Tavero]

Sure, but when someone has expertise in the matter, they are able to tell such distinct differences. I should think that being able to correctly identify a species by morphology would be less obfuscating than repeatedly saying “we can’t know unless we have the DNA”. Given that we’re not going to conduct such analyses with each ID thread, the best we can do is make an educated observation based on the data that we do have. To consider this method of identification as objectively wrong is simply irrational and damaging to the conversation.

Sometimes DNA is even less conclusive than than morphology and origin. It's not that important for a identification.
Some spider for example can't be identifies by DNA at all.

We are better off by using common sense, protection and experience.
Sadly some reefers got poisoned by their Palythoa Grandis which they can't get rid of, and are now on a crusade against all zoanthids.

@BeanAnimal
Still waiting for your documented case of a poisoning by a typical zoanthus. In our last conversation you only posted a paper of a poisoning by parazoanthus sp. without even a picture.

 

[Sharkbait19]

IMHO what is "damaging to the conversation" is somebody entering it somewhat out of context and being blatantly obtuse for the sake of argument.

Of course nobody is going to DNA test every specimen. That fact furthers the simple point at hand. You can't tell toxicity by looking at a photo of a zoanthid or palythoa and you don't have biological data to assist. Therefore, you should treat it as toxic.

If you want to make a guess based on observation, that is up to you but it is contrary to the science that indicates that visual traits are not definitive. There is nothing irrational about that.

For the record, the word “species” is derived from the Latin word for “to look”, and species for a long time were classified by morphological distinctions. While phylogeny as a whole has helped scientists unlock more data and better understanding of the many organisms out there, morphology is still a great and important method of telling species apart. There is nothing wrong with classifying species by this way if someone has the knowledge and expertise to do so. I was merely pointing out that simply because you can’t quite tell the difference, someone more knowledgeable than you might.

I am not quite certain why you are arguing so vehemently and why you choose to verbally attack those entering the conversation with a genuine interest and intent to contribute. I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your analogy to help clarify the point for future readers. Distinguishing species is very different from distinguishing morphs. While you claim that it isn’t the point you were making, you went on to make an comparison involving background and culture for humans, which is not even close to being similar to species identification. I do not argue for the sake of arguing, but when I see a scientific falsehood that can give readers a false sense of the subject matter, I will point it out. I have shown no support towards either side when it comes to handling toxicity other than pointing out that individuals should exercise caution with all varieties—in fact, I’m not sure I’ve read any post in this thread that stated you shouldn’t. However, I wish to point out that it is indeed possible to identify a species by looking at them, given the right amount of knowledge and experience.

 

[BeanAnimal]

For the record, the word “species” is derived from the Latin word for “to look”

Thank you, but I don't need you to explain any of this to me. It is an attempt at back handed arrogance (but you know that) and not conversational. To that end it is not relevant to the conversation.

morphology is still a great and important method of telling species apart. There is nothing wrong with classifying species by this way if someone has the knowledge and expertise to do so. I was merely pointing out that simply because you can’t quite tell the difference, someone more knowledgeable than you might.

You are ignoring the context of not only my comments, but most of the thread for the sake of fueling an argument. The question of "who" (as in has the expertise) to make said IDs was discussed back on page one (post #7) in general. But, more importantly the very people who study these things don't rely on visual traits for ID at a level which would be needed to determine toxicity (the context of this thread).

I was merely pointing out the fallacy in your analogy to help clarify the point for future readers. Distinguishing species is very different from distinguishing morphs. While you claim that it isn’t the point you were making, you went on to make an comparison involving background and culture for humans, which is not even close to being similar to species identification.

We can argue the quality of the analogy and the context of the conversation when it was made, but that is tangent to the point and certainly not the foundation of the conversation, argument, understanding or context.

I do not argue for the sake of arguing,

Of course you do as illustrated by this very exchange.

pointing out that individuals should exercise caution with all varieties—in fact, I’m not sure I’ve read any post in this thread that stated you shouldn’t.

Then you didn't read the thread, or didn't read it for context, as that is the very basis for the entire argument.

However, I wish to point out that it is indeed possible to identify a species by looking at them, given the right amount of knowledge and experience.

That begs the question as to who has that exerpeince. That is the point.

Most of the studies that I have read (several posted here) go out of their way to point out that visual identification can't be relied on. But again, CONTEXT is everything. Are we talking about identification for "hobby names" that only matter in an unimportant context, or are we talking about identification for the purpose of determining toxicity??

A Zoanthid Interview: James Davis Reimer

The students and staff at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) Oceanographic Center (OC), Dania Beach, FL, are engaged in several studies of marine life. For example, they are conducting studies on issues such as the invasive lion fish and how to...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[BeanAnimal]

Sometimes DNA is even less conclusive than than morphology and origin. It's not that important for a identification.
Some spider for example can't be identifies by DNA at all.

We are better off by using common sense, protection and experience.
Sadly some reefers got poisoned by their Palythoa Grandis which they can't get rid of, and are now on a crusade against all zoanthids.

LoL - yes, let's ignore the science of these animals and conflate it with spiders.

Good grief.

@BeanAnimal
Still waiting for your documented case of a poisoning by a typical zoanthus. In our last conversation you only posted a paper of a poisoning by parazoanthus sp. without even a picture.

Your contention that "documentation" must be provided to prove the science or danger is misplaced.

Palytoxin is a known neurotoxin produced in these animals and there are documented cases of poisoning in the hobby and trade. End of conversation.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I DMed you a question a few weeks ago. Could you look at it please

Yes

 

[Tavero]

LoL - yes, let's ignore the science of these animals and conflate it with spiders.

Good grief.



Your contention that "documentation" must be provided to prove the science or danger is misplaced.

Palytoxin is a known neurotoxin produced in these animals and there are documented cases of poisoning in the hobby and trade. End of conversation.

So after explaining that your posted paper contained the wrong species, you just run? After posting so many sources earlier? Didn't expect anything else from you. Lol

 

[Sharkbait19]

Thank you, but I don't need you to explain any of this to me. It is an attempt at back handed arrogance (but you know that) and not conversational. To that end it is not relevant to the conversation.

This is a pretty absurd accusation coming from somebody who has been using the same point ad nauseam to lift themselves above others, striking down anyone who slightly hints at criticism towards their arguments. You have yet to make it clear that you understand the distinction, so I figured I’d include the literal definition of “species”. Sorry if that came across as offensive.

You are ignoring the context of not only my comments, but most of the thread for the sake of fueling an argument. The question of "who" (as in has the expertise) to make said IDs was discussed back on page one or two . But, more importantly the very people who study these things don't rely on visual traits for ID at a level which would be needed to determine toxicity (the context of this thread).

I read through this entire thread before making any comments. Why would I even bother posting to a thread I didn’t read? That would be pretty irresponsible and a waste of my time. I noticed that nobody pointed out some of your false claims, so figured I would do the favor of being that person. Only now do you bring up the topic of toxicity, when you know well that you were questioning Encrustingacro’s ID merely for the sake of doing so.
Besides, the initial context was somebody asking for a definitive list of palys and zoas and their toxicity. The simple answer is that “we have no way of knowing unless we ran tests on every species and morph, so assume they’re all somewhat unsafe.” Pretty sure you’d agree there. However, if it is indeed true that we should assume they are all toxic, does it really matter whether the species name described by Encrustingreef is entirely on point?
To that end, why question the expertise to begin with? Even I’m the chance the identification was incorrect, the attempt at giving a proper identification so that the OP and future readers can conduct further research on said species is immensely helpful.

We can argue the quality of the analogy and the context of the conversation when it was made, but that is tangent to the point and certainly not the foundation of the conversation, argument, understanding or context.

If you wish to brush that aside, that’s okay, but I figured I’d help clarify that for those who may not understand the difference between species and morph

Of course you do as illustrated by this very exchange.

Again, I have plenty of better things to do than start an argument. I’m trying to clarify a statement for the sake of those reading this thread. I have no animosity towards you or the points you’ve made. In fact, I think many of your points regarding zoa toxicity are very valid. I think more people should be cautious of it.

Then you didn't read the thread, or didn't read it for context, as that is the very basis for the entire argument.

Again, I’d love to see where somebody has said “zoas aren’t dangerous wdym”. Because I don’t think anyone has said that yet.

That begs the question as to who has that exerpeince. That is the point.

I suppose, but I think based on his evidence, Encrustingacro has proven that they at least has enough knowledge to make a sound ID.

Most of the studies that I have read (several posted here) go out of their way to point out that visual identification can't be relied on. But again, CONTEXT is everything. Are we talking about identification for "hobby names" that only matter in an unimportant context, or are we talking about identification for the purpose of determining toxicity??

This is true, but your phrasing has made it seem that you care more about identification for the sake of identification, when again, Encrustingacro has made it abundantly clear that the coral can be properly identified by the trained eye.


At this point, we would be arguing for the sake of arguing, which is really not something that I want to do. I’m sure we’re both exhausted from this exchange. So let’s leave it at that, and I’ll be happy to continue following this thread and sharing information when needed. Have a good day.

 

[BeanAnimal]

So after explaining that your posted paper contained the wrong species, you just run? After posting so many sources earlier? Didn't expect anything else from you. Lol

I am not running from anything, I am not furthering a pointless conversation with you.

You are demanding that I search for specific poisoning case to prove something that we already know to be true under the pretext that if I can't find a specific case of palytoxin poisoning in this hobby, caused by contact with zoanthids, then such danger does not exist. Given the facts, it is a patently ridiculous argument from the peanut gallery.

 

[Tavero]

I am not running from anything, I am not furthering a pointless conversation with you.

You are demanding that I search for specific poisoning case to prove something that we already know to be true under the pretext that if I can't find a specific case of palytoxin poisoning in this hobby, caused by contact with zoanthids, then such danger does not exist. Given the facts, it is a patently ridiculous argument from the peanut gallery.

So your argument is literally: Trust me bro.
Good to know. As I have mentioned in our other conversation, that's your opinion. Let other people have their own if you can't disprove them.

We have several people in this thread who cut thousands of zoanthus polyps without any symptoms.
A lot more doing that outside of this thread without any adverse effects. All are fine. But as soon as someone just touched Palythoa Grandis or Palythoa toxic green we get poisoning reports. There is a pattern here and without posting my requested source you won't disprove it and just sound like a broken record writing "but science".

 

[Cell]

How does one discern a comment from the "peanut gallery" vs. authorized or legitimate comments?

 

[Opus]

I found it interesting that this came up on Criminal Minds. We've been watching the series and on the episode we watched last night they had a guy that was cleaning his "reef" tank with bleach and that the coral released palytoxins which caused him to pass out and his head landed in the tank and he drowned. So much was wrong with the scene. First it was obvious he was cleaning fake acro colonies. Second they said he cleaned the live acros with bleach and then put them back in the tank. I guess one of the writers must have caught one of the headlines from the last few years and just went with what it said without actually reading or researching.

 

[BeanAnimal]

This is a pretty absurd accusation coming from somebody who has been using the same point ad nauseam to lift themselves above others, striking down anyone who slightly hints at criticism towards their arguments.

Oddly that is exactly what it feels like you are doing. I am not trying to elevate myself above anybody, even if that is the impression that you get. I am simply attempting to convey what I understand of the research on these animals thus far, mostly in context to toxicity and indemnification for such purposes.

I read through this entire thread before making any comments. Why would I even bother posting to a thread I didn’t read? That would be pretty irresponsible and a waste of my time.

Given your comments, I think that you somehow missed most of the context, as I would not assume you were ignoring it to be pedantic. That would explain how we got into this back and forth.

Only now do you bring up the topic of toxicity,

As noted above, I guess you missed that. as it has been the only context since my post on page one. That is what this ENTIRE argument is about.

when you know well that you were questioning Encrustingacro’s ID merely for the sake of doing so.
Besides, the initial context was somebody asking for a definitive list of palys and zoas and their toxicity.

Not in the slightest. I was questioning his ability to ID based on the premise (and outright argument) that said IDs are good enough for hobby naming, but not for identifying toxicity.

To be sure, the ENTIRE CONTEXT and pretense of my comments in this thread (pointed out repeatedly) from page one was regarding identification in context to toxicity. That begat the conversation regarding why said identification was nearly impossible and some other side arguments with others (see Tavaro

The simple answer is that “we have no way of knowing unless we ran tests on every species and morph, so assume they’re all somewhat unsafe.” Pretty sure you’d agree there.

That is the entire pretense of my entering the thread(s) as well as my outright argument in two current threads on the topic.

However, if it is indeed true that we should assume they are all toxic, does it really matter whether the species name described by Encrustingreef is entirely on point?

Other's here were (and still are actively) trying to make the point that they do not need to be treated the same because they can be visually IDd and/or zoas do not contain the toxin, but palys do.

To be clear, I don't care what Encrustingreef or anybody in the hobby or trade "calls" a specific specimen and don't care that they keep them. My point is that they can't tell if it is toxic or not by its visual traits.

Again, I’d love to see where somebody has said “zoas aren’t dangerous wdym”. Because I don’t think anyone has said that yet.

It is said and implied throughout the conversation, starting on page one. It is mostly the reason for 5 pages of conversation.

This is true, but your phrasing has made it seem that you care more about identification for the sake of identification, when again, Encrustingacro has made it abundantly clear that the coral can be properly identified by the trained eye.

My argument has been in ID for the sake of toxicity, not general hobby/trade identification which doesn't need to be exact or confirmed.

At this point, we would be arguing for the sake of arguing, which is really not something that I want to do. I’m sure we’re both exhausted from this exchange. So let’s leave it at that, and I’ll be happy to continue following this thread and sharing information when needed. Have a good day.

I honestly don't think that there is an argument as much as there is a misunderstanding of the conversation. Thank you for the response. Have a wonderful day.

 

[Sharkbait19]

Thank you for clearing that up. Apologies for coming across as argumentative.

 

[BeanAnimal]

How does one discern a comment from the "peanut gallery" vs. authorized or legitimate comments?

By the context and information in the comment.

So your argument is literally: Trust me bro.

No, my comment is "read the science".

Also.... that the proper word would be figurative... as if it were literal, then I would have actually said "Trust me bro".

Good to know. As I have mentioned in our other conversation, that's your opinion

No - it is not opinion.

We have several people in this thread who cut thousands of zoanthus polyps without any symptoms.

Good for them? An infinite number of people do an infinite number of potentially deadly things every day, with varying probability and frequency, and live to tell about it. That does not negate the facts or the need or desire to warn people of the dangers.

You are turning burden of proof on its head. We know the danger exists by published science. You want me to prove the proven science with a specific injury citation.

On the other hand you want to argue that the danger does not exist, even if the science says it does, because YOU don't have an example. My burden of proof is met by the body of science (fact) that exists and yours is not met, as you are using the anecdote that you have not seen an injury. It is on you to prove that zoanthids are not dangerous (and this discredit the science to date).

You can't debate a subject if you don't accept the factual foundation of the debate to begin with. It is your opinion that zoanthids don't contain palytoxin. The science factually says they can and do.


Have a nice day.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Thank you for clearing that up. Apologies for coming across as argumentative.

Likewise, and thank you again for the spirited conversation.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Second they said he cleaned the live acros with bleach and then put them back in the tank. I guess one of the writers must have caught one of the headlines from the last few years and just went with what it said without actually reading or researching.

I am sure bleach has been used for various cleaning tasks and dipping... as odd as it sounds.

 

[Opus]

I am sure bleach has been used for various cleaning tasks and dipping... as odd as it sounds.

I know it has, but not that I've seen in a long time. It just looks weird when you can tell they are cleaning a plastic coral.

I remember 20+ years ago that some people would add it directly to the tank and claimed it improved their corals.

 

[encrustingacro]

For the record, the word “species” is derived from the Latin word for “to look”, and species for a long time were classified by morphological distinctions. While phylogeny as a whole has helped scientists unlock more data and better understanding of the many organisms out there, morphology is still a great and important method of telling species apart. There is nothing wrong with classifying species by this way if someone has the knowledge and expertise to do so. I was merely pointing out that simply because you can’t quite tell the difference, someone more knowledgeable than you might.

Species used to be classified by morphological distinction because that was the best way to infer phylogeny at the time; now we have genetic analysis which, although not perfect, is a much better indicator of phylogeny. The taxonomy of organisms is supposed to best reflect their phylogeny; classifying species through morphological traits can lead to polyphyletic classificaitons due to convergent evolution or certain traits not being good indicators of phylogeny. Even if someone is knowledge in morphology, depending on which traits they choose to look at, the classifications can be completely wrong.