Looking for Micromussa Amakusensis, help?

[Hooz]

I'm on a kick lately, trying to track down some "OG" Micromussa. Ever since Acans were reclassified, it's muddied-up the waters. We're all familiar with the Holy Grail Micromussa, and there are a few other popular-ish ones (WWC Ultron, etc), and even a few new ones (CS Ignitor) but I'm having a hard time tracking down very many of them.

I'm planning a garden of actual M. Amakusensis, so I'd like to track down as many as I can find. Anybody know where I can find some legit OG micros? Links would be fantastic!

 

[JonsNano]

I love the small polyp size on Amakusensis but have never really seen them in the trade here in the uk, I have always thought of them as rare.
I look forward to seeing your purchases if you find any!

 

[Coral Memere]

I know this is an older thread, but Living Reef Orlando had the holy Grail in their sale this past weekend. Last I looked, it was still available on their website under Mayhem live sale.

 

[Tavero]

I'm on a kick lately, trying to track down some "OG" Micromussa. Ever since Acans were reclassified, it's muddied-up the waters. We're all familiar with the Holy Grail Micromussa, and there are a few other popular-ish ones (WWC Ultron, etc), and even a few new ones (CS Ignitor) but I'm having a hard time tracking down very many of them.

I'm planning a garden of actual M. Amakusensis, so I'd like to track down as many as I can find. Anybody know where I can find some legit OG micros? Links would be fantastic!

Just continue to call them Acan Lord's. Makes it a lot easier and more accurate. We are better at identifying coral phenotypes than scientists anyway. For example hobbyists have hundreds of names for zoanthids, scientists one. No secret who uses the supervisor nomenclature. (Same goes for flower phenotypes, dogs breeds horses ect)

This one was sold to me as Amakusensis. Polyps are just a few mm large, extended around 1cm.

That's how it looked in another tank with another lightning when I just got it.

 

[Hooz]

I know this is an older thread, but Living Reef Orlando had the holy Grail in their sale this past weekend. Last I looked, it was still available on their website under Mayhem live sale.

I have the Holy Grail already, and WWC Ultron, and I just found a frag of the OG UFOs.

Just continue to call them Acan Lord's. Makes it a lot easier and more accurate. We are better at identifying coral phenotypes than scientists anyway. For example hobbyists have hundreds of names for zoanthids, scientists one. No secret who uses the supervisor nomenclature. (Same goes for flower phenotypes, dogs breeds horses ect)

This one was sold to me as Amakusensis. Polyps are just a few mm large, extended around 1cm.

That's how it looked in another tank with another lightning when I just got it.

I continue to call "acans" acans, the problem is, everyone else now calls them Micromussa. :D

That's a nice one you've got, and I'd guess that 1cm polyps would indicate an actual M. Amakusensis. Did you get it online or from a local reefer? What did they call it?

 

[Hooz]

Here are some that I've tracked down in addition to the well known Holy Grail. Just trying to find frags actually in stock.

CS Ignitor

GSC Vision

K&P Triple Berry

 

[Hooz]

Red Velvet

UFO

WWC Ruby Red

WWC Ultron

Are there others I'm missing?

 

[Tavero]

I have the Holy Grail already, and WWC Ultron, and I just found a frag of the OG UFOs.



I continue to call "acans" acans, the problem is, everyone else now calls them Micromussa. :D

That's a nice one you've got, and I'd guess that 1cm polyps would indicate an actual M. Amakusensis. Did you get it online or from a local reefer? What did they call it?

Online vendor in Germany. It was sold to me just as M. Amakusensis without fancy names.

Very slow growing coral. No additional polyps in one year. They only grew in size. My sunny d zoanthus polyps are still larger in diameter.

 

[thamnasteroid]

Just continue to call them Acan Lord's. Makes it a lot easier and more accurate. We are better at identifying coral phenotypes than scientists anyway. For example hobbyists have hundreds of names for zoanthids, scientists one. No secret who uses the superior nomenclature. (Same goes for flower phenotypes, dogs breeds horses ect)

This one was sold to me as Amakusensis. Polyps are just a few mm large, extended around 1cm.

That's how it looked in another tank with another lightning when I just got it.

Calling then "Acan lords" is not more accurate, as they are not Acanthastrea. Calling them "Micro lords" or just "lords" would be more accurate.
We are not better at IDing corals than scientists; I've seen enough vendor and hobbyist misidentifications to know that. We can't even differentiate between plocoid and cerioid corallites, as we call both Favites and Dipsastraea as "Favia." We also can't differentiate between the different monostomatous Fungiid genera (Cycloseris, Fungia, Danafungia, Lithophyllon) properly. There are many other examples of us hobbyists not being able to ID corals properly.
Although we have a bunch of trade names for Zoanthus, all those names means nothing and are just there to bump up the price. Scientists also have more than one name for Zoanthus, as there are multiples species (sansibaricus, vietnamensis, gigantus, kuroshio, etc). Species names are much better for care requirements. Hobbyists also misidentify large-polyped Zoanthus as Palythoa--so much for hobbyists being better than scientists at IDing corals.

 

[thamnasteroid]

Red Velvet

UFO

WWC Ruby Red

WWC Ultron

Are there others I'm missing?

Ultrons are Merulinidae sp., not Micromussa btw.

 

[thamnasteroid]

How you differentiate between amakusensis and lordhowensis is biogeography: amakusensis are from Indonesia, lordhowensis are from Australia. There are, of course, other similar Micromussa species (multipunctata, indiana) but those are either not found or are very rare in the hobby.

 

[Tavero]

Calling then "Acan lords" is not more accurate, as they are not Acanthastrea. Calling them "Micro lords" or just "lords" would be more accurate.
We are not better at IDing corals than scientists; I've seen enough vendor and hobbyist misidentifications to know that. We can't even differentiate between plocoid and cerioid corallites, as we call both Favites and Dipsastraea as "Favia." We also can't differentiate between the different monostomatous Fungiid genera (Cycloseris, Fungia, Danafungia, Lithophyllon) properly. There are many other examples of us hobbyists not being able to ID corals properly.
Although we have a bunch of trade names for Zoanthus, all those names means nothing and are just there to bump up the price. Scientists also have more than one name for Zoanthus, as there are multiples species (sansibaricus, vietnamensis, gigantus, kuroshio, etc). Species names are much better for care requirements. Hobbyists also misidentify large-polyped Zoanthus as Palythoa--so much for hobbyists being better than scientists at IDing corals.

Blue hornets
Fire and ice
Blue lemons
Mean green
Stargazer
Cobalt
Rasta
LA Lakers
I can go on...

We can identify them, look for them, and find them without problems. But they are all known as zoanthus sp in papers and publications. So much for scientists being better than hobbyists at IDing corals. We need clear and specific names to identify our animals and scientific names are useless for that. Many corals aren't even scientifically identified.

One funny everyday example:
Brassica oleracea sp. can be cauliflower, broccoli, brussel and more. All the same species. Phenotype names are often more important than the correct species id. Or maybe you want to buy cauliflower in the flower instead of vegetable section in supermarkets?

 

[thamnasteroid]

Blue hornets
Fire and ice
Blue lemons
Mean green
Stargazer
Cobalt
Rasta
LA Lakers
I can go on...

We can identify them, look for them, and find them without problems. But they are all known as zoanthus sp in papers and publications. So much for scientists being better than hobbyists at IDing corals. We need clear and specific names to identify our animals and scientific names are useless for that. Many corals aren't even scientifically identified.

One funny everyday example:
Brassica oleracea sp. can be cauliflower, broccoli, brussel and more. All the same species. Phenotype names are often more important than the correct species id. Or maybe you want to buy cauliflower in the flower instead of vegetable section in supermarkets?

Sure, we can ID color morphs, but most of us cannot ID species and sometimes even genera. What about my examples of hobbyists labeling all Merulinid brains as "Favia," all monostomatous, circular Fungiids as "Fungia," or large-polyped Zoanthus as Palythoa? They are not just known as Zoanthus sp. in studies, they are identified to the species level (Zoanthus sansibaricus, kuroshio, vietnamensis, kuroshio). When you identify corals, you identify to the taxon, not trade name. Trade names serve a different purpose than species name; trade names are to identify the morph we want to buy; species contain a whole slew of different information such as care requirements, which species it can be nearby, etc. Do you have a source for that many of the corals in the hobby aren't scientifically identified?

As for your example of Cauliflower and Broccoli, that is because we selectively bred them to be that way. And we do have subspecies names for those specific Cauliflower and Broccoli, too. Common names and scientific names play different roles. Scientific names bring information about phylogeny, which can also bring with it information. For example, corals of the same genus generally can be placed together--we don't have any information about genus from common names. Corals in the same families can also share similar care requirements, such as the Lobophylliids (Lobophyllia, Micromussa, Echinophyllia, etc) usually prefering lower flow/lighting and being flashy feeders, Acroporids (Acropora, Montipora, Anacropora, etc) usually prefering higher flow and lighting, or Merulinids (Dipsastraea, Favites, Goniastrea) prefering medium flow/lighting.

 

[TeamAquaSD Verified Sponsor]

We get some in once in a blue moon. We are pretty good about advertising when we do have some on Instagram or our newsletter if that is something that might help you in the future.
Unfortunately we do not have any currently :/

 

[Tavero]

Sure, we can ID color morphs, but most of us cannot ID species and sometimes even genera. What about my examples of hobbyists labeling all Merulinid brains as "Favia," all monostomatous, circular Fungiids as "Fungia," or large-polyped Zoanthus as Palythoa? They are not just known as Zoanthus sp. in studies, they are identified to the species level (Zoanthus sansibaricus, kuroshio, vietnamensis, kuroshio). When you identify corals, you identify to the taxon, not trade name. Trade names serve a different purpose than species name; trade names are to identify the morph we want to buy; species contain a whole slew of different information such as care requirements, which species it can be nearby, etc. Do you have a source for that many of the corals in the hobby aren't scientifically identified?

As for your example of Cauliflower and Broccoli, that is because we selectively bred them to be that way. And we do have subspecies names for those specific Cauliflower and Broccoli, too. Common names and scientific names play different roles. Scientific names bring information about phylogeny, which can also bring with it information. For example, corals of the same genus generally can be placed together--we don't have any information about genus from common names. Corals in the same families can also share similar care requirements, such as the Lobophylliids (Lobophyllia, Micromussa, Echinophyllia, etc) usually prefering lower flow/lighting and being flashy feeders, Acroporids (Acropora, Montipora, Anacropora, etc) usually prefering higher flow and lighting, or Merulinids (Dipsastraea, Favites, Goniastrea) prefering medium flow/lighting.

...what's your point?

Where did I wrote we can identify them better scientifically. The reef industry has its own nomenclature. For zoanthids as same as favia as acan lords and more.

They are not just known as Zoanthus sp. in studies

Yes, most of the time they are. A simple google search is proof of that. This was literally the first paper that popped up:

"Palytoxin Found in Palythoa sp. Zoanthids (Anthozoa, Hexacorallia) Sold in the Home Aquarium Trade"
"...These included specimens visually consistent with both Palythoa/Protopalythoa spp. and Zoanthus spp...."

I can identify the palythoa in this paper better than the scientists: Low grade toxic green palys. With this description every zoanthid enthusiast will know what I'm talking about.

Do you have a source for that many of the corals in the hobby aren't scientifically identified?

I don't have to. You gave evidence and source yourself:

As for your example of Cauliflower and Broccoli, that is because we selectively bred them to be that way. And we do have subspecies names for those specific Cauliflower and Broccoli, too.

They named the different phenotype of this plant. But they didn't do this for Zoanthids. So they still aren't identified. But we gave them names. Ergo we are better at identifying them.

Ect: Everyone getting ocean live rocks also has a high chance to introduce species that aren't identified (have no scientific name) yet.

 

[thamnasteroid]

Yes, most of the time they are. A simple google search is proof of that. This was literally the first paper that popped up:

"Palytoxin Found in Palythoa sp. Zoanthids (Anthozoa, Hexacorallia) Sold in the Home Aquarium Trade"
"...These included specimens visually consistent with both Palythoa/Protopalythoa spp. and Zoanthus spp...."

I can identify the palythoa in this paper better than the scientists: Low grade toxic green palys. With this description every zoanthid enthusiast will know what I'm talking about.

You're going to have to do digging deeper than cherrypicking titles and quotes from a simple google search. Take this study for example, which mentions Z. pacificus, sansibaricus, gnophodes, and erythrochloros right in its abstract. Your statement about Palythoa identification proves to me that you cannot ID Palythoa better than scientists. Scientists can identify ~4 Palythoa species common to the Indo-Pacific: P. heliodiscus, mutuki, toxica, and tuberculosa.

You pointed out that we can identify many color morphs while scientists only have "Zoanthus sp." The thing is, scientists usually don't identify color morphs because color morph usually does not matter within science. And just because they do not identify color morphs does not mean they can't. Teal stoma are used to identify Zoanthus gigantus/pacificus, and mottled coloration is used to delimit Dipsastraea from other similar genera.

...what's your point?

You said that we can Identify phenotypes better than scientists. I pointed out examples where we cannot look at septal dentation and granulation, beading and even corallite structure. It seems as if the only phenotypes we can identify is color.

Where did I wrote we can identify them better scientifically.

HOW YOU IDENTIFY CORALS IS SCIENTIFICALLY! Even if you call a coral by its common name, you are still referring to a specific species, genus, group of species, etc.

The reef industry has its own nomenclature. For zoanthids as same as favia as acan lords and more.

Our nomenclature for most corals is the scientific name, the examples you provided--Favia and Acanthastrea--are scientific names. If we used common names, I would be fine, but since we use scientific names for our corals, we have to use the correct ones.

They named the different phenotype of this plant. But they didn't do this for Zoanthids. So they still aren't identified. But we gave them names. Ergo we are better at identifying them.

Broccoli, Cauliflower, etc., are not just different morphotypes, but also represent monophyletic clades from when we selectively bred them, which is why we have subspecies for them. Coral color morphs are not named becuse they usually do not represent monophyletic clades or species; a "blue hornet" is not necessarily related to other blue hornets that originates from different mother colonies, and is probably more related to, say, a "radioactive dragon eye" collected from nearby the collection colony of the blue hornet. The afformentioned morphs are identified as Zoanthus sansibaricus. Almost all of the corals in the hobby have been described as a species.

Ect: Everyone getting ocean live rocks also has a high chance to introduce species that aren't identified (have no scientific name) yet.

That is only a few species; you said "most corals aren't even scientifically identified."

 

[Tavero]

You're going to have to do digging deeper than cherrypicking titles and quotes from a simple google search. Take this study for example, which mentions Z. pacificus, sansibaricus, gnophodes, and erythrochloros right in its abstract. Your statement about Palythoa identification proves to me that you cannot ID Palythoa better than scientists. Scientists can identify ~4 Palythoa species common to the Indo-Pacific: P. heliodiscus, mutuki, toxica, and tuberculosa.

You pointed out that we can identify many color morphs while scientists only have "Zoanthus sp." The thing is, scientists usually don't identify color morphs because color morph usually does not matter within science. And just because they do not identify color morphs does not mean they can't. Teal stoma are used to identify Zoanthus gigantus/pacificus, and mottled coloration is used to delimit Dipsastraea from other similar genera.

I literally used my first result. You want a screenshot of my search results? I can also accuse you of cherrypicking because you too only offered one result...but I won't do that.
Just some time ago I had a discussion with another member about toxicity in zoanthids. And the studies he offered were only filled with zoanthus spp and palythoa spp ID. That's why I wrote "most". Would you have preferred if I wrote "often"?

Everyone who made a zoanthid garden can see differences beyond just color.
These aren't just color morphs like in your example. Depending on what definition you used, these are subspecies or phenotypes (different size, color, grow speed, grow pattern ect but very similar dna). And compared to color morphs, these differences actually do matter in science. But scientists aren't able to tell them apart (for now). We do. Which makes our naming system superior. And no. We don't just use color to indentify a specific zoanthid.

HOW YOU IDENTIFY CORALS IS SCIENTIFICALLY! Even if you call a coral by its common name, you are still referring to a specific species, genus, group of species, etc.

Using caps lock doesn't improve your arguments. It makes you sound desperate.
If a new plant or animal is given a name which is accepted by the overall population we can use it to identify it from a bunch of other plants and animals even if it isn't accepted by the scientists community. If a farmer creates a new apple phenotype and calls it "Red Delicious" the market will also call this apple "Red Delicious" from now on. Just because you misunderstood me doesn't make you correct.

Our nomenclature for most corals is the scientific name, the examples you provided--Favia and Acanthastrea--are scientific names. If we used common names, I would be fine, but since we use scientific names for our corals, we have to use the correct ones.

Candy cane coral, green star polyp coral, plate coral, bubble tip anemone... I could go on. It is debatable, if the nomenclature for most corals is the scientific name or common ones. It probably depends on the person, but most member here on reef2reef are using common names. I also started using gallon instead of liter here, even though I think it is a stupid unit. But everyone else uses gallons. We as a community should use what is most convenient for everyone to identify. And our nomenclature is superior to the scientific one.
I also never wrote Acanthastrea. I used acan lords which is the invention of the aquarium community market.

Broccoli, Cauliflower etc., are not just different morphotypes, but also represent monophyletic clades from when we selectively bred them, which is why we have subspecies for them. Coral color morphs are not named becuse they usually do not represent monophyletic clades or species; a "blue hornet" is not necessarily related to other blue hornets that originates from different mother colonies, and is probably more related to, say, a "radioactive dragon eye" collected from nearby the collection colony of the blue hornet. The afformentioned morphs are identified as Zoanthus sansibaricus. Almost all of the corals in the hobby have been described as a species.

As written above, that depends what definitions you use for subspecies and phenotype. DNA is indistinguishable from each other. Cross breeding gives you sometimes the wild form, Broccoli, Cauliflower and everything in between which can now be called broccoflower. That's usually a definition of phenotype not subspecies. But scientists gave them Latin names to identify them better which makes it a subspecies. Pick the definition you like. Doesn't change the fact reefing nomenclature can id corals better than scientists.

That is only a few species; you said "most corals aren't even scientifically identified."

Considering how many different zoanthids there are, I would say it's most.

 

[Coral Memere]

Calling then "Acan lords" is not more accurate, as they are not Acanthastrea. Calling them "Micro lords" or just "lords" would be more accurate.
We are not better at IDing corals than scientists; I've seen enough vendor and hobbyist misidentifications to know that. We can't even differentiate between plocoid and cerioid corallites, as we call both Favites and Dipsastraea as "Favia." We also can't differentiate between the different monostomatous Fungiid genera (Cycloseris, Fungia, Danafungia, Lithophyllon) properly. There are many other examples of us hobbyists not being able to ID corals properly.
Although we have a bunch of trade names for Zoanthus, all those names means nothing and are just there to bump up the price. Scientists also have more than one name for Zoanthus, as there are multiples species (sansibaricus, vietnamensis, gigantus, kuroshio, etc). Species names are much better for care requirements. Hobbyists also misidentify large-polyped Zoanthus as Palythoa--so much for hobbyists being better than scientists at IDing corals.

My eyes are glazing over... And I'm a person who loves the technical stuff.

They're all so prettyyyyyy

 

[KrisReef]

Calling then "Acan lords" is not more accurate, as they are not Acanthastrea. Calling them "Micro lords" or just "lords" would be more accurate.
We are not better at IDing corals than scientists; I've seen enough vendor and hobbyist misidentifications to know that. We can't even differentiate between plocoid and cerioid corallites, as we call both Favites and Dipsastraea as "Favia." We also can't differentiate between the different monostomatous Fungiid genera (Cycloseris, Fungia, Danafungia, Lithophyllon) properly. There are many other examples of us hobbyists not being able to ID corals properly.
Although we have a bunch of trade names for Zoanthus, all those names means nothing and are just there to bump up the price. Scientists also have more than one name for Zoanthus, as there are multiples species (sansibaricus, vietnamensis, gigantus, kuroshio, etc). Species names are much better for care requirements. Hobbyists also misidentify large-polyped Zoanthus as Palythoa--so much for hobbyists being better than scientists at IDing corals.

Well said.

I came to the conclusion that for most things I just buy the ones I find interesting and don't worry to much about the proper classification because of the difficulties of identifying the differences including my poor eyesight, lack of proper references to make the determinations, and those things combined with the frequent changes in nomenclature as scientist look more carefully with new tools at all the corals out there and redefine terms and groups with greater precision than I could ever hope to keep up with.

 

[Tavero]

Well said.

I came to the conclusion that for most things I just buy the ones I find interesting and don't worry to much about the proper classification because of the difficulties of identifying the differences including my poor eyesight, lack of proper references to make the determinations, and those things combined with the frequent changes in nomenclature as scientist look more carefully with new tools at all the corals out there and redefine terms and groups with greater precision than I could ever hope to keep up with.

I had a similar opinion a decade ago. Then I started collecting zoanthids.
When you go on a website of an online vendor, how do you find that coral from a day ago again?
How do you look for it on the internet to check if you got a good deal?
How do you check for a similar one if that WYSIWYG one is out of stock?

We need unique names for corals to identify them. And because no scientists did the market/community did the naming themselves.