LPS Identification please!

[wowzuhs]

Hi everyone! Been away from the hobby for a while but now I'm back!

There's a lot that's changed in the past 6 years and there's a lot of new corals now! That being said I was hoping y'all could identify a few LPS that I've recently obtained!

Thank you so much!

 

[KrisReef]

Perhaps:
Acanthastrea echinata?
Favia?
next three: species formerly known as Acanthastrea hillae and Acanthastrea bowerbankiare now lumped togethere as Homophyllia bowerbanki.???
Acanthastrea echinata?

 

[wowzuhs]

Thanks for the ID! I've been told #2 is a favia multiple times and I was wondering what really separates them? Also does anyone know if there are names attached to any of the coral?

 

[thamnasteroid]

1 is a chalice i think
2 is either some sort of dipsastraea or micromussa. It is definitely not a favia as after a reclassification, favia is an Atlantic only species, where no stony corals are collected.
3, 4, and 5 look like micromussa, possibly lordhowensis, commonly called acans by the hobby.
6 looks like a true acan, commonly called echinatas by the hobby; however, they are not necessarily acanthastrea echinata.

 

[wowzuhs]

1 is a chalice i think
2 is either some sort of dipsastraea or micromussa. It is definitely not a favia as after a reclassification, favia is an Atlantic only species, where no stony corals are collected.
3, 4, and 5 look like micromussa, possibly lordhowensis, commonly called acans by the hobby.
6 looks like a true acan, commonly called echinatas by the hobby; however, they are not necessarily acanthastrea echinata.

Thanks for your reply! So #2 could be a micromussa or dipsastraea but out of curiousity and learning what makes you say that it isn't a favia?

 

[Mschmidt]

1 is a chalice i think
2 is either some sort of dipsastraea or micromussa. It is definitely not a favia as after a reclassification, favia is an Atlantic only species, where no stony corals are collected.
3, 4, and 5 look like micromussa, possibly lordhowensis, commonly called acans by the hobby.
6 looks like a true acan, commonly called echinatas by the hobby; however, they are not necessarily acanthastrea echinata.

second these.

Favia don't have the puffy rings/rims and would look closer to the chalice (first) and the echinata (last picture). Favia wowuld have more definition of polyp than the chalice though and less squishy flesh than the echinata.

 

[thamnasteroid]

Thanks for your reply! So #2 could be a micromussa or dipsastraea but out of curiousity and learning what makes you say that it isn't a favia?

After a reclassification, favias became an Atlantic only genus, and the collection and sale of Atlantic stony corals were banned in the 1970s. Most of the favias in the hobby are actually dipsastraea, with some being favites, goniastrea, and coelastrea. I say it might be a micromussa because I have heard that it is an undescribed species of micromussa, but I’m not sure. The thing that makes me not sure that those are micromussas is that the strain of corals you have can use intratentacular budding to produce new polyps, while most other micromussas use extratentacular budding. They also can have sweeper tentacles, which most micromussas do not. I am also not sure that your coral is a dipsastraea because it is more fleshy than a typical dipsastrea.