Proof Asterina starfish are harmful!

[sixty_reefer]

I have about 50,000 in my tank right now. Sucks cause I like them, like Jake Adam’s said there great little clean up crew to get into the nooks and crannies. I noticed my zooanthids starting to close up, then disappear one by one. Didn’t think they were eating them. Till I seen them on them at nite time. I’ll post a pic later

Your aquarium would be a paradise for a harlequin shrimp.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I understand that you later attributed the claim to Mike Palleta, but in this thread the statement was originally presented by you as part of your response.



My question remains unchanged: what evidence supports the claim that colouration is a reliable characteristic for distinguishing predatory from non predatory Asterina?

An observation that some predatory Asterina colour match their host is not the same as evidence that colouration can be used as a reliable diagnostic characteristic.

I’m not asking who made the claim, I’m asking what evidence supports it.

The record stands for itself and is directly above.

I responded to a question in this thread in good faith. You reframed my remarks, accused me of spreading misinformation, and are now trying to change the subject and litigate both the timing of the citation and what constitutes evidence.

Here are direct answers.

I cited my source, showing exactly where my wording came from. If you believe it is misinformation, take it up with the publication or original author. Attempting to litigate the absence of a footnote in a forum post is a straw man. The source was directly provided when the information was questioned.

Your question was already answered. A published article from a credible hobby source supports the wording I used. That is my evidence. If you have a problem with the information itself, query the source.

I will accept the information as-is until contradicting evidence from a reputable source, be it hobby-published or peer-reviewed gives me reason to dismiss it. That has not happened, but if it does I will update my understanding and advice, just as I did prior to reading Mike's article.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Not to stir the pot and derail the thread further but I thought the “ignore” button was engaged at the end of the last thread?

 

[sixty_reefer]

The record stands for itself and is directly above.

I responded to a question in this thread in good faith. You reframed my remarks, accused me of spreading misinformation, and are now trying to change the subject and litigate both the timing of the citation and what constitutes evidence.

Here are direct answers.

I cited my source, showing exactly where my wording came from. If you believe it is misinformation, take it up with the publication or original author. Attempting to litigate the absence of a footnote in a forum post is a straw man. The source was directly provided when the information was questioned.

Your question was already answered. A published article from a credible hobby source supports the wording I used. That is my evidence. If you have a problem with the information itself, query the source.

I will accept the information as-is until contradicting evidence from a reputable source, be it hobby-published or peer-reviewed gives me reason to dismiss it. That has not happened, but if it does I will update my understanding and advice, just as I did prior to reading Mike's article.

I understand that you accept what you read in the magazine and consider it information, that part is clear.

My question remains the same:

What evidence supports the claim that colouration is a reliable characteristic for distinguishing predatory from non predatory Asterina.

An observation that some predatory Asterina colour match their host is not the same S evidence that colouration can be used as a reliable diagnostic characteristic.

I’m not asking why you trust the source, I’m asking what evidence supports the claim.

This is also how misinformation can begin to propagate in the hobby. A observation becomes repeated as a diagnosis rule and over time the distinction between observation and evidence gets lost.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Not to stir the pot and derail the thread further but I thought the “ignore” button was engaged at the end of the last thread?

The discussion has encouraged me to spend more time fact checking claims in the hobby, consistency seems important, so I’ll be applying the same standard regardless of who makes the claim.

 

[sixty_reefer]

@BeanAnimal given that the cited source uses the word “usually” when describing colouration, would you consider amending your original post to reflect that qualification?

As written “easy to distinguish as bad due to the colour match” reads more definitively than the source material, which appears to describe an observation tendency rather than a reliable identification method. If the intent was to summarise Palleta’s observation, then adding the same qualification would make the statement more consistent with the source being cited.

If not, then the question remains: what evidence supports the transition from an observed tendency to a reliable method of distinguishing predatory from non predatory Asterina.?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I understand that you accept what you read in the magazine and consider it information, that part is clear.

My question remains the same:

What evidence supports the claim that colouration is a reliable characteristic for distinguishing predatory from non predatory Asterina.

An observation that some predatory Asterina colour match their host is not the same S evidence that colouration can be used as a reliable diagnostic characteristic.

I’m not asking why you trust the source, I’m asking what evidence supports the claim.

This is also how misinformation can begin to propagate in the hobby. A observation becomes repeated as a diagnosis rule and over time the distinction between observation and evidence gets lost.

@BeanAnimal given that the cited source uses the word “usually” when describing colouration, would you consider amending your original post to reflect that qualification?

As written “easy to distinguish as bad due to the colour match” reads more definitively than the source material, which appears to describe an observation tendency rather than a reliable identification method. If the intent was to summarise Palleta’s observation, then adding the same qualification would make the statement more consistent with the source being cited.

If not, then the question remains: what evidence supports the transition from an observed tendency to a reliable method of distinguishing predatory from non predatory Asterina.?

My original post used the word "easy" as part of a condensed "the short if it:" summary. Yes, "usually" was the actual word from the source and have been a more precise choice. But the semantic changes is minor to the overall point. You are attempting to reframe and argue the "observation" and "evidence" and those are not mine. They belong to the author cited.

There is a meaningful difference between making a claim and repeating information from a citable and reputable source. I did the latter. The observation, and the evidence behind it belong to the source.

I have already answered your qestion:
My evidence is the cited, published credible source. If you are looking for further evidence, diagnostic information or have issue with the information provided, then those concerns should be directed at the source.

In context here, asking the same question repeatedly after a reputable source has been provided is not pursuit of evidence, it is refusal to accept it.

As for misinformation propagating in the hobby, that is exactly how learning works. When credible new information becomes available, understanding updates. I already demonstrated that in this very thread.

 

[saltwaterfish.com]

Has anyone successfully eradicated them without a Harlequin Shrimp?

 

[jmaneyapanda]

I’m squashing the long drawn out debate about asterina stars. This is the first time I have seen proof of foul play. Maybe it is only this particular species. I’ve had them in my tank for years. This is the first time seeing this. It was eating away at the gigas clam mantle.

Maybe Im missing it, but how is this evidence of foul play? It was on the clam, and thats all I see. Why was it on the clam? Activly predating? Just passing through? Eating slime/biofilm? Triggered by a different injury source?

Theres so much anecdotal "proof" in this hobby. Bluntly, I find it hard to believe that, by your admission, youve had them for years, and now is the first time youve seen any time of injury/damage? I find it far more believable that something else caused this star to seek out this position.

But, alas, it seems were BOTH speculating here.

 

[sixty_reefer]

My original post used the word "easy" as part of a condensed "the short if it:" summary. Yes, "usually" was the actual word from the source and have been a more precise choice. But the semantic changes is minor to the overall point. You are attempting to reframe and argue the "observation" and "evidence" and those are not mine. They belong to the author cited.

There is a meaningful difference between making a claim and repeating information from a citable and reputable source. I did the latter. The observation, and the evidence behind it belong to the source.

I have already answered your qestion:
My evidence is the cited, published credible source. If you are looking for further evidence, diagnostic information or have issue with the information provided, then those concerns should be directed at the source.

In context here, asking the same question repeatedly after a reputable source has been provided is not pursuit of evidence, it is refusal to accept it.

As for misinformation propagating in the hobby, that is exactly how learning works. When credible new information becomes available, understanding updates. I already demonstrated that in this very thread.

I appreciate the clarification that “usually” would have been a more precise choice although the word “easy” appears to move beyond the wording of the source.

Palleta states that predatory Asterina “usually” match the colour of the coral they eat, that reads as a observation with exemptions.

By contrast, stating that they are “easy to distinguish as bad due to colour match” reads more like coloration can be used as a practical identification characteristic.

To me those are not equivalent statements.

As for the misinformation point, repeatedly directing to the source or assigning blame does not resolve the underlying concern. The question is whether the stronger conclusion is supported by evidence, that brings me back to the same question.

What evidence supports the conclusion that coloration is a reliable characteristic for distinguishing predatory from non predatory Asterina?

The citation explains where the observation came from, my question is about the evidence supporting the stronger conclusion implied by the word “easy”.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I appreciate the clarification that “usually” would have been a more precise choice although the word “easy” appears to move beyond the wording of the source.

Palleta states that predatory Asterina “usually” match the colour of the coral they eat, that reads as a observation with exemptions.

By contrast, stating that they are “easy to distinguish as bad due to colour match” reads more like coloration can be used as a practical identification characteristic.

To me those are not equivalent statements.

As for the misinformation point, repeatedly directing to the source or assigning blame does not resolve the underlying concern. The question is whether the stronger conclusion is supported by evidence, that brings me back to the same question.

What evidence supports the conclusion that coloration is a reliable characteristic for distinguishing predatory from non predatory Asterina?


The citation explains where the observation came from, my question is about the evidence supporting the stronger conclusion implied by the word “easy”.

Let's not get lost in the fog that you are creating here.
The record stands above, but lets get it all in one spot so that anybody left can follow along.

Your first response clearly broadened my language so that you could make an overarching declarative statement and claim misinformation. You ignored clear context and created new context to generate an argument.

Your opening post also tried to reframe and flip the burden by saying " I’m not aware of evidence showing that colouration is a reliable way to distinguish coral feeding". That burden is yours, not mine. You literally offered your ignorance of information as the counter and an excuse to open an argument.

That tactic was refuted when I clearly showed my comment in context and cited the source of my information. You have not substantiated your own position, other than admitting you don't have information to refute what I posted.

Instead of walking away, you then moved to litigating both the timing of the citation and the validity of the source. Both were fabricated arguments with no basis and clearly refuted by simple context.

You then reframed and questioned whether non-peer-reviewed sources should be viable, which undermined your own position. You are a non-peer-reviewed source arguing against a published author with considerably more credibility and attempting to turn his words into my "claim".

You now repeatedly ask the same question, eluding to "my claim", slightly reframing each response to imply it has not been answered, attempting to shift the burden of observation and evidence from the cited source to me.

That having failed, you are now litigating the difference between two words to again attempt to shift that burden back to me and misinformation.

My original post stands and is supported by the cited source. Any further evidence or questions regarding Mr. Paletta's words will have to be addressed to him.

I have not deflected a single response, changed the subject, retreated to a different position, or reframed my original post.

The exchange should have ended at each juncture, but you keep reframing and retrying. This is all performative with no substance, and not a good faith attempt at gathering information, dispelling misinformation or aiding the community or the original poster.

The answer to the question is still the same: The conclusion (the "claim") is not mine, it comes from a published article by Mike Paletta. Redirecting that back to me as an unanswered question, or recasting source citation as "blame," is not pursuit of evidence. The burden was met. Repeating the question does not change that.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Let's not get lost in the fog that you are creating here.
The record stands above, but lets get it all in one spot so that anybody left can follow along.

Your first response clearly broadened my language so that you could make an overarching declarative statement and claim misinformation. You ignored clear context to generate an argument.

That tactic was refuted when I clearly showed my comment in context and cited the source of my information.

You then moved to litigating both the timing of the citation and the validity of the source. Both were fabricated arguments with no basis and clearly refuted by simple context.

You then reframed and questioned whether non-peer-reviewed sources should be viable, which undermined your own position. You are a non-peer-reviewed source arguing against a published author with considerably more credibility and attempting to turn his words into my "claim".

You now repeatedly ask the same question, eluding to "my claim", slightly reframing each response to imply it has not been answered, attempting to shift the burden of observation and evidence from the cited source to me.

That having failed, you are now litigating the difference between two words to again attempt to shift that burden back to me and misinformation.

My original post stands and is supported by the cited source. Any further evidence or questions regarding Mr. Paletta's words will have to be addressed to him.

I have not deflected a single response, changed the subject, retreated to a different position, or reframed my original post.

The exchange should have ended at each juncture, but you keep reframing and retrying. This is all performative with no substance, and not a good faith attempt at gathering information, dispelling misinformation or aiding the community or the original poster.

The answer to the question is still the same: The conclusion (the "claim") is not mine, it comes from a published article by Mike Paletta. Redirecting that back to me as an unanswered question, or recasting source citation as "blame," is not pursuit of evidence. The burden was met. Repeating the question does not change that.

By that standard, I suppose I can cite this article the next time we discuss Redfield Ratios and consider the matter settled.

What Is The Redfield Ratio and Why Should I Care? - ATI North America

What is the Redfield Ratio? The Redfield Ratio is the recurring ratio of 106:16:1 of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus (C:N:P) found in marine phytoplankton. What’s the Redfield Ratio’s Practical Use? In nature, corals feed on phytoplankton, even the corals who live in symbiosis with...

atinorthamerica.com

Redfield is now a stablished reef aquarium science, I trust everyone will begin adhering to it immediately. No need to discuss evidence, methodology, limitations or conflicting viewpoints. We have a published hobby article.

 

[BeanAnimal]

By that standard, I suppose I can cite this article the next time we discuss Redfield Ratios and consider the matter settled.

What Is The Redfield Ratio and Why Should I Care? - ATI North America

What is the Redfield Ratio? The Redfield Ratio is the recurring ratio of 106:16:1 of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus (C:N:P) found in marine phytoplankton. What’s the Redfield Ratio’s Practical Use? In nature, corals feed on phytoplankton, even the corals who live in symbiosis with...

atinorthamerica.com

Redfield is now a stablished reef aquarium science, I trust everyone will begin adhering to it immediately. No need to discuss evidence, methodology, limitations or conflicting viewpoints. We have a published hobby article.

You are changing the subject.

This thread is about Asterina, not Redfield.

 

[sixty_reefer]

You are changing the subject.

This thread is about Asterina, not Redfield.

Doesn’t matter, it’s proven now.

We have a published hobby article and Mike has been involved with ATI content to some extent, so that should settle it.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Maybe at a C:N:P ratio of 100:16:1 Asterina are stresssed and become coral munching, chameleon, monsters of prey…..?

 

[Marc G-L]

Wow, Gentlemen/ and Ladies if that be appropriate. Stop attacking each other, not the site for it.

I can share this. Just like fish of the same species having bold or timid personalities, generalizations may apply be applied to lower animals on the tree bbranches. As a former microbiologist, I have observed even bacteria change behavior over time. It might be slight changes in the chemical environment (like using a different brand of salt) or it might be collection of minor mutations in an animals DNA that requires processing a new food source. Bacteria subspecies are tested w/ different sugar molecules to see if they are part of a new subspecies or a mutant. It is not unreasonable to consider the same can happen with starfish.

Hooray! You both are right.

 

[Marc G-L]

Wird incorrect put in irrational not me! It was supposed to say. " or if ladies.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Wird incorrect put in irrational not me! It was supposed to say. " or if ladies.

Sure…blame it on autocorrect, Ha!

 

[JumboShrimp]

The Glove FITS! You can't acquit

 

[Reef broke]

I have a sneaking suspicion that this newly opened can of worms/rabbit hole that you adventurous pot stirring tinkerers (including Mike Paletta) have caused a lot of instability…Aka getting off topic, lol…I was just trying to illustrate/prove by way of pics of an asterina snacking on my gigas…Before, I have never seen proof just mere speculation…I just wanted to settle the debate…Looks like I stirred the hornets nest instead…I suspect that most hobbyist over analyze and over tinker to the point they develop brown jelly of the brain…Guys and gals (mainly dudes) it’s really not that serious, lol.