Looking for Micromussa Amakusensis, help?

[KrisReef]

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.

Yes, when it comes to “collecting” the names can be important if you want to trade in the growth to expand your collection.

My point was more about the difficulties of getting a proper (scientific) name and the challenges there. I don’t think that I have ever come across “Scientific names- genus and species for the zooanthids that are popular among reefers but there must be hundreds of “Hobby” names that work fine for the purposes that you mentioned.

I can’t keep track of many/ most of them but I agree that having a specific name for hobby purposes is useful especially for the collectors. I see a lot of “ID this coral Please” posts of people who want to know what they have or what name they are looking for to get a coral that they want for their collection.

Ideally hobby names and scientific names would be the same but that is never going to happen as far as I can tell. You are correct though, names are important.

 

[encrustingacro]

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"?

You're only looking at the first result of a simple Google search, and you are only showing a title and a specific quote. That IS cherry-picking. You also didn't give me the link to the study. How do I know that the study actually only IDs to genus level? I looked up the study, and it DOES ID Zoanthus to the species level, example being this chart here.
And looking at only a couple of studies on Palytoxin in Zoantharians is ignoring all the other studies. Also, have you fully read through those studies to confirm that there are only genus level IDs?
Looking at a Google Scholar search, eight out of ten results on the first page mention a species name in either the title or the abstract.
Here are the eight search results:

Morphologically plastic responses to shading in the zoanthids Zoanthus sansibaricus and Palythoa tuberculosa

Reconsidering Zoanthus spp. diversity: molecular evidence of conspecifity within four previously presumed species:
"... have been assumed to be four discrete species (Z. pacificus, Z. sansibaricus, Z. gnophodes, Z. erythrochloros) were collected from four field sites. ..."

Morphological and molecular revision of Zoanthus (Anthozoa: Hexacorallia) from southwestern Japan, with descriptions of two new species:
"... Zoanthus species groups with varying levels of morphological plasticity, including the new species Z. gigantus n. sp. and Z. kuroshio n. sp. ..."

Disturbance and monopolization of a spatial resource by Zoanthus sociatus (Coelenterata, Anthozoa)

Reproduction, Growth, and Some Tolerances of Zoanthus Pacificus and Palythoa Vestitus in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii

Molecular phylogenetic hypotheses of Zoanthus species (Anthozoa:Hexacorallia) using RNA secondary structure of the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2):
"... Acrozoanthus is a valid monophyly separate from Zoanthus; (2) Z. gigantus, Z. sansibaricus, ..."

Do microplastics affect the zoanthid Zoanthus sociatus?

Different zooxanthellae types in populations of the zoanthid Zoanthus sansibaricus along depth gradients in Okinawa, Japan

When scientists don't ID to the species level, it is not because they cannot identify it, but usually because it is not important to the study, they are referring to multiple species, they are referring to the whole genus, or the species they are referring to is undescribed.

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.

I never said that other phenotypic differences don't matter in science. Scientists ARE able to tell phenotypic differences between Zoanthus. How do you think they give species-level IDs? Polyp size, oral disc patterning, tentacle length/shape, etc. are all used to identify Zoanthus species. The different size, color, and growth patterns all correspond to different Zoanthus species; they do not necessarily have similar DNA. And if us hobbyists are able to tell phenotypes apart, then why don't we group similar phenotypes into informal groups, such as "Sunny Ds" and "Armor of Gods" together, or "Magicians" and "Hawaiian Ding Dangs" together? Scientists have known that the former group is Z. vietnamensis, and the latter is Z. gigantus.
Trade names are not superior to taxonomic nomenclature; they are used for different purposes. Taxonomic nomenclature is supposed to reflect the phylogeny of corals, which things such as care can be inferred from. Trade names are just so we know what color morph we want to buy. They say nothing about the species affinities of the coral. Trade names also come with misidentifications or outdated nomenclature, which can muddy up which care requirements go to which coral.

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.

Like I said, trade names and scientific names have different purposes. Trade names are no more than just a specific color morph, while trade names carry with them other information such as care requirements, compatible neighbors, etc.

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.

Subspecies is a taxonomic rank lower than species, while phenotype is just the physical characteristics. Phenotypes and subspecies are NOT the same; subspecies are still monophyletic, while phenotypes are not necessarily. Although broccoli and cauliflower can crossbreed with fertile offspring, they are still genetically distinct clades, as different populations were selectively bred to be broccoli and cauliflower. Coral color morphs usually do not correspond to different clades.

I take issue with your claim that reefing nomenclature can ID corals better than scientists. If that is the case, then why do reefers make no distinction between Favites, Dipsastraea, Coelastrea, and other Merulinid brains and call all of them "Favia?" Why do we call large-polyped Zoanthus "Palythoa?" Why do we make no distinction between the different genera of monostomatous, circular Fungiids (Cycloseris, Fungia, Lithophyllon, Danafungia, etc) and call all of them "Fungia?"

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

First of all, that is only Zoanthus. Second of all, almost all Zoanthus color morphs in the hobby fall into one of four species: sansibaricus, vietnamensis, kuroshio, and gigantus.

 

[Tavero]

You're only looking at the first result of a simple Google search, and you are only showing a title and a specific quote. That IS cherry-picking. You also didn't give me the link to the study. How do I know that the study actually only IDs to genus level? I looked up the study, and it DOES ID Zoanthus to the species level, example being this chart here.
And looking at only a couple of studies on Palytoxin in Zoantharians is ignoring all the other studies. Also, have you fully read through those studies to confirm that there are only genus level IDs?
Looking at a Google Scholar search, eight out of ten results on the first page mention a species name in either the title or the abstract.
Here are the eight search results:

Morphologically plastic responses to shading in the zoanthids Zoanthus sansibaricus and Palythoa tuberculosa

Reconsidering Zoanthus spp. diversity: molecular evidence of conspecifity within four previously presumed species:
"... have been assumed to be four discrete species (Z. pacificus, Z. sansibaricus, Z. gnophodes, Z. erythrochloros) were collected from four field sites. ..."

Morphological and molecular revision of Zoanthus (Anthozoa: Hexacorallia) from southwestern Japan, with descriptions of two new species:
"... Zoanthus species groups with varying levels of morphological plasticity, including the new species Z. gigantus n. sp. and Z. kuroshio n. sp. ..."

Disturbance and monopolization of a spatial resource by Zoanthus sociatus (Coelenterata, Anthozoa)

Reproduction, Growth, and Some Tolerances of Zoanthus Pacificus and Palythoa Vestitus in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii

Molecular phylogenetic hypotheses of Zoanthus species (Anthozoa:Hexacorallia) using RNA secondary structure of the internal transcribed spacer 2 (ITS2):
"... Acrozoanthus is a valid monophyly separate from Zoanthus; (2) Z. gigantus, Z. sansibaricus, ..."

Do microplastics affect the zoanthid Zoanthus sociatus?

Different zooxanthellae types in populations of the zoanthid Zoanthus sansibaricus along depth gradients in Okinawa, Japan

When scientists don't ID to the species level, it is not because they cannot identify it, but usually because it is not important to the study, they are referring to multiple species, they are referring to the whole genus, or the species they are referring to is undescribed.

I could find a counter example for every example you posted but is that really important? I didn't post the link because I thought it wasn't and then even asked if you liked it more if I had used "often" instead of "most". Figuring out who is right here would only be possible with a data crawler.

And if us hobbyists are able to tell phenotypes apart, then why don't we group similar phenotypes into informal groups, such as "Sunny Ds" and "Armor of Gods" together, or "Magicians" and "Hawaiian Ding Dangs" together?

We do though. It's not that commonly used and personally, I would like to see that system more often, but it exists.
Hornets are grouped together, candy apples too, also people eater just to name a few out of my head.

Like I said, trade names and scientific names have different purposes.

The reason and system for using a certain name may be different but the purpose is the same: identification of the coral for a specific database. Nothing more or less.

I take issue with your claim that reefing nomenclature can ID corals better than scientists.

No. I think you already took issue with my original claim "we reefers can identify corals better than scientists", thinking I meant scientific identification. I didn't and after explaining my point of view and offering enough arguments for it, you were screaming in caps "HOW YOU IDENTIFY CORALS IS SCIENTIFICALLY!".
If you don't aggree with me that's fine. Use the names you want. But if you take issue with my claim that's your problem not mine.

Subspecies is a taxonomic rank lower than species, while phenotype is just the physical characteristics....
different populations were selectively bred to be broccoli and cauliflower.

Yes but that is also the definition for phenotypes. It is also a common topic for disagreement between scientists if something is a already a subspecies or just a phenotype. Then, after decades of back and forth something is chosen, names are changed etc. Whatever, we should continue calling our corals the same we did before to avoid confusion.