Coral ID
- Thread starter ronj
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
kevinpo
Expert
Hello,
I think you are correct it looks like a Montipora to me too.
Cheers,
Kevin
I think you are correct it looks like a Montipora to me too.
Cheers,
Kevin
I believe it is a montipora danae, or commonly known as "encrusting montis". The exact name or variety depends on where it came from. I know returnofsid had one that looked similar that was being called "chili pepper monti" I think. It's kinda hard to tell from the picture whether the polyps are a shade of red, orange or pink, but that can all change with lighting and water conditions.
FreakinReefin
Insert idiot comment
I highly doubt it is an Undata...at least it looks absolutely nothing like any Undata I've seen. Of course, I could be wrong. It is definitely a monti and encrusting at that. It looks nice!
ashton
Well-known member
It looks like a Montipora palawanensis to me.
kevinpo
Expert
Hello,
Veron lists more than 70 species of Montipora which makes it difficult to make an ID down to the species level. That being said it looks like M. confusa to me. Time will tell as M. confusa grows small columns from its plates. Sometimes the plates can be almost the size of a dinner plate before the columns form.
M. undata is another candidate as it is very similar with an wide variety of growth patterns and colours.
Regards,
Kevin
Veron lists more than 70 species of Montipora which makes it difficult to make an ID down to the species level. That being said it looks like M. confusa to me. Time will tell as M. confusa grows small columns from its plates. Sometimes the plates can be almost the size of a dinner plate before the columns form.
M. undata is another candidate as it is very similar with an wide variety of growth patterns and colours.
Regards,
Kevin
Brie
BRA
Looks like Jedi Mind Trick monti.. Some have labeled it as a Monti. confusa... Link with a photo of a fully colored colony And there's a photo of a more "average" colored colony here...
kevinpo
Expert
Thanks for the links Brie 
Michael's thread on RC has some real sweet specimens. I'm thinking a 200 gal with just Montipora would be quite a sight.
Regards,
Kevin
Michael's thread on RC has some real sweet specimens. I'm thinking a 200 gal with just Montipora would be quite a sight.
Regards,
Kevin
FreakinReefin
Insert idiot comment
The only guess I'm going to take is Green Montipora Undawata
kevinpo
Expert
Hello,
Another feature that your picture shows are small ridges. They are commonly found on M. confusa.
Regards,
Kevin
Another feature that your picture shows are small ridges. They are commonly found on M. confusa.
Regards,
Kevin
I've always looked at M. "confusa" as "confusing!" It can look so much like M. capricornis, as well as several other Montipora species. The "ridges," that Kevin mentioned, really helps to separate some of the "confusion."
I'm not sure if I should chime in or not, but here we go...please keep in mind I'm trying to be helpful, not just being a jerk. I'm curious which of Dr. Veron's work is being referred to when someone cites 'Veron'? Is this 'Corals of the World'? Or one of his earlier works? Charlie Veron is certainly an acclaimed coral taxonomist, but his work (and that of all coral taxonomists) is not without significant controversy.
'Corals of the world' in particular, is a dangerous reference, as it assigns names to many many beautiful forms, without providing the keys to identification. Because of the plasticity of coral growth form, colony shape is rarely if ever, a good indicator of species and certainly not without following growth profiles across the depth profile of the reef. For a good example of this see Veron's early work on Pocillopora (Veron, J. E. N., & Pichon, M. (1976). Scleractinia of Eastern Australia. Part 1, Families Thamnasteriidae, Astrocoeniidae, Pocilloporidae. Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series, 1, 1-86).
Without using skeletal characters, and sometimes even with, the assignment of specific names to a given coral is often unrealistic. I think as a hobby, reefers are on the right track by keeping track of the clone names of individual corals as they get fragged and traded. But once that information is lost, it is gone, and to regroup corals on the basis of appearance alone is folly. We are working hard on getting coral DNA figured out... (and that is proving to be even more of a quagmire than the morphology), but until we can pass out the triquarters and have everyone scan their corals, I'd keep using your generic and clone names and not worry about the species level designations.
Cheers,
coralcrab
'Corals of the world' in particular, is a dangerous reference, as it assigns names to many many beautiful forms, without providing the keys to identification. Because of the plasticity of coral growth form, colony shape is rarely if ever, a good indicator of species and certainly not without following growth profiles across the depth profile of the reef. For a good example of this see Veron's early work on Pocillopora (Veron, J. E. N., & Pichon, M. (1976). Scleractinia of Eastern Australia. Part 1, Families Thamnasteriidae, Astrocoeniidae, Pocilloporidae. Australian Institute of Marine Science Monograph Series, 1, 1-86).
Without using skeletal characters, and sometimes even with, the assignment of specific names to a given coral is often unrealistic. I think as a hobby, reefers are on the right track by keeping track of the clone names of individual corals as they get fragged and traded. But once that information is lost, it is gone, and to regroup corals on the basis of appearance alone is folly. We are working hard on getting coral DNA figured out... (and that is proving to be even more of a quagmire than the morphology), but until we can pass out the triquarters and have everyone scan their corals, I'd keep using your generic and clone names and not worry about the species level designations.
Cheers,
coralcrab
From what I've read, from Veron, he seems to put a lot of emphasis, on skeletal structure, specifying that coral identification, without a dead coral skeleton, is at most, a guess. I wouldn't call that controversial at all. From everything I've read of his, and from what I've learned from Kevin, nothing is being said, that disagrees with what you're saying. Veron goes into minute detail, on skeletal structure, shape of corallite, size of corallite, etc., in terms of the skeleton, NOT the growth pattern or form.
