This is one heck of a touchy subject for me
This rant is not directed at you, Ed, my friend... rather thanks for opening the door to a peeve/point to be made
I am profoundly against the colloqial (and sometimes ridiculous, although not the case here) names for corals that have morphologically and chromatically changed and continue to change under case by case systematics (individual growers lighting, nutrient levels, water flow, etc).
To underscore the unreliablility of naming, seeking or selling anything by such improvised names... I consider that the worlds leading experts like Charlie Veron will not even waste their time trying to iD a coral that has grown in aquaria. Very few Acroporids in particular will retain defining characteristics. Heck... even in the wild those that occur over a wide range on the reef can look so dramtically different as if to be speciated.
To the point... so many corals cannot and will not keep the same color or even form that they are grown/sold as. This is not a bad thing at all... it simply is what it is. Folks that favor certain forms and colors will experiment with physical parameters to try to encourage or maintain some such traits. The rest of us just continue to complain about changes
My opinion is if we really want to be true to the habit/system of naming things by gross characteristics and locales... we should do it right: call a coral the "35 Shady Oak Lane, Oregon Tort (tank B)" Heehee...
And to beat a dead horse... until/unless we can definitively say what is needed exactly to keep/replicate the params to produce the same form and color of a coral that we might call "Oregon Tort" or the like... then the name has little value.
Whew
A brief mention too... my apologies if I'm a bit slow on this thread/others for the next week: I'm out of town this and next weekend and will have limited 'Net access. Will jump in/on as soon as I can though.
With kindregards (great question too Ed... seriously
)
Anthony