OP
OP
Wiz
2500 Club Member
Simple fact. Show me an order site or lfs that uses scientific names. Really?do you say clavularia sp or clove polyp?
a thought on euphillia
- Thread starter Wiz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
OP
OP
Wiz
2500 Club Member
I'm trying to see your point but I font see facts. I see obvious deception. I can show you that sites and lfs and most hobbiests use common names. Its much rarer to see scientific names. And a grape coral does show skeleton which is clearly visible in both these pics.
OP
OP
Wiz
2500 Club Member
The pics are the same as the original post. Pics 5 and 6. Cristata.
And a clove polyp is clavularia sp. Don't you know that scientific name??
I'm not sure the point of this statement, you can kill a pet for for any reason so long as it is done humanely, ie euthanasia..
Some Breeders will euthanize pups, same as culling fish. White boxer pups 20years ago comes to mind, until they decided they could sell them at a premium...
So I don't understand how that relates to the argument.
What I have been trying to get at is that a breed of dog lacking a certain trait is a poor analogy.
I agree with OP that some euphyllia appear to be a hybrid.
Scientific names have their value, but who is going to decide what to call these euphyllia that have overlapping characteristics? The collector, vendor, hobbyist?
Where is the biologist in the chain of custody to make this scientific ID?
And I think that's the OPs point, as hobbyists buying coral, we have what the seller tells us, and see a picture/see in person. So then we are identifying by observable characteristics.
OP feels frogspawn looks like eggs, it usually does. He was misled by a seller, I'd be irritated to.
Look at the vast collection areas for just Euphyllia ancora.
http://coral.aims.gov.au/factsheet.jsp?speciesCode=0145
To me it seems reasonable that the same coral types collected from different locations might appear physically different and distinct from one another and still be the same type. So many variables influence coloration and structure.
Personally I really try to use scientific names, it keeps me in practice. I find myself often going back to make sure the name and spelling are correct. It's a pet peeve of mine. Yes I do use common names when hurried and the name just not come to me right away. I do wish more hobbyist did use scientific names. I have a tendency to dumb it down to expedite my message just like everyone else but that is not my preference.
http://coral.aims.gov.au/factsheet.jsp?speciesCode=0145
To me it seems reasonable that the same coral types collected from different locations might appear physically different and distinct from one another and still be the same type. So many variables influence coloration and structure.
Personally I really try to use scientific names, it keeps me in practice. I find myself often going back to make sure the name and spelling are correct. It's a pet peeve of mine. Yes I do use common names when hurried and the name just not come to me right away. I do wish more hobbyist did use scientific names. I have a tendency to dumb it down to expedite my message just like everyone else but that is not my preference.
OP
OP
Wiz
2500 Club Member
In a case where the same scientific name is applicable but the coral looks different what is the best course of action? As stated in the thread, euphillia is best identified by its skeletal structure which is not always possable. And some of the same type look different. So in this case wouldn't it be better to use a name that tells the person what they are really getting? How does one call two corals that look nothing alike by the same name. Isnt that confusing?
OP
OP
Wiz
2500 Club Member
I defanitly think scientific names are important. And when researching health or care for a coral it is important. I just feel people should not buy two corals by the same name that look completly different. Thats it at its most basic.
