Coral Skeleton ID?

[NaanDu]

Hey everyone. I've been scratching my head about this for a while and can't seem to figure it out. I inherited a bunch of live rock a while back, as well as chunks of what look like stony coral skeletons. One of the skeletons looks like a perfect mushroom shape. Like, land mushroom shape lol. It has a stalk and a perfectly shaped cap. Any idea what coral this could have come from? There's also pretty jagged ridges all over the "cap".

I'm trying to get my favia to encrust over it because I think that would look pretty cool lol just a giant favia mushroom.

 

[encrustingacro]

That's a frag plug, not a coral skeleton.

Also, that's a Favites pentagona, not a Favia.

 

[Timfish]

Looks like a frag plug to me. But here's a link to the AIMS daabase you you want ot do some research.

Corals of the World

 

[Alexraptor]

I'm pretty sure he is talking about the rock behind the frag/plug.

As for what it is, couldn't say. Coral skeletons range from notoriously difficult to impossible to ID without an electron microscope, if you don't know what it came from.

 

[NaanDu]

That's a frag plug, not a coral skeleton.

Also, that's a Favites pentagona, not a Favia.

Thank you for that. It was sold to me as a lemonburst (lemonblast?) favia but I had suspicions that it was actually a favite.

 

[NaanDu]

I'm pretty sure he is talking about the rock behind the frag/plug.

As for what it is, couldn't say. Coral skeletons range from notoriously difficult to impossible to ID without an electron microscope, if you don't know what it came from.

Yes! Sorry for not being more clear about that. I'm talking about the very large very almost cartoonish mushroom looking skeleton behind the frag.

 

[encrustingacro]

Looks like a frag plug to me. But here's a link to the AIMS daabase you you want ot do some research.

Corals of the World

I would recommend the WoRMS database over the AIMS database and CotW guides. AIMS uses outdated taxonomy, and CotW is rife with misidentifications.

 

[NaanDu]

I know it would be difficult to do an ID of the exact specific coral this could have been, I guess I'm moreso just looking for a general Idea of the overall possible group of coral this could belong to.

 

[encrustingacro]

A little hard to say what it is. Us hobbyists are not good at IDing skeletal specimens, and coupled with the fact that corals deform under captivity, it may be impossible to tell.

 

[Timfish]

That looks like a branching acropora species that had some wierd growth caused by something making it table out. I've seen that happen when acros grow to the surface. But It really would need to be cut in half to see the detail of the skeleton

 

[Timfish]

I would recommend the WoRMS database over the AIMS database and CotW guides. AIMS uses outdated taxonomy, and CotW is rife with misidentifications.

Sorry, I need pictures and I've found it much easier to track down an unkown species with Corals of the World. World Registor of Marine Animals may be more up to date taxanomically but even Corals of the World is better than the names aquarists give their corals. I'm curious what percentage of inaccurate identifications rate a "rife" accusation, 2%, 5%, 10%?

 

[encrustingacro]

Sorry, I need pictures and I've found it much easier to track down an unkown species with Corals of the World. World Registor of Marine Animals may be more up to date taxanomically but even Corals of the World is better than the names aquarists give their corals. I'm curious what percentage of inaccurate identifications rate a "rife" accusation, 2%, 5%, 10%?

Many of Veron's concepts about coral were wrong. Veron erroneously assigned phenotypes to species whose type material either looked nothing like what he assigned, or was too ambiguous to assign a phenotype to.
Take for example his page on Dipsastraea danai, which he defines as having "conical corallites and heavily beaded costae." The type specimen (shown on his same page) looks nothing like this; it has shallow, subcerioid corallites.
Another example of this is Dipsastraea favus, which he also defines as having conical corallites. However, the type specimen has shallow corallites and looks nothing like the photos on CotW. His photos are also not consistent; I can count two lizardensis phenotypes (photos 4 and 6) and a speciosa phenotype (photo 2).
In addition to erroneously assigning phenotypes to random species, he often misidentifies species. Take for example the Blastomussa he misidentifies as Platygyra carnosus, or the Micromussa he misidentifies as Blastomussa wellsi. There are a plethora of other examples, such as the Mycedium robokaki he misidentifies as Echinophyllia aspera or the Echinophyllia aspera he misidentifies as Mycedium elephantotus. The misidentifications are endless.

 

[Timfish]

I'm impressed. But using the World Register of Marine Species I couldn't identify anything. Let's take Dipsastrea danai for example. I've spent 15-20 minutes trying to find the species description and couldn't. So step me through trying to find identify a species using World Register of Marine Species.

 

[encrustingacro]

I'm impressed. But using the World Register of Marine Species I couldn't identify anything. Let's take Dipsastrea danai for example. I've spent 15-20 minutes trying to find the species description and couldn't. So step me through trying to find identify a species using World Register of Marine Species.

WoRMS is more of a database of species than an identification guide. Original species descriptions and type material are in the sources page.

 

[Timfish]

So an aquarist has to dig to find the type description and familiarize themselves with the terminology.

Considering research has shown the skeletal structures can vary depending on lighting It seems teh reliance on skeletal charicteristics is not much better than gross apperance of a coral. ideally some day we'll have DNA based databases to identify things. Seeing how difficult using Marine Regestry of Marine Species is it seems to me Corals of the World as inaccurate as you think it might be it still would be considerably better than the multiple names aquarists give everything. And FWIW, the Austrailian Institute of Marine Sciences is working on updating Corals of the World.

 

[encrustingacro]

So an aquarist has to dig to find the type description and familiarize themselves with the terminology.

You don't need to find original descriptions and type specimens/illustrations, but you definitely have to dig further than hobbyist sources or CotW in order to get an accurate identification.

Considering research has shown the skeletal structures can vary depending on lighting It seems the reliance on skeletal characteristics is not much better than gross apperance of a coral.

This is why topotypical specimens should be studied. And although appearance of different specimens of the species may vary depending on variables such as sunlight intensity, current, and amount of food in the water, one can tell that they are conspecific as there should be a smooth continuum between different morphotypes.

ideally some day we'll have DNA based databases to identify things.

We already have taxonomic genetic databases. Current researchers deposit their sequenced genes after studying them so other researchers can compare their samples in future studies.
While molecular reclassifications are much better than skeletal classifications, there are problems with them, too. Because most type material for coral species are skeletal specimens, it is impossible to sample any DNA from them to test phylogeny. Furthermore, for some species, their type material are ambiguous illustrations which could correspond to multiple species. These problems are coupled with the fact that researchers can misidentify sampled specimens, which can lead to incorrect phylogenetic reconstruction and taxonomic placement. Take Tubastrea aurea for example, which was temporarily reclassified to Lobophyllia due to misidentified sequenced specimens.

Seeing how difficult using World Registry of Marine Species is it seems to me Corals of the World as inaccurate as you think it might be it still would be considerably better than the multiple names aquarists give everything.

Most coral species are poorly defined and have not been delimited from their relatives, so species-level idenfication is basically impossible, which is why I wouldn't use CotW. I would use iNatualist observations instead to get a genus-level feel of stony corals.

And FWIW, the Austrailian Institute of Marine Sciences is working on updating Corals of the World.

Veron doesn't like molecular reclassifications very much, so I doubt much of the taxonomy will be changed. I also doubt many of the misidentifications will be corrected, as Cotw has been in the process of being updated since ~2022, and not many of the misidentifications (or taxonomy either, for that fact) have been corrected.