When people can't really ID this slime, they usually say it's a "bacterial blom". I don't know what actually supports that theory, however. I've never run across someone actually putting it under a microscope and properly IDing it. The phrase "bacterial bloom" is thrown around unsupported way to often. I mean no offense to others' IDs, and I too agree it looks like what has been coined a bacteria bloom, but exactly what are we looking at in those other cases? Who has properly looked into it? I'm not saying no one has, I just cannot find the source of it. I'm going to hunt around in some of the dosing discussions, as I know they've had some blooms to read about. Wasn't there a lot of blooms with amino acids or such? I'm a little (alot) out of touch with that whole practice.
So what it's not....
- not a lionfish cuticle.
- not a tunicate
- not hydroids
- doesn't look like a sponge
- not a vermetid
- not a ctenophore
- not algae/dinos
- not a wrasse bed
.... you can see how easy it is to say it's a bacterial bloom........
I wish you lived closer than Jersey, Santa is bringing me a camera for my microscope.