New Polyps in the hobby and new morphs of existing morphs

[650-IS350]

I wanted to bring up this discussion and would like it to be a very good educated one.

I myself over the years have seen countless morphs and new polyps pop and like weeds. I have seen countless REAL new polyps and newly discovered morphs of existing morphs already in the hobby. I also have seen a lot of sites with plain ugly ol' bottom polyps with crazy funky names.

But the discussion I want to talk about is, when do hobbyist determine if a specific polyp is REALLY a NEWLY discovered polyp or just a new morph of an existing polyp thats arleady in collections?? I've seen other sites list or ID 2-3 similar looking polyps with different names but they look the same.

 

[ddwbeagles]

Great question and no doubt it has become an issue recently. My "layman" assumption is this; A new variety of is one that (a) is harvested wild and has successfully reproduced itself over several generations. or (b) a agriculutered morph that also meets the above requirements.

How many times have we all seen someone who has tramized thier polyps in some fashion (lighting, Alk swings, temperature variations, crappy photography, etc.....) see a strange looking TEMPORARY color transition and post it up as "ID this new morph"?

We have several databases going now that are attempting to catalogue all ZOAs/Palys and I think that is a good step in the right direction, BUT I would encourage a little more scrutiny on behalf of the adminstrators/moderators there.

 

[ReefRunner]

"A new variety of is one that . . . has successfully reproduced itself over several generations"

I agree with that statment completely. I think the coral has to "prove itself" so to speak by showing its new form/color consistently over time.


Robin

 

[Fragged_it]

I'm following this thread, as it seems very related to my thread from yesterday.

 

[tampasnooker]

I agree. I think a strain needs to demonstrate at least a couple generations of consistency before it is classified as a new morph to ensure that the polyp isn't just showing temporary coloration.

 

[moto826]

i would think wild ones would be new ones and others could not be new as they were here for years and still the same but what do i know jest a thought

 

[Stray32]

"A new variety of is one that . . . has successfully reproduced itself over several generations"

I agree with that statment completely. I think the coral has to "prove itself" so to speak by showing its new form/color consistently over time.


Robin

+1 This is the number 1 criterion in my book...

 

[wishntoboutside]

great topic charles.

and plus 2 =). that is why i was a big fan of old school tyree corals.. they at a time were evaluated and then released to see if it held color and growth. i dont think it is that way any more.

i would love to see the zoa id site improved.. my dream is to type in a search of what colors the skirt and inners are to give me an idea of what it may be. It trully take a long time to go threw every one.

 

[Wy Renegade]

So a couple random thoughts just to deepen the discussion a bit.

First off, let me say that I think a "morph" should hold its colors before being named or IDed as a new paly.

That said, how do we decide what is a morph vs. what is a new paly - as an example, the zoa that I posted up from JGonzz. Josh collected the polyp from a transhipped frag, so it obviously wasn't a morph of Chelsies original polyps, but was similar enough everyone said it is the same.

When the Red Spackle/Darth Maul Rising paly started showing up (brought in from the wild by Tomasz) everyone IDed it as a Darth Maul morph. Yet again obviously, it wasn't a morph from existing Darth Maul polyps. Its destinctly different in its color pattern yet the base colors are the same, so does it deserve it deserve its own name or not? Since people are starting to offer them in frag packs, they obviously are holding their color through generations.

Darth Maul

Darth Maul Rising/Red Spackle

Or how about this one;

Another Aussie zoa, with similar appearance to Black Hole Suns, but obviously different. Is it a Black Hole Sun morph, or do we give a completely new name?

Just some food for thought . . .

 

[thecoralvault]

But the discussion I want to talk about is, when do hobbyist determine if a specific polyp is REALLY a NEWLY discovered polyp or just a new morph of an existing polyp thats arleady in collections?? I've seen other sites list or ID 2-3 similar looking polyps with different names but they look the same.

What our intentions are with Zoas and Paly are to get all the ones that have been submitted to the vault and put them in all kinds of different lighting, water, placement, etc,. conditions to see how the coral morphs and put all those morphs in the Vault.

Whenever we try and tell someone that submits a "new" zoa or paly that its really a morph, they get defensive. They say it is not a morph that its new. Then they tell us not to use their pictures anymore unless we put it as a new paly. In the end we don't use their pictures.

 

[650-IS350]

ST- I agree that if a polyp morphs to something else and stays that way and the new babies carry on the morph without reverting back to it's original look then IMO its a new morph of an original strain. Not a morph of a polyp morphing temporarily due to stress/tank parameters/lighting etc.

CV- Thank you for your insight and sucks to hear of some folks attitude when something is deemed not a new morph. I truely believe that we as Z's and P's collectors demand that there should be more stricter, rigorous and definitive ID on polyps before names are put on them. SO that you wouldn't have 100's of names or ID's on the same polyp and make it confusing for collectors, veterans and newbies alike.

 

[MarvinsReef]

ST- I agree that if a polyp morphs to something else and stays that way and the new babies carry on the morph without reverting back to it's original look then IMO its a new morph of an original strain. Not a morph of a polyp morphing temporarily due to stress/tank parameters/lighting etc.

CV- Thank you for your insight and sucks to hear of some folks attitude when something is deemed not a new morph. I truely believe that we as Z's and P's collectors demand that there should be more stricter, rigorous and definitive ID on polyps before names are put on them. SO that you wouldn't have 100's of names or ID's on the same polyp and make it confusing for collectors, veterans and newbies alike.

+1 on both...

I've been collecting z's and p's since 2005 and it was fun naming a few z's and p's... but now, I'm so behind with all the new names... some would pm me if I've seen so and so name.... and I normally ask for a pic... and find out it's a zoa that I've seen before with a different name... if only everyone has the same intention as some of you (I'm referring to Scopus' 2-3 generation outcomes)... some have good intentions in naming and not good... don't really wanna get into it at this time... LoLz... I really don't have an idea how the naming thing will stop getting out of control... personally, I've laid back on collecting z's and p's for almost 2 years, partly coz of this... I only have about 20 morphs now that I've had for a while... so, really the point of this is we can always try to do the generation route but we need the coordination of a few sites to make it work... maybe some of the more experienced z's and p's collectors can reach out the sites that handle the naming thing and get something situated when naming a morph Vs. new morph...

 

[Wy Renegade]

What our intentions are with Zoas and Paly are to get all the ones that have been submitted to the vault and put them in all kinds of different lighting, water, placement, etc,. conditions to see how the coral morphs and put all those morphs in the Vault.

Whenever we try and tell someone that submits a "new" zoa or paly that its really a morph, they get defensive. They say it is not a morph that its new. Then they tell us not to use their pictures anymore unless we put it as a new paly. In the end we don't use their pictures.

+1 on both...

I've been collecting z's and p's since 2005 and it was fun naming a few z's and p's... but now, I'm so behind with all the new names... some would pm me if I've seen so and so name.... and I normally ask for a pic... and find out it's a zoa that I've seen before with a different name... if only everyone has the same intention as some of you (I'm referring to Scopus' 2-3 generation outcomes)... some have good intentions in naming and not good... don't really wanna get into it at this time... LoLz... I really don't have an idea how the naming thing will stop getting out of control... personally, I've laid back on collecting z's and p's for almost 2 years, partly coz of this... I only have about 20 morphs now that I've had for a while... so, really the point of this is we can always try to do the generation route but we need the coordination of a few sites to make it work... maybe some of the more experienced z's and p's collectors can reach out the sites that handle the naming thing and get something situated when naming a morph Vs. new morph...

Cudos to you CV for trying to make the whole thing a little more simplified and strictor as Charles said. I'm sure its tough with people getting angry and wanting you to pull the pictures - to stay the course.

Marvin, I think you hit one of the big hurdles right there, and I think its what the CV is experiencing as well, and that is the whole concept of morph vs. new morph. Technically every zoa is most likely a morph from the first/original polyp that developed/occurred (?), but when people see morph, they assume that means that they've somehow altered an existing polyp, which isn't necessarily the case.

 

[650-IS350]

bumpity bumpity

great discussion and let see more input here folks, you don't need to be an experience or pro to have your thoughts out here. all are welcome.

 

[cageburn]

heres some zoas that morphed really nice for me and i cant figure out why?
i had them originally under m.h. then under powercompacts then moved under t-5s and thats when the color started to change.


before

after

 

[cageburn]

these might be newer havent seem em around before

thinkin these are some kind of watermelon morph, probally wrong

 

[Wy Renegade]

heres some zoas that morphed really nice for me and i cant figure out why?
i had them originally under m.h. then under powercompacts then moved under t-5s and thats when the color started to change.

Light, as you discovered is one of the predominant factors that causes morphing in polyps. For example, here's my Kryptonite under MH/t5s, bottom of the tank;

Here is the same polyps from WD's tank that were kept high under MH lighting;

While WD's would retain that appearance in his tank, they are not truly a new polyp, simply a morph of an existing polyp, and chances are very good that now that they are in my tank, new polyps will revert to the original appearance.

Now on the other hand, if I could just figure out how to get the tentacles to take on the green color of the rings in WD's polyps in an alternating pattern, I could GREEN HORNETS! (Mewhawww Hawww haaawww - ST wanders off back to the lab laughing evily to himself . . .)

 

[wicked demon]

Jebus those rings tightened up, and they did so in response to the ...any guesses???....thats right, I heard it from the peanut gallery,...LIGHTING CHANGE.

If you have any luck with the alternating green fingers you let me know!!Hehe.
On a side note, these are new, I had originally IDed them as purple dreams, but after seeing the color they are in the originators tank, and the color they have produced, I am certain they are not.
We have decided to call them Columbine's Coronas, after the school they originated from.(yes, THE Columbine High School)

Any time I sell any of these 1/2 the $ will go to help fund the Reef in their library. A few have already been sold or traded. Sorry, none are available at this time. They just keep getting better and better!!!

 

[650-IS350]

Bump....

 

[Fragged_it]

With light being the guiding factor to zoa coloring, has any one determined the best light for zoanthids? A previous poster stated he had his polyps under MH, then PC then T5's. What is the best type of lighting and where is the best placement in the tank (closer to the lights or further)?

---------------

I posted these zoas in another thread asking if it was a new morph. I purchased a full colony of common zoas from an import order and there was a single polyp in the middle that was was noticeably different. For the life of me I can't recall what the original colony looked like. I removed the single polyp and after several months it developed new polyps. All the new polyps look exactly like the original.

To me, this is a good example of a morph holding it's colors and patterns.