Candy Apple Reds

[RadReef]

To me, it's a difference of a change of genotype vs. phenotype. Given that definition, one would expect that if two morphs of the same paly were put in the same conditions, they would eventually look the same, or that there would be a set of conditions under which the same appearance could be achieved for both.

This is true if they are in the exact same conditions, side-by-side. You could have two zoanthids in the same tank and have radically different results because of interactions with different mutagens. For example UV light can alter the DNA at point dimers or pyrimidine dimers and that can change it's genetic code or genotype which may not be reversed and that affects it's phenotype (gene expression). Even if you moved that coral back into the original tank you cannot reverse the dimers back to their original state. Other factors could change the genes as well including additives, stress, and a whole host of other factors.

 

[zigzag]

This is true if they are in the exact same conditions, side-by-side. You could have two zoanthids in the same tank and have radically different results because of interactions with different mutagens. For example UV light can alter the DNA at point dimers or pyrimidine dimers and that can change it's genetic code or genotype which may not be reversed and that affects it's phenotype (gene expression). Even if you moved that coral back into the original tank you cannot reverse the dimers back to their original state. Other factors could change the genes as well including additives, stress, and a whole host of other factors.

Thats what i always thought as well.

 

[zigzag]

Lady_reefer1983's awsome colony of CAR's. Amazing

 

[nuff40]

Sounds good to me. Saturday is better, since I'm flying out to Dallas on Sunday for the week.

will keep that in mind

 

[RadReef]

Wow!! Now that is a beautiful colony! :haha:

 

[ladyreefer1983]

thank u

 

[ladyreefer1983]

oops i didnt notice someone posted my CAR's here..

 

[Nanofins]

Maybe I have the morph thing wrong?

Well, the real problem isn't your confusion alone necessarily. The term morph gets thrown around a lot and used used very loosely and even I have used it both ways. It certainly isn't used in a scientifically defined manner in this hobby. It gets used just as often to refer to a different color type of zoanthid within the same species as it does to refer to a variety of a known type that has been observed to have changed (aka a new expression of the same genotype). In this instance though I mainly am suggesting that Bowsers are not morphed from CAO's because there has been no observation of them starting out as CAOs and turning into the new, stable variety of Bowsers. To argue that Bowsers are morphed from CAOs would suggest that the CAOs have the unexpressed genetic information for Bowsers just waiting for the right conditions to bring them out, whether permanently or temporarily. This would be related to genetic variability within the organism. I do believe that CAOs and Bowsers and basically the majority of palys are the same species, and therefore all the different colors are simply expressions of the genetic variability within the species, but that is not the same as saying that the genetic diversity of the species allows for one color type to become another color type without sexual reproduction (and the influence of new DNA that would bring). It would follow that at some point some Palythoa had the genetic code for all of the different colors and patterns we see, but a this point the genes seem to have been separated into the various strains and each only carries a portion of that genetic potential.

I don't personally buy the idea that a simple influencer on the genes of a paly would be able to mutate it in such a way as to produce a new variety/morph that did not already exist in that paly's DNA. That would require not just a random change in some DNA to make it different from the previous genotype, but it would require that change to be coded to produce pigments AND patterns that did not previously exist in that paly's code. There's nothing to suggest that could happen. Even if you did allow for the idea that a mutation of the CAOs genotype could/did result in the Bowser paly, this would not be repeatable. You couldn't simply change the environment on any random CAR/CAO colony and expect that somehow you would again get the same mutation in that paly's genes that caused the Bowser.

 

[zigzag]

Ladyreefer..Sincre apologies. I don't steal pics and had your name above it and stated it was yours. I must have deleted it when i edited the post.

Sorry about that. That colony is absolutly amazing. Mad props.

Also thanks for clearing up they are indeed CAR's. Do they look brighter in person? They are almost identical color pattern wise to the bowsers. Just a little dimmer..maybe the picture?


I will add back that it is your pic.

 

[RadReef]

More CARS pics please!! 1smile1

 

[ladyreefer1983]

Ladyreefer..Sincre apologies. I don't steal pics and had your name above it and stated it was yours. I must have deleted it when i edited the post.

Sorry about that. That colony is absolutly amazing. Mad props.

Also thanks for clearing up they are indeed CAR's. Do they look brighter in person? They are almost identical color pattern wise to the bowsers. Just a little dimmer..maybe the picture?


I will add back that it is your pic.

no worries...they are brighter though in the pic it looks dim because i had the led's before...

 

[Nanofins]

Ladyreefer's CARs are really nice. I see that morph a lot, with the yellowish band before the red. Mine look like that too, and I like 'em that way. I've got mine all the way at the bottom under 6 54w T-5's. They actually seem to lose some of that nice rainbow pattern under brighter light.

Originally they started out like this, with no yellow band, and under some conditions, they still go back. Nice either way, but I like the subtle difference.

 

[btkrausen]

Mine are much brighter in person as well, I guess cameras don't pickup that red very well. I'm going to put that LED that I have on mine and take a pic if I have time. We'll see if it helps pull some of those colors out

 

[RadReef]

Gorgeous colony Nanofins! (sorry for all of my exclamations, I'm very emphatic and love the hobby!!)

 

[zigzag]

"so Even if you did allow for the idea that a mutation of the CAOs genotype could/did result in the Bowser paly, this would not be repeatable. You couldn't simply change the environment on any random CAR/CAO colony and expect that somehow you would again get the same mutation in that paly's genes that caused the Bowser."

No but if it did happen once all one would have to do is frag that strain and keep it going. The thought of every zoanthid or poly with the same color pattern or human givin name having the exact same dna make up to a T is a bit crazy.

I would think it's a lot like no two fingerprints or ppl are the same. It would seem zoa's even being the same "name" and color pattern would have a little diffrent make up even if slightly. If not how would animals ect ..evolve? evolution is proven. Without dna mutation it wouldn't be.

 

[zigzag]

Man ..Mine have no yellow in them
Looks great nano.

 

[Bugg_zy]

These pic was takin under 2 blue + 2 Aquablue specials. Just a pic of one of my frags. They look really nice, but nothing compared to some of the pics I see folks take in thier tanks. I have traded several of these to different tank with different light set ups, I still have yet to see em even come close to the pics above :squigglemouth: In my friends halide drivin tank even under the 20k they look really washed out. Healthy and making babies, but still washed out looking. No clue how old his bulbs are though.

 

[Nanofins]

No but it did happen once all one would have to do is frag that strain and keep it going. The thought of every zoanthid or poly with the same color pattern or human givin name has the exact same dna make up to a T is a bit crazy. I would think it's a lot like no two fingerprints or ppl are the same. It would seem zoa's even being the same "name" and color pattern would have a little diffrent make up even if slightly. If not how would animals ect ..evolve?

We don't know that it in fact did happen even once in this instance. That's an assumption that you might make, but I don't. It was not observed to have happened. The Bowsers were a wild collected colony and and were always observed to have existed as a different "morph" from CAOs. We can't even assume that just because they have a similar color pattern that they shared an immediate cladistic relationship. The Bowser could have been the result of two variants, possibly neither being a CAO, that reproduced sexually and created a new, unique combination. Just because they share a similar morphology does not mean we can assume that it was a genetic mutation of one that resulted in the other. Since you take people as an example, we possess genetic diversity/variability within our species, just like pretty much any other, and this can be expressed differently, but each of those variants possesses only a part of the genetic potential of the population as a whole. How those different alleles interact with each other can vary, and it doesn't even need to involve the creation of new DNA, just the recombination of already existing material. Humans no longer possess the entire body of genetic material within any one person. They have now been separated into different lines which now possess less genetic diversity within each population, but we can of course recombine or further seperate those traits through our method of reproduction. Take wolves as another example. All of the captive varieties are the result of a single genetic source with a huge body of genetic variability that was selectively bred for various traits. No new mutations or genes were needed; it was already there, but expressed as a wild dog/mutt/wolf. These smaller bodies of DNA, all still parts of the same species, can be recombined and something akin to the original can be obtained, though it's entirely possible that some of the genes have been lost in certain lines that were lost/not selected for. Nothing new there, just rehashing of old stuff.

This whole issue is very complex, with a lot of tangents too and imperfect parallels, so it's hard to hit from every angle. I'm not suggesting that every zoanthid has the same genetic makeup to a T, but I would suggest that those differences don't necessarily exist because of a mutation but also likely from simple genetic variability and that those differences aren't always significant and often wouldn't result in the expression of a different type, and further that we wouldn't need to assume that to get a new type it would require the creation of new DNA, but could simply be the recombination or separation of already existing alleles within that gene pool.

Man, I'm not even sure if that came out right anymore. Running on 3 hours of sleep is killing my brain...

edit:

I had also forgotten to mention, with regard to finger prints, that this example also doesn't really work in this instance. The fact that everyone's fingerprints are different doesn't have anything to do with mutation, but is rather a matter of variable expression of that DNA trait. And it's such a tiny trait that if you were looking at two people's DNA and everything else were the same, one might actually think the two specimens were the exact same, almost to a T. I don't think we've even identified which string of DNA influences the development of fingerprints, let alone know how its development is affected. This is much like snowflakes, in which no two are alike across every single snowfall and even within each snow system, yet they are all made up of water. Somehow, even though they all possess the same primary component which doesn't change, they all end up as differing snowflakes. The difference in how each develops may vary because of environmental impurities that are incorporated, but they're still crystalized water.

 

[Nanofins]

Looks great nano.

Gorgeous colony Nanofins! (sorry for all of my exclamations, I'm very emphatic and love the hobby!!)

Me too!!

Thanks man. Like I said, I have mine under what I would consider moderate (but not low) light and they got the yellow after I had them for some months. Even now though, if I move them to my frag tank or halide lit tank where it's quite a bit brighter, they lose the yellow and look more like the originals.

 

[btkrausen]

Bugg_zy , your CARs look very similar to mine after they got the yellow in them. I have a pic of the two polyps that I started with, I need to upload that sucker and post to compare the colors.