|
FAQs and Input about Reef Invertebrate (and algae?) ID book
Related FAQs:
|
|
Book suggestions 2/28/10
Mr. Fenner,
<Edward>
Six months ago I started my first saltwater aquarium a 50 gallon
breeder tank and now I have nine fish, two shrimp, crabs, snails,
anemone, and some soft corals. I have read a number of other books
before I found your book The Conscientious Marine Aquarist revised and
updated second edition. I just read it cover-to-cover. There is one
thing I find lacking in all saltwater aquarium books, how to pronounce
the technical terms and scientific names of the animals. The only name
you show how to pronounce is cnidarians. I also find that at the few
aquarium society meetings I've attended the members have various
ways to pronounce names and terms as does the local fish store.
<Mmm>
I believe there is a market for a dictionary/glossary of terms and
names with pronunciation for the aquarium market. The author probably
would even set the standard on pronunciation of terms and scientific
names. Being a retired marketing consultant (computer industry) I would
guess nearly every aquatic club and 5 to 10% of their members would buy
a copy. Surely every local fish store would want a copy. Wouldn't
that outsell this book?
<I wish I could/would agree w/ you, but folks are wont to buy such
works I assure you>
There is one topic I find missing in the seven saltwater aquarium books
I've read; what hitchhikers can you expect to come along with live
rock and corals.
<Now THIS is a winner. A few of us/WWM had thought to produce a
title about such (cc'ed above)... Lynn Zurik in particular, has
become quite an adept at identifying and skillfully enumerating what
this myriad of "free" life is>
Looking at my tank I see enough life in there to write a PhD thesis.
Just from what I can see I have brittle stars (both tiny white ones and
one larger black one), bristle worms (maybe two types), tiny tube
worms, bivalves (I only find them after they have died), anemones (I
eradicated them), and crabs (not sure but they almost look like Emerald
crabs). I think all this came with live rock that I bought over six
months from the local fish store. All of the rock had been in the fish
store tanks for at least two weeks before I bought them. What I would
like to see is a chapter on these hitchhikers and which of them should
I be concerned with.
Thanks for a well written and informative book.
Regards,
Ed S
<Thank you for writing, sharing. Do please see/peruse our website,
WetWebMedia.com for much more.
Cheers, Bob Fenner>
| Re: Species List! and follow-up on Anemone ID
1/25/08 Thanks, Bob. Also, thanks for the
"Outstanding" comment yesterday - it made my day! I
really do enjoy the challenge that ID questions present .
Unfortunately, when it comes to anemones, I'm somewhat lacking.
I've been looking into the query you put in my folder, and I
really don't know what kind of anemones those are. Brenda and I
discussed them at length this afternoon and she believes that they
might be "Jeweled Anemones", Corynactis spp. <Mmm...
do look like this genus in some respects...> For my part,
I've looked through every book I have, as well as all over the
internet and can't come up with anything that
"clicks". At first I thought that maybe they were a
Calliactis sp. - based on this photo:
http://www.meerwasser-lexikon.de/de/48/905/Calliactis/polypus.htm.
Then I thought they might be Nemanthus sp. , Amphianthus, or even
Dofleinia.. I just can't seem to pin it down. I'm sorry I
couldn't be of more help on this, but if you know of a good
resource book for anemones (for the future), please let me know. I
thought for sure those anemones would be in the Baensch Atlas, but
no such luck (or at least I didn't recognize them). By the way,
do you want me to put that query back into the main marine folder
to give someone else a crack at it? <Methinks you two are about
our only shots...> Regarding the species list, thanks, it's
good to get this project off the ground! By the way, I'm close
to finishing up the algae section, so once I do that and make a
couple of corrections (I forgot to put crustaceans under Arthropoda
- duh!) I'll send it on to you. Hopefully you'll have it
on/by Tuesday. At that point, I'll go ahead and send a copy to
Neale as well. I figured I'd hold off on that until it was
complete. Take care and have a great week in sunny Hawaii! -Lynn
<Thank you my friend. Cheers, BobF> |
That Marine Invert. Di, tri-chotomous Key ID book
idea... 12/25/07 Lynn, Neale... am given to suggest
this title again... 1.a: Radially arranged, soft-bodied, bell-shaped,
floating in water (Cnidarians, Ctenophores): Go to 20. 1.b. Radially
arranged, hard-bodied, oval, globular or armed, benthic (on the
bottom)(Echinoderms...) Go to 21 1.c. Not radially arranged...
bilaterally symmetrical or tubular Go To 22. Somewhat in the format of
the pocket guides produced by Microcosm/TFH (which were my idea while
working with M years back)... With pix of the 500 or so more commonly
encountered species, forms/groups... with as much in the way of
pertinent notes re selection, husbandry... Am hoping to help ScottV and
EricR with an aquarium engineering tome... and thinking this would be a
fun, applicable and profitable venture for us to do concurrently... for
savings on production, sales... What say you? BobF. <Absolutely -
I'd love to be involved in this! Just let me know how I can help.
Thanks, also, for your <note yesterday, and for the opportunity to
lend a hand at WWM, it's a real pleasure. :-) <Take care,
<-Lynn <Am very sure this will be a straight-forward project...
in terms of the keys... Which I can/will write (shall we include algae
in this work?)... >>Considering the number of questions we get
regarding this, I think that would be a great idea.<< The pix...
we may already have, or can/will ask friends to sell us one-time use
rights to round out... Would you be willing to start compiling a list
of what you consider (likely a summary review of WWM...) the more/most
common species/groups? B> >>Absolutely. I'm a bit busy the
next few days, but will get down to business right after that, if
that's okay. Btw, do we have a time schedule for this project?
Thankfully, the beginning of the year is always quiet for me,
business-wise, so it's a perfect time to get started. This is going
to be a terrific book, and an invaluable resource for aquarists. Thanks
for including me in the project! -Lynn>> <<No fixed time
frame... But a good idea with such projects to have something in the
way of a schedule... B>>
Re: That Marine Invert. Di, tri-chotomous Key ID book
idea... 12/25/07 Hello Bob, Lynn, <Neale> Merry Christmas
from snowy Omaha! <Brrrrrr!> Bob: I think the book idea sounds
great. I'm not familiar with the "pocket guides" you
mention, so will have to look those up. I confess my fishkeeping
library is stacked towards to freshwater end! I suspect the way forward
is to first define the phyla, classes, orders, families we want to
cover. For an awful lot of stuff, identification to family level will
be about as good as we can go with naked eye observations. Are any of
you familiar with Ralph Buschbaum's little book on invertebrates? I
like the idea of mixing some biology with taxonomy. In other words, as
well as explaining "you have a Sipunculid" you say a little
about how they're different to annelids, what they evolved from,
what they do, and so on. A lot of these small invertebrates become more
interesting within that sort of context. <With a/the focus on appeal
to non-specialists... Perhaps as many line drawings, list/def. of
arcana as color photos...> Anyway, count me in. I'm not teaching
much this semester (just one geology class) so I'm open to spend
more time developing projects as required. Cheers, Neale <Sounds
good! BobF>
Question about species list... Invert. ID book
12/27/07 Hi Bob and Neale, <Lynn> I just wanted to give
y'all a quick update on the groups/species list. I made some
progress yesterday, but realized that for the number of organisms
we'd like to cover, I'm going to have to toss everything I can
think of into the list. Once that's done, we can pare it
down/substitute/choose the most interesting/whatever. By the way,
should I also include some of the more commonly offered/available
specimens (in the trade), or should this strictly remain as a guide for
marine hitchhikers? I realize some species are both, but I'm just
wondering where we draw the line? <I say both. If we run into
"too many" issues, we can lump by genus, family...>
Another question I have involves taxonomy. When I started the list, I
figured the most obvious way to organize it would be according to
classification. I didn't have too much trouble until I hit
Arthropoda - what a nightmare. It's hard to find two references
that agree! The phylum is littered with headings of "No
rank", "infra-orders", "sections", etc.
I've seen Crustacea listed as a class, subphylum, and superclass. I
think it's a subphylum, but ?? Do either of you know a reference
site that has the most recent/correct information? I've been using
this one, along with several others (hoping this was the most up to
date):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Undef&id=6656&lvl=3&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
<Mmm... "less is more" here... re splitters vs. lumpers...
I say we simplify as much as practical. I follow Robert (and Betty)
Barnes by and large re the higher tax. of invert.s> I'm sure
this taxonomic issue isn't the most important thing to be concerned
about right now, but I would like to be up to date. Mainly, after
getting so confounded yesterday with it, I just want to know what's
right! Thanks, -Lynn <Really isn't a matter of right where sci.
clas. goes/comes in... but a matter of "what's popular"
useful, current... for now. Cheers! BobF>
Re: Question about species list, Neale's go re
tax. and petfishing 12/27/07 Hello Lynn,> > One of the
big hurdles non-biologists have to cross is the idea of
"correct" taxonomy. All taxonomies are nothing more than one
scientist's "best estimate" of relationships based on the
existing evidence interpreted via some particular methodology
(morphology, cladistics, molecular biology, fossils, etc.). But
here's the thing: it doesn't matter. All groups above species
level are artificial. Use them, don't use them... they're all
totally man-made things and don't "mean" anything. So if
for the sake of clarity we go with a traditional "Class
Crustacea" grouping, that's fine. If we want a brief section
discussing their relationships to, say, horseshoe crabs or arachnids,
that's fine. But it doesn't matter for practical purposes.
I'd tend to go with the traditional groups except where they are
obviously polyphyletic (i.e., groups of not-at-all closely related
organisms). But I can't actually think of very many major
invertebrate taxa where this is a problem. In fact, there may be some
advantages in concurring with one of the main invertebrate zoology text
books used in colleges. While perhaps not at the cutting edge, this
will at least allow people to follow up what they read in this book by
referring to another widely accessible book. We can of course say that
such-and-such a group is currently under revision, controversial, or
whatever as we see fit. As far as scope, I think we need to balance
both unusual hitchhikers with at least representative examples of all
the major showpiece invertebrates. If nothing else, a basic explanation
of what differentiates all the different things called
"corals" or "tubeworms" or "clams" would
be useful. On the other hand, there's no point duplicating existing
manuals on corals or whatever that aquarists already have access to. We
may decide that rather than focusing on taxonomy too much, going by
place/size could be better. For example: chapters on what's in the
coral sand, what grows on living rock, what attaches to the glass,
what's in the canister filter, and so on. There would obviously be
overlap here, but at least having some chapters on these
"habitats" that key out organisms and then refer the reader
to the chapters on taxonomic groups could be fun. Cheers, Neale
<Wish I'd written this... or "what he said". Cheers,
B>