PDA

View Full Version : 20 species of coral added to the US Endangered Species List


Luiz Rocha
08/27/2014, 09:22 PM
Title says all, here is the article:

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/stories/2014/08/corals_listing.html

I hope it doesn't affect the aquarium trade too much. Also, I think some of these species are very hard to ID, so not sure how to enforce.

alton
08/28/2014, 06:23 AM
I noticed Euphyllia paradivisa is on that list since I have a bunch of it what happens now?

http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=597+321+519&pcatid=519

http://www.reefs2go.com/product/C-FROGSPAWN-1BRANCH/Frogspawn-Coral-Euphyllia-paradivisa.html

bigswaug
08/28/2014, 06:52 AM
Looks like the price just jumped on your frags.. Jk..

baringcs
08/28/2014, 08:07 AM
I noticed Euphyllia paradivisa is on that list since I have a bunch of it what happens now?

http://www.liveaquaria.com/product/prod_display.cfm?c=597+321+519&pcatid=519

http://www.reefs2go.com/product/C-FROGSPAWN-1BRANCH/Frogspawn-Coral-Euphyllia-paradivisa.html

Its been over a year since I read through it... but I think you can give it away as long as it doesn't cross state boundaries.

I'll take one for the team and come take some off your hands I'm in Spring :lolspin:

Rot26
08/28/2014, 09:03 AM
They're now illegal to take from a reef. They are still perfectly legal to have.

If you're going to sell or buy them though, you want to ensure that they're captive grown. If someone poaches them from a reef and sells them to you, technically you're breaking the law as well.

billsreef
08/28/2014, 12:25 PM
They're now illegal to take from a reef. They are still perfectly legal to have.

They weren't declared "endangered", but just "threatened". That means the the measures that would have automatically occurred under the "endangered" heading will not automatically apply. So right now it is not much more than a label, though a label they can justify making later restrictions with.

baringcs
08/28/2014, 01:39 PM
They weren't declared "endangered", but just "threatened". That means the the measures that would have automatically occurred under the "endangered" heading will not automatically apply. So right now it is not much more than a label, though a label they can justify making later restrictions with.

So if I understand it correctly... based on the "threatened" classification they could implement a ESA 4(d) rule with prohibitions for Euphyllia paradivisa like they have with Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis.

Fish Biscuit
08/28/2014, 03:46 PM
I don't see this changing anything now. Maybe the 2 caribbean acroporas will be eventually Cites Appendix 1 listed down the road but I don't think that will happen until the next Cites meeting which I vaguely remember to be coming in 2016 or 2018.

billsreef
08/28/2014, 03:50 PM
So if I understand it correctly... based on the "threatened" classification they could implement a ESA 4(d) rule with prohibitions for Euphyllia paradivisa like they have with Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis.

Yup, pretty much how I understand it as well. What they will do with this remains to be seen. Could do nothing more, or turn around and do some restrictions. On the bright side, unlike with "endangered", they could exempt existing aquarium specimens and future aquaculture of them from regulation while still restricting imports of wild collected specimens.

alton
08/28/2014, 04:13 PM
They probably will come up with some kind of permit to buy and sell? I can see it now, For sale 2 headed Euphyllia paradivisa $50, permit $500

baringcs
08/28/2014, 08:08 PM
Yup, pretty much how I understand it as well. What they will do with this remains to be seen. Could do nothing more, or turn around and do some restrictions. On the bright side, unlike with "endangered", they could exempt existing aquarium specimens and future aquaculture of them from regulation while still restricting imports of wild collected specimens.


Thanks Bill.

Do you know if exempting requires an amendment to ESA or is there a rule making body that overseas its implementation?

billsreef
08/28/2014, 08:17 PM
Thanks Bill.

Do you know if exempting requires an amendment to ESA or is there a rule making body that overseas its implementation?

Right now there are no rules in place in regards to these corals. So such a pre existing aquarium specimen exemption could easily be written into any rules they do write...assuming they choose to do so. I expect NOAA is likely to be rule making body if any rules do get made in the future based on current "threatened" declaration.

alton
08/29/2014, 05:58 AM
In the case of the Oryx in Texas a judge in some other state mandated an expensive permit system which I believe has since been over turned because the prices have been reduced? Our court system in our great country is out of control.
http://www.petersenshunting.com/big-game/60-minutes-on-hunting-endangered-oryx-in-texas/

alton
08/29/2014, 09:02 AM
http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2014/08/29/implications-of-esas-new-threatened-coral-listing-for-the-marine-aquarium-trade/

jcolley
08/29/2014, 01:17 PM
Hypothetical question here.

If they are listed as "endangered", would the species as a whole benefit from the hobbiest propogation?

If it were loosely agreed upon by all to forego profit margin on these and give away or sell frags at very low prices, perhaps the species could thrive in greater numbers in captivity allowing potential future reintroduction in the wild?

baringcs
08/29/2014, 01:37 PM
Maybe. Depends on who's making the decisions... Read the article linked in post #13. Texas ranchers had more scimitar-horned oryx on their land than were in the wild. Yet due to a complaint by an environmental/animal rights group the trophy hunting was stopped by the Fed. Govt. at which point there was no longer any economic incentive for the ranchers to keep them. I think recently something was passed that allows them to be hunted again, so hopefully there numbers will come back up, but that is the "stupid" we have to deal with and overcome.

HumbleFish
08/29/2014, 05:11 PM
I am guessing if you own any of these corals then the time to go underground is now! Hopefully we don't read about a fellow reefer getting arrested for selling a branching frogspawn in a dark alley next to a 7-11. :dance:

Deinonych
08/31/2014, 09:10 AM
There was a lengthy panel discussion about this at MACNA yesterday, led by Julian Sprung. One of the biggest concerns about this listing was that NOAA based the decision on opinions and not scientific data. As a result, most of the listed corals aren't actually threatened, and the concern is that this listing could be expanded to include even more animals (including fish) under the guise of climate change. As Bill stated above, nothing is illegal now, but if we as aquarists don't get involved, this could have far-reaching effects on our hobby and the animals we keep. More info here:

http://www.pijac.org/marine
http://www.pijac.org/blog/pijac-and-wespac-submit-new-scientific-information-noaanmfs-66-coral-species-proposed
http://www.petage.com/new-regulations-could-impact-coral-trade/

Eric Boerner
09/04/2014, 07:15 PM
Right now there are no rules in place in regards to these corals. So such a pre existing aquarium specimen exemption could easily be written into any rules they do write...assuming they choose to do so. I expect NOAA is likely to be rule making body if any rules do get made in the future based on current "threatened" declaration.

Elkhorn and Staghorn are protected under section 9 of the ESA 'as if' they were listed as endangered, as of 2006. Any coral listed under the ESA after 2006 will fall under that ruling as well. After that ruling, the only two known captive stands of staghorn are at the national aquarium's R&D lab, and another university research lab. All other 'parts' of those species are considered black market trade.

All 20 species just listed will have a 25k penalty and 6 months of time for any "take" of the animal. "Take" can be a vast array of actions, from actively selling them to 'accidentally' stepping on them while swimming near them. NOAA will determine what "Take" actually means in regards to the hobby. But for sure, we won't see these imported any longer.

Deinonych
09/04/2014, 08:35 PM
Elkhorn and Staghorn are protected under section 9 of the ESA 'as if' they were listed as endangered, as of 2006. Any coral listed under the ESA after 2006 will fall under that ruling as well. After that ruling, the only two known captive stands of staghorn are at the national aquarium's R&D lab, and another university research lab. All other 'parts' of those species are considered black market trade.

All 20 species just listed will have a 25k penalty and 6 months of time for any "take" of the animal. "Take" can be a vast array of actions, from actively selling them to 'accidentally' stepping on them while swimming near them. NOAA will determine what "Take" actually means in regards to the hobby. But for sure, we won't see these imported any longer.

The Coral Restoration Foundation maricultures both staghorn and elkhorn corals specifically for repopulating Caribbean reefs: http://www.coralrestoration.org/our-work-2/

Also, there are no penalties currently for the other species listed as threatened. From the NOAA website:


There are currently no prohibitions relating to individual conduct, except for those related to the two previously listed elkhorn and staghorn corals in the Caribbean.
We will consult with federal agencies on actions that they execute, fund, or authorize that “may affect” listed corals to ensure the action does not jeopardize the continued existence of these corals.
In the future, we may also identify specific regulations for the conservation of these threatened species, because ESA prohibitions against “take” are not automatically applied as they are for species listed as endangered.

Timfish
09/05/2014, 09:45 AM
What I find more concerning is the US Senate Bill SB 1153 and its companion bill in the House of Representatives HB 996 which directs the Director of Fish and Wildlife and the Secretary of Interior to establish an improved regulatory process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites that are likely to cause harm "to humans or animals". Defines "nonnative wildlife taxon" in general as any family, genus, species or subspecies of live animal that is not native to the U.S., regardless of whether the animal was born or raised in captivity. Exempt from the term nonnative wildlife taxon are several common and clearly domesticated species including: cats, dogs, ferrets, gerbils, guinea pigs, goldfish, hamsters, and rabbits. With the broad wording being used this can easily be used to prevent not only coral imports but also coral propagation. I am reminded of the proposed USDA regulations a few years ago in response to bird flu fears that if implemented would have required EVERY domestic bird in the US to be registered and permits required prior to moving it with a $1000 per day per bird fine. An obvious first candidate if these bills become law would be all of the order zoantheria because of the possible risk of a species or specimen having palytoxin.

GreshamH
09/05/2014, 04:14 PM
Elkhorn and Staghorn are protected under section 9 of the ESA 'as if' they were listed as endangered, as of 2006. Any coral listed under the ESA after 2006 will fall under that ruling as well. After that ruling, the only two known captive stands of staghorn are at the national aquarium's R&D lab, and another university research lab. All other 'parts' of those species are considered black market trade.


Not so. There are other permits out there. Many Project SECORE members have them.

baringcs
09/05/2014, 04:48 PM
But from a hobbyist perspective they are for all intents and purposes not available. Correct?

billsreef
09/05/2014, 06:06 PM
But from a hobbyist perspective they are for all intents and purposes not available. Correct?

For the most part correct. Though that has to do with additional protections on Tropical West Atlantic hard corals beyond the two Acro's being listed as "threatened" under the ESA. However, if any of them show up on aquacultured LR, they are legal to keep and grow...though not to sell.

billsreef
09/05/2014, 06:20 PM
Not so. There are other permits out there. Many Project SECORE members have them.

It is also possible for university researchers to get cultured specimens from permit holders without the need to actually get a permit themselves. One of our labs has several staghorn frags from CRF via that means.

baringcs
09/05/2014, 06:37 PM
I sure hope NOAA makes some provision for aquacultured specimens. I was speaking with one of my LFS today at lunch and we got on the topic of Euphyllia paradivisa. He said all of the ones he gets now are aquacultured. They all have a cement base and tag on them so I am assuming he is correct. Not to mention that he trims his two large colonies on occasion and mounts them.

GreshamH
09/05/2014, 06:51 PM
I sure hope NOAA makes some provision for aquacultured specimens. I was speaking with one of my LFS today at lunch and we got on the topic of Euphyllia paradivisa. He said all of the ones he gets now are aquacultured. They all have a cement base and tag on them so I am assuming he is correct. Not to mention that he trims his two large colonies on occasion and mounts them.

Aquacultured, but what generation? Hacking off a wild colony and mounting is really not much different then wild collections. Its been a few years since I dealt with CITES so I am unsure of the new Bali-Indo rules for this.

baringcs
09/05/2014, 10:56 PM
Aquacultured, but what generation? Hacking off a wild colony and mounting is really not much different then wild collections. Its been a few years since I dealt with CITES so I am unsure of the new Bali-Indo rules for this.

Agreed. I don't know the answer to that. It would be disingenuous to represent that type of coral as aquacultered but I'm sure its done. I was thinking more along the lines of parent colonies that are kept and farmed.

So my answer would be generation two or later, or at the very least generation one that has been in captivity for some long period of time. But I get the difficulty in policing that.

Scythanith
09/06/2014, 07:33 AM
I donated $150.00 to the PIJAC Marine Ornamental Defence Fund. I encourage everyone to donate what they can.

Ztrain
09/08/2014, 12:36 AM
Love the gov. They restrict the aquarium trade that could possibly save the species but then approve dredging operations, dumping, and all sorts of other operations that directly are the cause of these endangerments......

renab
09/09/2014, 12:39 AM
First of all, they aren't going to police the LFS. The ones that are currently being aquacultured from hobbyists are being discussed to preserve the population in case the conditions get worse. This is not a collection problem they have identified it is a pollution issue. As a matter of fact they reported just today that there isn't going to be a ban on collections on current reefs, except for the protected areas, which can't be harvested from anyway. This is an alert to try to get people to realize the condition the oceans are currently in, and continue to spiral downward.

that Fish Guy
09/09/2014, 01:09 AM
First of all, they aren't going to police the LFS. The ones that are currently being aquacultured from hobbyists are being discussed to preserve the population in case the conditions get worse. This is not a collection problem they have identified it is a pollution issue. As a matter of fact they reported just today that there isn't going to be a ban on collections on current reefs, except for the protected areas, which can't be harvested from anyway. This is an alert to try to get people to realize the condition the oceans are currently in, and continue to spiral downward.

I was told that some wholesalers have already been contacted about this.

I will have to look into this more.

If true they have not yet policed the LFS but have started to police the wholesalers that bring stuff into the country.

Deinonych
09/09/2014, 01:41 PM
An update was posted on Reef2Rainforest today:

http://www.reef2rainforest.com/2014/09/09/do-you-love-corals-a-letter-from-pijacs-marine-aquarium-committee/

syrinx
09/09/2014, 07:07 PM
Love the gov. They restrict the aquarium trade that could possibly save the species but then approve dredging operations, dumping, and all sorts of other operations that directly are the cause of these endangerments......


That happened to me. CITES put a spider on the list just as we were about to use it in a breeding program. We couldnt get them, and the forest was destroyed, eliminating their habitat.

Ztrain
09/11/2014, 06:01 PM
That happened to me. CITES put a spider on the list just as we were about to use it in a breeding program. We couldnt get them, and the forest was destroyed, eliminating their habitat.

Perfect example.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/reef_fish_in_peril/index.html

That is the most miss guided dribble I have read in a long time. So they are endangered by the raising CO2 levels. So you're going to put restrictions on them that would prevent their being bred in captivity preserving the species and do nothing about what's killing them in the wild........... Well when the captive breeding programs end and the continued CO2 levels kill them off in the wild we'll still be able to see them in museums, and our old Youtube videos. We'll be able to thank places like the Center for Biological Diversity directly contributing to the extinction of many species that could have easily been saved had it not been for their interference and actions.

HumbleFish
09/16/2014, 09:22 PM
Just some updates.....

First read this: https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/usfws-notifies-aquarium-businesses-that-importing-listed-corals-is-illegal/

Followed up by this: https://rettalbot.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/usfws-errs-but-aquarium-trade-still-spooked/

that Fish Guy
09/16/2014, 10:41 PM
So they did ban Frogspawn.

http://blog.aquanerd.com/2014/09/usfw-la-20-illegal-corals.html

I can't believe this!

Spyderturbo007
09/17/2014, 07:26 AM
On the bright side, unlike with "endangered", they could exempt existing aquarium specimens and future aquaculture of them from regulation while still restricting imports of wild collected specimens.

Hopefully you're right Bill and they add that exemption. I'm afraid they are going to throw a blanket over the entire thing and ban us from buying / selling / trading aquacultured.

So they did ban Frogspawn.

That was a mistake. They updated the article to reflect that error.

xcorallusx
09/17/2014, 07:37 AM
next up from obama affordable frag act

marinemanohio
09/17/2014, 09:29 AM
I think I'm just going to move to the tropical coast, build a big swimming pool, pump water in from the ocean, and "aquaculture" a bunch of stuff. What do you all think? :-)

Willistein
09/17/2014, 10:32 AM
What's happening here is politics vs. science.

If you follow this link https://www.pijac.org/ADF and go to the downloads section, read the PIJAC letter (first item). key quotes:

"Dr. Veron is cited more than 750 times in NMFS' status review of the 66-coral species, and his work was extensively relied upon by NMFS in the proposed listing determinations."

"...NMFS failed to contact Dr. Veron to solicit his views of his data proir to issuing a proposed rule."

"Dr. Veron's report, including an analysis of his data prepared by WESPAC and enclosed as Appendix A to his report, clearly demonstrate that none of the 66 coral species proposed by NMFS for protection under the ESA warrant listing. Indeed, Dr. Veron stated...that NMFS' proposal to list 66 species "is based on either incorrect data, or no data at all.""

FYI: Dr. Veron is a world renown coral expert and author of Corals of the World.

Ztrain
09/17/2014, 11:29 AM
Well looking at the other links. I am glad to see that NOAA while maybe taking actions on species that according to Dr. Veron are not endanger at all is not doing a knee jerk reaction. Basically my take on the NOAA things is yes we need to take notice that things are harming the reefs here is our wake up call. But they see the real problem is green house emissions and what is really hurting the reefs not the aquarium hobby.

Unless my interpretation of those ruling is wrong, which it very well maybe since I'm new to looking at all this stuff, The real problem is the Center for Biological Diversity. Actions speak louder then words. Their actions do nothing to protect aquatic life in the wild but yet would also ensure their extinction in captivity. Ensuring the total elimination of the species they claim to want to protect.

that Fish Guy
09/17/2014, 09:19 PM
I just read this today and am very very confused.

Since that 4(d) rule has been published Elkhorn and Staghorn corals have been illegal to own, and difficult for researchers to work with. Interestingly, since some of you might not believe the ESA has “no effect” on CITES listings. Elkhorn and Staghorn corals are currently listed under CITES Appendix II which applies worldwide. So technically even though Elkhorn and Staghorn corals are not listed as endangered they are illegal to work with because of the threatened + the additional 4(d) rule provision.




If Elkhorn and Staghorn are illegal then why do I see them in LFS's?

Why does ORA Sell it?

Doesn't the no Elkhorn/Staghorn mean you cannot collect it in the Caribbean where it is quite rare aparently but it is not rare in other parts of the world?

Somebody please explain this.

that Fish Guy
09/17/2014, 09:42 PM
Also, I was reading up on some other animals.

Apparently Axolotyls are almost extinct in the wild (Not threatened, not endangered, but almost completly gone from the wild).

Yet you can still buy them.

White Clouds are a Freshwater Fish that is Extinct in the Wild yet you can find them in any Pet Store (There are Zillions of them due to Captive Breeding - They are like 2.00 each).

So how can they say that Corals Labeled Threatened or Endangered will be Illegal to even own when there are so many other animals that are sold all the time and nobody talks about them like they are talking about Corals now?

baringcs
09/17/2014, 11:12 PM
I just read this today and am very very confused.

Since that 4(d) rule has been published Elkhorn and Staghorn corals have been illegal to own, and difficult for researchers to work with. Interestingly, since some of you might not believe the ESA has “no effect” on CITES listings. Elkhorn and Staghorn corals are currently listed under CITES Appendix II which applies worldwide. So technically even though Elkhorn and Staghorn corals are not listed as endangered they are illegal to work with because of the threatened + the additional 4(d) rule provision.




If Elkhorn and Staghorn are illegal then why do I see them in LFS's?

Why does ORA Sell it?

Doesn't the no Elkhorn/Staghorn mean you cannot collect it in the Caribbean where it is quite rare aparently but it is not rare in other parts of the world?

Somebody please explain this.



The ban is for Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis. These are corals native to the Caribbean. Not the indo pacific region. You can get them as incidental take off of farmed Atlantic/Caribbean live rock.

You can't just say elkhorn coral. You have to look at the scientific naming/classification.

that Fish Guy
09/18/2014, 12:40 AM
The ban is for Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis. These are corals native to the Caribbean. Not the indo pacific region. You can get them as incidental take off of farmed Atlantic/Caribbean live rock.

You can't just say elkhorn coral. You have to look at the scientific naming/classification.

The Article States all Elkhorn and Staghorn.

billsreef
09/18/2014, 09:06 AM
The Article States all Elkhorn and Staghorn.

Yes, however, they are in reality only talking about the Tropical West Atlantic species which are commonly called by those two names.

accordsirh22
09/24/2014, 10:54 PM
learning to differentiate between virtually useless common names and proper scientific names is your friend

that Fish Guy
09/26/2014, 09:29 AM
learning to differentiate between virtually useless common names and proper scientific names is your friend

Common names are easier to understand so I do not think that trend will ever happen.

baringcs
09/26/2014, 09:36 AM
Spend some time studying them. I do, I have a BA in business mgmt. and yes its work but isn't it something you should strive for? Given that you where confused by this very thing - common names vs. correct biological nomenclature.

syrinx
09/26/2014, 07:08 PM
there is no difference learning a latin name or a common name. Common names really are a problem in the marine industry. Back in the day when I imported corals, common names could mean several, if not a dozen, different animals.

KafudaFish
09/26/2014, 07:29 PM
Common names are easier to understand so I do not think that trend will ever happen.

Though the trend will continue, I disagree with them being easier to understand because anything can be used as a common name and in the hobby you can go online and find five stores selling the same species under five common names. If you bought all five how many species are there in your tank?


Most jobs or areas of study have specific terms to fit a specific piece of information or object and this is no different.

Luiz Rocha
09/26/2014, 10:00 PM
I disagree with them being easier to understand because anything can be used as a common name and in the hobby you can go online and find five stores selling the same species under five common names. If you bought all five how many species are there in your tank?

You can also probably go online and find five stores selling five different species under the same name. I see it with fish all the time (not the most popular fish though), so much so that I don't even know most fish common names.

KafudaFish
09/27/2014, 04:42 AM
Good point.

that Fish Guy
09/28/2014, 06:46 PM
there is no difference learning a latin name or a common name. Common names really are a problem in the marine industry. Back in the day when I imported corals, common names could mean several, if not a dozen, different animals.

I disagree common names make it easier to identify Coral.

For instance if you say Rastas or Blue Hornets People know exactly what you are talking about.

Trying to describe a Zoanthid without a common name would be a real pain.

Yes, I am looking for Blue Dot Center Orange Inner Ring Green Outer Ring Yellow Skirt.

Who wants to say all that when you can just say I need Rastas and be done with it.

Plus the person you are talking to needs to process it and may not be thinking about exactly what you are thinking.

That is why common names are better than scientific names in my opinion.

KafudaFish
09/28/2014, 07:30 PM
I disagree common names make it easier to identify Coral.

For instance if you say Rastas or Blue Hornets People know exactly what you are talking about.

Trying to describe a Zoanthid without a common name would be a real pain.

Yes, I am looking for Blue Dot Center Orange Inner Ring Green Outer Ring Yellow Skirt.

Who wants to say all that when you can just say I need Rastas and be done with it.

Plus the person you are talking to needs to process it and may not be thinking about exactly what you are thinking.

That is why common names are better than scientific names in my opinion.

That is the flaw with common names. You believe that you are taking about Rastas but in reality someone else thinks that you are discussing something different because it is a different common name in their local circles.

By using a species name there can be only one and it makes the discussion specific to it.

Also if you know Latin then you know something about that species.

There is nothing wrong with using common names but it does not make it easier to communicate compared to a species name.

that Fish Guy
09/28/2014, 08:20 PM
That is the flaw with common names. You believe that you are taking about Rastas but in reality someone else thinks that you are discussing something different because it is a different common name in their local circles.

By using a species name there can be only one and it makes the discussion specific to it.

Also if you know Latin then you know something about that species.

There is nothing wrong with using common names but it does not make it easier to communicate compared to a species name.

Rastas are Rastas I have yet to see anybody mislabel them and I have talked to many many people about them.

So you mean to tell me that Rastas have their own scientific name?

If so what is it?

Communication is a two way street.

Even if I know every scientific name out there it does not help when nobody else knows the names as well.

I might as well be speaking Klingon because nobody is going to understand me.

Hence another good reason for common names everyone that I have ever talked to (A lot of people by the way) know what Rastas are yet none of them knew the scientific name (Of which I am sure there is none).

There are a zillion types of zoanthids and none of them are differentiated scientifically but they all are by common name.

Unless I am wrong please let me know.

BlueFyre
09/28/2014, 08:28 PM
Also, I was reading up on some other animals.

Apparently Axolotyls are almost extinct in the wild (Not threatened, not endangered, but almost completly gone from the wild).

Yet you can still buy them.

White Clouds are a Freshwater Fish that is Extinct in the Wild yet you can find them in any Pet Store (There are Zillions of them due to Captive Breeding - They are like 2.00 each).

So how can they say that Corals Labeled Threatened or Endangered will be Illegal to even own when there are so many other animals that are sold all the time and nobody talks about them like they are talking about Corals now?
The reason you can still buy these species is they are not listed on the ESA. They are pretty much extinct in the wild but not listed so they are legal to breed and distribute.

that Fish Guy
09/28/2014, 08:29 PM
So looking up the scientific name for Rastas I found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoantharia

Scientific classification

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Cnidaria
Class: Anthozoa
Subclass: Hexacorallia
Order: Zoantharia

Families

Epizoanthidae
Neozoanthidae
Parazoanthidae
Zoanthidae

After all those words how do you get to Rastas?

It stops at Zoanthidae of which there are hundreds if not thousands of morphs none of the scientific terms lets you know what Rastas are.

So Nine Words get me absolutly nowhere when just one word gets me there perfectly.

All the scientific classifications do is break down different types and traits similar to each other.

It does not break down color morphs and patterns.

To a scientist a Rasta is the same as Radioactive Dragon Eyes even though Rastas are much much rarer and more attractive (Hence the higher price).

They are in the same family that is all scientists care about.

But that does not help us when talking about them (It hinders conversation).

Go to a Frag Swap and say you want to buy.

Scientific classification

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Cnidaria
Class: Anthozoa
Subclass: Hexacorallia
Order: Zoantharia

Families

Epizoanthidae
Neozoanthidae
Parazoanthidae
Zoanthidae

All he dealers will look at you like you are crazy.

But mention Rastas and they all will know what you want.

So with that being said how does using scientific names make it easier on us than using common names?

Willistein
09/29/2014, 08:25 AM
Fish Guy - you're spot on. Communication is the key. If two different corals are called by the same common name, then there may be some potential miscommunication, but common names are very helpful, as you point out. Also, many, many corals are unknown/possibly unnamed species, so scientific names don't help much there either.

that Fish Guy
09/29/2014, 10:58 AM
Fish Guy - you're spot on. Communication is the key. If two different corals are called by the same common name, then there may be some potential miscommunication, but common names are very helpful, as you point out. Also, many, many corals are unknown/possibly unnamed species, so scientific names don't help much there either.

Awesome, somebody that sees my point.

fishome25
09/29/2014, 11:36 AM
When dealing with cites or legal restrictions, color morphs don't matter. So common names don't matter. How many different corals are called maze brain for example. But yes, at retail and consumer level, common names are invaluable.

syrinx
09/29/2014, 04:23 PM
common names for colors are one thing- and perfectly acceptable in the sense fish guy is speaking of. But in the world of collection it is important to know what the coral is- not the color morph- and this is where scientific names must be used.

Grandlotus
09/30/2014, 09:48 AM
They're now illegal to take from a reef.

That's great, but other countries do not care about our laws and the last time I checked, we don't have any worthwhile reefs to 'harvest' from.

accordsirh22
09/30/2014, 03:07 PM
common names for colors are one thing- and perfectly acceptable in the sense fish guy is speaking of. But in the world of collection it is important to know what the coral is- not the color morph- and this is where scientific names must be used.

^ this.

a designer name is not a common name. designer names can be useful when dealing with lots of different color/pattern morphs of a particular species, like with ball pythons, many other snakes, or zoanthids (even though all are not the same species). however when referring to the species, the scientific name is much more accurate.

you can learn things about the species based on the common name if you know latin because usually the species name, if not the genus name, in some way describes a characteristic of the organism.