Quote:
Originally Posted by karimwassef
I'm almost tempted to say that we should stop using the word "Dino" and should instead use "Ostis" or "Amphidinium" or "Zooxanthelle" or even "Oodinium" for velvet disease in fish.
Saying Dinos is like saying "bacteria"
|
Couldn't agree more.
Ostreopsis is basically invulnerable to Peroxide, but amphidinium carterae are done in by around 0.2 ml/liter (according to lit. Haven't tried it)
The most common amphidinium species in our tanks is invulnerable to UV, because it never leaves the sand, but ostreopsis is susceptible because it scatters into water column nightly.
Amphidinium is smaller, unarmoured, less toxic, stays close to rock and sand and is vulnerable to lots of predators. ostreopsis is big, toxic, armored, grows in high-flow strings away from sand and rock so gets eaten by very few predators (mostly just pods). I found some ciliates that would eat ostis, but they didn't grow on it. Bummer :-(
We could all go on, but in terms of most interventions people would try, they just are more different than similar.
The ID down to genera tells you something. "Dinos" tells you very little.
Prorocentrum haven't been played with as much, but they are larger, armored, grow in high flow up on rocks etc, so I'd treat it like ostis until better info shows up.
Symbiodinium / zooxanthellae / similar are small unarmoured, less toxic, and so I'd probably treat them like amphidinium until we know better.
BTW: Did we know that scientific lit has been looking for, but still can't find any evidence of ostreopsis mixotrophy.
Wonder if we could get by just treating it like a photoautotroph.
And that might be the thing they ("dinos") have in common. Light requirements. Which is one reason to be fascinated with the metro treatment. Twilliard says it attacks DNA. And it does in some target organisms. In others it attacks a working photosynthesis system, which is what I think/hope is actually happening.
More on that if it pans out.