Jump to content

Grafting as it pretains to coral propagation


Six

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well put - fragging is one thing, often to prevent overcrowding, etc., something they would do on their own anyway. Trying to play mad scientist and screw around with them for your own pleasure? that's too much imo.

Link to comment

I don't know - even without using a horticultural reference, we've been selectively breeding animals for years, and not just to sell them to 'unwitting individuals' - horses and greyhounds are bred for speed and stamina, for instance.

 

And closer to home, people have been selectively cultivating their favorite color morphs (or strains) of corals since the hobby started. Who's to say grafting and genetic alterations aren't the next 'norm' in our hobby, as it is in many others? Just because we cannot conclusively narrow down coral species right now doesn't mean that eventually we won't be able to.

 

Imagine, selectively breeding disease-resistant Acropora strains to repopulate plagued wild colonies, or cultivating corals to inhance their natural toxicity, to stop predation from Crown of Thorns starfish. The possibilities are endless from an ecological standpoint, completely seperate from the ornamental aquatics industry.

 

Just my $.02 B)

Link to comment
Imagine, selectively breeding disease-resistant Acropora strains to repopulate plagued wild colonies, or cultivating corals to inhance their natural toxicity, to stop predation from Crown of Thorns starfish. The possibilities are endless from an ecological standpoint, completely seperate from the ornamental aquatics industry.

Cool, sure. I agree. But making resiliant acros will burden bacteria colonies, possibly killing them off (what is the better of two evils? saving "pretty" acros? or killing "offensive" bacteria?). More likely, the bacteria will morph, as they always do, and become more intrusive and or resiliant to our efforts.

 

Same goes for toxicity.

 

Playing god with aquariums is fine with me if it keeps our hands out of playing with releasing stuff into the wild.

 

I understand your points entirely, jeremai, but if youre truely thinking ecologically, why populate the wild with "beatiful" animals when we all know it's the web that's important. taking out or adding to it will unbalance the ecosystem and we can topple it. The fishing industy has shown us that, deforestation, and polluting our freshwater water ways.

 

Regardless, the author's "research" is nothing more than him playing with some coral. he's got an idea from a wild colony he bought or saw and wants to recreate that. but there is no science involved with the study. it isnt even a study. it's a guy putting two corals on the same rock.

 

lest we forget our coral brethern are animals not plants and not able to be "horticultured". maybe he misapplied the term, but it's an article. where's the editor?

 

JMVHO :D

Link to comment

Not populate - repopulate, irregardless of the attractiveness of the coral (I, for one, think all SPS are boring), with the specific species that was originally there, only with a stronger immunity to a specific pathogen. Just as an example.

 

My point was that, right now, we are in the dark. Eventually though, this kind of thinking ('grafting' and the like) may prove beneficial, even if it is beyond the realm of current scientific or moral philosophy.

 

I'm with you on the poor state of the article itself, though - even middle school biology students understand the need for a seperate control in a scientific experiment. You and I should write a rebuttal article and send it off to RC :P

Link to comment
I don't know - even without using a horticultural reference, we've been selectively breeding animals for years, and not just to sell them to 'unwitting individuals' - horses and greyhounds are bred for speed and stamina, for instance.

 

And closer to home, people have been selectively cultivating their favorite color morphs (or strains) of corals since the hobby started. Who's to say grafting and genetic alterations aren't the next 'norm' in our hobby, as it is in many others? Just because we cannot conclusively narrow down coral species right now doesn't mean that eventually we won't be able to.

 

Imagine, selectively breeding disease-resistant Acropora strains to repopulate plagued wild colonies, or cultivating corals to inhance their natural toxicity, to stop predation from Crown of Thorns starfish. The possibilities are endless from an ecological standpoint, completely seperate from the ornamental aquatics industry.

 

Just my $.02 B)

 

What?

I take it you have not been watching Surface on NBC? :o

Link to comment

Are you kidding? Between this forum and RC, I get to witness more drama than any major network could conjure up, and I learn quite a bit in the process! :P

Link to comment

actually, there is artificial hybridization in coral aquaculture already, lobophyton with sinularia iirc. i think it was done by the GBR aquarium director? fairly recent fama article on it-early 2005? and that's just in a lab, i have to imagine a lot of the "species" out there are hybrids.

 

in fact, recently i've been working on refining the sarcophyton species listings (just a personal hobby activity, nothing professional). but i'm questioning a lot of the holotype id's as separate species or hybrids, just confining myself to verseveldt's work so far.

 

imo the preserved specimens just do not show the additional morphology that living specimens show. i'm also beginning to grow suspect of the heavy reliance on sclerite-identification as the de facto standard. i suspect some of the sclerital structure can change with environment, not to mention hybridization. and this is just for my sarcos.

 

back to this article, i agree with six's basis that he's trying to tissue weld two animals. it's a bit grotesque if you think about it in a terrestrial-sense, dog ears on a cat? ew. hybridization may be possible but tissue melding is hit-or-miss. it may be fashionable (i.e. $$$) though. people love freaks.

 

i'd agree about the re-releasing into the wild though. but mass spawnings and just freak occurrence may replicate most of the tissue welding and hybridization this guy is suggesting.

 

except maybe the pacific/atlantic crossbreeds. otoh, that could be indian ocean/red sea species already. the panama canal probably already disrupted the east pacific/west atlantic separation of species.

Link to comment
he's trying to tissue weld two animals.

Here's what I read into the guy's thinking: we know, of course, that corals are animals (or colonies of animals). But, they act like plants - deriving nutrients from light as a primary source (like plants). They are mostly stationary (like plants), as well. We cannot fault him for assuming they would act the same way plants do when grafted together.

 

it's a bit grotesque if you think about it in a terrestrial-sense, dog ears on a cat? ew.

They were different color morphs of the same species of coral, no? Maybe it's more like, my heart where yours was. Organs are transferrable animal tissues, too :)

 

it may be fashionable (i.e. $$$) though. people love freaks.

That's the truth. Can't walk into a Home Depot here in the desert without seeing regular little cactus with ugly neon tops on 'em.

Link to comment
Here's what I read into the guy's thinking: we know, of course, that corals are animals (or colonies of animals). But, they act like plants - deriving nutrients from light as a primary source (like plants). They are mostly stationary (like plants), as well. We cannot fault him for assuming they would act the same way plants do when grafted together.
true, i'm not faulting him for the assumption as it's a common viewpoint (corals ~ plants). i just don't think it's as simple as he's laying out.

 

i also don't think it's so tremendously bad because it (what he's trying to accomplish) may occur in nature already, i.e. hybridization. it would be a problem for me (and i'd agree with six's bad scenario) if he artificially supressed immuno-responses/bio-defenses/gene manipulation and then released into the wild. that's bad, that's bad, that's very very bad.

 

They were different color morphs of the same species of coral, no? Maybe it's more like, my heart where yours was. Organs are transferrable animal tissues, too .
catdog, catdog,

alone in world is the little catdog,

out on the road or back in town,

all kind of critters putting catdog down,

gotta rise above it, gotta try to get along,

gotta walk together, gotta sing this song,

catdog, catdog,

alone in the world is the little catdog

Link to comment
actually, there is artificial hybridization in coral aquaculture already, lobophyton with sinularia iirc. i think it was done by the GBR aquarium director? fairly recent fama article on it-early 2005? and that's just in a lab, i have to imagine a lot of the "species" out there are hybrids.
oops, my bad.

 

it was a hybrid of lobophyton and sarcophyton, not sinularia (no species info though).

 

and it was an issue of Coral magazine (specifically the dec-04/jan-05), not fama.

 

but it was the gbrmpa adn the scientist was dr. kirsten michalek-wagner's team.

 

sorry for the mixup.

Link to comment
and it was an issue of Coral magazine (specifically the dec-04/jan-05), not fama.

 

Sorry, tuning that "proof" out... that mag has turned me off numberous times.

 

Tiny-

I am totally interested in your study. sounds awesome. I can see where youre getting youre hypothesis from although I think youre attacking a terribly hard subject matter. Soft coral morphology is insane. IDing coral to a genera, let alone a species is amazingly difficult.

 

You should talk to Adam Cenales @ WWM. he gave a great speech on non scelaritan corals at a conference in Michigan last year. He's got his head on pretty straight.

 

I should check that RC thread again. I've been stuck on the club forum trying to talk sense into them. they keep bashing LFS although they are only showing their own ineptitude. making fun of a store for misIDing a snail is 1- retarded, and 2- stupid when you cant do it yourself. maybe i should just sit back and laugh...

Link to comment
Sorry, tuning that "proof" out... that mag has turned me off numberous times.
not "proof", just an interesting ad hoc experiment as she explains it. i don't think they can even "prove" it themselves for another couple of years (fully grown and sexually mature).

 

for all we know this "hybrid" of the lobo/sarco can turn out to be a simple s. elegans or something. now that would be really interesting if that happens! :lol:

 

I am totally interested in your study. sounds awesome. I can see where youre getting youre hypothesis from although I think youre attacking a terribly hard subject matter. Soft coral morphology is insane. IDing coral to a genera, let alone a species is amazingly difficult.
oh, i don't know what the heck i'm doing. :wacko: i'm just doing it so i can get it straight in my own mind what's what.

 

i'm just sick and tired of seeing obvious mis-ID's and the lack of updated stuff. even some of the revisions i've seen written show me the people are just dealing with old preserved samples and or mis-ID'ing based upon previous mis-ID's (imho).

 

it's not a definitive thing for me but some of the application of "proof of species" just seems to me either environmental morphs or possible hybrids (if that's even possible) or just too narrow interpretations. i agree basing it on the morpholgy is crazy due to the variations but some of that is why i kinda agree with verseveldt's cropping of the list of sarco species (100+ to 35).

 

but besides verseveldt's work being more streamlined (i.e. shorter), it's also in english :P versus french, dutch, german, japanese, or hebrew (yikes!) so that's also why i started with him. but i'm hoping some of the others publish updated stuff soon though (benayahu, borneman, etc.). i'll babelfish it if i have to! ;)

Link to comment

I read this quote and it made me NAUSEATED (scratch--not "nauseous")

 

"Also, with many Echinophyllia at my disposal, I grafted several varieties together. The Christmas season was screaming for some red and green fusion, and I was happy to oblige."

Link to comment
"Also, with many Echinophyllia at my disposal, I grafted several varieties together. The Christmas season was screaming for some red and green fusion, and I was happy to oblige."

herr doctor fragenstein?

Link to comment

Yeah, really. Not just moronic, but disgusting on so many levels. Especially when it's someone tossing around the word "SCIENCE". Bahh.

Link to comment

Come on, Caesar777 - be fair. If you can condone squeezing a carpet anemone into a small tank at the risk of killing it because "it's not sentient like a fish", why are you faulting this guy for wanting to graft corals?

 

It's not a dig at you or anything, I've already established that I think the guy's methods leave much to be desired - but at least he's consistent with his Hitler-esque morals, right?

Link to comment

Jeremai - Perhaps you haven't been in it long enough to become jaded. Can you tell a half-joke when you see it?

 

GODWIN.

Link to comment

I believe that the moment you become jaded, it's time to give it up completely. I'm not a fan of doing things halfway.

 

Now, to grab the topic back:

 

"The Christmas season was screaming for some red and green fusion, and I was happy to oblige."

 

That also struck me as a half-joke. B)

 

I assume by half-joke you meant the anemone comment - I've learned that you cannot type sarcasm efficiently; especially when the people who are reading it are young, new to the hobby, or both. It works on RC, because they (for the most part) have been doing this long enough to differentiate fact from sarcasm. Doesn't work so much here, I've seen.

 

I've read a lot of your posts, Caesar777 - enough to grasp how intelligent you are, and how much of an asset you are to this site. I'm not contending you - just begging for consistency. Cheers :)

Link to comment

Consistency is my middle name.

 

No, wait, Flo's my middle name.

Link to comment
GODWIN.
i don't believe in godwin. :P

 

godwin was invoked on another thread recently in lounge but i don't believe in his (godwin's) hypothesis. i think the nazi theorum is more like the "kevin bacon game", i.e. kevin bacon postulate.

 

everything can be tied to a kevin bacon movie (or nazi's).

 

 

by golly, i've tied the topic on hand and kevin bacon to the nazis! woo hoo! godwin trifecta!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recommended Discussions


×
×
  • Create New...