dots
04/15/2007, 01:20 AM
Would someone please give a tutorial and possibly stick the thread if its constructive at the top of this forum. I believe there may have been one a while back but can't be certain.
I believe in the old "teach a man to fish" theory and would like to increase my knowledge as a reefer and perhaps gain some insight as well to the industry.
Obviously, the most definite and conclusive way would be to examine the structure of the skeleton, but would some people go through their methodology behind their identifications through visual interpretations from a photo.
I myself am getting pretty good at narrowing it down through my experience and having the Vernon books for reference, but find my "guess and check" method......in a word, "amateur".
My main rub is this: If one looks through the Vernon books and the AIMS list, we only every see a portion of the names used. Why is this, are the Turakis, Echinatas and Torts etc....that we see so often identified and sold as compared to the brueggemanni, scherzeriana, rudis, which are just a portion of these names we never here mentioned.......
And I won't even talk about the Montipora which seems even worse.
Or is it that these are in restricted regions, excluded from export, or super hard to keep alive is why?
What methods does one use to "thin the heard" or are we all just throwing darts?
Why I ask?
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1096067
In this thread it was mentioned to be the two mentioned, but the "similar types" do not even cross reference the two named in the AIMS directory. I do imagine that if I were to go to the ones as possible identifications, there is a good chance that they would be cross referenced with those instead.......creating that association. And I do assume that those listed as "similar types" are not the only ones and just the two mentioned.
In no means am I questioning this specific example, but am using it to elaborate the questions of why don't we see more of a variety of names being used and what is your personal strategy or insights (political, regional, business as well as biological and structural) in identifying these pieces.
I figure since its a new forum.......go place and time to stick a "how to id guide" at the top and explain what one looks for in doing so.
Please mention immature samples and what is needed for id, morphology, and other factors that may influence this "art of identification"
Please teach me how to fish rather than throw darts.
Where are the biologists, I think this is your neck of the woods?
I believe in the old "teach a man to fish" theory and would like to increase my knowledge as a reefer and perhaps gain some insight as well to the industry.
Obviously, the most definite and conclusive way would be to examine the structure of the skeleton, but would some people go through their methodology behind their identifications through visual interpretations from a photo.
I myself am getting pretty good at narrowing it down through my experience and having the Vernon books for reference, but find my "guess and check" method......in a word, "amateur".
My main rub is this: If one looks through the Vernon books and the AIMS list, we only every see a portion of the names used. Why is this, are the Turakis, Echinatas and Torts etc....that we see so often identified and sold as compared to the brueggemanni, scherzeriana, rudis, which are just a portion of these names we never here mentioned.......
And I won't even talk about the Montipora which seems even worse.
Or is it that these are in restricted regions, excluded from export, or super hard to keep alive is why?
What methods does one use to "thin the heard" or are we all just throwing darts?
Why I ask?
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1096067
In this thread it was mentioned to be the two mentioned, but the "similar types" do not even cross reference the two named in the AIMS directory. I do imagine that if I were to go to the ones as possible identifications, there is a good chance that they would be cross referenced with those instead.......creating that association. And I do assume that those listed as "similar types" are not the only ones and just the two mentioned.
In no means am I questioning this specific example, but am using it to elaborate the questions of why don't we see more of a variety of names being used and what is your personal strategy or insights (political, regional, business as well as biological and structural) in identifying these pieces.
I figure since its a new forum.......go place and time to stick a "how to id guide" at the top and explain what one looks for in doing so.
Please mention immature samples and what is needed for id, morphology, and other factors that may influence this "art of identification"
Please teach me how to fish rather than throw darts.
Where are the biologists, I think this is your neck of the woods?