Condylactis anemone

[majorpay]

Yep, I'm back

Ok, so I had picked up a few condylactis anemones as I was originally told they would survive under moderate lighting (I know now that this may not be true). I picked up a T5 10k + true actinic light to help supplement the current lighting and have been feeding them very small pieces of krill twice a week along with throwing in some Coral Frenzy about twice a week according to the instructions (I believe this benefits the scallops more than anything). I have seen both of them turn a rusty color on their tentacles and get a little thinner in the tentacles. Originally they were both a transparent white (almost a bright bleached) color, large, and flowing. I saw the large one go inside itself 3x tonight.

Water quality is beautiful, no issues there. Salt levels are at 1.024, and heat is about 78-79F.

Is there an unforseen problem here?

Secondly, I was sold a sea hare that supposedly ate a sort of wirey plant. It shows no interest in this, and in fact, spends 90% of it's time at the surface with it's head out of the water, or hiding behind a rock. Is this an issue as well? Is there a better recommendation for feeding out there?

[majorpay]

(perhaps this doesn't belong here and should be moved to reef? Not sure with the invertebrate thing)

[richie3002]

he is in reef what is your problem

[majorpay]

I originally posted in the medical area...

As an update, I found that sea hares appear to enjoy the "Seaweed Salad" / Green Algae. As far as the anenomes, I still have concern for them; however, they are still eating and blooming, and their bases are still bright orange. It is the rusty color and the occassional shriveling combined with the sometimes bent tentacles that concerns me. I have been told that the retraction process is eliminating waste and that the rust color is a good thing, so perhaps it's ok?

[Ninong]

Condylactis gigantea

As the name implies, it gets big. Other points to note in that linked article are that its coloration is variable and that it is found in shallow water. Shallow water means it has high light requirements.

One main point to note is that this is a species exclusive to the Atlantic/Caribbean, not the Indo-Pacific; therefore, it is not a clownfish-hosting sea anemone.

It is sometimes accepted as a surrogate host in captivity by some of the larger clownfish species. It is a threat to eat small clownfish of any species and also small bottom-dwelling fishes that get too close.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a few," but even one of these in a 55-gal aquarium is more than enough.

[majorpay]

This would be "a few." This was the original starting color and shape when first purchased. They are now a brownish tanish color and sometimes get a little whiter, but often turn back to the rusty color. They also tend to go inside themselves and come back out one or two times a day or so.... I was not aware of the size these would grow to (obviously). The lighting requirements make me wonder about whether the lighting is sufficient at this point. I need to try to get the funds together quickly to put together the new lighting setup (absurdly expensive).

[Ninong]

You can find information on this animal using Google; however, be aware that the Wikipedia entry contains obvious factual errors. The most glaring error in Wikipedia is the claim that this animal can be found down to 30,000 feet. That's either deliberate vandalism or the entry was written by fourth graders -- maybe both.



P.S. -- It is quite possible that the person who wrote that claim about C. gigantea being found at 30,000 feet misread the following from a different article published online. The following statement does NOT apply to C. gigantea. The author is merely pointing out that some sea anemones can be found at 30,000 feet but NOT C. gigantea. Sea anemones in general however, can be found anywhere from the intertidal zone all the way to a depth of 30,000 feet (Friese 1972).

[majorpay]

Thanks. Yes, I did some research utilizing Google, and so far, this has stood out for me in regards to their size and growth within captivity:

The condy is approximately 6" (15 cm) high and 12" (30 cm) wide, making the disk diameter approximately 16" (40 cm) in nature. If captured, however, its disc is limited to a mere 4" (10 cm).

There is no doubt in my mind based on the repeated information that there will be a very steep requirement for lighting.

[Ninong]

That information you have in quotes was written by a college student. It has been copied by various other sites. It may or may not be accurate. For one thing, the student who wrote that used "Pet Warehouse 2000" as one of her references. I almost ruined my keyboard with my coffee when I read that.

Here is the full text:

Physical Description

The condy is approximately 6" (15 cm) high and 12" (30 cm) wide, making the disk diameter approximately 16" (40 cm) in nature. If captured, however, its disc is limited to a mere 4" (10 cm). The condy is a large, columnar animal. The condy can exibit a variety of colors: white, light blue, pink, organe, pale red, or light brown. The mouth is surrounded by 100 or more tentacles, each long and tapered with pink-, scarlet-, blue- or green-ringed tips. These tips are usually paler than the body itself. The basal disk is firmly attached to the substrate with the only "free-floating" portion being the tentacles.
(Meinkoth 1981, Pet Warehouse 2000, Willmer 1990)

That's from the Animal Diversity Web, a site written and maintained by students at the University of Michigan. "Disclaimer: The Animal Diversity Web is an educational resource written largely by and for college students. ADW doesn't cover all species in the world, nor does it include all the latest scientific information about organisms we describe. Though we edit our accounts for accuracy, we cannot guarantee all information in those accounts. While ADW staff and contributors provide references to books and websites that we believe are reputable, we cannot necessarily endorse the contents of references beyond our control."

That ADW article on Condylactis gigantea was submitted by: Erica Silva (author), Southwestern University. Stephanie Fabritius (editor), Southwestern University.

I don't know anything about Erica Silva. Perhaps she is a freshman college student. I don't know anything about Stephanie Fabritius (editor). Maybe she's a senior college student. I hope she's not a faculty member. I can't believe a faculty member would review something she knew nothing about or allow Pet Warehouse to be used as a reference.

The first thing that jumped out at me in Erica's article was this factually incorrect statement:

"There is no mode of asexual reproduction. Instead, the condy is a sexual species."

Condylactis gigantea actually does have an asexual mode of reproduction: fission. It has the ability to clone itself by splitting into two separate animals.

One of the colors exhibited by C. gigantea, according to Erica Silva, as reviewed by Stephanie Fabritius, is "organe." Organe is NOT a color. It's French for organ. Maybe they don't know how to spell orange?

While well intentioned, I have found that the information contained on Animal Diversity Web is often nothing more than stuff that was copied verbatim from dubious sources, including unreliable vendors' websites. I have found obvious errors in much of what appears on ADW. Even worse, some grammar school science teachers now have websites for their students to post "papers" online. I found that out when one of Reefland's members posted something he copied from what he claimed to be a reliable online source. The information was so inaccurate I had to find where it came from. It came from a fourth-grade grammar school student.

One of the problems with Google is that you can find all sorts of information online, including a lot of misinformation. This is extremely apparent whenever you search using Google Image. Google Image works best when you already have some idea of what the animal looks like before you begin your search.

The most accurate information will include scientific references, or you can use Google Scholar Search.

Another possibility is to use Reefland's search feature. We have discussed Condylactis gigantea numerous times over the past ten years. Again, you have to be able to judge the quality of the information even on one of the hobby boards like this one. This can be very important when reading posts on some of the very large reefkeeping bulletin boards. Much of what you read is not completely accurate. Sometimes it's almost as bad as typical LFS advice.

[Ninong]

Here is a good example of what you want to look for when searching online:

The link that I gave you, Condylactis gigantea, has full scientific references throughout the article and they are listed at the bottom.

Note the byline:

By Marianna Zahra
Dr. James B. Wood Editor

That means the paper was peer-reviewed by Dr. James B. Wood. A quick Google search will tell you that he has a Ph.D. in Marine Biology and is employed as the Director of Education at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, CA. He's also on the faculty of the Bermuda Institute of Marine Science. Marianna Zahra is apparently a 2006 graduate of the University of Rhode Island (Marine Biology). I assume she was at the Bermuda Institute of Marine Science when she wrote that paper.

In any case, it appears to be scientifically accurate information. This is what you should be looking for whenever you search online for information about any marine animal.

[majorpay]

Definitely not bad ideas and thanks for the lead... The "folklore" of this hobby is VASTLY differing from person to person, board to board, and LFS to LFS. It is always difficult to get accurate information about anything relating to Salt Water. Disagreements on everything from treatment to specifics about species vary so wildly that you could pretty much say anything about any salt water specimin and find something to support your statement, regardless of the absurdity of that statement.

The tribal "knowledge" purported by LFS's becomes gospel to them and you will be treated differently or even ousted and ridiculed if you fail to accept what they say as fact, so finding quick references and people to lean on for this hobby is like sifting through a haystack for a tan needle. Irritating to say the least, but this site appears to have many knowledgable people.

[majorpay]

I came to this hobby expecting a rewarding hobby composed of beatiful and interesting creatures forming symbiotic relationships, and surprisingly found an underlying religion...

[Ninong]

Yes, LFS advice can vary greatly from store to store. In particular, the advice offered by most employees at national chain stores is worse than useless, it is often downright harmful.

And, as I pointed out above, the advice and information found online can vary greatly in accuracy. Here's another example from Erica Silva's entry on Animal Diversity Web. She wrote: "If captured, however, its disc is limited to a mere 4" (10 cm)." I can't believe that any responsible adult would allow that to be posted on a website maintained by a reputable university.

This young woman has swallowed hook, line and sinker the standard vendor's BS that the animal they are trying to sell you won't get larger than 4" in your aquarium. She tells you that it can get to 16" in nature and then tells you that it won't get larger than 4" in captivity. No doubt she copied that BS from a vendor's website.

When I first visited an LFS, before I even owned an aquarium or knew all that much about the hobby, I asked an LFS employee how large a gorgeous wrasse I was looking at would get. Bear in mind that this particular fish was already a good 6" long. With a straight face, this young woman told me that "none of our fish will get larger than 4" in a home aquarium." Right then and there I knew that I had better not pay too much attention to anything an LFS employee says.

[Ninong]

I came to this hobby expecting a rewarding hobby composed of beatiful and interesting creatures forming symbiotic relationships, and surprisingly found an underlying religion...

Just go to one of the very big reefkeeping bulletin boards and open a new thread asking whether you should have a deep sand bed or a bare-bottom tank and see what breaks out. :eek3:

[Doodaa]

I came to this hobby expecting a rewarding hobby composed of beatiful and interesting creatures forming symbiotic relationships, and surprisingly found an underlying religion...

Just like everything else....you have to investigate, experiment, and see what works best for your situation. It's a very interesting hobby. Frustrating at times, but interesting none the less.

[majorpay]

Well the good news is that all the anenomes are still alive and doing well. I'll be in a holding pattern for my ich problem for the rest of my life, but I am filling the tank with invertebrates for the time being

[majorpay]

Ok, so as an update:

I am trying to be less alarmed by things I see in my tank, but no doubt, some things appear to be reason for concern. One side of my sea hare looks like exposed skin. The body normally looks mossyl however, one side is a fleshy pink and looks like peeling skin. Perhaps something has had a hold of it?

I have 2 anemones (the ones in the picture), a purple tanish anemone, a scallop, a cleaner shrimp, a fire shrimp, a regal urchin, a long haired urchin, 3 snails, and a tiger shrimp (new addition).

I am concerned about the latter (tiger) as I have a suspicion it may be fairly hostile, but I have no evidence that would support this. The LFS tried to sell me the tiger goby which was supposed to form a symbiotic relationship with the shrimp, but due to the ich issue, I declined.

I purchased a large blue starfish for the tank, and started noticing a sore on it, which now that I think about it, may have had a similar injury to the sea hare, but the coinhabitants at the tank began to devour the star after the injury. The star did not make it.

Perhaps I need to rethink the tiger shrimp, but of course, I have no proof it is the agressive one in the tank (because I never see it), but it is my newest addition.