what are the stalactite looking things growing out of live rock?

[mbhershk]

the are milky colored tubes that grow mainly from the underside of some of my rocks

[Ninong]

Are you sure they look like stalactites or do they really look like calcareous tubes with an opening at the end?

Oops! I missed the word "tubes" in your post.

They're polychaetes.

[7digits]

Ninong you are way too smart.

[mbhershk]

To Ninong-

you really are so wise about this hobby and I feel very fortunate to have this forum just a click away!

[mbhershk]

To Ninong,

I read what you have crossed out and yes they do have openings in the end of hem

[Ninong]

Do they look like this? Those are small featherdusters ( family Sabellidae). They're quite common in reef aquariums. If that's not what you have, then we have to start guessing all over again.

WoRMS -- World Register of Marine Species

If you want to look something up, remember that the scientific name consists of two words and two words only: genus & species. For example, enter Bispira -- the name of a sabellid genus -- and you will get 26 different records. If you don't know the full scientific name, you can enter either the genus or the species or you can try to find something using one of its many common names. Lots of luck trying to find something using a common name.

Enter Centropyge -- the name of a dwarf angelfish genus -- and you will get 57 different records. Some of those are synonyms, such as Centropyge loricula and Centropyge loriculus. They show C. loricula as the accepted name but it should still be C. loriculus. That's a long story.

Totally off-topic:

Okay, here's the story. If you click on Centropyge loriculus, you will see that they call it a "misspelling" and refer you to Centropyge loricula as the accepted name. They tell you that it was described and named by Gunter in 1874. True, except that Gunter named it Centropyge loriculus. Then several years ago, a couple of American guys finally realized that the Greek word Centropyge is actually feminine instead of masculine as had been believed for a very, very long time. So they set about changing all of the species names in that genus from masculine to feminine, except for dedicatory names.

For example, Centropyge bispinosus was changed to C. bispinosa. The common name for that fish is the Coral Beauty. Bispinosus means two thorns or two spines in Latin. Most of the species names are in Latin and most are adjectives. Most of the genus names are also in Latin but some are in Greek. So it was correct for them to change that name from C. bispinosus to C. bispinosa. And it was correct to change C. flavissimus to C. flavissima, etc.

However, the rules of scientific nomenclature say that you do not change the gender of a noun (which they refer to as a substantive name) to force it to agree with the gender of the genus when making such revisions. You should only change the gender of adjectival species words (which they refer to a descriptive name), not substantive species words. Loriculus is a noun in Latin, not an adjective. It probably means little breastplate or corselet (from lorica). So they should have left it alone. It should still be loriculus and not loricula, because that's the name Gunter gave it in 1874 and that's the name it had for more than 100 years.

Now, here's the Catch 22. Gunter was probably wrong when he chose loriculus back in 1874. He should have named it Holacanthus loricula (it used to be in the Holacanthus genus). Think of Caligula, the nasty Roman emperor (imperator). Caligula means "little boots." That was Caligula's nickname as a child and he adopted it as his official name as emperor. In other words, I don't think there is such a word as "loriculus" in Latin. I believe the correct word would be "loricula."

So Gunter made a mistake way back in 1874. However, the rules of scientific nomenclature say that you do not change substantive names to make the species name agree with the genus name. Therefore, they should have left it alone and NOT changed it. I have pointed this out to two different guys who are in the business of naming fish in this family and they both agreed with me:

Alright, I finally got this one, sitting here in the Georgia Aquarium with Richard Pyle and looking at the original description we finally decided the best translation for it is "corset" or maybe breastplate. Therefore it is a noun (not an adjective) and should be left as "loriculus".

By the way, as mentioned before, the correct spelling would be loricula, but it was originally described in the genus Holacanthus, which is masculine and the original author (Gunther) mistakenly changed it to loriculus. However, because it is a name (not an adjective), it cannot be changed back to the correct spelling and must be kept as loriculus.

Cheers!

This first came up in an article I read on dwarf angelfishes in an issue of Coral magazine several years ago. The Germans were all worked up that the name should never have been changed from loriculus to loricula because of the rule mentioned above. They didn't say anything about the original error in spelling that Gunter made back in 1874. I didn't discover that until I tried to figure out what he meant when he gave it that name. I found a genus of parrots named Loriculus but in that instance it's used as a noun and not an adjective. My guess is that Gunter got the idea for the name from the parrot genus because the Loriculus parrots have brilliant red breastplates but that's just a wild guess. Gunter's not around anymore so we can't ask him.

It's also quite possible that the word loriculus should be loricula because I'm not sure loriculus is correct in Latin. It's obvious that what they meant by Loriculus when they named those hanging parrots was little breast plate; however, it's also quite possible that the word should have been Loricula and not Loriculus. Lorica is feminine and it means breastplate or corselet. If they wanted the diminutive of lorica, then I think that's Loricula and not Loriculus.

The bottom line (yes, there is a bottom line, finally) is that the Germans are correct. They should have left the name alone. It should still be Centropyge loriculus. Loriculus in this instance is a substantive name and not a descriptive name. Even if it was misspelled originally way back in 1874, there is no provision in the rules that would allow them to change it. The hanging parrot genus was described and named way back in 1776 and that one is probably wrong, too!

P.S. -- Remember WoRMS is only for marine species. If you want to look up your family dog, go to ITIS.gov. There you will find that it is no longer Canis familiaris, it has been reclassified as Canis lupus, subspecies Canis lupus familiaris. Domestic dogs and the grey wolf are the same species! Previously domestic dogs were classified as a separate species in the genus Canis.

[ChemGuy]

wow

[Ninong]

Someone obviously read the whole post. I can't believe it. :eek3:

[mbhershk]

Yeah I have feather dusters and these do not resemble feather dusters. I'll take some pics so you can see what I'm talkin about.

Thanks a lot !!