Harlequinmania

Click through to see the images. As we all know, reproductive activities take energy to conduct so it is no surprise that baseline swimming endurance were cut in half post-mating activities for both male and female squids. A loss of energy has significant impact on feeding, escaping predators, and finding more mates for a creature that already has a short lifespan. The southern dumpling squid (Euprymna tasmanica) were collected from Australia and studied to improve the understanding of reproductive behaviors with the cephalopods as a whole. [via Yahoo News] View the full article

As spatial planning is used increasingly to manage fisheries and other ocean resources, researchers are working to determine the best ways to use and refine the various spatial management tools. Among them are marine protected areas (MPAs), one of the most common methods, which limit or entirely curtail fishing in a given area. (2012-07-18) View the full article

Click through to see the images. While a great deal of interest has been shown in the characteristics of artificial daylight for reef aquaria, very little attention has been paid to the other natural illumination - moonlight. Although manufacturers have marketed moonlight simulators for a number of years, I've yet to see an in-depth discussion of the subject. This article will attempt to address that issue while discussing some misconceptions about lunar light. In addition, we'll define spectral characteristics of moonlight, light intensity, and length of natural lunar photoperiod, and ways to simulate moonlight. We'll also examine the effects (or non-effects) of moonlight on timing of coral spawning (and comment, albeit briefly, its effects on fish spawning behavior). Lunar Photoperiod in Hawai'i As we know, the lunar cycle consists of 29.5 days and is the basis for our calendar month. The lunar phase changes in a predictable manner and is due to relative positions of the moon, earth, and sun. Phase is not due to the earth's shadow falling upon the moon (this is referred to as a lunar eclipse). Figure 1 shows phases and approximate and approximate days of the lunar month. Figure 1. The lunar cycle along with comments on the spawning activity of stony corals Pocillopora meandrina (as well as P. eydouxi) in Hawaii. The numbers above the moon phases indicates is the approximate time of the cycle in days. The red bar is the window for potential coral reproduction during the spawning season. Figure 2 shows the hours of potential moonlight in Hawaii. Data are based on times of sunrise/sunset and moonrise/moonset. Figure 2. Hours of moonlight in Hawai'i (latitude N 1938'). Red dots indicate major spawning events of Pocillopora meandrina and Pocillopora eydouxi in waters off the west side of the Big Island of Hawaii. Moonlight Spectral Characteristics Since moonlight is almost entirely reflected sunlight, one might reason that the moon's spectral signature is exactly that of sunlight - it is not. Data shown in Figures 3 & 4 reveal that moonlight is less blue and redder than sunlight (and this measurement was taken with a 'silvery' moon at its zenith. We often see a much more orange moon at moonset). Figure 3. Moonlight peaks in the red portion of the spectrum (643nm) but appears 'silvery' when at its zenith on a clear night. Figure 4. A breakout of the moon spectrum shown in Figure 3. Moonlight Intensity Moonlight intensity is determined by lunar phase and sky conditions. Figure 5 shows moonlight intensity (in lux) under ideal conditions. Figures 6 and 7 show full moon light intensities (PAR) as measured during two nights (just a few feet above sea level). Note that the intensities are lower than that reported by Jokiel (0.05 µmol·m²·sec, or about 1 lux). The low moonlight intensity reported here is due to a number of factors, including seawater aerosols in the air, thin high level clouds, and vog (a mixture of atmospheric moisture and volcanic smoke from the Pu'u O'o vent and Halema'uma'u caldera of the Kilauea volcano). Figure 5. Light intensity of the moon during a month under ideal conditions. Figure 6. Actual light intensity of a December full moon in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii as recorded by a PAR data logger. Thin, high level caused the moon to have a halo and reduced intensity. Figure 7. Actual light intensity of a full moon two days before a seasonal spawning of Pocillopora meandrina and P. eydouxi stony corals in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. Factors Influencing Coral Reproduction - Order of Importance Moonlight is but one factor influencing coral reproduction. If other factors (nutrition, physical parameters, etc.) are correct, these are believed to be important: Temperature: Temperature seems to exert powerful control over coral reproduction. If the temperature is too high, coral health can suffer, while cool temperature may delay spawning until the next month's window (Hunter, 1988; Riddle personal observations). Temperature has been stated to be the influence of paramount importance in the reproductive cycles of marine invertebrates (Olive, 1995). In Hawaii, the temperature threshold is about 75F (24C; Dr. Paul Jokiel, personal communication). Moonlight: Lunar cycles set the date of spawning in many coral species and the lunar calendar can be used to accurately predict it. Daylight Photoperiod: Solar photoperiods influence coral reproductive efforts and set the hour and minute of spawning (Vize et al., 2008). The time of sunset is the fine-tuning factor for many marine invertebrates including at least some sponge and coral species. Corals Don't Have Eyes - How Do They Sense Light? And What Do They See? Gorbunov et al. (2002) found blue light at about 480nm (110nm width, half maximum) at very low light intensity caused a reaction among coral tentacles,although a description of photoreceptors involved was not part of the experiment. In 2003, Levy et al. exposed corals (azooxanthellate Cladopsammia gracilis) the bubble coral Plerogyra sinuosa, the flower pot coral Goniopora lobata, Favia favus, and Stylophora pistillata) to various light wavelengths (400-700nm at 20nm intervals) and intensities (10µmol·m²·sec and 30 µmol·m²·sec; ~500 lux and 1,500 lux, respectively) and recorded tentacle contractions. Cladopsammia did not respond to any light treatment, while Plerogyra sinuosa and Favia favus contracted their tentacles when exposed to wavelengths between 400-520nm (violet-blue-green). Interestingly, Favia favus also responded to red light (660-700nm) at 30 µmol·m²·sec or ~1,500 lux (see light sensitivities of rhodopsin-like compounds and cryptochromes below). Five years later, a rhodopsin*-like compound was found in the stony coral Acropora millepora (Anctil et al., 2007), explaining how corals sense light. Almost simultaneously, Levy et al. (2007) described cryptochrome** proteins sensitive to blue light in Acropora millepora. Other researchers have noted corals' responses to light suggesting rhodopsin-like compounds are found in at least some corals. This ability to sense light explains how corals can grow towards light, and if overturned, can redirect their growth (this is call phototropism). It also explains how corals set their biological clocks through sensing daylight and moonlight. *Rhodopsin is a photosensitive pigment found in many animals' eyes (including humans) within receptors called cones. Cones and their rhodopsin content enable us to see in very low light conditions. Rhodopsin collects light in wavelengths of about 400nm (violet) to red (at ~600nmn) but most strongly in the blue-green portion of the spectrum (Hunt, 1987). **Cryptochromes (Greek for 'hidden color') are proteins sensitive to blue light and are found in photoreceptors of plants and animals. Entrained Biological Rhythms versus Response to Environmental Factors The act of coral spawning involves production of a number of compounds, and this may be the result of entrained rhythms or exposure to external stimuli. For our purposes, entrained rhythms are those that occur without external stimuli such as sunlight or moonlight. These are likely controlled genetically. Environmental factors (such as like or moonlight) can influence the production of compounds. Vize et al. (2008) found photoreceptors signal production of proteins important in annual spawning of the stony coral Montastrea cavernosa. Fish Reproduction and Lunar Phase Many fishes are known to spawn synchronously around a certain lunar phase and this timing may be species-specific. For instance, Takemura et al., 2004 discuss lunar phase and spawning of the golden rabbitfish (Siganus guttatus). These fish did not spawn when subjected to constant illumination, and those held in conditions of total darkness at night displayed altered spawning patterns. Pressley (1980) described the relationship of lunar phase and reproduction of the yellowtail damselfish, Microspathodon chrysurus. It is an interesting notion that circadian rhythms play an important part in fish reproduction and that accurate simulation of lunar phase may be an important factor. Light Spectra Transmission in Clear Seawater As mentioned earlier, several researchers have found that some corals respond to blue light. It is perhaps not by coincidence that maximum penetration of light occurs at about 480-500nm. See Figure 8. Figure 8. Transmission of light (by wavelength at 25nm intervals) through the clearest of seawater (Type I Oceanic; after Jerlov, 1976). Note that blue-green light at ~500nm penetrates this water the best. Moonlight and Coral Spawning Moonlight is commonly believed to be one of the deciding environmental factors for timing of coral spawning. Jokiel (1985) examined numerous Pocillopora damicornis specimens and concluded planula release occurred around the time of the full moon. However, Hunter (1988) experimented with two Hawaiian Montipora species (M. verrucosa = capitata and M. dilatata) and found the following: Both sets of corals spawned simultaneously with control corals when exposed to constant simulated moonlight (at a flux of 0.01 µmol·m²·sec, or about 0.5 lux) When exposed to no simulated moonlight (constant new moon), 43% of the M. verrucosa spawned in sync with the controls, and in the next month, 1 week prior to the new moon. Montipora dilatata specimens also spawned in synch with controls in the first month, and then 8 days out of normal phase the next month. When maintained under simulated moonlight shifted 14 days out of phase, both coral species spawned simultaneously with controls, and then 2 to 12 days out of sync in the second month. Artificial Moonlight It is usually impractical to expose an aquarium to moonlight hence artificial means are preferred. In my 1995 book, The Captive Reef, I outlined a means of simulating moonlight with a blue incandescent lamp and a manual dimmer. Technology has come a long way since then and light-emitting diodes are now the preferred method. See Figure 9. Figure 9. This blue LED acts as an artificial moon. Figure 10 shows the typical spectral quality of a LED peaking in the blue portion of the spectrum at ~450nm. Figure 10. This blue LED generates almost monochromatic light peaking at about 450nm. Controllers There are a number of controllers on the market claiming to simulate timing and variable intensity of natural moonlight. This article is not intended to review all those available. Instead, I describe the one I own - the Tunze Multicontroller 7095. This device's main function is that of controlling Tunze pumps but includes a LED for moonlight simulation. The only thing a hobbyist has to do is turn the moonlight LED on when the real moon is full and the controller automatically does the rest. A photo-sensor will turn the LED moon on when the aquarium lights go out and lunar phase intensity is controlled over a 29 day cycle. See Figure 11 for a close up view of the photo-sensor/LED and Figure 12 shows the spectral characteristics of the LED. Figure 11. The photosensor of the Tunze 7095 Multicontroller is housed in clear acrylic. When the lights go out, this sensor automatically turns the LED on (in the black tube to the right) and vice versa. This assembly is less than 2 inches (5cm) long. Figure 12. Spectral quality of the Tunze LED moon. It is full-spectrum, with peak intensity at about 460nm. In Closing Many corals contain photoreceptors (note their ability to almost always grow towards light). Some demonstrate responses to blue light, while at least one species can sense both blue and red light. Some show no response to light. Moonlight is thought to play an important role in timing reproductive cycles of many coral and fish species. In corals, lunar cycles set the date of spawning, while the time of onset of darkness fine tunes the cycle and decide the hour and minute (then a release of hormones into the water induces mass spawning). An altered lunar phase may at least temporary disrupt spawning synchrony among at least some coral species. Lunar periodicity seems to play a role in timing of reproduction among at least some fish species. Interestingly, short term exposure of some fishes to constant artificial moonlight may have prevented spawning, while the same did not affect the patterns in some corals. It seems apparent that different taxa are affected differently by altered moon phases, if only temporarily. Although moonlight appears white or silvery, use of LEDs producing blue light to simulate moonlight is, at least for some coral species, correct based to peer-reviewed evidence. Use of LEDs producing white light is likely to be OK as well, since these diodes are essentially blue LEDs doped with phosphors that fluoresce longer wavelengths. However, the light intensity of the light produced by even a single blue LED has the potential to be brighter than natural moonlight measured here in Hawaii. Light penetration in aquaria, with their usually shallow (and hopefully clear!) waters, should not be an issue, so using LEDs with a maximum wavelength of 450 or 460nm may actually be an advantage due to their lower output at 480nm. Since most PAR meters' minimum respond is '1', these units are useless in determining proper placement of a light source in order to mimic natural moonlight intensity. On the other hand, a lux meter can measure moonlight at its maximum intensity although the reading will be ~1. Hence, placement of the LED for providing proper intensity will likely have to be estimated visually. At present, the effects of over-illumination of a reef aquarium at night are unknown but it is possible that it might affect fish or invertebrate spawning behavior. A number of controllers with abilities to simulate lunar phase are on the market. In absence of one, a handy hobbyist can make a manually-controller lunar simulator with a low wattage incandescent lamp and a rheostat. Testing Equipment Spectral characteristics of the moon and LED were measured with an Ocean Optics USB2000 spectrometer and SpectraSuite software. Data were downloaded to an Excel worksheet for post-processing. Moon intensities were recorded by a Li-Cor 1400 quantum meter/datalogger and cosine-corrected quantum sensor. Acknowledgement Thanks to my brother David for supplying the photograph of the moon. Questions? Comments? Please post below or contact me at RiddleLabs@aol.com. References Anctil, M., D. Hayward, D. Miller, and E. Ball, 2007. Sequence and expression of four coral G protein-coupled receptors distinct from all classifiable members of the rhodopsin family. Gene, 392(12): 14-21. Brady, A., K. Snyder and P. Vize, 2011. Circadian cycles of gene expression in the coral, Acropora millepora. PLoSOne Online. Gorbunov, M., Z. Kolber, M. Lesser, and P. Falkowski, 2002. Photoreceptors in the cnidarian hosts allow symbiotic corals to sense blue moonlight. Limnol. Oceanogr., 47(1), 2002, 309-315. Hunt, R., 1987. Measuring Colour. Fountain Press, Kingston-upon-Thames, England. 344 pp. Hunter, C., 1988. Environmental cues controlling spawning in two Hawaiian corals Montipora verrucosa and M. dilatata. Proc. 6th Int. Coral Reef Symp., Australia. 2:727-732. Jerlov, N., 1976. Marine Optics. Elsevier Oceanography Series, Elsevier Sci. Publ. Co., New York. 231 pp. Jokiel, P., 1985. Lunar periodicity of planula release in the reef coral Pocillopora damicornis in relation to various environmental factors. Proc. 5th Int. Coral Reef Congress, Tahiti. 4: 307-312. Levy, O., L. Appelbaum, W. Leggat, Y. Gothlif, D. Hayward, D. Miller, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, 2007. Light-responsive cryptochromes from a simple multicellular animal, the coral Acropora millepora. Science, 318 (5849):467-470. Levy, O., Z. Dubinsky, and Y. Achituv, 2003. Photobehavior of stony corals: Responses to light spectra and intensity. J. Exp. Biol., 206: 4041-4049. Olive, P., 1995. Annual breeding cycles in marine invertebrates and environmental temperature: Probing the proximate and ultimate causes of reproductive synchrony. J. Therm. Biol., 20(1, 2): 79-90. Pressley, P., 1980. Lunar periodicity of the yellowtail damselfish, Microspathodon chrysurus. Environ. Biol. Fishes, 5:155-159. akemura, A., E. Susilo, M. Rahman and M. Morita, 2004. Perception and possible utilization of moonlight intensity for reproductive activities in a lunar-synchronized spawner, the golden rabbitfish. J. Exp. Zoology, Part A: Comp. Exp. Biol., 301A, 10: 844-851. Vize, P., J. Hilton, A. Brady and S. Davies, 2008. Light sensing and the coordination of coral broadcast spawning behavior. Proc. 11th Int. Coral Reef Symp., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. View the full article

Selling this Crvstello Digital RO/DI home drinking unit which i find it too bulky for my office use. Looking at $ 300.00 only, bought at around 1K + few year ago. You could use it for your own drinking water use at home or for your tank ? Come with Hot, Cold, and Warm function . Will throw in one full set of filter together with the machine value at $ 300.00

Hi, Have the following spare equipment to clear, as will not be using it for now. 1) Tunze wave box 6215 ( Come with original box ) - $ 380.00 - come with controller and magnet - Power adapter just replace not long ago still with warrenty from RD. 2) DD Multi Test kit set ( mg , ca, KH ) - $ 40.00 - KH and ca left about 50% , MG still have about 90% since just replace. 3) ELOS Potassium Test kit - $ 25.00 - still have about 80% , use only few time. 4) Salifert P04 test kit - $ 10.00 - about 50% left - will throw in Sera N02 and ammonia test kit 4) API Tape water filter - $ 30.00 - Simple DI unit to produce pure water . - come with tape connector to connect to water horse. - No filter media included, you need to get your own carbon and DI resin. 5) Kent marine dosing box - $ 15.00 ** Collection at cck at night during weekday or near clementi during office hour

Click through to see the images. Humboldt squid are noted for their extremely aggressive behavior during feeding frenzies but rarely do you see one attack something as an individual. In certain instances, however, they have attacked underwater cameras to the point that the cameras no longer operated properly. According to Wikipedia they "...often approach prey quickly with all ten appendages extended forward in a cone-like shape. Upon reaching striking distance, they will open their eight swimming and grasping arms, and extend two long tentacles covered in sharp 'teeth', grabbing their prey and pulling it back towards a parrot-like beak, which can easily cause serious lacerations to human flesh. The whole process takes place in seconds." This attack behavior is definitely observed in this film short just off the coast of British Columbia (Google Map link): (via TONMO) View the full article

Research, which examines how dolphins might process their sonar signals, could provide a new system for human-made sonar to detect targets, such as sea mines, in bubbly water. When hunting prey, dolphins have been observed to blow 'bubble nets' around schools of fish, which force the fish to cluster together, making them easier for the dolphins to pick off. However, such bubble nets would confound the best human-made sonar because the strong scattering by the bubbles generates 'clutter' in the sonar image, which cannot be distinguished from the true target. View the full article

Research, which examines how dolphins might process their sonar signals, could provide a new system for human-made sonar to detect targets, such as sea mines, in bubbly water. When hunting prey, dolphins have been observed to blow 'bubble nets' around schools of fish, which force the fish to cluster together, making them easier for the dolphins to pick off. However, such bubble nets would confound the best human-made sonar because the strong scattering by the bubbles generates 'clutter' in the sonar image, which cannot be distinguished from the true target. View the full article

Click through to see the images. The Lightning Project Just to bring you up to speed, it's been over 2 years since the "Lightning Maroon" from PNG made it's way to the US and ultimately into my home tank. It was a long time coming but in the late spring and early summer of 2012, we finally got a glimmer of success with the first and second spawning between the "Lightning" Maroon, and a normally patterned "wild-type" Maroon clownfish. The pairing below are the two parents responsible for everything we're about to cover. The Lightning Maroon Clownfish and her wild-type mate. The Results Are In So not only did we get a spawn that made it, but we got roughly 50 juveniles post-settlement in the very first rearing attempt. Now, more than 2 weeks in, it seems ever more likely that we have a roughly 50% rate of "Lightning" babies in our group of offspring - note I have yet to do an actual headcount, this is just a ballpark guesstimate on the numbers. Initially the babies showed up with blue "caps"; thicker headstripes that were readily discernible. As they progressed, they looked more and more like Picasso Percula babies. While still possibly premature to say conclusively we have "Lightnings", we're definitely starting to see signs that the Lightning trait will come through with defining characteristics that will clearly match up with those that the two original wild Lightning Maroons shared. 17 day old Offspring from the Lightning Maroon & a wild type Maroon from the same island in Papua New Guinea Dismissing the Hybrid Hypothesis Before going into the genetics discussion, I'm going to address one "possibility" that some creative thinkers might propose, either though just being "creative", or through having read, misread, or misunderstood what someone has posted on some forum somewhere. The hypothesis is this; the Lightning Maroon is a different species than a normal white stripe maroon. And thus, are these offspring "hybrids"? Categorically I firmly believe no, the Lightning Maroon does not in any way represent a species other than Premnas biaculeatus. In most hybrid scenarios between two species, the initial primary hybridization generally yields a predictable intermediate form between the two parental species - I am sure there are anexamples of a primary hybrid where the offspring "range" from one parent to the other, but that is far more common in the second generation if it's going to happen. Since we have no intermediate forms in the offspring of this pairing, I believe we can safely rule out the "hybrid" hypothesis without further delay (the same cannot necessarily be said if we look at the "White Stripe" vs. "Gold Stripe" Maroon...the more I read and learn and see...leads me to believe these may in fact be two distinct species in the wild). Let's talk Genetics, Breeder Style I’ll state up front that I’m no geneticist, and that I’ve been known to get my terms confused. So I've taken the opportunity to run this by Adeljean Ho (a good friend of Dr. Matthew L. Wittenrich, and the scientist who published work in CORAL that suggests a unique genetic basis for the "Red" form of the Green Mandarin). Hopefully he caught any errors I may have made in attempting to distill and disseminate these ideas. Remember, I really downplay the "designer" aspects breeding of marine fish with mutations, but taking on the preservation of this wild trait has forced me to learn it. Understanding the genetics allows a breeder who is working with "designer" fish to quite literally "create" what he or she envisions; the upshot of this knowledge is that it also levels the playing field for breeders, forcing them to turn back to producing QUALITY fish in order to differentiate themselves. For me, the emphasis on quality, as driven by "open sourcing" the genetics of a fish, is the best route we can go if we must pursue "designer" variants going forward. In this discussion of possible Lightning Maroon genetics, here are the important terms. We will try not to use the term “gene”, because it kind of gets used interchangeably and thus will probably only confuse. The important terms here are “locus” and “allele”. "Locus" being a specific point in the genetic code where a particular pairing of alleles resides; the alleles being the pieces of genetic information, one from the father, and one from the mother, that come together at the locus to form the genetic makeup of the offspring. We also cannot neglect the terms genotype and phenotype. Genotype refers to the genetic "code" specifically, which is important because alleles can be present yet not "expressed" in the phenotype. Yes, the phenotype is the outward appearance as driven by the genetics. And this is the conundrum; due to the way certain alleles interact with other alleles, there are traits that can be masked, surpressed, or unexpressed, that is to say you won't know a fish carries a hidden albino gene in its genotype just by looking at it (and seeing it's phenotype). The other important terms to remember are "homozygous" and "heterozygous"; all that really means is whether the two alleles in the loci pair are the SAME genetic code (homozygous, such as A/A or B/B), or different (heterozygous, often abbreviated as "het" for short, such as A/B). Considering the entirety of our genetic makeup, it all boils down to loci (plural of locus) and what pairing of “alleles” is inherited at each locus. Obviously, the outward result of these traits is the result of all these separate loci together, and certainly some observable traits may be governed by multiple loci, which makes it difficult to ascertain the genetics and inheritance behind them. By the same token, the possible individual alleles that can be present at a loci are perhaps infantasimal in their variation (for example, ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRUSTUVWXYZ), but only two individual alleles (eg. A/Z, C/C, or B/Q) will be present in any particular locus. That said, most all of the genetic variations that we’ve come to openly understand in fish seem to be the result of the genetic makeup of an individual loci, and from there, the combination of multiple traits at different loci is what gives us a well-understood, massive diversity of ornamental fish varieties (as some would call them, "Designer" fish). Freshwater Angelfish (Pterophyllum scarlare) make the perfect example as they are well understood genetically (see The Angelfish Society's Phenotype Library). Combining multiple traits from individual loci is how we get a Pearlscale Lace Clown Veil Angelfish. Those names refer to phenotypes; outwardly discernible traits, in this case those names refer to scale structure + dark gene + stripe genetics + fin length. In the Angelfish breeding community, this would get denoted roughly as (p/p) – (D/+) – (Z/S) – (V/+). Because we know which alleles at which loci contribute to each end result, in theory any breeder can "make" a Pearlscale Lace Clown Veil Angelfish; the breeder just needs to have the proper parents with the proper genotypes. The breeder also knows that mating two Pearlscale Lace Clown Veil Angelfish together will result in a plethora of unique genetic combinations, 27 to be exact, all of which have their own name. One example? Pearlscale Blushing Superveil Angelfish, (p/p) - (+/+) - (S/S) - (V/V). I’ll borrow notation from the freshwater Angelfish world to try to lay out the options for the Lightning Maroons, and I’ll propose that “L” will stand for the Lighting allele. “+” will stand for the wild-type, default state allele (aka. a normally striped fish). Thus, a wild fish, without any “Lightning” genetics, would be represented as (+/+). Note that in this notation, capital letters are normally used for dominant or partially dominant traits, whereas recessive traits are generally denoted using lowercase letters. I’m going to assume right up front that “Lightning” is a trait that directly controls the “striping” of the fish. We are going to assume here that there are only two possible alleles involved in what we are seeing, and that the Lightning Phenotype is driven by one specific allele (L in our examples) and is not in fact the result of two unique alleles coming together (eg. Lightning = L/X, wild fish being +/+). We are also going to assume that the Lightning trait is the result of genetics at one locus only. A brazen assumption, but it seems likely at the moment. To explain the multiple locus issue another way, we are assuming it does not take the genetics of two (or more) loci to result in the Lightning phenotype. In the Angelfish world, there are phenotypes like Platinum that are the resultant combination of two independent loci, and the presence of specific recessive alleles in homozygous pairings, that result in the all white Platinum Angelfish - in this case the recessive gold trait on the "dark" locus, and the recessive Philippine blue trait on the "philippine blue" locus. Independently, you'd have a Gold Angelfish, or a Philippine Blue Angelfish, but "activate" both of those recessive traits through breeding choices, and you wind up with the possibility of all white platinum offspring. Yes, you can "make" a Platinum out of parents that are not outwardly "Platinums" themselves, and that is the beauty of understanding the genetics. What you cannot do is use only Platinums to breed back to the wild form of an angelfish - and that is the curse of "designer" breeding (which is one reason why designer-focused breeding can get in the way of conservation minded breeding - the "ornamental" genetics can function as actual genetic contaminants...but that's for another day). Genetics in action - the large fish in the foreground is a wild Angelfish, generally presumed (+/+) unless it carries hidden recessive alleles, and called a "Silver", which is the default striping pattern in Pterophyllum scarlare. The Blue one at right is a "Blue Ghost", representing 2 doses of the Philippine Blue allele, and a single dose of the partialy dominant stripeless allele, so (pb/pb) - (S/+). The white angelfish in the back is a "Platinum", the result of a fish being both homozygous for the recessive Philippine Blue allele, as well as homozygous for the recessive Gold allele, thus (pb/pb) - (g/g). Based on the quantity of Lightning Maroons in the very first batch of offspring, there are three possibilities for how the Lightning Maroon trait genetically functions. It could be a recessive trait, whereby there must be two alleles for Lightning present in order for the Lightning pattern to be observed. Lightning could in fact be a dominant trait, whereby it only takes a single dose of the Lightning allele to mask the normal stripping pattern. And the Lightning trait could be the result of a partial (incomplete) or even codominant allele, where a double dose fish will look different than a single-dose fish, which is still different from the wild type, normally-barred fish. The Case and Implications for "Lightning" being a Recessive Trait So let’s look at inheritance and expression of the genetics in play. We'll start with the easiest to understand, a recessive trait like albinism (I think we all understand how albinism works on some basic level). Another good example - the recently discovered Philippine Blue gene in Angelfish is thought to be recessive. A fish with a single dose of this allele (pb/+) shows no real difference with the wild form. But put on a second dose, and *Bam*, you have a Philippine Blue Angelfish. A Blue Silver Angelfish , (pb/pb). The angelfish breeding community is thoroughly convinced that pb is a recessive trait on its own locus. This angelfish is a "Silver", and happens to be a sibling to the Blue Silver angelfish shown above. There is a 2/3 chance that this fish has a hidden Philippine Blue allele, denoted as (pb/+), otherwise it is wild-type in every known sense, written as (+/+). If these two fish were mated, and none of the offspring developed into blues, that would prove the 1/3 chance of this fish having no hidden blue allele. If “Lightning” is a recessive trait (one that requires two “doses” of the Lightning allele), then the Lightning parent could only be homozygous (l/l). A fish that is heterozygous (l/+) would appear “normal”. Thus, if our (l/l) fish is mated to a wild type (normally barred) fish with no Lightning genetics (+/+), all the offspring would be (l/+). Such a pairing would result in 0% discernible Lightning Maroons, as all offspring are (l/+) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Recessive Lightning to Wild homozygous Mate = all hets = no Lightnings. Thus, if “Lighting” is recessive, we know that the Lightning Maroon must be (l/l). If recessive, to have found Lightning offspring in the first generation mating, that implies that the standard-barred mate must carry a “hidden” Lightning allele, and thus be (l/+) itself. Mating (l/l) to (l/+) would give you a 50% expression rate IF (and that’s a big if) the Lightning trait is recessive. Mathematically, the door is open for this trait to be recessive (Figure 2). Figure 2. Recessive Lightning to Wild heterozygous Mate = 50% Lightnings. Now, there is an upside if this trait is recessive; it means we got lucky. Primarily, it means I got lucky on the selection of the non-Lightning mate, because there would be no way of knowing it carried a single-dose, non-expressed Lightning gene. It would mean that the game plan of using a mate from the same island paid off. If you find a wild albino fish, you are most likely to find more albinos in the same geographic region because they’d probably be siblings. Not to mention that many of the non-albino siblings in the area could potentially carry a single albino gene as well. The other way we will be lucky is that IF Lightning is recessive, and if the initial percentage is in fact roughly 50%, it would mean that all the siblings would then have to carry a single, non-expressed Lightning allele (because their only option from the Lightning parent is to receive a Lightning allele). This would mean that every fish in the group if mated would produce 25%, 50%, or 100% Lightning Maroons. To put it in a commercial context; if we definitively knew that this was a recessive trait, then even the normally striped offspring would be tremendously valuable to breeders, because simply mating two of those together yeilds 25% Lightning. In an interesting twist, it seems most people expected the Lighting trait to be recessive if genetic, and assumed that we would get the results shown in Figure 1, and only in the 2nd generation would we get more Lightnings, as shown below (Figure 3). Figure 3.Hypothetically recessive heterozygous F1 Offspring, mated together, produce 25% Lightnings. Still, I’d love to hope that this trait is recessive because it means all the siblings would then carry a hidden Lightning allele. In looking at the number of wild Lightning Maroons presumably observed (and thus caught), we know of only 2. This rarity could suggest a recessive trait, as two wild fish with hidden Lighting Genes, mating together, would produce 25% Lightnings. Given that a clownfish pair's minimal reproductive goal is to produce two replacements, you can quickly see how a single pair of clowns, constantly churning out babies that are 25% “Lightnings”, might only yield a handful at best (remember, marine fish have been shown to suffer massive mortality in the earliest hours and days of their lives - most never even make it to settlement, and most of those, not past their first year). Lightning Maroon babies truly stand out in the rearing tank while their normally patterned siblings are difficult to see; you can’t help but assume Lightning offspring be much easier for predators to locate. So the rare Lightning making it in the wild would fit well with a recessive trait hypothesis. But what are the odds that I got “lucky” with the mate I selected? Impossible to say, but Occam ’s Razor suggests that the following scenarios could be more likely. The Dominant Scenarios for "Lightning" Let’s deal with straight up dominance. If this is a dominant trait, then you only need one “dose of the gene” to express the trait. To simplify, breeders tend to view dominant traits as being pretty uniform in their expression, and there’s no difference whether you have one dose or two. In other words, a Lightning Maroon Clownfish could either be (L/L) or (L/+) and would look the same. A good example of this, to borrow from the Angelfish community, is a trait called “Zebra”, which adds extra bars and patterning in the fins. There’s no visible difference between a homozygous Zebra (Z/Z) or a heterozygous Zebra (Z/+). A young Zebra Angelfish, straight up dominance means this fish could be (Z/+) or (Z/Z) - the only way to know is through planned and controlled matings and observing the results. Let’s again weigh the options. If Lightning is dominant, then the non-lightning mate can only be (+/+). Why? Because any fish that is (L/+) is going to be Lightning. So in this scenario, the normal mate can only be (+/+). That leaves the Lightning Maroon to be either (L/+), or (L/L). Now, here’s where it gets interesting. If the Lightning Maroon was (L/L), we would have 100% Lightning Maroons in the offspring, because every fish could only get a ( L ) allele from the Lighting Maroon, and all (L/+) offspring would then be Lightning (Figure 4). Since we don’t have 100% Lightnings in the offspring, we can rule out the Lightning Maroon being (L/L) if this is a dominant trait. Figure 4. Dominant Homozygous Lightning Mother X Homozygous Wild-type Father = 100% Lightning offspring That would leave (L/+) as our only genetic option for the Lightning Maroon, which would thus result in a roughly 50% expression rate in the F1 generation. The inheritance of the ( L ) allele from the Lightning parent is a just a coin toss, 50% of the time they get a +, and 50% a L. Once again, the rules of genetic expression and inheritance suggest that this is a possible genetic explanation given the initial results we're seeing (Figure 5). Figure 5. Dominant Heterozygous Lightning Mother X Homozygous Wild-type Father = 50% Lightning offspring Now, my problem with this trait being dominant starts immediately from the fact that it requires at least one outwardly visible Lightning Maroon Clownfish to be breeding in the wild in the first place (unless there is a wild-type pair that is predisposed to throwing off the odd "Lightning" mutation once in a blue moon - afterall, these traits can appear spontaneously). If this trait is dominant, then it might also suggest that this mutation ought not to be as rare as we currently are led to believe it is. And to make matters worse, it does seem that we haven’t seen much straight up “dominant” variations in ANY of our designer clownfish to date; it seems all are either recessive or the result various doses of partially dominant traits. And surprise again; looking back at the Angelfish (which happen to Cichlids, which are a closely related family to the Damselfish, and thus to the Clownfish), we see this: 0nly 1 truly straight-up dominant trait. Meanwhile, there are currently 5 known recessive traits, and 7 traits that are either partially dominant or codominant. Dominant traits just don’t seem that common in clownfishes. What if "Lightning" represents Partial Dominance? So what if this is a partially dominant (aka. incomplete dominant) or co-dominant trait. The difference is nuanced, but in the angelfish world co-dominance can cause “blending” of traits in certain mixes, dominant expression in other mixes, whereas partially dominant traits present more of an A/B/C result. To draw a parallel, some might say that if the Lightning trait were codominant, then a fish with a single Lightning allele should still show the white stripes "underneath" the lacy pattern of the Lightning. I’ll dispense with codominance for the time being and just refer to this option as the partial dominance possibility. Partial (incomplete) dominance is perhaps the most plausible and most exciting of the three options. As the scenarios are about to play out, they suggest that the Lightning, in a partial dominance scenario, would only be the "first step". Partial dominance is well documented in angelfish, and the stripeless allele is a great example. A normally striped angelfish is Silver (+/+), a single dose is a Ghost (S/+), and a double dose is a Blushing (S/S). Take a look at a Ghost and compare it to a Blushing that happens to be showing a second partially dominant trait, the "veil" fin trait (impossible to say at this young size whether our example fish is simply veil (V/+) or super veil (V/V)). A single dose stripeless angelfish, (S/+), aka. a "Ghost". You can see a "Silver" (wild type, standard barred, aka. (+/+)) Angelfish in the background at right for comparison. A Blushing Angelfish with two doses of the "Stripeless" allele, (S/S). If "Lightning" is a partially dominant trait, the results in the offspring push us to only one genetic possibility. Let me step back to explain why. There are currently only 2 forms of observable pattern in the offspring; “Lightnings” and “normal”. Simply put, the Lightning cannot be (L/L) in the partial dominance scenario. If a partially dominant allele is present in a homozygous state (L/L) and mated to a wild type fish (+/+), we should get all (L/+) – something intermediate between the Lightning and the Wild form, and they should all be the same (emphasis again on the fact that there would be no Lightnings, and no normally barred fish either) (Figure 6). We don’t have that result, so (L/L) is ruled out if Lightning is a partially dominant trait. Or is it? Figure 6. Partially Dominant Homozygous Lightning X Homozygous Wild Type = 100% Hypothetical Intermediate Offspring The second consideration for parental genetics would be (L/L) x (L/+), but once again here, the (L/+) cannot look like the wild form, as (L/+) represents an "intermediate form". Someone out there is going to say "but what if (L/+) does in fact look like the wild form? If it did, then by definition Lightning would be a recessive trait as I described earlier (Figure 2)! So this scenario is ruled out. The third consideration would be (L/+) x (L/+), but then again that would mean both mates should be "intermediary" forms and roughly look the same (which they obviously don’t in our pairing). This alone is enough to scrap this mating as a possibility. But if you're not convinced, this hypothetical mating would also mean that 25% of the offspring would be (L/L), 50% (L/+), and 25% (+/+) – if the fact that the parents would have to look the same didn’t throw this out for you, consider that there would still have to be THREE (3) phenotypes in this batch of offspring for that proposed genetic combination in the parents to make any sense (which it can’t, because the parents are not the same). The only way that "Lightning" works as a partially dominant trait is if the Lightning Maroon is (L/+), and the mate is (+/+). This produces a nice occurrence of 50% like the Lightning, 50% like the male parent (Figure 7). This also takes a lot of the “luck” out of the equation; we didn't have to stumble upon a mate with a hidden allele like we would have in the recessive scenario. Figure 7. Partially Dominant Heterozygous Lightning Maroon X Homozygous Wild Type Male = 50% Lightning Maroons This also seems to be how some currently known traits may work (Picasso in Percs, maybe Snowflake in Ocellaris). If you believe that “Black Ocellaris” are a melanistic variation within Ocellaris, then "black" in ocellaris could also potentially be partial dominance...with “Blacks” having “two doses”, and when you mix Black with Ocellaris, you get “Mochas” which in all photos I’ve seen, are muddy intermediaries. The real question to be asked is what happens when you breed 2 Mochas together – do you get 25% Blacks, 50% Mochas, and 25% normal Orange Ocellaris? I don’t know that anyone has done that and tested the results yet (but I also know that I don’t believe they are the same species of fish at the moment either...you have to throw the genetics out the window when you start hybridizing) But getting back to the Lightning; if this trait is “partially dominant”, then the most exciting part is yet to come, because it would mean that all the fish we’ve seen so far only have ONE dose of the Lightning allele (L/+), and thus, the designer breeders out there will be clamoring to mate two Lightnings together so they can discover what a (L/L) fish is going to look like. And that’s the crazy part, because there should only be one of two things that could when we mate Lightnings together – either we’ll get 25% being something new, or we’ll just get more Lightnings. If we get 100% Lightnings, we are either looking at a recessive trait or a straight up dominant trait (or, in a less likely case the difference between a partially dominant (L/+) and (L/L) is simply too minimal to discern, and you'd then just treat it as dominant anyways). The "Lightning Precursor" Hypothesis - Dealing with Horned and Flaked Maroons I suppose at this point we have to step back and objectively define what we *think* a Lightning Maroon "is". What is the phenotype? We have to consider the two fish that have been given that label to-date (the less familiar one being the first wild-collected Lightning Maroon from 2008). Well, the best term I've heard used lately was to describe the Lightning Maroons as filigreed. Other's commonly call the patterning "lacey" or "net-like". Whatever it is, the most notable place for this Lightning variation is in the headstripe. The headstripe is dramatically wider in the Lightnings, and it is "pitted" with normal coloration. "Horned" and “Flaked” maroons fundamentally lack this very distinct patterning and the wider headstripe it takes to make it. The other part of the Lightning phenotype is the breaking up of the mid-stripe and tail-stripe into the lacey, interconnecting patterns that split apart and at times, reconnect. None of the "horned" maroons show this patterning that I've seen, while many "horned" maroons simply exhibit broken bars or "extensions" trailing off. Admittedly, only the most recent "Lighting Precursor" was really suggestive of the body stripping seen in the two wild Lightning Maroons, but the stripes showed a more "smooth" outline and did not reconnect (I've been told the other side of this fish was unimpressive) - I think this fish is better considered a more extreme form of these "Horned" Maroons being found in PNG waters. In drafting this genetics rundown, I realized I had one other genetic possibility on the table; the notion of the "Horned" Maroons being collected in PNG potentially represented the "intermediate" form in a partial dominance scenario (eg. the hypothetical heterozygous offspring shown in Figure 6). One such Maroon recently made the rounds in the internet being called by some a "Lightning Precursor". After examining the data provided publicly by EcoAquarims PNG, it seems these aberrant Maroon clowns appear to be quite common in the waters of PNG, with various atypical Maroon clownfish being caught approximately every 11 days. We also had other fish like Mike Hoang's Goldflake Maroons which indeed, as young fish, had me wondering if we'd see Lightning-like traits as they grew up (sadly the best marked offspring were lost, and those that remain look no different than the "Goldflake" Maroons output by Sustainable Aquatics). Let's deal with the "Goldflakes" of the world first. It turns out that abnormally spotted and overbarred Maroon Clownfish (what I'm calling "Flaked" here) are indeed commonplace in captive culture. So far, these fish have seemed to elude genetic categorization, apparently really behaving fundamentally more like "misbarring" in other species of clownfish. Most recently German breeder Sylvio Heydenreich shared some videos depicting some highly overbarred Maroons on the MBI website; when asked about these fish, he stated quite directly that, "Die Fehlzeichnungen lassen sich ganz leicht über die Wasser Qualität steuern." Or as Google likes to translate it, "The failure drawings can be controlled easily through the water quality." Failure drawings of course, being what is probably a literal translation for "misbarring". And to that end, we already are aware that misbarring in clownfish has environmental causes, not genetic causes. So as much as we like these "Goldflakes", all observations to date suggest we think of this type of patterning as a likely non-genetic occurance. Meanwhile, those "Horned" Maroons coming out of PNG had all of us, even me, convinced that the Lightning Maroon could be a homozygous (double-dose) example for a partially dominant trait. Simply put, the breeding results don't really suggest this possibility because we lack the intermediaries (I would've expected the 100% "horned" batch to show up, like Figure 6). Still, I do have two normally barred fish that show spots. Note the extra spot on the back of this normally barred juvenile. Is this baby a "Horned" Maroon? Well, here's the kicker. There are only two ways you get hypothetical intermediates (intermediates being the proposed placement of the "horned" Maroons). You either get 100% in the F1 batch, or the male parent has to be an intermediate itself, in this case, a "Horned" Maroon. And this is where there's still an outside chance - the male has a single broken tailbar. But...if this was in fact an "intermediate", what genetics must we get in the offspring? 75% Lightnings, and 25% intermediates - NO wild-types. Again, let me be explicitly clear - for "Horned" Maroons to be "Lightning intermediates" or "Lightningprecursors", I would have had to encounter "Horned" Maroons in the offspring and at a rate of 25% -or- 100%. So...if the babies all wind up showing extra horned bars and spots as they grow up over the next few months, and the ratio of Lightnings to non-lightnings is 3:1, there could still be "hope". Otherwise, we have probably closed the book on the "Lightning Precursor" hypothesis that tried to link the Horned Maroons to the Lightning, at least for now. All of that said, what I really think we're seeing here is something much more fundamental in the Horned Maroons. We are seeing this "flake" overbarring, a commonplace occurring in captive-bred maroons, showing up on a few random offspring. You wouldn't notice it in the Lightning offspring because it's just "painted over", but you can see it in the normally barred fish. Years ago, breeders would have destroyed these types of fish as "culls"...that's when the 3-bar wild-type fish was considered something to aspire to as a breeder, and not "common" and "boring" as many hobbyists may consider a wild-type clownfish today. Given that we know of a possible causal relationship between "overbarring" and "environment", perhaps there is something environmentally going on in the waters of PNG to show us more "environmentally overbarred", aka. "Horned" Maroons, than perhaps we might expect in other parts of the ocean. Or, and this is still a possibility; the "Horned" Maroons of PNG could yet represent another, distinct genetic variation. It's certainly possible - breeding them could give us the answers, although it may be difficult in the face of commonly-occurring "flaked overbarring" potentially giving you a fish with the same basic phenotype. The Odds on the Lightning Pair's Genetics Let's get back to the Lightnings. If we give equal weight to all three possibilities for the interaction of the "Lightning" allele, we are left with three scenarios for the genetics of the parents. Once again, notation here...(female first) X (male second). Recessive, where we have (l/l) X (l/+) Dominant, where it can only be (L/+) X (+/+) Partial Dominance, where it must be (L/+) X (+/+) By this alone, each has a 1/3 chance of being right. There is a 2/3 chance, or 67% roughly, that the Lightning is (L/+). However, for the sake of doing something interesting, what if I used the genetic 'spread' in Angelfish to derive an alternate baseline for the odds of a trait being dominant, recessive, or partial/codominant within the clownfish family? Recessive = 5/13, or roughly 38% Dominant = 1/13, or roughly 8% Partial/Codominant = 7/13, or roughly 54% If this was at all representative of the odds for trait expression in clownfish (and it's really probably not, it's just a fun way to think about it), then we have a 62% chance that the Lightning Maroon is (L/+), and within that 62%, it would then represent a 87% chance that the trait would be partially dominant (again, roughly 54% overall). Overall, whether we weight the system or not, the odds seem remain in the rough territory of 2:1 that the Lightning Maroon is (L/+), and the mate I used is (+/+), vs the only possible alternatives of (l/l) and (l/+). The kicker for me is when you move beyond "probability" alone, and put in the observations and the way mother nature seems to work. I'll get to my prognostication in a minute, but first, I must point out that this puzzle can be solved. How are breeders going to help figure it out? In a nutshell, this project will soon turn to the massive "cloud computing", or in this case "crowd breeding" effort of marine aquarists who get these offspring. It has always been my intention to get the F1 fish out to other breeders to both diversify the risk, but also to leverage the collective efforts of breeders to provide for rapid, definitive answers. In a nutshell, anyone breeding with my offspring, you have my formal request to track your project at the MBI, and to do so openly. You also have my request that you must track your offspring numbers and take photos of each one on both sides, because it is the headcounts and photos that will help determine the genetics in the end. Here's how we'll do it (again, assuming that "Lightning" is the result of a single locus and a single allele). We can determine (or rule out) a recessive trait by mating the non-lightning siblings together; if recessive, 2/3 of the F1 babies will carry a hidden Lightning gene. This means that picking any random 2 fish, the odds are roughly 40% that both are (L/+), so four out of 10 random pairings would yield Lightning offspring to the tune of 25%, if this is a recessive trait. The only way you get Lightnings out of pairing 2 normally-barred siblings is if this trait is recessive. We can also determine this trait to be recessive by matings of Lightning Maroons to their non-lightning siblings. In this scenario, 2/3 of the pairings would produce 50% Lightning offspring, while the remaining 1/3 would produce nothing but normally striped fish. We don’t need to use the siblings to specifically test for a recessive trait, but non-sibling fish present a conundrum - you have less insights onto what their genetics could possibly be. Still, you can simply mate Lightings to unrelated white stripe maroons (and breeders out there, I will work as hard as I can to produce offspring from the other PNG White Stripe pair in the house so we have a clean PNG bloodline which we can outcross to, and Dale Prichard in the UK hopefully can contribute more, or you can look to the other PNG maroons being exported from EcoAquariums PNG now). If the trait is recessive, then you have to consider the unknown odds that any randomly-selected, unrelated fish, could be carrying a single hidden copy of the recessive allele. However, if the trait is partially dominant, any Lightning paired with a wild-type sibling, or any outcross (mating of a Lightning to unrelated normal fish) should yield a percentage (50%) of Lightnings in the offspring. Conversely, again, if the trait is recessive, these outcrossed matings will produce nothing but normally barred fish UNLESS, once again, you get “lucky” to stumble upon a fish with a hidden allele. But that’s the rub – you’re far more likely to find that hidden gene in the normally barred siblings. If we get something “new” out of the Lightning X Lightning mating, it should be 25% of the “new” variety, and that would convincingly clinch the genetics as partial dominance. Sounds far-fetched? Well, in Percula, Picasso X Picasso is where we get Platinums from. If mating Lightning X Lightning simply makes 100% Lightnings, then the trait easily falls into the category of a straight up dominant trait. I'm a betting man if the wager is bragging rights...so my guess is... ...partial dominance. Ultimately, my gut call is for partial dominance because it seems to be the most commonplace type of genetic trait we’ve seen in our designer clownfish, and it’s the most prevalent in a widely cultivated and well-documented group of related fish (the freshwater Angelfish). The odds also do slightly favor partial dominance. Partial dominance may also be one of the easiest to prove - just mate two Lightnings together and see what you get. Partial dominance (and in this case, straight dominance) also requires less luck to have had the outcome I seem to have had with my initial pairing. If ever there was a project that had just about everything except “luck” on its side, it is The Lightning Project. One last wonderful caveat - every possibility laid out above could wind up being 100% wrong. Until we get those second generation fish produced, and aquarist start gathering the data and sharing it, we simply won't know. A special thanks to Adeljean Ho for acting as a sounding board and editor on this piece. I am sure Adeljean, with his strong interest in genetics, was probably as excited about this as I am! Thanks! View the full article

Click through to see the images. MonsterFishKeepers.com recently established a new website - support.monsterfishkeepers.com - seeking the public's support against Monster Energy Company's trademark demands. They posted the following information last week and requested Advanced Aquarist shares this with our readers: On February 24, Monster Energy Company sent a cease & desist letter to MonsterFishKeepers.com in regards to their use of the marks MonsterFishKeepers, and the MonsterFishKeepers “M” symbol in connection with clothing, accessories, and stickers. It also requires us to drop the trademark applications that were pending at the time for said trademarks. Monster Energy claimed that the use of these marks constituted trademark infringement and would cause confusion with their own MONSTERâ„¢, MONSTER ENERGY®, and MONSTER “Claw M®â€ marks. MonsterFishKeepers.com asserted that an informed consumer would be unlikely to mistake the two brands as one is specifically marketed towards the keepers of large fishes in specialized online sites & aquarium stores while the other is more openly marketed in sports-related facilities and traditional retail stores. Later on, Monster Energy sent a series of demands including, but not limited to, abandoning the trademark applications for the MonsterFishKeepers “M” symbol marks as well as ceasing to use those marks in connection with apparel & accessories, refraining from using or applying for any marks containing the word “Monster” or the letter “M,” refraining from using the colors black & green on any MonsterFishKeepers.com or Monster Aquaria Network Websites or in connection with apparel & accessories, and pay Monster Energy Corporation its attorneys’ fees in connection with this matter. MonsterFishKeepers.com has no intention of agreeing to the bulk of Monster’s demands as these terms are extremely restrictive & unfair, not to mention downright ridiculous in some cases. As you know, we have been using our MonsterFishKeepers and the MonsterFishKeepers “M” design marks since March 30, 2005 and the marks were duly registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since October 23, 2007. We strongly believe that the law is on MonsterFishKeepers.com’s side, but MonsterFishKeepers.com will not be able to fund the legal proceedings that would be needed to resolve this dispute with Monster Energy. Unfortunately for MonsterFishKeepers.com, Monster Energy can file an unlimited number of appeals even if MonsterFishKeepers.com wins the first round of the case; in the end, Monster Energy would certainly outlast MonsterFishKeepers.com in the legal proceedings after MonsterFishKeepers.com runs out of money since there is no way that such a small company could compete with such a large company in terms of legal fees. As such, we, the staff of the Monster Aquaria Network, ask that you, the reader & MonsterFishKeepers.com member & supporter, help us to convince Monster Energy Corporation to drop this issue immediately. We intend to contact them via any means possible to let them know that this is not acceptable as well as hit them at the bottom line by boycotting all Monster Energy Corporation products. We would greatly appreciate it if you would take a small amount of time out of your day to let Monster Energy know that what they’re doing is not going to be well regarded/well perceived by us as consumers of their soft drink products. In closing, we thank you for your continued support, and we hope that we will be able to enjoy many more years of fish-filled fun once this issue is resolved. Monster Energy Corporation Contact Information Address: Monster Beverage Corporation Attention: Consumer Relations 550 Monica Circle Suite 201 Corona, CA 92880 Phone: 1-800-426-7367 Email: info@monsterbevcorp.com http://monsterbevcorp.com/contact.php Monster Energy Company Address: 550 Monica Circle, Suite 201 Corona, CA 92880 Phone: 866-322-4466 Ext. 585 http://www.monsterenergy.com/us/en/home/#!/pages%3Acontact Monster Energy Corporation Brands Monster Energy Hansen’s Natural Peace Tea Worx Energy Blue Sky View the full article

The pico is a very small unit, even smaller than the nano as it is the equivalent of 10-12. A biologists has been studying green algae of this imperceptible size in the Bilbao estuary, paying particular attention to the area beyond the Nervión estuary. This has enabled him to identify six genera and eleven nano- and picoplanktonic species that until now had not been catalogued in these waters. View the full article

The pico is a very small unit, even smaller than the nano as it is the equivalent of 10-12. A biologists has been studying green algae of this imperceptible size in the Bilbao estuary, paying particular attention to the area beyond the Nervión estuary. This has enabled him to identify six genera and eleven nano- and picoplanktonic species that until now had not been catalogued in these waters. View the full article

Click through to see the images. Aquarium Coral Diseases is a new website dedicated to the identification and potential cures for the pathogens and predators that attack corals in public and home aquariums. In the same spirit as Advanced Aquarist, Aquarium Coral Diseases disseminates information with a scientific approach. One glance at their staff is all the confirmation we need. To find out more about Aquarium Coral Diseases, we interview Dr. Michael Sweet. Advanced Aquarist recommends our readers visit and bookmark this reference website. See how you can help at the end of the interview. Advanced Aquarist: Can you tell us a little about yourself and specifically your interests with coral diseases in aquariums? Dr Michael Sweet: I am the lead researcher in the Coral Health and Disease Laboratory at Newcastle University. I completed my doctorate in microbial communities associated with coral reefs and now my principal interest is in coral disease, characterising the microbial pathogens associated with them and ultimately trying to find a cure. We work mostly with wild corals on reef systems around the world, but to do this we often use aquariums as a way of controlling environmental variables. It was a natural step to liaise with public aquariums in our home country, such as the Horniman Museum and Gardens aquarium and the Zoological Society of London, to further our work and increase our knowledge on coral disease. Advanced Aquarist: Can you tell us about the history and goals for the new Aquarium Coral Diseases website? Dr Michael Sweet: The Aquarium Coral Disease website was only launched in May as part of the impact from our research. It has already received over 1000 unique visits and many of these repeatedly return to the site. Although people have accessed the site from all around the world on every continent including countries such as Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, New Caledonia and Malawi, the main countries utilising this website to date are the UK, United States and Portugal. We are funded by a Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) grant and one of their main aims is for researchers to disseminate their knowledge to the wider public. We hope that this website helps in this context. It is aimed at everyone, from researchers, hobbyists and public aquarium curators alike. Advanced Aquarist: The website has assembled an impressive team of researchers and writers. How did you all come together on this new endeavour? Dr Michael Sweet: The team was assembled through friends and colleagues, John Bythell has had over 20 years of research experience with corals and John and I have worked together for over five years. In the last couple of those years, we started a productive collaboration with Jamie Craggs and James Robson from the Horniman Museum and Gardens aquarium and Rachel Jones from ZSL. We have produced a few peer reviewed papers with many more on the way. Kate Rawlinson read one of my papers and contacted me about it, as she is an expert in flatworms associated with many organisms and specifically the recently described the Acropora (coral) Eating Flatworm she was a logical choice to have on board the editing team. Andrew Westford is a keen hobbyist and we meet at the Coral Aquarist Research Networks (CARN) Big UK Experiment earlier this year. CARN is a knowledge exchange forum organised by NERC fellow Philippa Mansell at Essex University. As one of our goals for this website is to make sure it’s useful for anyone interested in this aspect of corals we want as many people who are keen to be involved in the editing and updating. William Wildgoose is the latest member of the team and is a Veterinary surgeon who has until recently specialised in ornamental fish but is now beginning to take an interest in coral disease. Collaboration with William is ongoing and promises to be very successful. Advanced Aquarist: Is the website a "living document?" In other words, are there plans to continually add and update content? Dr Michael Sweet: Yes, the website will be living, hopefully for a long time! Research into the field is continually ongoing and advancing at a rapid rate, with new work published each week. We aim to keep this site updated particularly in the ‘Review of New Literature’ section along with the individual pages on specific diseases/syndromes or coral predators. So watch this space. New sections will also be added for example a ‘Behind the Scenes’ tab, explaining what we do at our main institutes such as the Coral Molecular Laboratory and the various aquariums and zoos. Advanced Aquarist: Do you accept aquarists' contribution (experiences, information, photos, etc.)? If so, how can aquarists help? Dr Michael Sweet: We would welcome help from anyone and everyone; ideally I would like some more hobbyists to be involved in the editing of the site from their view, as I currently don’t have time to keep abreast of the blog sites and aquarium magazines which all hold a wealth of very important information. If anyone would like to help with the website, or simply send me photos to publish on here, comments on treatments that they have used successfully or otherwise, I would be extremely grateful for their help. I can’t promise to post all entries, as we don’t want to suggest remedies etc until they have been tried and tested or at least repeated by others, but we certainly welcome contributions and we can always ask for others to test and verify proposed treatments before we propose their wider use. My email is Michael.sweet@ncl.ac.uk or Tel; 0191 246 4824 View the full article

Click through to see the images. In their study “Food availability promotes rapid recovery from thermal stress in a scleractinian coral,” Connolly and others from the James Cook University and Australian Institute of Marine Science wanted to know how important feeding was to a coral when it comes to bleaching events. Would a bleached coral that’s actively fed bounce back better than a coral that has not fed? Connolly’s group studied Acropora intermedia as their model coral organism. They acclimated A. intermedia to tank conditions for six weeks before they induced bleaching. One coral group was fed rotifers and the other group was not. After the six-week acclimation period, each group was subjected to a water temperature rise of 4°C for seven days to induce bleaching. The tanks were then brought back down to their previous temperature for two weeks and the health of the corals were monitored. They measured chlorophyll a and protein levels to see how quickly and to what extent the corals recovered. The results indicated that corals that actively fed were significantly better at rebounding from the bleaching episode. Fed corals’ chlorophyll a levels completely recovered to pre-bleaching levels whereas unfed corals’ levels only rebounded to two-thirds this level. Protein levels as well rebounded completely in fed corals. Unfed corals had much lower protein levels throughout the study. Assuming that these results are similar for other corals, it goes to show that feeding is an important facet in maintaining coral health and vigor. View the full article

Click through to see the images. First thing's first: We ask that you respect your favorite aquarium vendor's time and do NOT make silly requests when placing your orders. But this story goes to show good aquarium retailers are not faceless corporations only focused on the bottom line. Disclosure: Bulk Reef Supply is a sponsor of Advanced Aquarist. Even if they weren't, this story is way too cool not to share. [via reddit/r/aquariums] View the full article

The California condor is chronically endangered by lead exposure from ammunition and requires ongoing human intervention for population stability and growth, according to a new study. View the full article

A comprehensive study shows that California condors are continually exposed to harmful levels of lead, the principal source of that lead is ammunition, and lead poisoning from ammunition is preventing the recovery of the condor population. View the full article

A new discovery describes a fossil fish, named Heteronectes (meaning "different swimmer") that was found in 50 million year old marine rocks from northern Italy. This study provides the first detailed description of a primitive flatfish, revealing that the migrated eye had not yet crossed to the opposite side of the skull in early members of this group. View the full article

A new discovery describes a fossil fish, named Heteronectes (meaning "different swimmer") that was found in 50 million year old marine rocks from northern Italy. This study provides the first detailed description of a primitive flatfish, revealing that the migrated eye had not yet crossed to the opposite side of the skull in early members of this group. View the full article

Click through to see the images. The UN Conference on Sustainable Development was held in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil recently to "reduce poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection on an ever more crowded planet" and in honor of this event, these massive fish sculptures were erected on the Botafogo Beach. These sculptures were built using tens of thousands of discarded water bottles attached to massive internally lit fish sculptures. These water bottles give the appearance of fish scales when seen from a distance and they look particularly beautiful at night, which is shown below: For the complete photo set, head over to flickr and check out the rest. If you enjoy this kind of art, see how others are educating the public about how marine trash is affecting our world's oceans at the The Washed Ashore: Plastics, Sea Life and Art project. View the full article

Click through to see the images. Coral growth tied to seagrass health. Photo by 'Paul and Jill' (CC) A Swansea University study has found healthy seagrass meadows have the potential to counter the deleterious effects of ocean acidification on coral calcification by scrubbing CO2 from seawater. This may also suggest that using macroalgae or true marine plants (like sea grass) in reef aquaria systems can potentially increase coral growth rates, especially for aquarists running calcium+CO2 reactors. Of course, there are many complicated variables involved in closed systems that may not mimic natural environments, so more research is required. Research News from Swansea University Media Centre: New research could save coral reefs from extinction New pioneering research by Swansea University could help to preserve the world’s most beautiful and fragile coral reefs from extinction due to ocean acidification. The research, which is to be published as a paper in the Open Access Environmental Research Letters journal, found that the high photosynthetic rates of seagrass meadows can make seawater less acidic and potentially enhance the growth of nearby corals. The research was conducted by Dr Richard Unsworth, Research Officer at the Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Research, College of Science, Swansea University in collaboration with scientists at the University of Oxford, the Northern Fisheries Centre, Australia, and James Cook University in Australia. Explaining the background to the study the author Dr Richard Unsworth said: “Highly productive tropical seagrasses often live adjacent to or among coral reefs and photosynthesise at such rates you can see the oxygen they produce practically bubbling away. We wanted to understand whether this could be a major local influence on seawater and the problems of ocean acidification.” Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, primarily from human fossil fuel combustion, reduces ocean pH and causes wholesale shifts in seawater carbonate chemistry. Over long-term timescales, this change in seawater carbonate chemistry is likely to cause coral reefs to start to disappear as the rate of erosion starts to exceed growth rates. Coral reefs house thousands of unique species that are found nowhere else on the planet. They provide physical protection for small island communities, and provide food for millions of people globally. Losing these reefs would have serious negative economic and food security consequences. Dr Unsworth explained that their research models have shown remarkable results. He said: “Our analyses show that in shallow water reef environments coral calcification downstream of seagrass has the potential to be 18% greater than in an environment without seagrass. It illustrates the importance of keeping seagrass meadows healthy and offers a potential tool in marine park management to offset the impacts of ocean acidification (depending on local conditions and habitats)”. He added: “Not only are seagrass meadows important to hundreds of millions of people worldwide who are dependent upon the food resources that they supply, our novel study suggests that they could potentially, in the long-term, have the added benefit of enhancing the growth of coral reefs under threat of extinction”. Dr Unsworth will be presenting this work at the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns, Australia pm 10 July. Once the paper (titled:“ Tropical seagrass meadows modify seawater carbon chemistry: implications for coral reefs impacted by ocean acidification” ) is published it will be available as ‘Open Access’ (free) at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326 For further information about the study email Dr Unsworth at : r.k.f.unsworth@swansea.ac.uk . View the full article

End of school holiday and start of another new week.. Any Hawaii shipment coming ?

Click through to see the images. Marine aquarists love ocean recreation as much if not more than the general population. At the start of summer each year, Advanced Aquarist traditionally offers our readers a tip for safe beach outings such as how to manage jellyfish stings. This year, this informative video shows you how to survive deadly rip currents. " height="408" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="680"> "> "> View the full article

Salmon exposed to algal-produced neurotoxins show changes in both their brain activity and general behavior. It has also been found that very small doses of these toxins can have an affect on how salmon relate to other fish. These toxins are some of those that can cause food poisoning in people who eat contaminated mussels. View the full article

Salmon exposed to algal-produced neurotoxins show changes in both their brain activity and general behavior. It has also been found that very small doses of these toxins can have an affect on how salmon relate to other fish. These toxins are some of those that can cause food poisoning in people who eat contaminated mussels. View the full article