jellyfisch

Interesting poll! Been going on for some years, I see. I remember, years ago, we always kept our water at 1.023 SG. We had no idea about Alk back then. I personally prefer 1.025/34 for a number of reasons. First, it seems to be a good average, as various bodies of water do have different SGs, but most reefs are around this level. Also, on the practical side, most aquarium stores use this level or a bit lower. Acclimating fish to higher levels is more stressing. In general, I try to imitate what the seas have been doing for millenium. Stability is the key, regardless what parameters one chooses.

Honkit, it was certainly not my intention to slight anyones aquarium! I personally do not like the colour I get/got under T5s. In the end, we do keep marines to satisfy our own aesthetic (partially, anyway). For the record, I do keep one tank with T5s for comparisons with LEDs. My preference is clear. I prefer the glitter lines and more fluid colour play of the LEDs. I do not really like bright bon-bon colours, but plenty of people do. There is certainly room for more than one look. My apologies, if you felt I was slighting anyone. Jamie

here is a partial shot of my tank after 6-7 months under the Illumina. It was previously under 2x 250 HQI +2x T5. No problem growing corals and they look better than they ever did. Mind you, good water parameters do play a role, as well as water movement. J

Regardless of which type of lighting one eventually chooses, you need to consider factors such as running costs (power, bulb replacement, cooling), controlability and expected life of the fixture. Budget may play a role, but, in most cases we are talking about an important piece of equipment that should have a lifespan and flexibility fitting our needs for the projected time period. Personally, I want to get about 10 years use out of a fixture, if I'm going to invest in it. For the stability of my reef, a cheap, uncontrollable and less than reliable fixture is simply not an option. I have corals and fish with a worth many times more than the most expensive fixtures on the market and want to keep them. Along with the filtering system, lighting is an area not to be skimped on. You only end up paying for the mistake, often in less than a year. You know the adage; a cheap tool is an expensive tool. I have been using LEDs for over 18 months (Vertex Illumina SR260) and would never go back to halides and certainly not T5s (hate the flat, candy-coloured look. The corals look like plastic!). For myself, LEDs are clearly the lighting of the future. Colour developement is excellent, growth rates are strong (for me stronger than halide/T5 combis) and the controlability is superb. Something that has become clear to me over the last 18 months is the effect of a more natural light cycle. We are not just talking spectrum, which does change continuously over a natural reef, but the subtle changes in intensity and light angle that are found in nature. With previous lighting options, attaining control on the is level was simply impossible. A good LED setup allows a much better control and the tank responds to this. With my lighting i can control the colur mix throughout the day, vary the intensity and colour mix over the entire length of the lamp, 'walking' the changes across the pads, thus creating a much more natural lighting scheme. The same for the moonlight. This fine level of control is slowly noted in the developement and activities seen in my reef. Fish notice these changes and synchronise their activities to the changing light patterns. Many animals take their spawning trigger from the light, as well. In the end, with a good LED fixture, you can create any kind of lighting effect you wish, except one without crinkle effect, but who wants that? (certainly someone, but taste does lie on the tongue) By choosing the right fixture, you can have a completely up-datable piece of equipment that will serve you for many years and allowing you to customise your lighting as you develope through this hobby. just some thoughts, Jamie

Millepora and prostrata! Where does one start. To be honest, as we typically get only frags, it is not easy. Generally, I do not even try to really seperate them, as the descriptions given by Wallace are different than the descriptions given by Veron! From my own experience, we actually have at least 4 similar corals which vary in 1) branch thickness, 2) radial corallite shape, 3) branching and 4) colony shape. Are they different species or just morphs? No idea, really. When seperating them for my own convienience, I consider the digitate colonies to be millipora and the more corymbose, angular branched colonies to be prostrata or spathulata. From what reef fotos I have, the A. millipora colonies tend to be true tidal reef colonies, often exposed to the air, while prostrata and spathulata tend to be subtidal, but this is only a brief observation from fotos made by friend on the reef. I think, in the end, with this group of corals, we just need to accept that there is no final decision as to what is what, at the moment. Jamie

H. diphreutes. They may eat corals, too, it seems, just not a main part of the diet.

You are correct, the two species are similar, however, A. solitayiensis has strongly fused branching and is rarely a solid plate until quite mature, while A. efflorescens is almost always a solid plate, even smaller specimens except at the edges. Also, the radial corallites of A. efflorescens are smaller and more upright pocket-shaped and barely different from the axials, while the axials are prominent and distinct in A. solitaryensis, and the radials are essentially appressed tubular to pocket shaped (on older parts of the colony). Hope this helps, Jamie