Lol i actually said the same thing to myself when the lady was saying all that stuff.
Chasing Coral GLARING ERRORS
- Thread starter jrwoltman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coral polyps zooxanthellae
What's the take/clarification on this-
If we search plantae it says includes green algae but not some others
Is it accurate to say all algae are protists
Guilty of using Wikipedia i already know it's instant F lol but it got me taxacurious and when I followed green algae link out of curiosity it was all plant descriptions? when someone mentions dreaded green hair algae I immediately think plant
If we search plantae it says includes green algae but not some others
Is it accurate to say all algae are protists
Guilty of using Wikipedia i already know it's instant F lol but it got me taxacurious and when I followed green algae link out of curiosity it was all plant descriptions? when someone mentions dreaded green hair algae I immediately think plant
Last edited:
Colonial coral colonies are connected by tissue and argonite (called the coenosteum). While they are composed of many single polyps, they live as one.
Dr. Gates and her staff are working hard to ensure the survival of coral, btw.
Dr. Gates and her staff are working hard to ensure the survival of coral, btw.
Basic stuff here, but I also just learned that 20% of people asked where chocolate milk comes from said chocolate cows, but more importantly 80% were NOT sure!
Sorry, had to add
Sorry, had to add
I watched it a few weeks ago, but if I recall correctly, the goal is to educate the public that there IS a crisis. This is a subtle distinction - yet one that is important to your point.
You are correct - the nature of coral are more complex than was presented in the documentary; though it made an effort, at least, to provide an idea of how unique coral are. And - I would argue (minor details aside) - did a passable job at it given the time constraints. Especially given that detailed coral biology was not really the point of the documentary.
Certainly misinformation is unfortunate and should, ideally, be avoided when possible. But there's a point in "dumbing things down", as it were. When your goal is to get a group of people interested in a topic, you have to make sure that you don't overwhelm them with useless information. Doing so will cause them to shun the topic - the exact opposite of the goal. When you're face-to-face with the people, you can feel this out as you go and (if you are astute), keep just enough away from that edge to not go over. But with a medium such as video (where there is no feedback to the presenter possible), you have to assume where that edge is. How much "perfect" information you present is as much about psychology as it is about the need to explain the topic at hand. When that's the case (as it is here), the authors must choose their audience to target. It should be no surprise that we - those of us with aquariums in our homes - are above the level of the audience they aimed at.
I happened to converse with a "landlubber" (a not unintelligent friend who happens to not be an ocean nut) about this film. One of their main points of feedback was that they "got lost in all the biology stuff", but that they were interested in hearing more about the problem (and, really, possible solutions). I think this reaction is what the filmmakers were after; and they were willing to sacrifice some of the correctness of the "biology stuff" to get there. I've since gone back and tried to expand on the biology of coral in greater detail and quickly saw them loose interest in the topic. The problem - and it's solution - is interesting to this friend; not the details of those involved.
Misinformation is a problem; yes. But apathy towards - or worse; rejection of - science is an even greater contributor to America's current science illiteracy. If using a bit of slightly-wrong information to simplify a complex situation results in less apathy and rejection, well - I for one am okay with that. If everyone watched the video and was able to come away saying, "they are wrong about the zooxanthellae part", then we likely wouldn't be in the ecological mess we're in, I don't think...
Last edited:
Finally finished the documentary. The inaccurate science does paint a bad picture for the entire film. However, I applaud the efforts in raising awareness. Sadly, blaming people for global warming isn't surprising but I think other facts, opinions, and scientific data should have been presented. Again, to me it's another one sided documentary that I should have avoided.
You and I are in the same boat. When I wash it I couldn't stand the inaccuracies. What was even worse to me was when on the video and in the imagery they showed Quarles had been flipped over in areas that were covered in Silt and sand, and they were indicating the bleaching her there. I think the water quality diminished and that caused the bleaching and that water quality was due to pollutants not necessarily global warming as they were trying to indicate.
The list of articles that she has co-authored on corals, coral DNA, Symbiodinium, and coral spawning and reproduction, (listed here http://gatescorallab.com/ruth-gates) make me disinclined to go with "she's wrong" even though the statement is at odds with my previous understanding.
One thing that also leads me to accept her comment is the fact that we know corals spawn to reproduce. The act of adding / dividing polyps is not reproduction. Though we also know that fragging works as well.
That makes me think that, aside from anything else, it is a lot more complicated than I'd previously thought and when an author of Correspondance of coral holobiont metabolome with symbiotic bacteria, archaea, and Symbiodinium communities, and of Spawning dynamics in the Hawaiian reef building coral Montipora capitata states specifically that a coral colony is an animal I'm prepared to take her at her word. Though I do plan to study the issue further.
I would also suggest that the co-author of Molecular characterization of symbiotic algae (Symbiodinium spp.) in soritid foraminifer (Sorites orbiculus) and a scleractinian coral (Orbicella annularis) understands the classification of the symbiote and so that was a term of convenience, that I get your point on dumbing down discourse in general.
I wonder if in fact it is the case that, while it is more accurate to state that the colony is an animal and the polyp is part thereof for some technical reasons, it is just easier and more convenient to refer to the polyp as an animal that just shared a skeletal structure with its relatives.
But we wouldn't want to dumb down the discourse of that was the case...
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2017
- Messages
- 9,073
- Reaction score
- 34,387
- Review score
- +0 /0 /-0
- Location
- South Carolina
Most people think I have colorful "plants" in my aquarium, and are completely dumbfounded when I try to explain that corals are hundreds of animals living in one colony.
Imagine how I must feel. I work with coral
, and the deal with the public in the process.DJ
Lol. I have always been confused about some of the single polyp corals like trachys since they have many mouths. Does each mouth correspond to an individual?
As stated prior, it is useful to say plants and have the audience follow you. In its most colloquial meaning, plant does include all photoautotrophs. Maybe plant-like is better and I can go there, but certainly autotroph is better and preferred over dinoflagellate or zooxanthellae. Or better yet, they should have said, "actually typically thought of as autotroph but often mixotroph and sometimes heterotroph." But everyone wold have stopped listening as soon as the multisyllabic words were dropped. The truth is, that as scientists we have to know when to generalize, when to analogize, and when be specific and nuanced. I just got scolded today for going a little too deep when I could have written more plainly.
If you feel strongly, you should make your case and tell NOAA they're science educating wrong https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral02_zooxanthellae.html
This is like asking a phylogeneticist to define how much genetic variability separates species in a clade. Or, as one prior poster, when is Pando one quaking aspen versus thousands. To some degree each stem (and each polyp) is independent, but is also not. In some cases (e.g. Fungia) the decision is made pretty clear cut for us. But what happens when multiple polyps share one gastrovascular system? it's definitely easier to think of them as one individual (even if it is many animals), so I think most of us can be on the same page there. At the same, acknowledging that many papers will consider the individual colony as the unit of observation, ignoring their collection.
I hear alot of stupid stuff, or gross generalizations said by scientists and in casual conversations with lay people. Sometimes I know the literature well, I'm going to the conferences, I'm even doing the field and lab work to push the extent of our knowledge. But unless sometime outright wrong or leading to erroneous conclusions is said, I just shut up, smile and nod.
No offense but I am going to be blunt. By focusing on these tiny details you are missing the complete purpose of the film. To educate this climate change doubters! To educate them that it is actually happening despite all the nay sayers. Most people would consider algae a plant, and to focus on the scientifically details is missing the point of the entire film. Use the details you have noticed and use them to your advantage on class not to slander the film. I think the film was well needed and coupled with the other "chasing ice" (not sure on the name but the iceberg and glacier documentary) proves that despite what some media reports climate change is real.
This did nothing for climate change doubters. Government paid scientific analysis does nothing for doubters. Posing new regulations and employing people to preach climate change STILL does nothing for climate change doubters. BUT if anything, does keep an open mind. Learning about nature in an accurate and detailed manor helps keep an open mind too.
Another part of the documentary that bugs me is the "unexplained" florescent SPS colonies post bleaching event. Best explained was that it was protecting itself from UV rays. So why would it do that if it's been growing in that spot? Why would those colonies create some "unexplained" reaction to the Sun light? Has the Sun not been there for...ever? Or is the Sun getting brighter? Could the sun be getting hotter?(suggest you google that) Is there talk about climate change and warming temps on Mars? Or maybe Jupiter? (google that too) Does Earths inner crust not contain tons of naturally occurring CO2 that gets expelled via volcanic eruptions and volcanic ports in the ocean waters? Have we not read news articles about how the solar flares are effecting cell phone service reception? Are our planets going through a Milankovitch cycle? And would any of these questions be man made or something we can control?
Sorry for that rant, I just think this film and certain politicians are pushing us to believe we can help this when really, we may not be able to.
Again I think everyone is over thinking it all.
Maybe. If it were a Finding Nemo movie we were dissecting, absolutely. I worry because, I don't want to see the reefs die off. The chain reaction would hurt everyone.
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2011
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 44
- Review score
- +0 /0 /-0
- Location
- viginia beach, va
My observation has been that climate change is like politics or religion. Most people choose one side or another and aren't likely to budge.
Similar threads
- AMS: Article
