Wow Darren... I see that now... that's just crazy. You know, it only lends creedence to the idea that some of these places are really just selling a variety of names rather than actually looking at the corals for tentative i.d.s (if anyone cares). I'm not saying that i.d.ing a coral is necessary... or even right or wrong, just that if an attempt is made, it should be an honest attempt! I guess they're assuming customers aren't really looking closely either!
They have 'confusa' and 'danae' on a number of photos on that page, now that I look more closely. And I think in addition to the pair you found, at least one other pair of images may be duplicated. Funny thing... I still don't think either i.d. is accurate! Confusa looks very different from the coral they are selling, and doesn't even enter into the discussion for long, in my opinion. I still think M. undata for those and yours... but that's just me.
Eric -
My hypoetheses for identifying SPS isn't singular nor is it static. I take a look at a variety of characteristics, depending upon the Genus, and go from there. For these encrusting Montipora colonies... its actually a matter of having seen and lived with a number colonies in person, for several years, that helps me i.d. the frags. I have what I believe to be M. verrucosa, M. spongodes, M. danae, M. pertiformis, M. monasteriata (?), M. palawensis, M. grisea, and M. efflorescens. These are the most mature SPS colonies in my tank, for the most part... as I collected them back when nobody gave a rats a** about encrusting Montis... so they were coming in on live rock and being sold dirt cheap! I have looked at skeletal samples taken from most of these, and compared them to images in Verons' book for my own, still tentative verifications. The hypotheses I form by simply looking at a coral (like Darren's or the one's on reefscience) are based on that experiece, plus ruling out what I know I haven't seen before... if that makes sense.
b