# Spilo and Macs, the same?



## leg89 (Dec 10, 2008)

just wanted to confirm here since someone told me that scientists finally agreed that it was just two geographical variants of the same speecie, and therefore, spilos are now offcially called macs (a bit like ternz and natts).

what do you guys know bout that?


----------



## CLUSTER ONE (Aug 2, 2006)

leg89 said:


> just wanted to confirm here since someone told me that scientists finally agreed that it was just two geographical variants of the same speecie, and therefore, spilos are now offcially called macs (a bit like ternz and natts).
> 
> what do you guys know bout that?


From what i under stand these are the same species and its the ruby red splio that is the true splio. aquascape has a pic of these on there site. They look spiloish, but with a red breast in addition to yellow colouration


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

leg89 said:


> just wanted to confirm here since someone told me that scientists finally agreed that it was just two geographical variants of the same speecie, and therefore, spilos are now offcially called macs (a bit like ternz and natts).
> 
> what do you guys know bout that?


Haven't heard about it, where did you hear that ?


----------



## Us And Them (Dec 4, 2008)

Lucien said:


> just wanted to confirm here since someone told me that scientists finally agreed that it was just two geographical variants of the same speecie, and therefore, spilos are now offcially called macs (a bit like ternz and natts).
> 
> what do you guys know bout that?


Haven't heard about it, where did you hear that ?
[/quote]

Theres an Article in The OPEFE forum here , I asked the very same Question. Frank explained that they are indeed two different species.


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

"Ruby Reds" are spilos, and macs are macs


----------



## AKSkirmish (Jun 24, 2005)

LMFAO......

Seems as if a few have some more reading to due.......


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

AK can you elaborate a bit more?


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

_The classification of this species as S. maculatus remains open for scientific discussion. For the present time it is acceptable as the species name until reviewed by other authorities in the future. Hobbyists and dealers must remain flexible should this name be revised or reassigned to S. spilopleura as a synonym._

and about the "Ruby Reds":

_The common name Ruby Red Spilo was erected by George Fear to differentiate this fish (caught 170 miles (275km) northwest of Goiania) from the gold S. maculatus a similar appearing species from Paraguay/Paraña. This fish is found in the river that spills into the rio Tocantins. The authority M. Jégu recognizes this species and the one from Bolivia as being S. spilopleura. _

The most recent OPEFE description on the subject I think...


----------



## AKSkirmish (Jun 24, 2005)

Ja said:


> AK can you elaborate a bit more?


No

I dont debate this subject anymore...It's like beating a damn dead horse.....No matter how much it is explained-One generally challenges it or doesn't understand it.....

Lucien has posted the best advice.....Want info.......Read Opefe or contact Frank......


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

To me a true spilo doesn't look anything like a mac. From my point of view a spilo is of more of a rhombeus type shape with the deep red eyes and less yellow and more red in compared to the rounder shape and strictly yellow coloring of a maculatus and in most cases macs do not have red eyes.


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

Ja said:


> To me a true spilo doesn't look anything like a mac. From my point of view a spilo is of more of a rhombeus type shape with the deep red eyes and less yellow and more red in compared to the rounder shape and strictly yellow coloring of a maculatus and in most cases macs do not have red eyes.


Is that S.spilopleura, or just some specimens you are talking about ?

Look at the geographical variations of macs... LINK

There are differences, though they are hard to tell (read the profiles on OPEFE for the spilo vs mac discussion).

@AKSkirmish : why stop debating the subject ? Scientists have not, and maybe someday a topicstart like this just might be a truth before Frank got to write about it


----------



## AKSkirmish (Jun 24, 2005)

Lucien said:


> To me a true spilo doesn't look anything like a mac. From my point of view a spilo is of more of a rhombeus type shape with the deep red eyes and less yellow and more red in compared to the rounder shape and strictly yellow coloring of a maculatus and in most cases macs do not have red eyes.


Is that S.spilopleura, or just some specimens you are talking about ?

Look at the geographical variations of macs... LINK

There are differences, though they are hard to tell (read the profiles on OPEFE for the spilo vs mac discussion).

@AKSkirmish : why stop debating the subject ? Scientists have not, and maybe someday a topicstart like this just might be a truth before Frank got to write about it








[/quote]

Just frustrating when one has been doing it for years man....And has seen really nothing come of it---other than circles

Dont get me wrong either Sir.......I'll debate with the dead serious people that want to learn/understand species better.....And when I have the time.........But I dont/wont due it in the eyes of the public anymore.....


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

AKSkirmish said:


> To me a true spilo doesn't look anything like a mac. From my point of view a spilo is of more of a rhombeus type shape with the deep red eyes and less yellow and more red in compared to the rounder shape and strictly yellow coloring of a maculatus and in most cases macs do not have red eyes.


Is that S.spilopleura, or just some specimens you are talking about ?

Look at the geographical variations of macs... LINK

There are differences, though they are hard to tell (read the profiles on OPEFE for the spilo vs mac discussion).

@AKSkirmish : why stop debating the subject ? Scientists have not, and maybe someday a topicstart like this just might be a truth before Frank got to write about it








[/quote]

Just frustrating when one has been doing it for years man....And has seen really nothing come of it---other than circles

Dont get me wrong either Sir.......I'll debate with the dead serious people that want to learn/understand species better.....And when I have the time.........But I dont/wont due it in the eyes of the public anymore.....
[/quote]

Can't argue with that, it took me only a year to start thinking that way








However, it keeps itching so I'll keep returning in topics like this


----------



## Us And Them (Dec 4, 2008)

At the present time, they are considered separate species. As for what are the differences; locality and miniscule differences in external attributes that seem to overflow between both species. Most of the major differences, not completely understood is the internal skeletal structure. DnA evidence suggest that S. maculatus is polymorphic, meaning a varying body shape in the localities it is found. That's just pin head of the problems between S. maculatus and S. spilopleura. The other is the historical names which consists of synonyms. S. nigricans an Amazonian and a synonmy of S. spilopleura (Fink 1996) was overlooked by Jegu (2003) in his revision. That error leaves a can of worms between S. spilopleura and S. maculatus in the scientific world. For hobbyists it more perplexing because majority of fish being imported are S. maculatus, which is also commonly bred in aquaria. S. spilopleura is found only in Bolivia at the time of my writing this. This too may change with revisions not done yet.

this is the response i got from frank just over a month ago when I had asked him.


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

AKSkirmish said:


> LMFAO......
> 
> Seems as if a few have some more reading to due(Do).......


Fixed^^^

IMO This is a Spilo


and this is a mac
View attachment 190069


Until science proves that they are the same fish to me they are different


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I dont think anyone is arguing that there are two distinct species...maculatus and spilopleura. I even think science is trying to say they are the same. The problem is that a few years ago....S. maculatus was being sold and labled S. spilopleura. Then the actual species S. spilopleura started being imported and it was pretty clear they were different.

The confusion with S. maculatus for me is the clear difference between two variants that are in the hobby.


----------



## FEEFA (Nov 19, 2007)

Grosse Gurke said:


> I dont think anyone is arguing that there are two distinct species...maculatus and spilopleura. I even think science is trying to say they are the same. The problem is that a few years ago....S. maculatus was being sold and labled S. spilopleura. Then the actual species S. spilopleura started being imported and it was pretty clear they were different.
> 
> *The confusion with S. maculatus for me is the clear difference between two variants that are in the hobby.
> *


I think thats the case with most people including myself.
There are macs that have the same shape as Spilo's but without the red coloration. With my old Mac in the above pic it has a different more pygocetrus like shape with the big bull head.


----------



## leg89 (Dec 10, 2008)

wow ok thanks guys for the info! appreciate that you took some of your time to help me understand that debate

as for AK's first comment, dunno if it was intended to me, but if it's the case, i don't find it very kind. i'm also a moderator on a french forum and when the question was asked, i wanted to confirm what i read from OPEFE, knowing that Frank comes here pretty often. Maybe he just didn't have the time to update OPEFE, or it was highly debated at the moment and he was waiting for the final outcome to post about it...how can i know? that's why i told the guy on the other forum (a knowledgeable aquarist) that i would check the info with people who are much more into scientific taxonomy than i am.

so anyways, i appreciate all the answers, makes it much more clearer to me now. i admit i'm lost sometimes when it comes to less common serras (never saw any mac in petshops round here!)


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

leg89 said:


> wow ok thanks guys for the info! appreciate that you took some of your time to help me understand that debate
> 
> as for AK's first comment, dunno if it was intended to me, but if it's the case, i don't find it very kind. i'm also a moderator on a french forum and when the question was asked, i wanted to confirm what i read from OPEFE, knowing that Frank comes here pretty often. Maybe he just didn't have the time to update OPEFE, or it was highly debated at the moment and he was waiting for the final outcome to post about it...how can i know? that's why i told the guy on the other forum (a knowledgeable aquarist) that i would check the info with people who are much more into scientific taxonomy than i am.
> 
> so anyways, i appreciate all the answers, makes it much more clearer to me now. i admit i'm lost sometimes when it comes to less common serras (never saw any mac in petshops round here!)


I don't think you should take it personal. But try to understand that topics like this become annoying when started a thousand times. Every moderator gets frustrated over it I think.
However your reason for asking was a different one then the usual one AK referred to I think, and like you I always consider the possibility that a newsflash sometimes travels faster then Frank can write his updates.

Keep in mind the reason for those frustrations, some questions have to be explained immediately to prevent this misunderstandings


----------



## Us And Them (Dec 4, 2008)

My 4.5 " Maculatus looks almost Identical to that Spilo In the top Picture , Minus 1 eye and the Red tint in the eye,
Infact , My Maculatus even has those little black dots on it aswell. very Noticeable on that Spilo.....

and doesnt look anything like that Mac in the bottom Picture...

I have to go to work , tonight i will post some pics


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

The little black dots are parasites.


----------



## Us And Them (Dec 4, 2008)

Well , Not as many as I thought , Perhaps 4 on its body completely..... But really ? I got him that Way ...
He is in the SUMP connected to my Reds 90 , Should I treat him with Prazi ?? what kind of Parasites we talkin GG ??

Jon


----------



## JoeDizzleMPLS (Nov 5, 2007)

Jon87 said:


> Well , Not as many as I thought , Perhaps 4 on its body completely..... But really ? I got him that Way ...
> He is in the SUMP connected to my Reds 90 , Should I treat him with Prazi ?? what kind of Parasites we talkin GG ??
> 
> Jon


just external parasites, no big deal... they usually clear up on their own, but you could add some salt to speed up the process


----------



## leg89 (Dec 10, 2008)

ok well i have all the answers i wanted, and of course i understand that some topics are getting annoying when they come over and over.

i should probably have explained the whole context in my original post. thanks to all of you, and for me, this topic can be closed. (orelse Jon wants to wait for more explanations on his parasite problem)

later guys


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Jon...I dont think you need to do anything...maybe a little salt as has been stated. They will fall off soon enough.

I also dont think this is a tired topic or anything....the science around is a mess when it comes to S. maculatus vs. S. spilopleura....and Frank knows this more then anyone.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Grosse Gurke Posted Today, 10:58 AM
> Jon...I dont think you need to do anything...maybe a little salt as has been stated. They will fall off soon enough.
> 
> *I also dont think this is a tired topic or anything....the science around is a mess when it comes to S. maculatus vs. S. spilopleura....and Frank knows this more then anyone*.


Thanks for the compliment. As for science and the S. spilopleura vs S. maculatus, in the scientific world its either publish or perish. Unfortunately that also means that some things are not peered reviewed, simply published. Such is the case of S. spilopleura vs. S. maculatus. In my opinion, it was not completely peer reviewed. Hence the error in the omission of S. nigricans by Jegu. Had he mentioned it in comparison with all synomyms, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As pointed out earlier in this discussion, there are minor external differences, but this was further confirmed by DNA that S. maculatus is a varying body shape. So unless you know for sure where the fish was collected it will be a best guess on what species it is. With S. spilopleura, its simplier more or less since its limited in its range. But again, if you go by historical records both forms should have been left as S. spilopleura. That's my opinion. Until a competent authority agrees or disagrees, we will be left with this quagmire along with a few others.


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

So that's the final answer to the original question for now


----------

