# knifemans pfish thread about bubbas size



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

http://www.predatoryfish.net/ibforums/inde...=17&t=16542&hl=


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I wish Knifeman would confirm it on this board himself.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I wish I could have seen a hand feeding when I was at his house









hand feeding a fish like that would sure scare me, but Bubba seemed a bit more calm than my Ternetzi or Cariba act :smile:


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

ya i know, he doesn't use boards that much. he is a mod at fishpost.com. hey x maybe you should lock this thread so it doesn't start a fight.
wes


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

What fight would that be. Nobody here has made any claims about anything, you just presented additional information on a finding that has been disputed. If he still has this fish, what would be the harm in taking it out, measuring it, and snapping a picture?


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

he traded it for a large rhom to jason bolin. .
wes


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

That's nice. It's still just a big wild guess and I haven't seen John involve himself in this, not really fair to be tossing his name and fish around like this. Can we please get past this stupid big tern thing? It's annoying.


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

hey im just providing a link to a thread that he started himself since he doesn't frequent this board.
wes


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

I know, but it still proves nothing. It's just more guessing and hasn't gotten us any closer to anything. Right well my quota was filled long ago today, cheers.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Neoplasia said:


> I know, but it still proves nothing. It's just more guessing and hasn't gotten us any closer to anything. Right well my quota was filled long ago today, cheers.


 You have a quota Neo?


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2003)

he means quarter.
he is off to play pac-man :smile:


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

For some things yes.

I wish Bob, I wish.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Since I was PM by Piranha King to talk about this fish some more, I posted the remarks of what John wrote.



> When I netted him, I decided to get a good measurement of him so I could finally know for sure if he has been growing. Although I had guessed him at around 13.5", to my surprise he has easily surpassed 14"! He also seemed very heavy and solid in the net, and I would guess him to weigh nearly 4 lbs


Still doesn't prove anything, he has no photo of the fish. And it does not contradict what I wrote here in Piranha Science:



> And I again state for the record. Captured fish that are measured by science does not necessarily mean that is the largest size in existence. Just means no larger has been discovered and recorded. And also stated by me, fish in the aquario do get larger than wild because of being safe from natural predation and diseases/parasites.


You might go read that Wes under the P. nattereri maximum size that Nate disputed.

PS: Piranhas might be your game Wes, but Science is mine and you like Nate have proved nothing.


----------



## mort (Mar 14, 2003)

It will be very interesting to get some more info about this "giant"... Hopefully he gets online again, and invest in a dig vidcam!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> mort Posted on Apr 30 2003, 09:05 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It will be very interesting to get some more info about this "giant"... Hopefully he gets online again, and invest in a dig vidcam!


 That and a ruler.


----------



## yonderway (Apr 28, 2003)

What major city is he closest to? Maybe we can arrange a third party verification of this possibly superlative fish.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

You can also follow the threat from Predatory fish. Nate and company have been arguing this fish since the dawn of time. PF is littered with numerous posts, arguments, agreements, disagreementsl etc. etc. etc. One thing that remains constant is Nate bringing it up as if he knows what he is talking about....all heresay.

Predatory Fish Board

The following was posted by Wayne Mah (911):



> 911 Posted: Jan 22 2003, 03:44 PM
> 
> P. Nattereri
> 
> Privatepain and anyone near Montreal, go to the biodome exibit and you will see some giant reds definitely over 12 inches. Both Oliver and I agree those were the largest Pygos we both have seen alive for the longest time until I saw my friend's piraya. Yes shedd aquarium had some big ones too but these at biodome are just outrages. I have them on film from 6 or 7 years ago a they all are still alive.


From Josh (Serrasalmus)



> serrasalmus Posted: Feb 1 2003, 08:15 PM
> 
> You're right Nate, I'm changing my stance. I made statements without examining all of the previous data. I was wrong on my stance before. I'm not covering my ass, I'm just now reiterating what science now knows, and has figured out. The last thing we really need is another common name to apply to these fish, as more people will just become confused. You're also neglecting that the southern color morph is found in more countries than just Argentina.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Well as Wes said Jason Bolin now owns Bubba, so he is very hard to get a hold of from what I hear, but all we would need is for him to get a ruler or tape measure next to this big fish and take a picture

that way we will finally know for sure its size

the fish resides in Grove City, Ohio by the way


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 1 2003, 02:25 AM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Well as Wes said Jason Bolin now owns Bubba, so he is very hard to get a hold of from what I hear, but all we would need is for him to get a ruler or tape measure next to this big fish and take a picture
> 
> that way we will finally know for sure its size


 Wow Nate, good of you to think of that. And since its Jason, the photo better have a ruler shown.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

wow..the tern(yellow natt) in the back looks huge...


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

hastatus said:


> PS: Piranhas might be your game Wes, but Science is mine and you like Nate have proved nothing.


 i wasn't trying to prove anything, just sharing a link i found.








wes


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> thePACK Posted on May 1 2003, 03:11 AM ...wow..the tern(yellow natt) in the back looks huge...


 Those belong to Josh (Serrasalmus) if I remember correctly those are around 11 inches or a bit less. They look huge because; 1) camera angle 2) wild caught are always built differently that tank raised. That is how experts knowing piranas can pick them out from the wild in your tank.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

One might be with Josh, I can't remember exactly what happened to them. The largest was 13" or so I believe, though that might even be too big (it's been so long now I can't remember what it turned out to be). But I assure you none of them were massive, as in bigger than that.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

he was supposed to get them taxidermied, I spoke to him via MSN a few weeks back to see if he had them done yet, they are still in the freezer


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > thePACK Posted on May 1 2003, 03:11 AM ...wow..the tern(yellow natt) in the back looks huge...
> 
> 
> Those belong to Josh (Serrasalmus) if I remember correctly those are around 11 inches or a bit less. They look huge because; 1) camera angle 2) wild caught are always built differently that tank raised. That is how experts knowing piranas can pick them out from the wild in your tank.


 thanks frank and neo..just saw this pic and thought how stunning these fish were


----------



## Josh (Feb 21, 2003)

I've really got to start putting my name on my pictures.

The fish in that picture were not over 11".
Frank is correct, it was the camera angle. I am the one who took the picture. This is from the horse's mouth. End of discussion


----------



## rosecityrhom (Feb 3, 2003)

I would like to see some pics of this monstrosity. Pics with measurements would be even better.


----------



## Josh (Feb 21, 2003)

There are none. Bubba died in Argentina, and is decomposing at some waste dump in Buenos Aires since last May. Any rumors you heard about this fish making it to the United States are FALSE. There ARE no pictures of the fish with measurement. All I can give you is of the fish in the box, and here it is: KEEP IN MIND THIS FISH DIED IN ARGENTINA!!!!!!! Take it from me....... I caught him.




























Although the fish was impressive, he wasn't over 12"


----------



## rosecityrhom (Feb 3, 2003)

Thanks for the info Josh and settling it.


----------



## DonH (Jan 25, 2003)

Size of fish always seem to be over-guestimated. I bought this supposed 12" tern and decided to measure it:
















Just a tad bit over 10" :sad:


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

I don't know why people are always so focused on the size of the fish...








I mean, look at DonH's yellow natt: wheter it's 12" or 'just' 10", does it make that fish a less beautiful or impressive fish?


----------



## Knifeman (Feb 3, 2003)

Chris emailed me and told me about the existence of this thread. I am definitely not going to get into a debate over the size of my former fish, especially since I am no longer even the owner. I will comment on what I know first hand, and leave it at that. I will also point out that there have been at least six well known board members that have seen Bubba after I measured him at 14", and everyone commented on how huge he was. That in itself proves little though, since fish size can look distorted through aquarium glass. It should at least lend credence to the fact that I certainly did not come up with a fictional measurement on my fish and then try to hide him so that his size could never be verified. Anyone was welcome to visit my home and see this fish at any time.

I often wish I could afford to have kept Bubba in the 350 gallon tank that my piraya shoal is currently in. When he was in my old 300 gallon tank with the auto water changer, he was noticeably growing in leaps and bounds. It is my belief that he may have continued to grow even much bigger, but we will never know for sure.

This is Jason's debate now, although I doubt he will bother to address it or will even see this thread. I will say that I know of a picture that was taken of a ternetzi that recently came to North America and was measured next to a ruler. It is said that the picture shows the fish to be clearly larger than 14". I have not seen the picture yet, but I will contact the person who took it and see if he would be open to posting it. This person is a friend, and IMO a credible source.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I am excited to see this picture.


----------



## traumatic (Jan 29, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> wheter it's 12" or 'just' 10", does it make that fish a less beautiful or impressive fish?


Very valid, and honored point by honest collectors







, though not really the debate.









Just Remember: Some guys' THINGS always have to be BIGGER than the other guys'









oooh fish stories, gotta love em!!!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Judazzz Posted on May 1 2003, 12:34 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know why people are always so focused on the size of the fish...


 My sentiments exactly. What difference does it really make?

No one, I repeat no one disputes that the Argentina and Paraguay fishes in that latitude grow a bit larger. The real argument is whether or not those piranas are a separate, distinct species from P. nattereri. They're not. Plain and simple. The rest of argument is past the point of ridiculous.

So find your picture John and get it posted. Won't make a difference, it will still be a P. nattereri to science and to those that follow the method of actually determining species.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Um....nothing more here i suppose.










EDIT: Re-opened awaiting picture.


----------



## Knifeman (Feb 3, 2003)

I just got the picture of the 14" ternetzi from my friend yesterday. He also sent a short note and asked me not to post it quite yet. He didn't mention exactly why, but I will honor that request. I am sure we will see the picture soon, and it is a good one that leaves no question as to the fish's true size IMO. Perhaps he wants to start his own thread and post this picture. In any event, that is all I have for now.

Oh, and my friend also said that he sent the picture to Elongatus, who can verify it's existence as well.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Lets see it!


----------



## Bcollins111900 (Feb 3, 2003)

what does size matter? damn well bet if i ordered a 10" fish and I got a 6", and payed for a 10" I would be pissed off.


----------



## elongatus (Feb 6, 2003)

Yes I did see the photo John is refering to and it is 14"(TL). From what I hear, his supplier has had them even larger.


----------



## Olson (Feb 15, 2003)

Bcollins111900 said:


> what does size matter? damn well bet if i ordered a 10" fish and I got a 6", and payed for a 10" I would be pissed off.


 that would be my only problem also,when I order a large fish that is said to be that size and pay for a larger species that is what I hope I am gettin.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I guess the big deal here is that this fish COULD become the new max size for a Natt, otherwise it wouldnt be such a fuss, as the one Frank posted about was very close to 14" TL, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I agree, but can you apply a piranha in an aquarium to max size found in the wild? I really dont know, just asking....


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I dont think so, but it would show the max size can surpass 14" if so

really all and aquarium does is provide a safer environment for the fish, that and with more food


----------



## rosecityrhom (Feb 3, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> I guess the big deal here is that this fish COULD become the new max size for a Natt, otherwise it wouldnt be such a fuss, as the one Frank posted about was very close to 14" TL, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out


 I thought the one Frank was posting about was less than 14" TL or am I thinking of a different fish?


----------



## rosecityrhom (Feb 3, 2003)

Enough arguing and show the "doctored" photo.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

patience is a virtue.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Xenon said:


> patience is a virtue.


 something I lack, patience


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> I guess the big deal here is that this fish COULD become the new max size for a Natt, otherwise it wouldnt be such a fuss, as the one Frank posted about was very close to 14" TL, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out


 Um no not really. We already know that the southern variation grows a bit larger than the "standard" nattereri. Nice try though.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> Sir Nathan XXI said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the big deal here is that this fish COULD become the new max size for a Natt, otherwise it wouldnt be such a fuss, as the one Frank posted about was very close to 14" TL, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out
> ...










so why then did people argue that this fish isnt 14"? and yes it would beecome the largest Natt according to Franks research. Nice try though.


----------



## rosecityrhom (Feb 3, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> Sir Nathan XXI said:
> 
> 
> > I guess the big deal here is that this fish COULD become the new max size for a Natt, otherwise it wouldnt be such a fuss, as the one Frank posted about was very close to 14" TL, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out
> ...


 What do you mean "we all" know??? That seems like an offly broad statement.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> so why then did people argue that this fish isnt 14"?


 Two things. A) it being larger than 14" doesn't mean anything as I stated above; B) because the vast majority (I'd wager well over 80%) of eyeball measurements are overestimated by a fair amount. People doubt the alleged size because to date everyone proclaiming a fish that size other than S. rhombeus and maybe a select few others have never put forward proof or have been discounted. Until I see something that will conclusively show this fish being that large I will continue to go with the odds.

Also note that I have never called John a liar and will not as I do not believe him to be one. Do I believe he could have overestimated the fish? Yes. Do I believe it could be 14"? Yes. But so far all I've seen is "the fish looks huge!" and other such guestimation statements. But as stated earlier who cares how big it is? It won't change anything about the species, it just means it's a big fish. If it being 14" is so important to some people well more power to you I suppose, personally I think it's a little sad but then again people need large possessions for reasons I'm told.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

rosecityrhom said:


> Neoplasia said:
> 
> 
> > Sir Nathan XXI said:
> ...


 I apologize, some people aren't current. We all _should_ know. Is that better? In any case my point is that it won't make a lick of difference if the fish is 14" or not to what is already known and published about the species. Whether or not people have seen the information is an entirely different story and really quite irrelevant.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

lets all wait for the pic before getting into this.... after we get the pic we can then all engage in a discussion about what it "really" means.

thanks.


----------



## DrewBoOty (Nov 23, 2002)

tell jason to take 5 minutes and log-on to post the pic, this is getting stupid.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I highlited in *BOLD* the key points. Please, those of you that have not read it, please read it again. It is self-explanatory my remarks about these Paraguay/Argentina fish;

The topic of P. nattereri maximum vs S. ternetzi has been on going for some time and I thought it would be time to finally settle it. Though I believe (as in the species S. niger), there will still be a handful of unknowledgeable hobbyists that will continue to dispute what I am about to release for public dissimination. This post will be from the science community and what it knows. Anyone else that cares to dispute it will have to provide photographic evidence with a tape measure to disprove science and their published findings.

From the archives of OPEFE I wrote some facts and data concerning P. nattereri and its maximum growth. *Which I clearly stated that it was in the range of 30-35 cm TL. For those of you that do not know metric system, that is just under 14 inches.* The continuous argument now seems to be the synonym species S. ternetzi (Steindachner 1908), long since placed under P. nattereri (Kner 1860) (Fink, 1993 et al.) and its size. *A few hobbyist hold that the so-called ternetzi, a Paraguay specimen grows between 16-18 inches on some belief from dealers which I might add; none of which has yet to produce one single photo to verify this giant size. Further, some hobbyists have suggested this is a distinct species but have no clue that the holotype (type specimen based) is lost so nothing to base it on other than a few lines of description that clearly fit P. nattereri. The region Paraguay is used because that is the only locality known for S. ternetzi. It is known that wild yellow belly forms of P. nattereri are being imported from Argentina but these are not S. ternetzi because of the reasons stated above.*

So what is actually known then? *Because Paraquay sits on a higher latitude, it is quite common for animals to be found a bit larger. So it is quite possible that the Paraguay fish could be a bit larger than the Amazonian and I will explain next this remark. Does it make it a separate species? No, for the reasons stated many times about dates and descriptions by authors of which dates of description is used to decide precedence in naming a species as valid. It also means that these Paraguay fish could be just a few mm larger than most Amazonians piranas, but nothing conclusive has been found to substantiate this theory. *And I again state for the record. *Captured fish that are measured by science does not necessarily mean that is the largest size in existence. Just means no larger has been discovered and recorded. And also stated by me, fish in the aquario do get larger than wild because of being safe from natural predation and diseases/parasites.*

Below are the measurements of captured red-bellies. For those looking for TL instead SL simply add about 50 mm for the tail (about 1 1/2-2 inches).

References are also included for those measurements. I'm not in the business of seeking out photos with tape measurements to disprove science as it takes trust on my part that the information is accurate. But I, as part of the scientific community and a hobbyist do not trust dealers and their method of measuring fish because 98% of the time it is simply eyeball measuring and to sell a fish.

And I do have trust from the source where I received this information from; Dr. Paulo Petry, BioAmazonia International and Dr. Elizabeth Leão. For those of you still set on disputing these sizes then by all means contact me via PM. Be sure you have your photographic proof with shown measurements disproving the record indicated by the authors.

Now, what is needed is Sir Nathan aka SuperNate to disprove the authors (references) with his measurements. They are the ones you have to disprove Nate, not I.

As requested per Sir Nathan via PM since he can't convert the measurements or translation:

211 mm SL = 8.307 inches 
250 mm TL = 9.843 inches 
26.9 cm (male) SL and 30.4 cm (Female) SL = 11.69 inches and 11.97 inches
25cm SL = 9.843 inches.

50 mm =1.969 inches

Add 1.969 (or 2 inches) rounded off to each of those values to get Total length (TL) from Standard Length (SL). *For example; 11.97 + 2 in. = 13.97 inches or approx. 14 inches TL (equals 35 cm TL).*

DATA FROM DR. PAULO PETRY:

Frank:

Elizabeth Leão send me some scoop on the sizes of Pygocentrus. Below is what she wrote. As I had mentioned, it looks like that there is quite some variation from place to place.

Paulo Próximo a Manaus, o maior exemplar que capturei foi uma fêmea do Lago Catalão, com 211 mm de comprimento padrão, em novembro de 1994.

Contudo, a literatura registra a ocorrência de exemplares de Pygocentrus nattereri de um porte maior: 250 mm de comprimento total .

(Azuma, 1975) - aquário do laboratório em Tóquio 26 cm de coprimento padrão (Lauzanne & Loubens, 1985) - rio Mamoré 26,9 cm (macho) e 30,4 cm (fêmea) de comprimento padrão

(Loubens & Aquim, 1986) - rio Mamoré 25 cm de comprimento padrão (Santos et al., 1984) - baixo rio Tocantins.

Azuma, H. (1975). Spawning the red-bellied piranha, Serrasalmus nattereri. Tropical Fish Hobbyist 23(11): 4-15, 96-97.

Lauzanne, L. & Loubens, G. (1985). Peces del rio Mamoré. ORSTOM-CORDEBENI-UTB. Collection Travaux et Documents, n? 192. Paris: ORSTOM.

Loubens, G. & Aquim, J. L. (1986). Sexualidad y Reproducción de los Principales Peces de la Cuenca del Río Mamoré, Beni-Bolívia. Informe Científico nº 5. Convenio ORSTOM-U.T.B.-CORDEBENI. 45 p. (manuscrito).

Santos, G. M.; Jegu, M. & Merona , B. (1984). Catálogo de peixes comerciais do baixo rio Tocantins. ELETRONORTE/CNPq/INPA, Manaus. 83 p.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

the only problem I have is that we arent saying its a Ternetzi, we use Ternetzi as a common name now, and use it for all the yellow forms of Nattereri, so where it comes from shouldnt matter nor should it matter if there is a holotype, we are saying this fish is a Natt according to science.

Frank if this fish is larger than 14"TL will it change the recoded max size of Nattereri?

one more question, you say all that is left is a few lines of description for S.Ternetzi. Well you say the fish closely fits that of Natts. So how does science conclude that this fish is a Natt then? Just wandering from a technical standpoint, I have no intentions to argue this, Id just like to know, how it was decided they are Nattereri


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

George from sharkaquarium.com said he has a 15"er.
wes


----------



## elongatus (Feb 6, 2003)

The pic. of the fish I saw was not John's old fish and it was wild caught not tank raised. I'm not sure what the argueing is all about. If science says the max recorded size is just a hare under 14", then this photo fits right in with what science has stated. I'm not really sure what the hold up is on posting the pic., I guess we will have to see.


----------



## Young Gotti (Jan 29, 2003)

I just want to see this monster Ternetzi.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 8 2003, 03:01 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> the only problem I have is that we arent saying its a Ternetzi, we use Ternetzi as a common name now, and use it for all the yellow forms of Nattereri, so where it comes from shouldnt matter nor should it matter if there is a holotype, we are saying this fish is a Natt according to science.
> 
> ...





> elongatus Posted on May 8 2003, 04:31 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The pic. of the fish I saw was not John's old fish and it was wild caught not tank raised. I'm not sure what the argueing is all about. If science says the max recorded size is just a hare under 14", then this photo fits right in with what science has stated. I'm not really sure what the hold up is on posting the pic., I guess we will have to see.


Ever hear of marketing?


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

elongatus said:


> I'm not really sure what the hold up is on posting the pic., I guess we will have to see.










Just post it already.....WTF?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Man, the suspense is killing me.....


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Xenon said:


> elongatus said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not really sure what the hold up is on posting the pic., I guess we will have to see.
> ...


 Beats me, it's not like we haven't seen the fish before. Hopefully it won't be like Pearl Harbor, all hyped up and then a big let down when you see it.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Neoplasia said:


> all hyped up and then a big let down when you see it.


Oh yeah if "George" has a 15 incher, why isnt he posting pics of his?


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

I hadn't heard about that fish until just now.


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

Xenon said:


> elongatus said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not really sure what the hold up is on posting the pic., I guess we will have to see.
> ...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I posted this to Knifeman in Predatory Fish. Still holds true here in this discussion:

_hastatus Posted: May 4 2003, 10:10 PM

Member

Group: Registered
Posts: 172
Member No.: 3011
Joined: 3-February 03




QUOTE 
Knifeman Posted on May 5 2003, 02:37 AM .....
Wow Frank! I have to admit that you surprised me with that one. Knowing you a little and how your scientific mind works, I am assuming that you too did not intend to imply that I was lying/exaggerating in my measurement of the fish. However, I think that since the written word can be misinterpreted even when great care and thought is given before it is typed, perhaps you and a couple of others should consider wording/explaining things more clearly.

Click to expand...

Actually John; I see things differently than you do. From the scientific point of view, claims of fishes sizes have crossed my desk many times, including examples. All over exaggerated in size by their keeper. As for you, I have no idea, never recieved a fish from you where you said it was such and such a size. So your ability to determine a fishes size by simply looking at it may be good or it may be bad. I don't know. What I do know a photo is worth a few cents, a photo with a ruler is worth thousands. Glad you admit not being good at guesstimating.

I think you are making to much out of people's questions. The fact is it is just your word. No one knows if indeed you have integrity or just spouting off. I like to think the former. I'm glad you are going to be providing the photo of the Argentina fish with a tape measurement. As I have said many times before, those fishes from that region do get a bit larger than in other areas. In the aquario, of course they could in theory exceed maximum known sizes. There is no predation or diseases in the aquario that would inhibit a wild fish from growing unlike those in the open rivers. So in theory as I stated above, your fish could exceed the limits. But does it make it proven it grows larger than other P. nattereri's given the same conditions as in the aquario? Probably not. But it is interesting to review and remark on this type of thing.
And I do look forward to seeing this photo. 
_


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

http://www.predatoryfish.net/ibforums/inde...ST&f=17&t=30051
there's the thread where george states he has a 15". i mailed him and he said it's not for sale.
wes


----------



## Raptor (Jan 3, 2003)

I believe it's the one sitting between the two piraya. in his avatar. I could be wrong.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Raptor Posted on May 8 2003, 08:13 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I believe it's the one sitting between the two piraya. in his avatar. I could be wrong.


 The one in his avatar looks like a smaller P. piraya.


----------



## elongatus (Feb 6, 2003)

Mike, believe me, if I owned the pic. I would post it and end this controversy. But I don't own it and was asked by the owner not to post it yet, so I won't compromise our friendship and go against his wishes. I really don't see what all hype is about, I could see if it were 16"









Darren, you've never seen this fish, not that it matters. Most large yellow Natts. pretty much look the same anyway.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> elongatus Posted on May 9 2003, 01:47 AM ....I really don't see what all hype is about.


I don't see it as _hype on the part of Pfury or even Predfish members_ as much as the people that keep saying they have a photo and then withhold posting it. This topic is really getting way more attention than it deserves. And quite frankly boring.

Oh well, such is life and the beat goes on. BTW Matt, how are your fishes doing lately?


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

elongatus said:


> Mike, believe me, if I owned the pic. I would post it and end this controversy. But I don't own it and was asked by the owner not to post it yet, so I won't compromise our friendship and go against his wishes. I really don't see what all hype is about, I could see if it were 16"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yeah I know, would love to see it face to face. I've seen a few large regular natts and they're impressive enough, but so far all the ternetzi photos I've seen of similar sized fish, not sure if it's the photo or if it's the reds being domestic or what.

Frank, I'll second that notion. Every time I see a reply in here I keep hoping it's that damned picture!


----------



## DiXoN (Jan 31, 2003)

i think it is about time we get this picture posted.
personally i am not bothered whether it proves anything or not whether it is 14'' or 15'' if you read the posts by frank and others on this on here and pfish it does not really matter about size but we do need to put this one to rest

dixon


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

If he posts it he does, if he doesn't well no big deal. I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Neoplasia Posted on May 9 2003, 04:40 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If he posts it he does, if he doesn't well no big deal. I'm not holding my breath.


Well that's good. I ran out of popcorn and hot dogs.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

I got popcorn, but no hotdogs.


----------



## Knifeman (Feb 3, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> Frank, I'll second that notion. Every time I see a reply in here I keep hoping it's that damned picture!


Just to continue the entertainment, I decided to post without *ANY* photo whatsoever.
















Seriously guys, I don't know what the holdup is either, but I'm not going to bug the guy about it. As soon as I get the pic I will post it. I do think it will surface eventually, and there really is nothing magical about it. It is just a very large ternetzi laying out with a tape measure below which clearly shows the fish to be 14". I'm sure we'll all see it soon, as I can't think of any reason why the owner wouldn't want the picture posted.

Sorry for the false alarm. Well...sorta.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

At the risk of appearing like a flamer does anyone see the contradiction here?



> elongatus Posted on May 9 2003, 01:47 AM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mike, believe me, if I owned the pic.* I would post it and end this controversy. But I don't own it and was asked by the owner not to post it yet.*


 _...that tells me the photo is available to this person._



> Knifeman Posted: May 7 2003, 01:34 PM .........
> *1. *I just got the picture of the 14" ternetzi from my friend yesterday. He also sent a short note and asked me not to post it quite yet.
> 
> Knifeman Posted on May 9 2003, 09:23 PM ...
> ...


_....this speaks for itself._

Neo? Hotdogs are on the way, along with a cup of reality.


----------



## Knifeman (Feb 3, 2003)

Frank, you really are looking *way* to far into this thing. My last sentence that you quoted was simply written incorrectly by me. I *do *have the picture in my possession now, but instead of writing "I will post it when I get the okay", I wrote "I will post the pic when I get it." Ever done that before?

I wonder if the doubtors will be big enough to issue apologies to the appropriate parties when this pic is posted. Not neccessarily to me, as I am amused by all of this drama over the size of a fish. Note for the record though that I am *not* one to make up stories about anything, let alone the size of a fish. If I were going to do that, I would make up something that might get me some positive attention from the female gender, not from a bunch of fish geeks like me. Believe me (or not), this picture will surface one way or another.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Knifeman Posted on May 9 2003, 10:32 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Frank, you really are looking way to far into this thing. My last sentence that you quoted was simply written incorrectly by me. I do have the picture in my possession now, but instead of writing "I will post it when I get the okay", I wrote "I will post the pic when I get it." Ever done that before?
> 
> *I wonder if the doubtors will be big enough to issue apologies to the appropriate parties when this pic is posted. *Not neccessarily to me, as I am amused by all of this drama over the size of a fish. Note for the record though that I am not one to make up stories about anything, let alone the size of a fish. If I were going to do that, I would make up something that might get me some positive attention from the female gender, not from a bunch of fish geeks like me. Believe me (or not), this picture will surface one way or another.


Actually John, I'm not looking to far into anything other than your post. But glad you corrected _your sentence._ As for this; _I wonder if the doubtors will be big enough to issue apologies to the appropriate parties when this pic is posted._ What is it you think we are doubting? that you have a photo? At this point, does it really matter if you do or don't? My only question to you is; why are you keeping the drama going by reposting yet offering nothing but words? I think you owe it this to captive audience to produce the photo. Then everyone can say GEE Knifeman has a photo of a 14 inch P. nattereri, WOW. Then what? For myself personally, makes no difference to me since it simply validates the measurements produced by field researchers. As for the rest of your written word....its all in your own mind.


----------



## Bcollins111900 (Feb 3, 2003)

Frank I think Kinifeman has the right to just speak words and not to post a pic, for say I order a fish and dont hear back from the guy and have not recieved the fish maybe it was due to backorder or availability or whatnot, damn well bet i would want him to just tell me they are not currently available, so in that sense and let me break it down for you so you can understand it, Knifeman is letting us know the status of the picture, statting he still has it in his possesion but has been asked not to unveil it, to tell ya the truth I want to see it as well but some have respect for others and respect peoples request when not to do something. *Thanks Jon on the update, please keep us posted and all*


----------



## elongatus (Feb 6, 2003)

There is no contradiction on my part, I've stated that I have seen the photo and it is accessible to me. My only fault is having enough integrity to keep my word when I'm asked to, even if it does leave me hanging on a limb and taking sh*t from the board. I have no idea why he doesn't want the picture posted yet. It's just a dead Yellow Natt. laying in a stirofoam with a tape measure underneath it. It's not larger than science has stated so I don't see the big deal. I am regretful that John was told he could post the pic in this thread, then when the picture was produced he was told not to post it. In fact, the only reason I entered this thread was because John asked me to verify the picture existed since I had seen it and he wasn't able to post it yet.

Frank, I know you are a man of integrity also and if you were asked by a hobbyist or a member of the scientific community to not post a pic. that was sent to you in confidence, I'm positive you would not until you were given permission by that individual.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Bcollins111900 Posted on May 9 2003, 10:58 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Frank I think Kinifeman has the right to just speak words and not to post a pic, *for say I order a fish and dont hear back from the guy and have not recieved the fish maybe it was due to backorder or availability or whatnot, damn well bet i would want him to just tell me they are not currently available, so in that sense and let me break it down for you so you can understand it, Knifeman is letting us know the status of the picture, statting he still has it in his possesion but has been asked not to unveil it, to tell ya the truth I want to see it as well but some have respect for others and respect peoples request when not to do something.


No one (not even me) is denying John his right to post his words. I'm simply making an observation on this post that has been going on since the 4th I believe. As for John letting us know the status, I think Matt did that for him on his behest. No matter, this is just feeding into the "drama" of a non-featured photo. And as for John in this remark here; _Note for the record though that I am not one to make up stories about anything, let alone the size of a fish. _ This is as old as Predatory Fish Forum is old. But that is another story and not limited to just John. I will await with glee this photo if and when it does appear. In the meantime need to go to store and buy more hotdogs since Neo got my last package.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> elongatus Posted on May 9 2003, 11:08 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> There is no contradiction on my part, I've stated that I have seen the photo and it is accessible to me. My only fault is having enough integrity to keep my word when I'm asked to, even if it does leave me hanging on a limb and taking sh*t from the board. I have no idea why he doesn't want the picture posted yet. It's just a dead Yellow Natt. laying in a stirofoam with a tape measure underneath it. It's not larger than science has stated so I don't see the big deal. I am regretful that John was told he could post the pic in this thread, then when the picture was produced he was told not to post it. In fact, the only reason I entered this thread was because John asked me to verify the picture existed since I had seen it and he wasn't able to post it yet.
> 
> *Frank, I know you are a man of integrity also and if you were asked by a hobbyist or a member of the scientific community to not post a pic. that was sent to you in confidence, I'm positive you would not until you were given permission by that individual. *


True, nor would I go about advertising the fish either in a public board. Go read my posts regarding the unknown Serrasalmus. I don't say nothing until I have facts in front of me, nor do I fuel the fire when confidences were asked. I see a vast difference between that and this.


----------



## elongatus (Feb 6, 2003)

I understand your point and quite honestly, I would not have mentioned this photo at all until permission was given to post it. In fact the pic. wasn't sent to me to post it, but to see it for myself. John was told he could post it in this thread, then told to wait. Since he was left hanging, I simply acknowledged that I had seen the pic.too so he didn't look like he was making the whole thing up. Otherwise I would have never even entered this thread. This Drama is killing me.:laugh:


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

people it is a picture of a dead piranha, let's try to be a little more mature here. whoever has the power to grant the permission to post this "awesome" photo is probaly laughing his ass off. let it go, if you quit paying so much attention to this thread eventually they will get bored and post the damn thing. obviously attention and drama are their main concerns here.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)




----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I can vouch for Johns honesty and integrity.

I bought a Piraya on Johns shoals shipment from a fish supplier. My fish ended up only living for 13 days or so. John had no part in that, but because he is an honest and good guy he offered to give me a great deal on one of his once they grew a little more. In the end I ended up using the deal to get his old Elongatus. My point is that John is one of the nicest and most honest people I know, I only wish everbody could have the morals and character John does.

The rest of you just drop this, no more replies until somebody posts the darn pic (be mature and keep your silence)


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 10 2003, 02:37 AM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I can vouch for Johns honesty and integrity.
> 
> ...


Ok, you heard from Mr. Honest Integrity and Mature himself!












> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 10 2003, 02:37 AM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I can vouch for Johns honesty and integrity.










Now there's something you can put in a bank.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

This has gotten out of hand. Cool it everyone. Knifeman or Elongatus, write me when you are free to post the pic, otherwise, this is a dead topic.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

The owner of the large yellow nattereri has release the photo to Frank Maganalles for the exclusive display at OPEFE. This photo is not to be distributed outside of OPEFE.

The "14 inch Ternetzi" Photo and Conclusion


----------



## Honda99_300ex (Apr 18, 2003)

What a fish


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

The 17 inch BUBBA of lore is now added.

Josh's Bubba


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

the fish in the picture is not knifemans old fish, it is a different fish.
wes


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

elongatus said:


> The pic. of the fish I saw was not John's old fish and it was wild caught not tank raised. I'm not sure what the argueing is all about. If science says the max recorded size is just a hare under 14", then this photo fits right in with what science has stated. I'm not really sure what the hold up is on posting the pic., I guess we will have to see.


----------



## InSinUAsian (Jan 3, 2003)

Nice fish regardless.

~~Dj


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

That was a beautiful fish...reguardless of size. I doubt we will ever find a an answer to the max size of any of these fish because there will always be someone with a "larger fish"


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> That was a beautiful fish...reguardless of size. I doubt we will ever find a an answer to the max size of any of these fish because there will always be someone with a "larger fish"


 There are exceptions to every rule. Though one freak occurance doesn't mean much other than some extenuating circumstances came into play.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> grosse gurke Posted on May 12 2003, 01:42 AM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> That was a beautiful fish...reguardless of size. I doubt we will ever find a an answer to the max size of any of these fish because there will always be someone with a "larger fish"





> PIRANHA KING Posted on May 12 2003, 12:38 AM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> the fish in the picture is not knifemans old fish, it is a different fish.
> wes


As I said, there will always be those that will believe in a 17 inch ternetzi without proof, though _this fish by Josh was the reported 17 inch fish!_

Oh well, the beat goes on.


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

i was talking about the 14"er.
wes


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

PIRANHA KING said:


> i was talking about the 14"er.
> wes


 Which 14" one? Wayne's or the one this topic is about?


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Franks page does teach us some valuable lessons on the proper measuring of fish though! 







Thanks Frank.


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

the picture was of wayne's and not john's thats all i meant.
wes


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

No I know what you meant, I just am not sure which picture you're referring to (there's a few in here now). Do you mean the one that says "property of Wayne Mah" all over it?


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

no he means Knifemans fish which we dont have a measurement picture of


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> PIRANHA KING Posted on May 12 2003, 03:28 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> the picture was of wayne's and not john's thats all i meant.
> wes


Well, my take on all of this is; 3 fish so far were originally reported to be 14 inches up to 17 inches TL. So far only 2 have been shown to be overstated. Wayne was the closest in terms of the 14 inch mark. Though in reality, I suspect the fish was actual 13 inches and a hair. Still a very impressive fish.

As for John's. We will never know, but it does suggest where that one was headed too.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Neoplasia Posted on May 12 2003, 03:33 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No I know what you meant, I just am not sure which picture you're referring to (there's a few in here now). Do you mean the one that says "property of Wayne Mah" all over it?


I have the Knifeman Bubba photo. Going to see if there is an object in there that I can use to make a suggested measurement.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I made measurements based on known object (eye) which I'm using the greate morphometric measurement. The fish photo I used is one of the known bubba photos of John's. However, my measurements say the fish is approximately 10 inches total length + or - a couple of inches. The fish is not completely flanked so it can skewer the measurement some.


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)




----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> PIRANHA KING Posted on May 12 2003, 06:26 PM ..BS icon


You think eh? Why is it so hard for you to accept the approximate results? You have a person that has never produced any measurements on the fish other than his _word_? And of course heresay from other people, mostly _he said, she said_ talk.

I don't doubt John's fish may have been a large ternetzi. I didn't doubt Josh and Wayne's fishes were large ternetzi, yet the proof was in the measurements wasn't it ?









Large pirana eyes are fixed at a certain size. That is what morphometric is, giving the John's fishes eye the larger diameter in mm (7.9 mm). I also took into consideration the slight angle of the fish which is distorted by 1 to 2 inches, hence my plus or minus remark.

So tell me, what is more believable? The photo with absolutely no validation by the owner other than hearsay or the measurements done where the eye mm are known to science?


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Damnit, I thought this was done with. Now I gotta go the grocery store and buy some hotdogs.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

PIRANHA KING said:


>


 Damn, PK gave him the FIVE-BS SALUTE.....them there are fightin' words!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Xenon Posted on May 12 2003, 08:20 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> QUOTE (PIRANHA KING @ May 12 2003, 01:26 PM)
> 
> Damn, PK gave him the FIVE-BS SALUTE.....them there are fightin' words!


Not really. How can you fight anything w/o proof?


----------



## Knifeman (Feb 3, 2003)

Okay Frank, I have let this go on long enough. First off, let me say that the measurement that I did of Jason's ternetzi was done including the lower jaw, so taking that into consideration the fish is not quite 14". However, 10" like you guesstimate is just plain ridiculous. You are not the only person that can accurately measure a fish. It is really not rocket science, and the fish in my hands is a far more accurate method of measurement than you trying some ridiculous object/scale measurement. This is a fish hobby, not forensic science. And I also would say that no forensic scientist would consider using the measurement method that you used, or he/she would be laughed out of the courtroom.

There are a number of people that actually saw my fish in the flesh. Now you are being so cocky as to imply that everyone else should believe your measurement as gauged by a picture (something you have ALWAYS insisted is not wise to do) instead of their own eyes. Your arrogance is simply becoming too difficult to stomach.

I believe that this whole thing boils down to one simple insecurity that you have concerning this fish that science refers to as "yellow Argentinean nattereri". You are obsessed with the idea of proving to the world that the species is no different from the Amazonian nattereri. However, whenever someone posts a thread siting a difference in the two, you redundantly attack them with condescending remarks about how science has classified them as the same species. Let me just say once and for all that *we all know and accept this, but also are not blind sheep that will ignore our own eyes, as there are obvious differences between the two!* Does this mean they are separate species?...no, not at this present time. Do hobbyists like myself and others feel that this classification may possibly be changed by some scientist in the future?...speaking strictly for myself and being *only my opinion*, yes. Now are you going to be so arrogant as to say that this will *never in a million years happen?* If so, your mind is operating out of foolish human pride and insecurity, not scientific reasoning.

Frank, you have said on numerous posts that this topic has gotten far too much attention and hype. Are you aware though that you have posted more than anyone else in this thread, and also are more frequently seen than anyone else posting on many other "ternetzi" related threads as well? When are you going to realize that we accept the scientific classification that yellow natts presently have, and that you do not need to continue to point out the fact that their differences from Amazonian natts do not make them a separate species?

Your behavior on this topic is just plain obsessive. You have alienated a lot of friends and supporters of you and your accomplishments by your methods of disrespect and condescension. You have slung names around like a jr. high student, yet you call people that you argue with (who are less than half your age) immature. As someone in the "over 40" age range, I have been embarrassed for you concerning some of the things you have said to certain young hobbyists. Don't you realize that almost all of the piranha hobbyists (myself included) greatly respect what you have done for the piranha, and acknowledge the vast amount of information that you have brought to the public?

I have a life outside of this hobby, and would prefer that this not turn into a drawn out debate or mutual attack of character. However, I tried to appeal to your intellect to get you to be more careful in the kind of things you type, but it has been to no avail. I personally will be happy when Xenon decides to close this thread for good, but I am sure that he will allow you to respond to this if you so desire. I personally don't have much more to say, but of course if needed I will defend my honor again. I hope you can read this post with the intent of constructive criticism that is meant by me, and not as a personal attack against you.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I didn't bother to read your entire thread John. As I'm sure its just redundancy anyway. If you take note, I never started the majority of these threads. It was friends of BUBBA. Didn't know we had 2 BUBBAS to contend with anyway. I never take anything personally when people reply to me. For or against. My attempts were strictly to address issues on fishes size. 2 people presented their fish for examination both fish sizes were answered when the proof was given. I make no excuses for measuring them in the method I used. Both people did not disagree indeed they totally agreed that the method I employed was accurate. As for your fish, I never said it was carved in concrete. Indeed the fish I used for the 10 inches was P. piraya not your ternetzi Bubba. But I let it go in hopes you would reply and you did (as predicted).

As for your remarks, based on glancing at what you wrote, people will argue with science and fish taxonomy. That is expected. I make no apologies for following the guidelines set forth by people knowledgeable about examining and reaching conclusions. The conclusion is your fish is P. nattereri, not a different species. You may argue for the future, that is your perogative, but it will not change what has been known for the last 8 or so years. Steindachner 1908, the describer of S. ternetzi (Pygocentrus) is pretty much muted. Your fish will never be called that by science. Perhaps P. altus, but never P. ternetzi. So you err even in dreaming this name for usage.

I'm not exactly sure what you think I'm arguing for? You are taking a personal stance on things. I'm taking mine from direct knowledge and study of these fishes. So your remarks have little substance to it.

You have a nice fish John, I never argued that point. As for its size, well, that is for you to prove not I.

OK, finally went back and read this:



> Your behavior on this topic is just plain obsessive. You have alienated a lot of friends and supporters of you and your accomplishments by your methods of disrespect and condescension. You have slung names around like a jr. high student, yet you call people that you argue with (who are less than half your age) immature. As someone in the "over 40" age range, I have been embarrassed for you concerning some of the things you have said to certain young hobbyists. Don't you realize that almost all of the piranha hobbyists (myself included) greatly respect what you have done for the piranha, and acknowledge the vast amount of information that you have brought to the public?


I'm not here for a popularity contest John nor do I follow the flow of those that are agreeable with everything said without proof. I'm here to teach about piranas. If my methods hurt your feelings or pride and those of others, too bad. Respect is earned. I earned mine from proving methods dealing with piranas for quite a few years. Not going to deviate from that just because it doesn't fit into non-proven statements.

Sorry, that's not how it works here or with me.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I might add, I see no reason for Xenon to close this thread. Nothing horrible is being said. Simply discussing a fish others are curious about.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I saw Bubba (johns old fish), and I have measure my largest cariba acurately at just over 11" TL

Bubba was much much bigger than my cariba so 10" SL is


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 12 2003, 09:51 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I saw Bubba (johns old fish), and I have measure my largest cariba acurately at just over 11" TL
> 
> Bubba was much much bigger than my cariba so 10" SL is


 Then produce your photo and John's with tape measurement visible.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> I saw Bubba (johns old fish), and I have measure my largest cariba acurately at just over 11" TL
> 
> Bubba was much much bigger than my cariba so 10" SL is


 As Frank mentioned earlier he had made a mistake and measured Knifemans P. Piraya when talking about the 10 inch measurement, not the Bubba you are referring to. See below:



> As for your fish, I never said it was carved in concrete. Indeed the fish I used for the 10 inches was P. piraya not your ternetzi Bubba. But I let it go in hopes you would reply and you did (as predicted).


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> I saw Bubba (johns old fish), and I have measure my largest cariba acurately at just over 11" TL
> 
> Bubba was much much bigger than my cariba so 10" SL is


Before you toss in your 2 cents Nate, read the entire post.

Quote: Frank


> Indeed the fish I used for the 10 inches was P. piraya not your ternetzi Bubba


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

but that wasnt said initially, will produce photos of my cariba that are nearly perpendicular to see how accurate his method is if he wants


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

You think they would read what I wrote:



> hastatus Posted: May 12 2003, 03:40 PM
> 
> QUOTE
> Neoplasia Posted on May 12 2003, 03:33 PM
> ...


I wonder why they vasculate when nothing was made as fact?


----------



## Knifeman (Feb 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> I didn't bother to read your entire thread John. As I'm sure its just redundancy anyway_*(statements like these are exactly what I am referring to when I say you should think before you type)*_. If you take note, I never started the majority of these threads. It was friends of BUBBA. Didn't know we had 2 BUBBAS to contend with anyway. I never take anything personally when people reply to me_*(that is simply not true, as can be seen in many of your arguments that you have had with Supernate)*_. For or against. My attempts were strictly to address issues on fishes size. 2 people presented their fish for examination both fish sizes were answered when the proof was given. I make no excuses for measuring them in the method I used_*(nobody asked you for an excuse, but did I ask you to take it upon yourself to measure my fish?)*_. Both people did not disagree indeed they totally agreed that the method I employed was accurate. As for your fish, I never said it was carved in concrete. Indeed the fish I used for the 10 inches was P. piraya not your ternetzi Bubba_*(then you should have said so in the beginning, not led people to believe that my measurement of Bubba was that far off. It is behavior like this (I think you call it "hype") that I find so childish for a man of your age)*_. But I let it go in hopes you would reply and you did (as predicted).
> 
> As for your remarks, based on glancing at what you wrote, people will argue with science and fish taxonomy. That is expected. I make no apologies for following the guidelines set forth by people knowledgeable about examining and reaching conclusions. The conclusion is your fish is P. nattereri, not a different species. You may argue for the future, that is your perogative, but it will not change what has been known for the last 8 or so years. Steindachner 1908, the describer of S. ternetzi (Pygocentrus) is pretty much muted. Your fish will never be called that by science. Perhaps P. altus, but never P. ternetzi. So you err even in dreaming this name for usage(_*actually, I didn't err at all. At no time did I suggest that if the fish are classified differently, that the name of the yellow form would be called ternetzi. I did not argue with any of what you wrote in the above paragraph, in fact I made certain to put in bold that I accept science's findings on this matter. Why do you find it so difficult to hear people when they tell you that?)*_.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

> The fish photo I used is one of the known bubba photos of John's. However, my measurements say the fish is approximately 10 inches total length + or - a couple of inches. The fish is not completely flanked so it can skewer the measurement some


this is what I read and was refering to, doesnt say anything about a Piraya, it says Johns Bubba pics (his Ternetzi)


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> (I respect your stance on this, and do not disagree with it. By all means teach, but do so in a manner that your colleagues in the science world would do if they had the time).


My collegues in my field would tell you exactly what I will say now; they don't come here because hobbyists in general are immature and they do not show respect to those with the knowledge that could help them. Also, my collegues would be set pretty much into the same position you are (unsuccessfully) trying to put me in. That is an area of discomfort and having to defend myself. Sorry John. For that reason is why I'm out here. I'm not afraid to call a chicken a chicken when I see it or an immature child and immature child when they act it.



> that is simply not true, as can be seen in many of your arguments that you have had with Supernate).










sorry can't conjour up any other emotion.



> nobody asked you for an excuse, but did I ask you to take it upon yourself to measure my fish?).


 Is there a problem with doing that since it is not your fish anymore? I didn't put your fish here for anyone to see anymore than you put that fish here with a tape measurement. So what really is the big deal then? Its just numbers John. Don't take it so personal.



> then you should have said so in the beginning, not led people to believe that my measurement of Bubba was that far off. It is behavior like this (I think you call it "hype") that I find so childish for a man of your age).


Hey any enjoyment I can get out of my age, is enjoyment. As for the hype, well consider I ran out of hot dogs and popcorn waiting for the Mah photo to show up. It was to Wayne's credit and my admiration for him that he allowed the photo to be finally displayed via OPEFE. I don't see his fish being short-changed either. It was a magnificient fish.



> actually, I didn't err at all. At no time did I suggest that if the fish are classified differently, that the name of the yellow form would be called ternetzi. I did not argue with any of what you wrote in the above paragraph, in fact I made certain to put in bold that I accept science's findings on this matter. Why do you find it so difficult to hear people when they tell you that?).





> At no time did I suggest that if the fish are classified differently, that the name of the yellow form would be called ternetzi.


Actually you did:



> Do hobbyists like myself and others feel that this classification may possibly be changed by some scientist in the future?...speaking strictly for myself and being only my opinion, yes.


So your opinion is wrong. Get over it.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Frank here are the photos of my Cariba acurately measured at just over 11"TL from the upper lip, I would like to see how accurate your method is, feel free to edit the pics with your measurement markings, I would like to see how you do it so we can figure out how accurate it is.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Nate, Nate, Nate: 2 people addressed this issue other than myself and you still can't read it.



> grosse gurke Posted on May 12 2003, 10:05 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> QUOTE (Sir Nathan XXI @ May 12 2003, 04:51 PM)
> I saw Bubba (johns old fish), and I have measure my largest cariba acurately at just over 11" TL
> ...


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

no, you need to edit you post that I quoted its wrong as is, do your measurements on my fish pics they are nearly perp. as you will get


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 12 2003, 10:25 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Frank here are the photos of my Cariba acurately measured at just over 11"TL from the upper lip, I would like to see how accurate your method is, feel free to edit the pics with your measurement markings, I would like to see how you do it so we can figure out how accurate it is.


Nate where is your tape measurement? You want accuracy like the other two photos then do it. Otherwise like the Vern Foell photo it is estimate based on eye diameter. For all I know you are saying 11 inches and the fish could be that or bigger. What will it prove other than you coming back with NO ITS NOT, NO IS NOT. Jezzzzz man, use some common sense.

Gee, and this from the guy that tells males from females based on belly size.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 12 2003, 10:30 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> no, you need to edit you post that I quoted its wrong as is, do your measurements on my fish pics they are nearly perp. as you will get


I don't edit my mistakes Nate, which is something I see you do with great regularity in the past. Actually, this topic is headed pretty much the way other topics go when those that are shown wrong want to argue that they are right no matter what. I think that is what caused other topics in the past to be closed because of the immaturity surfacing. Such as your need to prove me wrong.

This topic is about Bubba not your cariba. Measuring your cariba will prove nothing to proving John's bubba. Got it?


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

what ever you say, I just wanted to see how accurate your method is within a percentage say its within +- 5% or what ever percent so we could judge how well it works, I will pull it out to measure it if you arent very close if you like


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

I think we should all take some time to cool off.....walk away from this thread.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Enjoy: these are approximations. If you dont know what that word means. look it up.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Sir Nathan XXI Posted on May 12 2003, 10:37 PM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> what ever you say, I just wanted to see how accurate your method is within a percentage say its within +- 5% or what ever percent so we could judge how well it works, I will pull it out to measure it if you arent very close if you like


 Well, lets hope its the same fish you pull out otherwise this photo is skewered to your benefit.


----------



## Knifeman (Feb 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> > then you should have said so in the beginning, not led people to believe that my measurement of Bubba was that far off. It is behavior like this (I think you call it "hype") that I find so childish for a man of your age).
> 
> 
> Hey any enjoyment I can get out of my age, is enjoyment. As for the hype, well consider I ran out of hot dogs and popcorn waiting for the Mah photo to show up. It was to Wayne's credit and my admiration for him that he allowed the photo to be finally displayed via OPEFE. I don't see his fish being short-changed either. It was a magnificient fish (Yes, it is...and I feel he should receive an apology for all of the times that you implied that his fish was not as large as it turned out to be. If it weren't for you taking the jaw out of the equation, the fish would indeed be 14" like he claimed. And before you say anything about that method being the scientific method that should be used, I just want to say that I agree with that and appreciate the knowledge that you have shared on that issue. However, I think you should acknowledge the fact that the fish was EXTREMELY close to 14" TL even by your measurement, not just simply state that it is a beautiful fish. No, size is not the most important trait that I look for in a fish either (research some of the past Pfish posts if you disagree), but it IS the entire issue in this particular post).
> ...





> then you should have said so in the beginning, not led people to believe that my measurement of Bubba was that far off. It is behavior like this (I think you call it "hype") that I find so childish for a man of your age).


Hey any enjoyment I can get out of my age, is enjoyment. As for the hype, well consider I ran out of hot dogs and popcorn waiting for the Mah photo to show up. It was to Wayne's credit and my admiration for him that he allowed the photo to be finally displayed via OPEFE. I don't see his fish being short-changed either. It was a magnificient fish _*(Yes, it is...and I feel he should receive an apology for all of the times that you implied that his fish was not as large as it turned out to be. If it weren't for you taking the jaw out of the equation, the fish would indeed be 14" like he claimed. And before you say anything about that method being the scientific method that should be used, I just want to say that I agree with that and appreciate the knowledge that you have shared on that issue. However, I think you should acknowledge the fact that the fish was EXTREMELY close to 14" TL even by your measurement, not just simply state that it is a beautiful fish. No, size is not the most important trait that I look for in a fish either (research some of the past Pfish posts if you disagree), but it IS the entire issue in this particular post).*_



> actually, I didn't err at all. At no time did I suggest that if the fish are classified differently, that the name of the yellow form would be called ternetzi. I did not argue with any of what you wrote in the above paragraph, in fact I made certain to put in bold that I accept science's findings on this matter. Why do you find it so difficult to hear people when they tell you that?).





> At no time did I suggest that if the fish are classified differently, that the name of the yellow form would be called ternetzi.


Actually you did:



> Do hobbyists like myself and others feel that this classification may possibly be changed by some scientist in the future?...speaking strictly for myself and being only my opinion, yes.


 _*(this simply requires no response from me for those who can read. Thank you for proving my own point again, and please reread what I wrote more carefully this time).*_

So your opinion is wrong. Get over it _*(another one of those childish little comments that I am referring to).*_

_*I'll take the mature stance here and say that I am finished with this. Go ahead and reply if you like, and you can have the last word. I think I have made my points obvious.*_


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I promise to measure the same fish, none of the others look like it at all, height wise


----------



## Knifeman (Feb 3, 2003)

Xenon said:


> I think we should all take some time to cool off.....walk away from this thread.


 Sorry Mike. Our posts must have crossed. Sounds like good advise to me.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Yes, it is...and I feel he should receive an apology for all of the times that you implied that his fish was not as large as it turned out to be. If it weren't for you taking the jaw out of the equation, the fish would indeed be 14" like he claimed. And before you say anything about that method being the scientific method that should be used, I just want to say that I agree with that and appreciate the knowledge that you have shared on that issue. *However, I think you should acknowledge the fact that the fish was EXTREMELY close to 14" TL even by your measurement,* not just simply state that it is a beautiful fish. No, size is not the most important trait that I look for in a fish either (research some of the past Pfish posts if you disagree), but it IS the entire issue in this particular post).


John you are as bad as Nate, go back and read what I said about Wayne's fish on more than one occasion.











> this simply requires no response from me for those who can read. Thank you for proving my own point again, and please reread what I wrote more carefully this time).


 No need to John, there as those out there that hold on to your every word as fact regardless of whether or not its substantiated. An opinion, is an opinion. Considering that your opinion cares weight with a few and many others that are not in the know. Better to address the remark as is in terms of scientific understanding of the situation.



> another one of those childish little comments that I am referring to).


 Trust me on this John, I'm considering the source of my reply.











> I'll take the mature stance here and say that I am finished with this. Go ahead and reply if you like, and you can have the last word. I think I have made my points obvious.


By all means John, your points are well taken. Just need the fish photo with tape measurement and then you can personally prove me wrong.

Have a good one. And don't be shy about coming back.


----------



## Winkyee (Feb 17, 2003)

You should see my internet piranha


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> winkyee Posted on May 12 2003, 10:58 PM ....You should see my internet piranha


----------



## Winkyee (Feb 17, 2003)

p.s., that's not me in the picture.lol


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Knifeman: If it weren't for you taking the jaw out of the equation, the fish would indeed be 14" like he claimed.


Sorry, next time I'll leave science measurements out of it and just use the off centered fish on the measuring ruler and fat pencil as guides as reference points. Oh yeah, the jaw too regardless of the reasons why science doesn't use it. Will that make you feel better? Oops forgot to add: *opened jaw that is stretching out.* Wow, that means it is 14 inches!!!!!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Mike (Xenon) how about pinning this topic up here? You never know, he might come back with that BUBBA photo tape measured to teach mean ole Frank a lesson.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

hastatus said:


> Mike (Xenon) how about pinning this topic up here? You never know, he might come back with that BUBBA photo tape measured to teach mean ole Frank a lesson.


If I pin this and everyone reads it, nobody will have time for the other threads









BTW, Winkyee, the janitor here at work thinks I am a f'n moron after I laughed out loud at your post.

Im ending this, has turned way to personal.......


----------

