# altuvei ?



## des giddings (Feb 7, 2004)

hi hope you all can help! ive a 6" altuvei? could be sanchezi!! not sure now?, best pic i could get.


----------



## Dawgz (Aug 18, 2005)

Looks more like a sanchezi =\


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I tried to repair the photo. You really need to get a better shot. It does appear to be S. sanchezi, but ........


----------



## des giddings (Feb 7, 2004)

yeh , need to better pic i agree ! but after seeing this ?http://www.aquascapeonline.com/store/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=156 not sure? does look more liks the pics compaerd to the sanchezi!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Normally I don't comment on dealers photos unless the dealer contacts me. But yes, the fish in the photo at AS appears to be S. altuvei. In your photo here, its not the best photo since the fish is angled wrong and out of focus. S. altuvei has some red on its breast not as deep as S. sanchezi. But again, try and get a better photo.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Not a very clear pic, as stated, but from what I see, it looks exactly like my S. altuvei.

Same shape, same caudial fin coloration, same eye color, same body coloration, same jaw structure... everything.

p.s. After looking again, also same humeral shadowing (I don't call it a "spot" because it's not as defined as with P. cariba and S. manuelli) but it's there.


----------



## des giddings (Feb 7, 2004)

YO piranha man. ya fish looks the sams dude? "WEIRD!" we think its altuvei then , "AGREE?"


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I'm in agreement.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Piranha_man Posted Yesterday, 09:25 PM
> Not a very clear pic, as stated, but from what I see, it looks exactly like my S. altuvei.
> 
> Same shape, same caudial fin coloration, same eye color, same body coloration, same jaw structure... everything.
> ...


There's 2 problems with your view of that fish. 1. S. compressus shares the same characters except the amount of spotting and bars on the body.

2. So you make think it look like S. altuvei based on your fish, but it could also be S. compressus. That's why I told him he needed a better photo to exclude S. sanchezi........then we could look at the other compressus group members.


----------



## des giddings (Feb 7, 2004)

updated pics! still not good. but little better! darn thing wont keep still longenough.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Yeah, I hear ya Frank, I know ya can't just say "Yeah, it's a 'so and so' because it looks like *my* 'so and so."

A clearer picture would help incredibly, wouldn't you agree that for the most part alutvei and compressus, under that blurry of photo conditions would be almost impossible to differentiate?

From what I understand, one of the few clues that can tell them apart is the amount and density of spots on the lower half of the fish.

I remember a couple years ago posting a picture of my alutvei on here and asking for an identification!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Piranha_man Posted Today, 09:34 AM
> Yeah, I hear ya Frank, I know ya can't just say "Yeah, it's a 'so and so' because it looks like my 'so and so."
> 
> A clearer picture would help incredibly, wouldn't you agree that for the most part alutvei and compressus, under that blurry of photo conditions would be almost impossible to differentiate?
> ...


Take a look at his "new photos" still think its S. altuvei?


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Again, pretty blurry picture.
Is that some pretty heavy spotting below the lateral line?

If so, I would have to say compressus.

I'm just speculating here, I'm leaving the actual "Identification complete" up to you!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Piranha_man Posted Today, 09:46 AM
> Again, pretty blurry picture.
> Is that some pretty heavy spotting below the lateral line?
> 
> ...


Its good everyone has a chance to state opinions. That's why we have the disclaimer that ID's are not carved in stone. Unfortunately (for me), my ID's carry more weight from experience. So if I get it wrong, its a heavier burden that say you.

Unless he comes up with another clear photo, my impression remains S. sanchezi. The large eye and other features suggest it so.


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

Wow.
Funny how you mention the "Burden" aspect... I was just thinking to myself how much I enjoy typing my opinion and thoughts rather than "Fish being IDd as a "So and so."

It's nice to not have to carry that responsibility, especially after my swinging from altuvei to compressus, only to have it probably be a sanchezi!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Piranha_man Posted Today, 09:58 AM
> Wow.
> Funny how you mention the "Burden" aspect... I was just thinking to myself how much I enjoy typing my opinion and thoughts rather than "Fish being IDd as a "So and so."
> 
> It's nice to not have to carry that responsibility, especially after my swinging from altuvei to compressus, only to have it probably be a sanchezi!


I hope you can appreciate now, why I'm cautious on not just tossing out a "guess" on fish ID's. I also do this for dealers, so if I get it wrong, it can cost them sales or refunds. With photo ID's here, the fish can be seen in poor quality photos which doesn't help and if the fish is angled wrong (not perfectly shown flank shot), then it can distort the species ID.

I try to keep my ID mistakes to a bare minimum and rare.


----------



## des giddings (Feb 7, 2004)

it just dont seem to have the sanchezi shape? very deep body on mine, just my apinion ! trying like hell to get a decent pic!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Click on this photo of S. sanchezi. Males are slimmer than females.

http://opefe.com/images/Body_sanLive.jpg


----------



## Piranha_man (Jan 29, 2005)

I can absolutely appreciate that!

I recently learned a pretty good lesson on throwing "Facts" out there in another thread on this site!

Pretty much the more I learn about piranhas, (and everything else for that matter...) the more I learn how much I *don't* know.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I'm still learning. So I can appreciate your comment.


----------



## des giddings (Feb 7, 2004)

more pics. i think this is the best im gona do! looked at sanchezi pics, dont have the serated bottom belly. dont know if you can see from pics?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> des giddings Posted Today, 11:16 AM
> more pics. i think this is the best im gona do! looked at sanchezi pics, *dont have the serated bottom belly. dont know if you can see from pics? *


If it didn't have "serated bottom" = serrae, then it wouldn't be a member of the subfamily Serrasalminae. They are there, but I think you don't know what you are looking at.

I'm fairly confident the fish is S. sanchezi.


----------



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

THe jaw structure on this fish appears more like an altuvei to me, a sanchezi has a concave shape where the lips meet, his fish seems to have a more subtle mouth, more like an altuvei's.

diagram I have drawn to express my point better:

The side pictures from the first page looked more aluvei-esque, but the body shape and color depicted on the pictures on this page do look very much like a sanchezi to me, however.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Your drawings don't say much. I took some photos and traced over with black to hitelite the head shapes. Keep in mind this is a combo full grown adult with semi-adult for comparison of S. altuvei, S. compressus, S. rhombeus and S. sanchezi. These head shapes are not carved in stone until full adult. Then the next problem is that the average headshape is slightly variable. So not much you can glean from it except in GENERAL TERMS.


----------

