# Pls Help To Id



## Lester Lucifer

hi guys,

i need help in id this fellow ,, sliightly over 4 in..was told it was a black rhombeus .. but some say it not..
how do we different if it is a rhombeus ???






many thankss


----------



## Lester Lucifer

i managed to find a pic from the internet which look 99% the same and it was named black piranha..

please kindly see picture


----------



## memento

Based on what I see, S.rhombeus or S.sanchezi. Have a good look at the serration. In S.rhombeus it's regular, in S.sanchezi it's irregular.


----------



## Ja'eh

S. sanchezi.


----------



## Guest

I agree with Ja'eh


----------



## Da' Manster!

Yes, S. Sanchezi.


----------



## Nzac

I'm not so sure I agree with sanchezi, any sanchezi I have seen by this size has a lot more red than just the gill plate. I'm guessing Rhom, belly serrae would say for sure though.


----------



## Ja'eh

Nzac said:


> I'm not so sure I agree with sanchezi, any sanchezi I have seen by this size has a lot more red than just the gill plate. I'm guessing Rhom, belly serrae would say for sure though.


Are you basing this on the photo or the video? Keep in mind both are two different fish. Also the amount of red showing is not a very accurate method of figuring out if you have a sanchezi or a rhombeus, it would be like saying a p. nattereri is not a natt unless it's belly is red.


----------



## Guest

^^^^ we need a like button


----------



## Nzac

Maybe I am wrong, but am guessing off what is visible in the video along with every rhom and sanchezi I have personally seen, same as any of the rest of you are doing.


----------



## memento

^^^^


----------



## Ja'eh

Nzac said:


> I'm not so sure I agree with sanchezi, any sanchezi I have seen by this size has a lot more red than just the gill plate. I'm guessing Rhom, *belly serrae would say for sure though.*


Not necessarily...


----------



## memento

Serration would give clearity. Even if the serrae is aligned in a younger specimen, it still is different from S.rhombeus.
The latter has a broad serration, while S.sanchezi has much thinner and pointed spines, more like S.eigenmanni.

I do agree with Nzac's comment on the red pigmentation. It actually is one of the original distuingishing characters described : more red pigmentation than present in S.rhombeus.
You can't compare it that easily to the P.nattereri example... for in that example, we're not talking about a character described by the author.
In case of red pigmentation of S.sanchezi versus S.rhombeus, it ís a character described by the author.
There is no sign of ány red on the mandibular...


----------



## Ja'eh

This sanchezi looks to have roughly the same amount of red pigmentation as the one in the video up top...so?


----------



## memento

How big is that specimen, and do you have a close-up of the serration ?


----------



## Ja'eh

Sorry but I don't think that you're on the same page as me.


----------



## memento

Why not ?
The problem with ID'ing based on comparisons, is that the referenced material needs to be clear.
I've seen this specimen been ID'd as sanchezi many times based on colors, yet it doesn't mean it actually ís a sanchezi...









But allright, I'll assume the specimen you posted is a S.sanchezi. 
Then still my question would be, what characters makes you say sanchezi in the video above, what differentiates it from for example a rhombeus from Guyana region ?


----------



## Ja'eh

I'll get back to this discussion in due time....I got my work, my wife and my 11 month old son to attend to. Give me a day or so to respond.


----------



## memento

No problem, we all have a life outside the forums that comes 1st









In the meantime, let me explain why I've posted above comments.
Usually in the ID section, all we get is a speciesname for ID, without any further explantion. That makes me often wonder, how one comes to that perticular ID.
Most of them I believe, are derived from a "looks like so must be" reasoning. For that, other specimen we believe is that same species, are used for reference.

Without saying that's right or wrong, I simply wonder how accurate those references are.
We all know, and I do not mean anybody in perticular, a lot of ID's are just people repeating what is said while it actually is just a wild guess. or even worse - some people just repeat the words of others they rely on, hoping it makes them appear full of wisdom.
Some may add an "of course it is, you're an idiot if you don't see it" for argument, but personally I don't see how that makes their opinion or ID more reliable.
But basically, ID's without arguments, include these "ID's" as well.
But fact is some species are hard to differentiate from each other, especially in videos or pics that do not show any specific details.

Nevertheless, the result of that becomes that if 10 people give the same ID (even if 9 of them are just guessing or repeating), the ID becomes final and from there, a reference for future ID's.
And again I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just questoning the reliability of such a method.

An example :










The specimen above was sold as S.hastatus, which it obviously isn't. Once it was on the importlist, I discussed it with several people by mail, including some people who are considered an expert in ID's and including Daniël (the importer) as well.
After getting all possible information, the final outcome was it was "some kind of S.rhombeus".
"some kind" may sound odd, but after all there are at least 5 cryptic species within S.rhombeus, hence that formulation.

Three months later the same picture appeared on one of the forums, and the ID became S.sanchezi. By one of the same people I discussed it with earlier.
Don't get me wrong, this is not meant disrespectful to anyone or offensive in any way, I'm just mentioning it for explanation.
About 10 people simply repeated that ID without any real arguments and of course that made the ID final.
Without any doubt, I believe from there that same specimen has become another reference for the species S.sanchezi, even though the ID is very doubtful.

But every time a reference like this is used, chances are an earlier doubtful ID is used to ID a new specimen. Not that strange though, apparently even Jégu made a mistake like that.
That's the reason I'm very carefull with the method I call "Id'ing by comparison", without knowing the accuracy of the references used.

A second factor has to come play a role in that : more and more times, a character provided what opposes the "final ID", is tossed aside by a "plastic feature" reply.
However I do not oppose the existance of such plastic features, but I do worry about the ease it's being used with to toss aside such characters.

Agian, I don't mean this disrespectful or offensive to anyone in perticular, just my concerns about how some ID's come to life...


----------



## Nzac

wow the way this thread went, I'm almost sorry I added my opinion, video just looked to me to be very similar to a rhom I used to have until a year ago.


----------



## Lester Lucifer

Hi guys,

Good day to all,

first of all i would like to thank everyone for trying their best in helping to ID this little fellow and also to apologize for my late reply as recently work have been very busy.

secondly , i am still not very clear about fishy terms ... can anyone tell me where the serration of the fish is and how to different one from rhombeus to the others mentioned. A picture on the mentioned would be very much appericated. i would try my very best to get a clear pic for ID again once i understand how to define the serration part.

cheers



memento said:


> I'm not so sure I agree with sanchezi, any sanchezi I have seen by this size has a lot more red than just the gill plate. I'm guessing Rhom, belly serrae would say for sure though.


Hi nzac,

good day to you ,

with regards to the belly serrae, please kindly explain how this go along to distinguish the sp ??? and where is belly serrae is located on the fish ?

thanks


----------



## Nzac

It is along the underside of the belly

sanchezi...

http://www.opefe.com/images/Serrae_SsanOPEFE_1.jpg

rhom...

http://www.opefe.com/images/OPEFE_RhomSerrae.jpg


----------



## Lester Lucifer

Nzac said:


> wow the way this thread went, I'm almost sorry I added my opinion, video just looked to me to be very similar to a rhom I used to have until a year ago.


it was sold as a ven*ezulan black rhombeus* ( i wonder if there is such sp now )to my buddy for a hefty price before it was traded with me for my irrantis due to the fish went banging around the tank and have its lips damaged. IT been more than a month in recover mode after the trade till a week or two ago some of my friends say it is not a rhombeus but a compress or sanchizi sp.

Do you have any pics of your rhombeus that u are able to post for comparesion with mine to see the different ?????

thanks


----------



## Lester Lucifer

Nzac said:


> It is along the underside of the belly
> 
> sanchezi...
> 
> http://www.opefe.com/images/Serrae_SsanOPEFE_1.jpg
> 
> rhom...
> 
> http://www.opefe.com/images/OPEFE_RhomSerrae.jpg


Hi nzac,

many thanks for the fast reply , i will try to get a clear pic of my fish soon and post it here to ID again.
but just to double confirm. i match the two pic together and circle in red the area to look for.

are theres the area to look out for ???

many thanks


----------



## Nzac

a couple of my rhoms, currently still have 2 of them
supposed to be a venezuelan rhom 6.5"








1 year old rhom 4.5"








supposed to be guyana rhom, passed in 2011 approx 6-7" when pic was taken









my sanchezi approx 4" when taken...









I do not have clear pics of the serrae on any of them, as you can tell from the photos my camera skills are lacking.

Yes that's where to look.


----------



## Lester Lucifer

Nzac said:


> some of my rhoms over the last 2 years, currently still have 3 of them
> 
> I do not have clear pics of the serrae on any of them, as you can tell from the photos my camera skills are lacking.
> 
> Yes that's where to look.


Hi nzac,

many thanks for the pictures.. realli appericated... yes i will try to take some clear pics and look out for the area as mentioned ... many thanks once again.
btw mine realli look like yours below ...










the color , shape and reds on the gill part and tail pattern.

lolx


----------



## memento

You circled the right area, that's the serration. Character for all Serrasalmidae.
In S.rhombeus they are pretty wide, while in S.sanchezi they are more pointed like in the pic below :









The problem with S.rhombeus, is that are many different morphs. With as many different common names.
So a picture for comparison would not be of great help I'm afraid.

But I agree with you, the specimen in your video looks a lot like the Guyana population. But it also looks a lot like a sanchezi, hence my comment that based on that video alone, I can not tell you which one it is.


----------



## Chauncey

I'd have to agree that it's a Rhom in my opinion because it looks alot more like my rhom than the sanchezi.


----------



## Ja'eh

Chauncey said:


> I'd have to agree that it's a Rhom in my opinion because it looks alot more like my rhom than the sanchezi.


Are you referring to the video?


----------



## Lester Lucifer

Hi guys ..

I failed in capturing a clear shot of the serration area .. In fact I can't even see it properly with my own eyes .. I been trying very hard .. Siting quietly in front of the tank looking at the serration .,

But I shall return with better results as I just a Nikon cool pix l310 .. Today .. Stay tune ..







hope I would be able to snap better qty shots with thus new toy









Btw any pics on taking moving fishes ??? My shots seems to be always blury.

Sorry I mean any tips in snapping fish pictures


----------



## Lester Lucifer

Hi guys..

Good day to all

my little "rhombeus" is starting to brave alittle

now some clearer shots for better ID










































any idea ???


----------



## memento

Blurry pics, but with a little work on them I got the serration somewhat clearer.
S.rhombeus.


----------



## FEEFA

Sanchezi! Nuff said


----------



## Guest

That is not a Rhom and there is no way in the world you can make of serration in any of those pictures.

S. Sanchezi


----------



## FEEFA

Also, you can't see much of it in the video but for its size it is showing a substantial amount of gliter, that combined with the red throat and humeril spot and shape is why I say its a sanchezi.

/high fives Ja'eh and ksls


----------



## Ja'eh

memento said:


> Blurry pics, but with a little work on them I got the serration somewhat clearer.
> S.rhombeus.
> 
> View attachment 207334


I do see some irregular serration in the latest pics. S. sanchezi.


----------



## CanadianKid92

You will know when your fish matures! take some pictures in a year or so and then you will know for sure!


----------



## CanadianKid92

You will know when your fish matures! take some pictures in a year or so and then you will know for sure!


----------



## Ja'eh

CanadianKid92 said:


> You will know when your fish matures! take some pictures in a year or so and then you will know for sure!


Argument has already been settled.


----------

