# What color Diamond would you say?



## RonW (Sep 2, 2003)

Iphone pic. Shadow in the tank.


----------



## jp80911 (Apr 3, 2008)

need better pics


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

Looks like a black diamond going by that pic.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

When you look at the fish...what color do you see? There is no scientific basis for common names.

Here is how this common name was derived. Someone decided to call a rhombeus that has spangling (shiny scales) a "diamond rhom". Then someone else noted a blue tint on their "diamond rhom" and decided to call it a "blue diamond rhom". Then another rhombeus was imported that had a slight yellow tint with heavy spangling...and now we have the "gold diamond rhom". That is all there is too it. The only criteria for a fish to be a diamond rhom is some shiny scales....and in order to embellish the name further....look for a little color to the body and bingo.....you have yourself the coveted "magenta diamond rhom!"


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Grosse Gurke Posted Today, 12:48 PM
> When you look at the fish...what color do you see? There is no scientific basis for common names.
> 
> Here is how this common name was derived. Someone decided to call a rhombeus that has spangling (shiny scales) a "diamond rhom". Then someone else noted a blue tint on their "diamond rhom" and decided to call it a "blue diamond rhom". Then another rhombeus was imported that had a slight yellow tint with heavy spangling...and now we have the "gold diamond rhom". That is all there is too it. The only criteria for a fish to be a diamond rhom is some shiny scales....and in order to embellish the name further....look for a little color to the body and bingo.....you have yourself the coveted "magenta diamond rhom!"


This has come up so often, anyway we can put a REPEAT dial on it?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

This does seem to be a favorite topic to many.

Im moving this to piranha discussion....not really an ID question.


----------



## Pat (Jul 19, 2004)

That's exactly it GG. I've bought all the colors as they were imported and labelled and I've never seen a consistency in any of 'em. Usually the light bulb type or substrate affected it the most. Age of the fish as well. For goodness sake my Black Nanay Rhom has a purple hue to it.

It bugs me because for the newbies who scour all the threads they become misled right off the hop. I think a sticky written by Frank would be terrific on the topic. The header should be in upper case letters.

Personally, to me, Diamond scaled rhom's are a dime a dozen. Don't get me wrong... they're cool but the impression given is that they're like orchids, such a 'wide variety' of them. Not so. Collection points... for sure a variety but varients of color... I don't see it.

The whole concept makes me wish the black rhom's from the Nanay, the rhom's we see that dwarf the largest diamond varients, I wish they were called Serrasalmus Niger... then people would be a little more gaga over those mammoth amputators. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

If you want to put it that way all rhoms are a dime a dozen except for anything over say 15 inches and up and possably Xingus because for some reason most of them look really distinct. For me what makes a particular rhom special is, if it is a monster sized rhom or not. There's obviously different colors of rhoms just like a lot of other animals in this world but I do agree when some hobbyists say that names based on color and what not are simply a sales pitch, a pitch that is most effective in luring in noobs looking for somthing rare for whatever reasons.


----------



## Pat (Jul 19, 2004)

Ja said:


> If you want to put it that way all rhoms are a dime a dozen except for anything over say 15 inches and up and possably Xingus because for some reason most of them look really distinct. For me what makes a particular rhom special is, if it is a monster sized rhom or not. There's obviously different colors of rhoms just like a lot of other animals in this world but I do agree when some hobbyists say that names based on color and what not are simply a sales pitch, a pitch that is most effective in luring in noobs looking for somthing rare for whatever reasons.


Anything over 14" is almost always from the Nanay. The Monsters. That's what makes them distinct. That particular collection point. The largest Diamond on this board is 13". The largest rhom's are Black Nanays at 17- 17.5" and surely weigh double the largest diamonds we see brought in by any of the vendors.

Often people refer to the black's as 'Peru' rhom's. While it is true they are from Peru, so are most of the 'diamond' rhom's we see. The Diamonds are out of the Amazonas though. In Iquitos where most of these are exported from... the two river systems are a short distance from one another.

Just to clarify... I'm not knocking diamond rhom's... I love 'em but to me it's just misleading to believe they are abundant in variety. To me they're as different from one another as the black rhom's are from one another. Put a black rhom in bright light and substrate and they turn light grey almost opaque. Go dark and they turn slate black. Get some sunlight on 'em... a hue of purple.


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

When I say "dime a dozen" I actually meant that unlike most serras rhoms can be found pretty much anywhere piranhas are found unlike a lot of other serras that can only be found in just a few places. I like what you said and I do agree with a lot of what you brought up.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

For sure but as long as people are willing to pay extra for a fancy name and some fancy scales.. the names will continue to be prevalent in the hobby


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

So you folks that can tell where an S. rhombeus is from (including river), tell me where this fish is from:










> *The whole concept makes me wish the black rhom's from the Nanay, the rhom's we see that dwarf the largest diamond varients, I wish they were called Serrasalmus Niger*... then people would be a little more gaga over those mammoth amputators. Just my thoughts.


S. niger was not described from Peru.


----------



## notoriouslyKEN (Jul 31, 2003)

hastatus said:


> So you folks that can tell where an S. rhombeus is from (including river), tell me where this fish is from:


Too easy. It's from South America. That would make it a latino/a fish depending on gender.


----------



## Pat (Jul 19, 2004)

hastatus said:


> So you folks that can tell where an S. rhombeus is from (including river), tell me where this fish is from:
> View attachment 184997
> 
> 
> ...


Brazil has some black rhom's eh? Is that where it was described?









As for the fish in the pic...
I'll take a guess LOL... based on the reticulated pattern... Nanay?


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

Im going to guess guyana or xingu... leaning more toward guyana


----------



## jp80911 (Apr 3, 2008)

that fish is from my fish tank








j/k
I'm going to guess guyana as well.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Rio Guama:








Nice try folks.

Next fish, this one should be real easy:


----------



## fury (Nov 30, 2003)

> So you folks that can tell where an S. rhombeus is from (including river), tell me where this fish is from


i'm not the best at judging where a rhom is most likely from but i have done so with ease at times. as for what river it was collected (i couldn't tell ya) if your going to ask us, where this fish is from to help prove it can be done or not, it would be in your best interest to post more than that half assed leaning tower rhom photo posted. how about some all around quality shots for a question as important as this.

in my opinion- it's not always easy but not imposable cause i have and will continue to do so. the bigger the rhom the more identifiable the collection point could be. i'm not saying this is 100% but for the most part it's done here on p-fury to many times to just push this to side


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> i'm not the best at judging where a rhom is most likely from but i have done so with ease at times. as for what river it was collected (i couldn't tell ya) if your going to ask us, where this fish is from to help prove it can be done or not, it would be in your best interest to post more than that half assed leaning tower rhom photo posted. how about some all around quality shots for a question as important as this.
> 
> in my opinion- it's not always easy but not imposable cause i have and will continue to do so. the bigger the rhom the more identifiable the collection point could be. i'm not saying this is 100% but for the most part it's done here on p-fury to many times to just push this to side


It is what it is for this forum. If you don't know, then don't post. If you think you know and want to dance around it, then don't post, but if you think you know, then go for it.


----------



## fury (Nov 30, 2003)

> Wikipedia--This fish was long known and traded as Serrasalmus niger. It varies widely across its range and whether it really is a single species is still unknown, though in some cases the fish in question are certainly mere morphs. Peruvian S. rhombeus are called jet black highbacks or Peruvian Black Piranhas. Brazilian Black Piranhas are actually greyish in color and some have diamond-shaped scales. Venezuelan S. rhombeus have the brightest red eyes and grey coloration.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> fury Posted Today, 09:23 PM


I don't use wikipedia, wikipedia uses OPEFE. But that is a broad characterization of S. niger, since S. niger was described only from Guyana (or Guiana). All "black" piranas were erronously called S. niger, including breeding adult P. cariba.

Cheers.


----------



## fury (Nov 30, 2003)

> Peruvian S. rhombeus are called jet black highbacks or Peruvian Black Piranhas. Brazilian Black Piranhas are actually greyish in color and some have diamond-shaped scales. Venezuelan S. rhombeus have the brightest red eyes and grey coloration.


so this is 100% bull sh*t ?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> so this is 100% bull sh*t ?


I would read their disclaimer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer


----------



## notaverage (Sep 10, 2005)

I thought everyone knew Wiki was BS mostly.


----------



## fury (Nov 30, 2003)

> WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY





> I don't use wikipedia, wikipedia uses OPEFE


so what are you trying to tell me ?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> so what are you trying to tell me ?


That i don't use wikipedia for any scientific information becaues it is unreliable as a source. I use scientific documents & field research by individual scientists who in the field examining specimens, to back up my comments. Nothinng vague about that. Wikipedia approached me quite a few years ago and asked me to advice them on building their information on piranhas. Which I did, but subsequently they allowed other unreliable sources to infiltrate their information. That's why they are being sued by Hollywood celebrities, etc., for bogus information. I don't sacrifice my credibility to anyone. As some here can attest to.

Now to get back to the last S. rhombeus photo, that fish is from the same river as the other one. Which is why I said its "real easy".









So for those that thought it was Peruvian......Nope.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Last 2. They are numbered.


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

Interesting








Actually, Guama rhoms are my "hot" topic, since in Europe they're called very rare, though it's the most frequent one on the saleslists.

Anyway, considering the first pic, showing a black brazil.
The second one : a Peruvian one.

Exact rivers he doesn't mention









"100% sure" though I don't have much faith in the names that bloke gives his fishes








How reliable do you consider the names/rivers Frank ? He himself explained to me it's quite impossible to know...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> How reliable do you consider the names/rivers Frank ? He himself explained to me it's quite impossible to know...


Unless you pull the fish from the river yourself, you will never know where it came from. That's why I enjoy this type of topic, because just because a wholesale dealer says they get it from one region (or what they are saying "rare") may not be as rare as they state. S. rhombeus is not considered endangered or rare. Now if the river they gather it from is a difficult extraction point, then I would say yes, it might cost more to collect and ship. But 'rare' is a highly misused word when it comes to $$$$'s.

BTW, good "guess" on those 2 collections.


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

Joined in too late, but it would have been a 4 out of 4 score








Recognized the first picture immediately...

For those who are puzzled : several times I asked some questions about Guama rhoms. If you google them, 9 out of 10 hits you get will, in one way or another, lead you back to a European distributor. 
With a regular rhom price of 100 euros, it surprised everytime that the Guama rhoms costed up to 795 euro for a 23cm specimen (9").
Even secondhands, people tend to ask (and pay...) several hundreds for it.
I asked the guy straight ahead why that was, and after a while the discussion got interesting, since he claimed it was impossible to know where a fish was caught. Then why the **** has almost every fish on his list, an addition to its name with a river name in it ?
Of course, that question never got answered...
After some more questioning Pedro and Frank both explained why rivernames are rarely specified except for $$$$

And that mainly is the reason I jumped into this topic : gentlemen.... a rhom is a rhom and the actual differences in variations is often overrated. I bet some of you indeed thought the 2nd to be a Peruvian because it has a high back.

The entire story is based on a single concept : we all want something special don't we ?
And we're willing to pay for that.... and once we get told it's bullocks, instead of admitting and accepting we're screwed, we start blaming science. "I can tell the difference, so science is wrong".
I think it's pretty much proven with this topic, you can't tell the difference. Especially not since most "names" have been created for the profits.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I think "creating names for profit" might not be so accurate reasoning. You take the common name spilo complex. That was used a few years ago for S. sanchezi. Eventually, the mystery was solved and the present scientific name is as accurate as you can get, It is a rhombeus group member, but for some reason spilo complex remains in the selling point. Is it wrong? not really, because in some cases the dealer/person is uninformed and wholesale lists are mostly outdated or use some catchy local name.

Lets face it, if you sold fish solely by scientific name, fish like P. nattereri (Argentina) would make a novice think its just a regular pnatt. But attach "ternetzi" as a common name, then you get a better idea of what you are buying. As I said in other threads and particularly about Pedro (AS), there is a tremendous overhead cost to shipping piranhas. They are not the bread-butter of profits. Other common fish are (tetras, cichlids, etc). One last thing, there used to be unscrupulous dealers that were selling S. niger v S. rhombeus as a separate distinct species for higher profit, even if they were the same species. Hobbyists were happy to buy out the big bucks without even taking the time to read up on what they were buying. So you take a $300 6 inches fish called S. niger vs a $75 6 inch S. rhombeus, most would opt for the "niger" fish as a trophy fish in their collection.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Some of you people crack me up. Half the members on this forum thought that large rhom posted in the "Ternetzi" thread was Pygocentrus. Trying to guess a collection point is just that...a guess.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Grosse Gurke Posted Today, 09:38 AM
> Some of you people crack me up. Half the members on this forum thought that large rhom posted in the "Ternetzi" thread was Pygocentrus. Trying to guess a collection point is just that...a guess.


I remember that. I took a big hit over that by some members that couldn't see the tree because of the forest.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Yeah...Nick pmed me about it last week and was like "WTF....how the hell can people not tell that is a rhom?" So I went back and checked it out again. Very nice fish....but clearly not Pygocentrus. I think G came back and said he accidentally posted up the wrong picture .....and that the picture he did post was rhombeus. I just found it funny that so many members were screaming it was ternetzi.....when my maculatus looks more Pygocentrus then that fish.


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

hastatus said:


> I think "creating names for profit" might not be so accurate reasoning. You take the common name spilo complex. That was used a few years ago for S. sanchezi. Eventually, the mystery was solved and the present scientific name is as accurate as you can get, It is a rhombeus group member, but for some reason spilo complex remains in the selling point. Is it wrong? not really, because in some cases the dealer/person is uninformed and wholesale lists are mostly outdated or use some catchy local name.
> 
> Lets face it, if you sold fish solely by scientific name, fish like P. nattereri (Argentina) would make a novice think its just a regular pnatt. But attach "ternetzi" as a common name, then you get a better idea of what you are buying. As I said in other threads and particularly about Pedro (AS), there is a tremendous overhead cost to shipping piranhas. They are not the bread-butter of profits. Other common fish are (tetras, cichlids, etc). One last thing, there used to be unscrupulous dealers that were selling S. niger v S. rhombeus as a separate distinct species for higher profit, even if they were the same species. Hobbyists were happy to buy out the big bucks without even taking the time to read up on what they were buying. So you take a $300 6 inches fish called S. niger vs a $75 6 inch S. rhombeus, most would opt for the "niger" fish as a trophy fish in their collection.


Didn't mean the name part in general, but as you may have seen on that site, fishes are called names like "Diamond Yellow Piranha Rio Parana" or "New gold xingu"....
Nothing scientific about those I believe... just $$$


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

Grosse Gurke said:


> Yeah...Nick pmed me about it last week and was like "WTF....how the hell can people not tell that is a rhom?" So I went back and checked it out again. Very nice fish....but clearly not Pygocentrus. I think G came back and said he accidentally posted up the wrong picture .....and that the picture he did post was rhombeus. I just found it funny that so many members were screaming it was ternetzi.....when my maculatus looks more Pygocentrus then that fish.


Where is that pic? I'm sure g removed way longer than a week ago.

I thought it was a rhom at first glance as well the title threw me off a bit..

Back to the diamond thing yeah it is just a money thing but I'm pretty sure importers pay more for them when compared to regular rhoms (correct me if I'm wrong). It's just the market man and you can't knock anyone for making A few extra bucks. People don't buy gdrs and just call them rhoms they call them gold diamond rhom.. It just sounds fancier and like I said before people obviously have no problem paying a higher price for a nicer specimen with a nicer name.

But I agree all the "what kind of rhom" threads need to stop.. Perhaps a pinned topic and closing all threads asking the question after linking them to the topic would curb this


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

This, I think is the photo:








And the photo he should have shown but didn't. Josh Smick said the fish was actually 11inches TL, but kept silent about it.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

This was the picture I was talking about. It is still posted in the pinned ternetzi thread in the OPEFE forum.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> sse Gurke Posted Today, 01:07 PM
> This was the picture I was talking about. It is still posted in the pinned ternetzi thread in the OPEFE forum.


Somebody has a lot of money to toss around.









Nice big ternetzi, I mean S. rhombeus. Anyway, this is all in good spirit. The important thing to remember is, GF has done a lot for the hobby, even if he gets a photo mixed up.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Approx. size using pixels based on $1 bill:


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Oh...no doubt Frank. I was only using this as an example of how good our members are at IDing a fish. They were the ones saying it was a Pygocentrus...including Xenon










Like I said...I think G put up the wrong picture for his statement.....I dont think Fink would also refer to that fish as Pygocentrus....or at least I hope not!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I don't think Fink would reply either way.







Hardheaded hobbyists are a tough nut to crack....no pun intended.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

Grosse Gurke said:


> This was the picture I was talking about. It is still posted in the pinned ternetzi thread in the OPEFE forum.


How could anyone think that's anything but a rhom? That's all I see


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Trigga said:


> I agree with you George 100%. I happen to have a Ternetzi, Super Red and the wild Red is just purchased from you the other day and I can say with certainty that this 3 fishes are not the same species.
> 
> I know that *right now*, science has them under the same species(Nattereri) but I'm sure that in the near future, science will eventually classify them into their own species.
> 
> ...


I just want to say that Hater is a good guy and is a good fish keeper...but this is why I dont put much stock in saying they can...with out exception...tell me what river a fish came out of. Everyone has an opinion....but that is all it is...an opinion. With something like collection point...it is very hard to argue with a wildass guess.


----------



## RonW (Sep 2, 2003)

This was my point exactly! I do love this fish and have always wanted a Rhom since I was a kid, now 37. The old S Niger still eldudes me.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> RonW Posted Today, 08:54 PM
> This was my point exactly! I do love this fish and have always wanted a Rhom since I was a kid, now 37.


37? I have dead fish in my private collection older than that .


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> The old S Niger still eldudes me.


Don't feel bad, this is the only authentic live fish photo in existence. I want so bad.


----------



## memento (Jun 3, 2009)

Was an interesting topic though.
That people actually confuse the rhom for a ternetzi is not so strange at all, like Trigga stated : confusion created by the title. 
What you expect to see, can easily color your perception.... but who looks without those expectations, just saw (or at least had doubts) at the first glance.

About the $$$ thing : of course a lot of name additions make a fish sound more special, so the price rises. Can't blame anyone for it, especially since salesmen do not always concern about science. Profit is the first concern, that's their bread isn't it ?
(No, not referring to G, more to importers in general).
And taking into consideration that indeed lots of fish arrive dead, to importers it is an expensive fish.

But that people still believe all the additional crap and actually start believing science is wrong, if it says there are no prominent differences, is sad.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Lucien Posted Today, 09:50 PM
> Was an interesting topic though.
> That people actually confuse the rhom for a ternetzi is not so strange at all, like Trigga stated : confusion created by the title.
> What you expect to see, can easily color your perception.... but who looks without those expectations, just saw (or at least had doubts) at the first glance.
> ...


The old science methods relied on a bottle big enough to carry (usually 1 qt) and small jars for small specimens. In the historical examination of piranhas, S.A. was nothing more than a postage stamp to explorers who (incorrectly) based species more on color and morphological growth, often confusing these two features as "new species" thereby giving a new name. Much of the color of life was done by artists who would fill in the blanks/drawings based on what the researcher noted in their pads. Today's science is far more advanced than just using a ruler and opinion. It covers DNa evidence, bone structure/count (Radiographs) and sufficient samples from a vast area/rivers. In example, with ternetzi, only 1 specimen was used to name that species. Subsequent authorities used less than 100 specimens to make opinions, often overlooking the damaged specimen, which was eventually lost. When Fink reviewed the species, they used more advanced methods and notes taken by Eigenmann and Norman that the species was damaged.

As I mentioned in an different thread on bone structure, captive bred piranhas tend to get worked over pretty bad in they tend to have more bones than wild caught. Isn't x-rays wonderful?


----------

