# Other fish .ID?



## dweizoro (Apr 1, 2005)

15cm


----------



## cfb (Mar 14, 2007)

dweizoro said:


> 15cm


I'll be the first to take a stab at it...

Bars that stop at the lateral midline...

red eyes...

a collection point would help but I'll go out on a limb and say S. Altuvei

Randy
CFB


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> I'll be the first to take a stab at it...
> 
> Bars that stop at the lateral midline...
> 
> ...


Might be. I'd have to see a better flank shot in order to evaluate the belly region.


----------



## zhelmet (Jul 21, 2004)

hastatus said:


> > I'll be the first to take a stab at it...
> >
> > Bars that stop at the lateral midline...
> >
> ...


Frank, do altuvies or compressuses have bigger belly scutes than rhoms just like sanchiez?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Frank, do altuvies or compressuses have bigger belly scutes than rhoms just like sanchiez?


Don't know. Not mentioned in descriptions. The only one that appears unique are those in S. altispinis and Pristobrycon serrulatus. Serrae are just counted unless there is something that "stands out" out about the feature. S. sanchezi is a good example of a poorly described species.


----------



## zhelmet (Jul 21, 2004)

quite confused. because the fish above looks so like a rhom but have bars.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> zhelmet Posted Today, 09:18 PM
> quite confused. because the fish above looks so like a rhom but have bars.


Which is why in the past years these fish were mixed in with S. rhombeus from both regions. Dealers could not distinguish them because of that similarity to S. rhombeus.


----------



## zhelmet (Jul 21, 2004)

Frank, here is a fish of mine, which I am quite confused about its ID. it has visible belly scutes, bars on the upper body since juvernile. the first character seems match the description of altispinis, the other match altuvie, sometimes I also think it would be a compressus.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

I cleaned up your image. The belly region seems to be free of markings. More than likely S. altuvei.


----------



## zhelmet (Jul 21, 2004)

thanks Frank! your reply speed is amazing


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> zhelmet Posted Today, 09:54 AM
> thanks Frank! your reply speed is amazing


Slow morning here, waiting for my coffee. Otherwise, I'd be drinking that doing other business. But glad I could help.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

sorry to derail zhelmet but thats one awesome looking fish man!


----------



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

C0Rey said:


> sorry to derail zhelmet but thats one awesome looking fish man!


Indeed it is! I really don't think it is the same fish as the topic starter's however. The markings are different and the topic's starter's has a much more muscular appearing jaw. The coloration does appear to be similar however. I'm just an amateur however; I hope you can appreciate my input however.

Forgot to mention, the eye location and coloration are very different as well.


----------



## zhelmet (Jul 21, 2004)

they are different fishes. I don't own the first one.
what I am interested is that although both fishes have bars, their body stuctures are very different. hard to believe they are both altuvie. I would say the first one is more like a rhom.


----------



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

zhelmet said:


> they are different fishes. I don't own the first one.
> what I am interested is that although both fishes have bars, their body stuctures are very different. hard to believe they are both altuvie. I would say the first one is more like a rhom.


Frank said your fish, was an atluvei, not the first one. I agree his does look like a rhom.


----------

