# I think he is an altuvei



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

He is strange one. He was sold as a black piranha, which he clearly isn't. I think he is an altuvei what do you guys think?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Nice example of S. compressus.


----------



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

If he is S. compressus them how come he looks so much different than the ones Nate has of the same size? Drastic differences.










That's the same fish? Idk... But you _are_ the expert.










Nate's look nothing like mine


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Read the descriptions;

http://www.opefe.com/compressus.html


----------



## QWERTY1830 (Jul 26, 2006)

Thats a bomb looking fish you got there sirrrrrrrr!


----------



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

It doesn't explain how it could look so drastically different. Not to mention this is an altuvei and it looks 100% more like my fish than the ones that Nate has. I'm confused here.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Ok, think of it this way. You have 2 fish that are nearly identicle in shape and coloration. BUT, they have some unique features that separate them. One has bars and spots that are upper flank only, diminishing as it goes towards the belly region, where the belly doesn't exhibit any (S. altuvei). Then the other starts with spots, that change into bars as it slowly matures, but has a combo spots and bars on the belly (S. compressus). Both these fish when full grown both look the same, but under all that glittery scales the body spots or bars are present to the trained eye.

I had a discussion with a dealer over some imported fish that were being sold as S. altuvei, but in reality were S. compressus. The wholeseller had a problem with my ID's on the fish, so he sent 4 different photos of the fish from juvenile to adult. He thought the fish were different and thought the ID was wrong. I then presented him the growth photos of S. compressus. They were matches to his fish. Didn't hear back from him, but the dealer here was satisfied that my ID's were accurate.

So while you might not understand the ontogeny of S. compressus v. S. altuvei, that is how the fish confuses people.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Whats very confusing about these fish is its VERY difficult to ID based on body shape due to varations from diffrent locales. You need to look for the key identifying features and go from there. In this case...

bars that go below the lateral line... compressus. Nice fish


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Bars and spots that are migrated to the belly region. In a few rare cases S. altuvei has some that are sparse (bars), but generally, there are none there.


----------



## FohDatAss (Oct 7, 2003)

Frank explain the picture on the top of this thread...why the altuvei has bars (which everyone thinks is compressus)


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Not much to explain. Its a drawing and it only uses features that help ID the fish. Scientists don't use those drawings for ID (except on rare occasions), they use the holotype (actual image of the species) and its preserved body for comparison.

Compare the drawing above (S. altuvei) against S. compressus (drawing).

As you can see the fish is comparable to S. compressus based on the belly markings.


----------



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

hastatus said:


> Ok, think of it this way. You have 2 fish that are nearly identicle in shape and coloration. BUT, they have some unique features that separate them. One has bars and spots that are upper flank only, diminishing as it goes towards the belly region, where the belly doesn't exhibit any (S. altuvei). Then the other starts with spots, that change into bars as it slowly matures, but has a combo spots and bars on the belly (S. compressus). Both these fish when full grown both look the same, but under all that glittery scales the body spots or bars are present to the trained eye.
> 
> I had a discussion with a dealer over some imported fish that were being sold as S. altuvei, but in reality were S. compressus. The wholeseller had a problem with my ID's on the fish, so he sent 4 different photos of the fish from juvenile to adult. He thought the fish were different and thought the ID was wrong. I then presented him the growth photos of S. compressus. They were matches to his fish. Didn't hear back from him, but the dealer here was satisfied that my ID's were accurate.
> 
> So while you might not understand the ontogeny of S. compressus v. S. altuvei, that is how the fish confuses people.


I understood thaat already, but my fish looks much more like an altuvei then any other fish of the same size sold as compressus. Mine does not exhibit the spots and bars. Mine has the same colors as Pedro's altvuei. Not to mention how rounded the dorsum on my fish appears to be when compared to all the compressus of similar size I have seen. My fish has a much more rounded body than the compressus I have seen (with the exception of the 10"er which looks exactly like mine with the exception of coloring which looks just like an altuvei as far as I can tell.)

Is there a better way to tell? Maybe by serrae on the stomach?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> understood thaat already, but my fish looks much more like an altuvei then any other fish of the same size sold as compressus. Mine does not exhibit the spots and bars. Mine has the same colors as Pedro's altvuei. Not to mention how rounded the dorsum on my fish appears to be when compared to all the compressus of similar size I have seen. My fish has a much more rounded body than the compressus I have seen (with the exception of the 10"er which looks exactly like mine with the exception of coloring which looks just like an altuvei as far as I can tell.)
> 
> Is there a better way to tell? Maybe by serrae on the stomach


All I can do is offer you the evidence and ID your fish via a photo. From there its up to you. I can't make it be something, that in my opinion, it is not. If you still insist that your fish is an S. altuvei based on what you are comparing it to, then not much else I can do.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Here is an actual example of a live S. altuvei (verified via DNA).


----------



## Inflade (Mar 24, 2006)

looks like a compressus to me.


----------



## Dawgz (Aug 18, 2005)

hastatus said:


> Here is an actual example of a live S. altuvei (verified via DNA).


Damn, that fish could have fooled me to be a Brandti....


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

These 2 compressus fish have the anal fin forward like S. brandtii, Its not limited to just S. brandtii, though it helps to ID that species when the locality is not known. S. brandtii has not been considered to be a member of the compressus group. It should be in my opinion.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Dawgz said:


> Damn, that fish could have fooled me to be a Brandti....


Me too...Frank and I have had that discussion though


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Me too...Frank and I have had that discussion though


That was about a couple years ago or so? I remember you bringing it up on some photos of the very same thing we are discussing here.


----------



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

Lol yeah it does look like a brandtii. I guess some one outta break the news to Pedro.

I like the new avatar btw.

I accept that my fish is probably S. Compressus, but I still would debate further that this is _not_ the same fish that Nate selling. Same size, drastically different appearance.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> I accept that my fish is probably S. Compressus, but I still would debate further that this is _not_ the same fish that Nate selling. Same size, drastically different appearance.


Appearance doesnt mean much....have you looked at the difference between some rhombeus...even ones collected in the same river? Compressus and altuvei look so similar that it all comes down to either collection point or spotting....well...mostly


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> I think we talked about it on the phone..but Im not sure. There are a few pictures of this fish on your site under compressus...and I always thought it looked like a brandtii. I think you said Fink ID'd it as a compressus though.


If you mean the fish on the plate (my fish), Fink id'd the fish as S. altuvei. It was used for DNA in one of the fin clippings I did a few years ago for a published science document. Jegu in a later followup paper confirmed the ID as altuvei. I think you may have confused the S. serrulatus (Fink thought it was based on some photos I sent him). This fish was later also used for DNA, but Jegu disagreed and recognized it as S. eigenmanni on a followup sci document. We were talking about so many things, perhaps that is where the confusion began.



> I accept that my fish is probably S. Compressus, but I still would debate further that this is not the same fish that Nate selling. *Same size, drastically different appearance*.


The point you are missing is these fish develop individually and not in a set pattern, so its not unusually finding same size fish appearing different. The key is do they meet the description? In this case, yes. As I circled in the photo of YOUR FISH, the pattern is there for S. compressus.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Before I forget, let me add this, I cannot control what dealers sell for species. They send me a photo of a fish and that is what I ID if possible. I have no control what they have in their tank should the species be mixed up and doesn't meet the photograph that I was sent. It would require me to look at each individual fish in their tank to validate ID. I don't have time for that and I'm sure they don't either to sort it all out.


----------



## WaxmasterJ (Jan 8, 2007)

Is it a correct assertion that the difference between S. compressus and S. altuvei is the patterns of their spotting?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> WaxmasterJ Posted Today, 10:42 AM
> Is it a correct assertion that the difference between S. compressus and S. altuvei is the patterns of their spotting?


I wouldn't necessarly catagorize it that way, because of the development changes changes that S. compressus primarily goes through differs significantly than S. altuvei. S. altuvei begins with almost oval spots that changes (maturity) to elongated bars moreso than S. compressus. S. compressus tend to have more spotting with the bars that goes and covers in most cases the belly. Similar to what I circled for you in the photo.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

hastatus said:


> If you mean the fish on the plate (my fish), Fink id'd the fish as S. altuvei. It was used for DNA in one of the fin clippings I did a few years ago for a published science document. Jegu in a later followup paper confirmed the ID as altuvei. I think you may have confused the S. serrulatus (Fink thought it was based on some photos I sent him). This fish was later also used for DNA, but Jegu disagreed and recognized it as S. eigenmanni on a followup sci document. We were talking about so many things, perhaps that is where the confusion began.


Nope...you are right...I was talking about the fish on the plate and how Fink ID'd it as altuvei..not compressus. I dont remember us talking about a DNA study on the fish...but that is pretty sweet. It does get harder as these fish get older and the scales begin to hide the spotting patter.

Thats why I am an accountant and not a fishentolotist


----------



## FohDatAss (Oct 7, 2003)

i thought the convex/concave shape of the back and the upward nose were exclusive to compressus


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> mR. Blueberry Posted Today, 11:17 PM
> i thought the convex/concave shape of the back and the upward nose were exclusive to compressus


Exclusive to compressus group! Note S. altuvei and S. compressus head/snout. Very close appearing with S. compressus a bit more turned up. Not much, but visible to the trained eye.


----------



## Dawgz (Aug 18, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> If you mean the fish on the plate (my fish), Fink id'd the fish as S. altuvei. It was used for DNA in one of the fin clippings I did a few years ago for a published science document. Jegu in a later followup paper confirmed the ID as altuvei. I think you may have confused the S. serrulatus (Fink thought it was based on some photos I sent him). This fish was later also used for DNA, but Jegu disagreed and recognized it as S. eigenmanni on a followup sci document. We were talking about so many things, perhaps that is where the confusion began.


Nope...you are right...I was talking about the fish on the plate and how Fink ID'd it as altuvei..not compressus. I dont remember us talking about a DNA study on the fish...but that is pretty sweet. It does get harder as these fish get older and the scales begin to hide the spotting patter.

Thats why I am an accountant and not a *fishentolotist*








[/quote]

Ichtheologist?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Ichtheologist?


_ichthyologist_

Its an old science term Today they prefer _systemist._


----------



## Dawgz (Aug 18, 2005)

lol i was close =\


----------



## FohDatAss (Oct 7, 2003)

this thread is very educational..


----------

