# Species ID



## fredweezy (May 27, 2004)

I was sold this fish as a Gold Spilo but I found out that Spilos have the black stripe in the middle of their fin, mine has its black at the end, which would make it a Mac. I don't have a pic but I have a video of him in the video section, it's, fredweezy's s. spilo showing aggression. Any help would be cool.


----------



## NavinWithPs (Apr 3, 2003)

same confusion i had. if there is a thick black stripe at the end of the tail, then it's most likely a mac. i found out that mien was a mac... i don't know if that is better or not...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

The good points to consider, S. maculatus is found in small groups, so the potential is there to keep a few together, however, that is not cut in stone that such a group can "peacefully" live in the same aquario. Far better to just keep one. As for S. spilopleura, those are loners and best kept alone or 1 to a tank. Small can be kept together for short period of time, but more of a problem than S. maculatus.


----------



## fredweezy (May 27, 2004)

I got a pic...


----------



## Puddjuice (Mar 11, 2004)

Gold Spilo. I think at least


----------



## Serygo (May 17, 2004)

hastatus said:


> The good points to consider, S. maculatus is found in small groups, so the potential is there to keep a few together, however, that is not cut in stone that such a group can "peacefully" live in the same aquario. Far better to just keep one. As for S. spilopleura, those are loners and best kept alone or 1 to a tank. Small can be kept together for short period of time, but more of a problem than S. maculatus.


 I agree, It looks like a mac...


----------



## fredweezy (May 27, 2004)

ok so 1 for spilo 1 for mac


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

just curious... did you ever find out if this was a mac or spilo???


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

My impression remains that of S. maculatus by the tail and the lack of a humeral spot.


----------



## traumatic (Jan 29, 2003)

hastatus said:


> My impression remains that of S. maculatus by the tail and the lack of a humeral spot.


 I thought macs do have a spot...


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> traumatic Posted on Sep 24 2004, 03:08 PM
> QUOTE (hastatus @ Sep 23 2004, 05:25 PM)
> My impression remains that of S. maculatus by the tail and the lack of a humeral spot.
> *I thought macs do have a spot... *


At SMALL sizes, full adult; no spot. I've been revising S. spilopleura and S. maculatus web pages. Sorting out as much of the differences as possible. Unfortunately both spilo and mac are so "close" in appearance its hard to separate them except looking at a very FEW unique traits. Add to the mix, they are found in different areas with different belly colors. However, S. maculatus remains more "goldish" or "yellow" than S. spilopleura. Welcome to the COMPLEX species.


----------



## traumatic (Jan 29, 2003)

ok,

The fish above looks to be a good size, judging by the shape and head size. It would be considered adult right? At what size/age would you consider a mac to be adult? What are the signs or traits gained or lost? Would the loss of a humeral spot, loss of hyline edge on the caudal be signs? What about black ventral fin tips? And are these traits that are gained or lost what confuses the ID between mac/spilo? I wonder cus mine has lost his edging and still has a humeral spot.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

subadult size would be anything from 3 to 4inches before max size. Since these species are small. I would say 7 - 8 inches would qualify for adult size.

The photo representing S. maculatus on my web page also had "black tips" and a humeral then lost them. The humeral has remained "absent" for some time except during breeding. They come and they go. It's my impression from the reading of the descriptions, depending on where your fish was collected (that is if its not tank raised) at the adult size is when it becomes clear which species is which. With the S. maculatus on my page, I did a physical (dissection) on a few of them to draw the conclusion that tank raised fish was S. maculatus and not S. spilopleura. The humeral spot (according to the description) is fixed on S. spilopleura. That indicates to me (since its a common occurance on some fishes) that's possible S. maculatus will display a humeral but unfixed depending on the water and mood.

I know its confusing, (you should be on this side of the fence.







). But that is the best we have at this time. Jegu rehabilitation of S. maculatus vs S. spilopleura is not widely accepted or reviewed by American scientists. So we have that problem there too. Certainly since Jegu rehabilitated the species, its caused some alarm and of course confusion for science too. So don't think you are alone.


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

wow... this may be an ignorant thot... but how do you really know what is what at this point... i mean besides opinion... ??


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom Posted on Sep 24 2004, 06:27 PM
> wow... this may be an ignorant thot... but how do you really know what is what at this point... i mean besides opinion... ??


Read the Forum remarks under Species ID.









Without having the fish in front of me, its strictly an opinion based on what we (or I) know at the present time. Its up to you to decide whether or not its accurate for your needs.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Let me add this into the mix to give you a better understanding how messed up things really are:

maculatus, Serrasalmus Kner 1858:164 [4] [Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien v. 32 (no. 22)]. Rio Guapore;, Mato Grosso, Brazil. Lectotype: NMW 56396. Paralectotypes: BMNH 1928.1.24.10 [ex NMW] (1); NMW 56408 (1), 56410 (1), 56415 (1). Lectotype selected by Zarske & Gery 1999:176. Appeared in more detail in Kner 1860:26 [18 in separate], Pl. 2 (fig. 5). Jegu in Reis et al. 2003:190 has confused the original genus of this species with the species appearing on p. 166 in Kner 1858. Valid as Metynnis maculatus (Kner 1858) -- (Ortega & Vari 1986:8, Gomez & Chebez 1996:52, Zarske & Gery 1999:176, Britski et al. 1999:60, Lasso et al. 2001:96, Jegu in Reis et al. 2003:184). Metynnis maculatus (Kner 1858).

This is where the American scientists are challenging Jegu on his rehabilitation. If one reads it (as I do) Jegu made a gross error. Until another competent authority steps in and clears up the species, there will remain a BIG QUESTION (?) mark on S. maculatus if it is indeed a separate/distinct species from S. spilopleura. DNA was also done AND THAT IS EVEN MORE CONFUSING for the 5 complex forms as the species is polymorphic (various body shapes).








What I do (OPEFE) is take what is known, but it out there for all to follow as it comes in and then revise the web site when needed for the changes.


----------



## nitrofish (Jan 14, 2003)

hastatus said:


> The good points to consider, S. maculatus is found in small groups, so the potential is there to keep a few together, however, that is not cut in stone that such a group can "peacefully" live in the same aquario. Far better to just keep one. As for S. spilopleura, those are loners and best kept alone or 1 to a tank. Small can be kept together for short period of time, but more of a problem than S. maculatus.


 do you think when people talk about sucessfuly grouping spilos that they are accually grouping mac's. that where misidentified?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

The term "successfully" is a loose term when it is applied by people to their small tank. You can put goldfish as feeders, but there is always one or two that don't get eaten and seem to become a "companion" to the pirana. Of course this lulls the person into thinking they have found a suitable companion....nonsense. Eventually it will be eaten. So goes with the "successful" gouping of fishes. But to better give you an answer, there is an indication by the grouping behavior they are indeed S. maculatus......MAYBE. Like the goldfish, dont get lulled into a false sense of security. The person who keeps them all together may think he is successful, but take a close on the appearance,. You'll usually find fin bites, regenerating body parts. Yes that happens in nature too. But there are always others that get eaten and groups come and go depending on mortality, which is easily replaced by newer stock (talking about nature). In your home tank, that means spending more $$$$$'s.







So, when someone tells you that they are "shoaling" their fishes, keep one eye on the ball (knowledge).


----------

