# RHOM OR NOT



## marilynmonroe

HES 6 INCHES LONG AND ATTACKS MY FACE WHEN I GET CLOSE TO THE GLASS


----------



## Buckman

looks like a rhom to me. welcome to the site.


----------



## Piranha Guru

Can't say for sure from that shot...turn of the flash and see if you can get a clearer pic.


----------



## rhomkeeper

realy can't see any detail in that pic other than the short sanchezi like jaw, need better pics


----------



## Buckman

it doesnt have the coloration of a sanchezi though unless its really stressed out.


----------



## marilynmonroe

3 MORE PIC FIRST ONE WAS FROM 2005 THE OTHER 2 ARE 2008. I GOT HIM BACK IN 2005 AROUND 4 INCHES LONG, NOW HE IS ABOUT 6 OR 7 INCHES. HE HAS BEEN KEPT ALONE IN A 135 GALLON TANK, SO I STILL DONT KNOW HOW HE GOT THE DOVETAIL CUT-OUT ON HIS HEAD? I FEED HIM SHRIMP, AND HOPEFULLY GET HIM TO EAT SQUID AND HIKARI GOLD PELLETS. ALSO DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO SELLS [ZOE] ,, PET SUPPLIES PLUS DONT, OR PETS SMART,,,


----------



## marilynmonroe

rhom ???


----------



## pbucch

looks like it, interesting background choice.


----------



## JustJoshinYa

IDK it kinda looks like a sanchezi to me at that angle but kinda need better pics


----------



## white_blue_grey

I believe it's a Rhom, 2 inch in 3 years, man, those fish had slow grow rate,


----------



## Moondemon

Hard to say... IMo it's either as rhom or a sanchezi with a faded coloration... A clear shot of the belly (to verify if the fish has scutes) would help
In what is that fish living (tank size) and what is his diet ? At 4'', a growth of 2 inches in 2 years doesn't seem normal to me.... Rhom's tend to grow slower after the 6'' mark..


----------



## rhomkeeper

because of the short jaw and body shape i'm thinking sanchezi


----------



## marilynmonroe

got 2 pic of him and i can clearly see scutes on his belly. maybe 5 or 6 of them. RHOM OR SANZ ? he is around 6 to7 inches and had him since 2005 in a 135 gallon tank.


----------



## rhomkeeper

damn good bellie shots, almost 100% sure thats a sanchezi. rhoms do grow slow, but not usualy until after 6 or 7 inches.


----------



## Piranha Guru

It has too many dorsal fin rays for sanchezi...possibly compressus.

I also merged all 4 of your threads. One thread per fish is sufficient.


----------



## marilynmonroe

BioTeAcH said:


> It has too many dorsal fin rays for sanchezi...possibly compressus.
> 
> I also merged all 4 of your threads. One thread per fish is sufficient.


SO ITS A COMPRESSUS OR SANCHEZI BUT NOT A RHOM?


----------



## Piranha Guru

marilynmonroe said:


> SO ITS A COMPRESSUS OR SANCHEZI BUT NOT A RHOM?


Rhom or compressus...not sanchezi.


----------



## Dr. Giggles

That looks like a Compressus to me.


----------



## marilynmonroe

Dr. Giggles said:


> That looks like a Compressus to me.


ok guys here are 3 more pics without a flash hope they help..................


----------



## JustJoshinYa

there is something wrong with this piranha...


----------



## BUBB$

rhom!!!


----------



## Guest

Okay, IMO which is still new and learning I do not see a Rhom. I find the Jawline to be extremely short. I personally thought Sanchezi because of the irregular scutes and smaller size/growth rate. But then it was mentioned that this fish has too many Dorsal ray fins (which is a good tool to know). So by process of elimination, Compressus!


----------



## Sheppard

I would have said Compressus..but man the whole body shape of this fish is leaving me as confused as everyone else!
It's almost as if it's mixed with an elong or something lol

Oh yeah...and that background is legendary in the piranha hobby IMO hahahaha I will never forget it :laugh:


----------



## rhomkeeper

ksls said:


> Okay, IMO which is still new and learning I do not see a Rhom. I find the Jawline to be extremely short. I personally thought Sanchezi because of the irregular scutes and smaller size/growth rate. But then it was mentioned that this fish has too many Dorsal ray fins (which is a good tool to know). So by process of elimination, Compressus!


 acording to the sanchezi pic below from opefe web-site it doesn't have too many dorsal rays, this fish and the one in question both have the same amount.


----------



## Piranha Guru

rhomkeeper said:


> Okay, IMO which is still new and learning I do not see a Rhom. I find the Jawline to be extremely short. I personally thought Sanchezi because of the irregular scutes and smaller size/growth rate. But then it was mentioned that this fish has too many Dorsal ray fins (which is a good tool to know). So by process of elimination, Compressus!


 acording to the sanchezi pic below from opefe web-site it doesn't have too many dorsal rays, this fish and the one in question both have the same amount.
[/quote]

That pic was posted in another thread an IMO that fish pictured is a compressus. The dorsal fin ray counts are mentioned in the historical descriptions at the bottom of the page.


----------



## rhomkeeper

the historical discription for s. sanchezi is based on specimins collected from the rio ucayali river, now is it not possable that in other parts of their range that there may be morpholigical differences? not all animals within a species are exactly the same yet considered to be the same species ( s. rhombeus for example) so why is it not possibel to have a fish from one area have a slight differance from fish in another area yet still be the same species. piranha are still so poorly understood and reaserched even to this day that such slight differences may have been overlooked.

not to be argumentive but i find it hard to accept that after all the reaserch that frank put into the opefe that he is wrong about a fish he labeled as s. sanchezi. since 99% of use use the opefe as our guide we only have the info that was compiled from scientists and hobbiest around the world, and i base my opinion strictly on that info, and what can be found of the scientific discriptions of the people who have actualy done the reaserch on piranha.now i'm not saying i'm right or that any one else is wrong, but i just do not belive that s. sanchezi can be dismissed because of 3 or 4 dorsal rays when the fish in question has so many charicteristics of s.sanchezi ( as well as s.compressus) and there is visual evidence of a fish IDed as s. sanchezi that has a higher ray count than the original holotype.


----------



## Piranha Guru

Differences in coloration, spotting, size, and pigment could be very possible due to slight allelic/environmental variations within a species. Fin rays on the other hand are a major structural feature and is one of the first things Frank looks at based on past correspondence with him. I find it more likely that the picture is misplaced than a sanchezi having that many extra fin rays unless Frank says otherwise. Even if it turns out that the fin count is an acceptable anomaly, then all that it indicates is that sancehzi can't be ruled out...it doesn't indicate that it is a sanchezi. All the other visible charactersitics could be rhom/rhom CF or compressus. I have yet to see a clear enough shot of the scutes that would inidcate it is a sanchezi.


----------



## rhomkeeper

exactly my point, that there isn't enough evidence to rule out s.sanchezi, i also haven't ruled out compressus, especialy since it looks rather close to one i have with the exception of the lack of spots forming bars and different scutes(?).....which, as you said are some of the many features used to make ID. the fish in question has mostly features like the pic i posted that frank has IDed as a sanchezi, and until he pops in here and says oops sorry i mis-labeled it, i have to accept that it is s. sanchezi, thus making the fish in question more than likely sanchezi also as almost ever feature that can be seen clearly in both individuals seem to be the same.

i do find it unlikely that the pic is mis-placed.....its been on there for years and no-one ever notice before, but we as humas do error, so there is always a chance, and if that is the case then i admit that my opoinion and reasons for it are wrong, but i had faulty information to base my opinion on, and i'm just trying to form an opinion based on what info i have availabel even if some time that info is contradictory


----------



## Piranha Guru

Until I clearly see irregular scutes, I have no reason to believe sanchezi...even if I'm screwing up the fin counts.


----------



## rhomkeeper

blow this up realy big. they scutes aren't clear but you can kinda see from the unevenness of the color contrast that they could be uneven you can see whats the fish and whats the background by the way the color seems to fluctuate from clear to white as you run down they bellie. no its not indisputabel and i'm not realy even using it in my opinion forming, i'm more going off the fact that the first set of pic the spots are perfect and round, and the OPEFE's pic. i'm ruleing out rhom simply that other than the first pic with the nice spots nothing else says rhom. compressus is always a possability as whenever a questionabel serra like this can't be 100% IDed it usualy gets labeled somnthing in the compressus complex, but not nessecarly s. compressus.

i don't think for a second your screwing up the ray counts,maybe it varies more than recorded or like you said....the pic is mis-labeled, i'm just more inclined to think that for as long as that pic has been on opefe that someone would have caught it already.


----------



## Yanfloist

rhom, looks very similar to mine.


----------



## Ja'eh

BUBB$ said:


> rhom!!!


Comprssus!!!


----------



## JustJoshinYa

i get lost reading rhomkeeper's posts i think you are trying too hard to "sound" smart and it ends up being a whole lot of extra "stuff" which is just confusing, sometimes in life less is more.

not a personal stab rhom in any manner i just can never understand what you are trying to say. might just be me.


----------



## marilynmonroe

JustJoshinYa said:


> i get lost reading rhomkeeper's posts i think you are trying too hard to "sound" smart and it ends up being a whole lot of extra "stuff" which is just confusing, sometimes in life less is more.
> 
> not a personal stab rhom in any manner i just can never understand what you are trying to say. might just be me.


ok guys i will try to get a good pic of his scutes in the comming days and post them [ should i take him out of the tank to get a close up ]


----------



## Rough996

Rhom... rhom... rhom. One thing for sure, it's a Serrasalmus variety beit compressus or rhombeus.







duh - I crack me up sometimes.

I want to know what's up with it's anal fin... that thing is tattered. Ever try some melafix?


----------



## white_blue_grey

marilynmonroe said:


> Okay, IMO which is still new and learning I do not see a Rhom. I find the Jawline to be extremely short. I personally thought Sanchezi because of the irregular scutes and smaller size/growth rate. But then it was mentioned that this fish has too many Dorsal ray fins (which is a good tool to know). So by process of elimination, Compressus!


I changed my mind~~ not a Rhom, either Sanchezi or compressus~~
The fish don't have long jawline which rhom suppose to have~~


----------



## Piranha Guru

Alright, I sent some questions to Frank about dorsal fin counts and


> Sanchezi was poorly described by Gery, 1964. The ray count is variable on specimens I've seen/collected and it seems to be within 'III' (large rays) followed by 14 soft rays or *a total (of) 17*.


He also took some time to look through the thread and examine the pictures:



> The fish in question in the original photo is poorly photographed. In looking over subsequent photos, *the fish is likely S. rhombeus not S. sanchezi*.
> 
> The above is for you to pass on along with this; S. sanchezi also has a characteristic blemish on its cheek. Absent in the S. rhombeus, though some S. rhombeus exhibit red cheeks, but not as brilliant as S. sanchezi. S. compressus also exhibit red cheeks like S. rhombeus, but more red. Neither has a blemish on the opercle (gill). Lastly, the fin rays are not totally definitive, because piranhas fin bite as well as other fish. So damage to the dorsal fin or anal can cause a bad reading of the number of rays. Like I told you in my original reply, (the) Gery description is bad not only for the numbered count, but also he compared it to S. spilopleura instead of S. rhombeus. That's why S. sanchezi for the longest time was considered part of the spilopleura complex which it is not. That oversite is what caused all the previous confusion. S. sanchezi is a rhombeus group member, which means it will have (more) characteristics to that species group than spilopleura.
> 
> The compressus group are largely very flat or compressed (in) body with a snout that is very atypical pointed, usually with a slightly upturned snout. Bars and spots are common on the lateral flank. Members of this group are: S. compressus, S. marginatus, S. hastastus, S. altuvei, and S. geryi. Also not included but likely will be in time is S. altispinis.


I decided I better quote what he relayed to me since there was too much good info IMO to try to condense for fear of leaving something out. I'm thankful to Frank for taking the time to look over this tricky specimen!


----------



## rhomkeeper

thanks for clearing it up teach, now i have learned somthing new


----------



## orhan dağcı

Serrasalmus compressus

Orhan DAĞCI


----------



## marilynmonroe

So BioTeach what did Frank say about my piranha? Rhom or Compress , Sanz maybe.... do Compress have red eyes?


----------



## huck

read


----------



## Guest

That was regarding your fish! It is a RHOM!!!


----------



## marilynmonroe

ksls said:


> That was regarding your fish! It is a RHOM!!!


yes I believe it is a rhom ..........not a sanz because he does not have the red belly fin and not a compressus because he does not have vertical black bands............


----------



## FEEFA

I say it's a sanchezi


----------



## PDOGGY

marilynmonroe said:


> That was regarding your fish! It is a RHOM!!!


yes I believe it is a rhom ..........not a sanz because he does not have the red belly fin and not a compressus because he does not have vertical black bands............
[/quote]
Do sanchezi ever show elongated verticle bars?


----------



## zhelmet

compressus is my guess


----------



## gtc

Sanchezi or comp, thats a nice looking p man.


----------

