# need a little help from the experts!



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

Hello,

I want to identify those piranha-species, i have my thoughts
about them but i want to be sure.
They are all collected in Bolivia.

Thank you very much in advance!


----------



## notaverage (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm no pro but this is what I think...

Natt..Red Belly

2nd- whole mix of things...Im not sure about the that

3rd....???

4th...Maculatus

5th...looks the same as the 3rd

6th....

Well, I just realized I'm about worthless.

Good luck.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I would say...going left to right...and based only on looks and not collection point.

1- P. nattereri
2- S. maculatus (main fish)
3- S. irritans
4- S. maculatus
5- S. irritans
6- S. marginatus....not sure about that tail though.
7- S. Spilopleura.


----------



## PYRO ZOOTS (Aug 23, 2008)

1st is a red the rest i have no clue lol.


----------



## rhomkeeper (Mar 31, 2008)

i think gg got them all
#3 i have seen before, think george had posted that a few months ago


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

Ok, Thank you Grosse Gurke!
I was almost thinking the same except for nr. 2: Couldnt that be a Spilo according the
somewhat red analfin, and the thin black line in the middle of the tailfin?
And nr. 1 is in no way a Ternetzi-variation than?
Thanks again


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

I just saw the red in the analfin of the Nattereri, that excludes the Ternetzi than.
Thanks.


----------



## rhomkeeper (Mar 31, 2008)

FrankP said:


> I just saw the red in the analfin of the Nattereri, that excludes the Ternetzi than.
> Thanks.


ternetzi is a p. nattari, it is no longer considered to be a seperat species, but more of a geographical variation. the name is just used to differentiate red p. nattari from the yellowish ones


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

Ok, thanks Rhomkeeper.

So i got one more question :
What is the difference between pic 2 and pic 7?

thank you in advance.


----------



## rhomkeeper (Mar 31, 2008)

FrankP said:


> Ok, thanks Rhomkeeper.
> 
> So i got one more question :
> What is the difference between pic 2 and pic 7?
> ...


the red anal fin. true s. spiolplura have red in them. they do resembel maculatus but there are small differences.

science needs to work out the kinks with the discription of the 2....probably the most confused piranha species.

i have 3 differnt fish that were id'ed as s. maculatus and all 3 look somewhat differnt.......probably a geographical variation.

i'm not actualy 100% sure that #7 is s. spiloplura, but i'm also not willing to disagree with gg's opinion, and i'm sure the red anal fin is what led him to say spiloplura


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

Grosse Gurke said:


> I just saw the red in the analfin of the Nattereri, that excludes the Ternetzi than.
> Thanks.


Not true, ternz can have red in their anal fin as well.


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

Grosse Gurke said:


> I would say...going left to right...and based only on looks and not collection point.
> 
> 1- P. nattereri
> 2- S. maculatus (main fish)
> ...


I agree for the most part, but am undecided on a couple...I believe Frank weighed in on most of these pics at one time or another in the past and yours seem to agree with him too if memory serves me correct.

3 is probably irritans, but I also thought altispnis was a possibility (would love to see that one in the water). 5 is probably irritans, but marginatus is a possibility (spotting is more like my marg than my irritans). 6 could be marginatus or altuvei (altuvei mainly due to the spotting pattern). 2 and 4 are both macs and seem to be overexposed or enhanced. 7 is a most likely a spilo...with most of these fish, collection point could seal the deal.


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

BioTeAcH said:


> I would say...going left to right...and based only on looks and not collection point.
> 
> 1- P. nattereri
> 2- S. maculatus (main fish)
> ...


I agree for the most part, but am undecided on a couple...I believe Frank weighed in on most of these pics at one time or another in the past and yours seem to agree with him too if memory serves me correct.

3 is probably irritans, but I also thought altispnis was a possibility (would love to see that one in the water). 5 is probably irritans, but marginatus is a possibility (spotting is more like my marg than my irritans). 6 could be marginatus or altuvei (altuvei mainly due to the spotting pattern). 2 and 4 are both macs and seem to be overexposed or enhanced. 7 is a most likely a spilo...with most of these fish, collection point could seal the deal.
[/quote]
It's stated at the top of this thread that these fish were all collected in Bolivia so that would in fact rule out irritans and altispinis.


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

Ja said:


> It's stated at the top of this thread that these fish were all collected in Bolivia so that would in fact rule out irritans and altispinis.


True...the problem is knowing 100% for sure that they were collected in Bolivia.

If they really were collected in Bolivia, then the questionable fish would have to be compressus, marginatus, or an unusual rhombeus morph. There are too many questionable species though for me to believe that this is the case. The fish may have come from a Bolivian based exporter, but that doesn't necessarily mean they all came from Bolivia. I'll see if I can find the old thread that had some of these fish in it.


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

Here's a past link to pics of 5 and 6. I knew they looked familiar! Frank had them ID'd as marginatus and marginatus or compressus respectively.

I did some quick surfing on the website advertised and the company they get their fish from. The company supposedly gets their fish from a certain site in Bolivia, but the only ID's p's they had on their stocklist were natts, elongs, rhoms, and compressus (plus Serrasalmus sp). I did run across a post made by a representative in broken English on a random fish classified site that described their collection site and said it was rich in diversity and had many undescribed species.

Very interesting...


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

Thanks so far !

The fish were all collected in Bolivia according the importer, and here are some
riversystems where they were collected:
the Ichilo, Buenavista areas.
Pio Palacio, connect with Rio Mamore (200km westernfrom Santa Cruz de la Sierra)

So that will rule out probably S. Irritans?

So this might be a identification: (except for nr. 3)

1.P. Nattereri
2.Maculatus or Spilopleura
3. ?
4.S. Maculatus
5.S. Compressus?
6.S. Marginatus
7.S. Spilopleura


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

FrankP said:


> Thanks so far !
> 
> The fish were all collected in Bolivia according the importer, and here are some
> riversystems where they were collected:
> ...


I would flip 5 and 6, but they may both turn out to be marg's and consider 3 a rhombeus morph. If that is the actual fish, then that would be the one I'd go for simply because it is so unique.


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

Mm... very interesting!

Thank you bioTeAcH,
I learned a lot.


----------



## boiler149 (Oct 31, 2007)

no matter what they are their nice looking fish! lol


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

The only orange I see in the tail of #2 comes from the fish behind it....if you look at the reflection in the bottom of the tank.

Like I said...I could be off. The two that I think are irritans would be ruled out based on that collection point...and the smaller one doesnt have the spotting my irritans had when tiny...so marginatus is probably more accurate for the small guy. The big guy....i dont know...looks a lot like an adult irritans to me.


----------



## Dr. Giggles (Oct 18, 2003)

My opinion is:

1) Natt
2) Mac
3) Undescribed. 
4) Mac
5) Eigenmanni
6) Rhom
7) Spilo


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

Mmm, Nr. 3 and 5 and 6 are very tough!

Maybe nr.5 is S. Hollandi? I don't know.
Anyway, I'm glad I can get help from you guys.
Much appreciated!


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

FrankP said:


> Mmm, Nr. 3 and 5 and 6 are very tough!
> 
> Maybe nr.5 is S. Hollandi? I don't know.
> Anyway, I'm glad I can get help from you guys.
> Much appreciated!


S. hollandi is not found in Peru, I believe they're found in northern South America.


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

Ja said:


> S. hollandi is not found in Peru, I believe they're found in northern South America.


They are listed as being found in Bolivia...if in fact hollandi is a valid species.


----------



## Ja'eh (Jan 8, 2007)

BioTeAcH said:


> S. hollandi is not found in Peru, I believe they're found in northern South America.


They are listed as being found in Bolivia...if in fact hollandi is a valid species.
[/quote]
Sorry! For some reason I was thinking Peru and not Bolivia.


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

Yesterday I received a mail from the importer with the ID from Mr. Jégu!
He made contact with Mr. Jégu and asked him to identify those Piranha-species.
The original was in French, but he was able to translate it into English. For me nr. 7 is a suprise
but my id- knowledge is not very updated!

Here are the copy's of this mail, I hope they are readable:


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

I ll renew the first copy:


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

So...

1) Natttereri
2) Maculatus
3) Undescribed
4) Maculatus
5) Undescribed
6) Compressus
7) Maculatus

I suck at French, but it looked like Jegu said marginatus wasn't found in this area when referring to #6? If that is the case, then I'll have to agree with #5 being undescribed, but if not then I still would lean towards marginatus. I can agree with #7 being a mac too since I don't see any red near the gill plate and location is the key. Jegu evidently knows where the exact collection point is and that is often the only way to tell between confusing species...especially from just a picture.


----------



## FrankP (Apr 25, 2004)

BioTeAcH said:


> So...
> 
> 1) Natttereri
> 2) Maculatus
> ...


You 're right, but there is a English translation next to the french one.
And he said nr. 5 would be a juvenile specie from the new species nr. 3!
That is if it's not from Venezuela, otherwise it looks like S. Irritans.


----------

