# alot of talk



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

heres a pic that ash took


----------



## InSinUAsian (Jan 3, 2003)

Spilo or varient of spilo.

~Dj


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

I agree: overall appearance and hyaline point towards spilo.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

do u also think this the same species


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

personally they look like 2 diffrent species the second pic deffinatly looks like a spilo
but the first one im not convinced yet thats its a spilo cf
and if it is a spilo cf how many forms of spilo cf are there









well i have to ..............


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

isnt this one of those "new" species being touted a while back...turned out to be _S. mataculatus_? The spotting on the first one compared to the second one is different.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

Death in # said:


> if it is a spilo cf how many forms of spilo cf are there :rock:


 Who knows. I have seen four or so that would classify as this "spilo CF" idea that keeps coming up.

About the only thing that all these fishes have in common is a hyaline edge on the trailing side of the caudal fin (a diagnosable trait in S. spilopleura) and gold coloration, which we should be well versed in the fact that coloration has LITTLE to do with differentiating speciation (although more and more people, including myself, are looking at certain coloration more closely these days).

I find it more accurate to refer to these "spilo CF" fishes as a "species group."


----------



## thomisdead (Mar 31, 2003)

Is it possible that the spot on the first fish is an injury or disease?


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

The spot is an area of dead tissue that was probably a small wound before it entered the shipping container with the shipping water. HYPNO, a drug used to tranquilize piranhas has a bad tendency to destroy any flesh it comes in contact with. That is why it is super-important to have clean, smooth shipping containers so no abrasions will turn into that hole that the top fish is showing.

However, they heal over in a month or two.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Spilopleura Kner 1858 is characterized by margins on paired fins (ventral and pectoral) and of course the hyaline tail band and humeral blemish.

Maculatus Kner 1858 is characterized by lack of margins on paired fins (ventral and pectoral fin. Juveniles have the characteristic hyaline band but in adults the band is a dark margin w/o hyaline edge, lack of humeral blemish.

Both fishes externally look similar save for those characters above. Internally, the skeletal and ectopterygoid teeth are disimilar with maculatus having more than spilopleura.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Spilopleura Kner 1858 is characterized by margins on paired fins (ventral and pectoral) and of course the hyaline tail band and humeral blemish.
> 
> Maculatus Kner 1858 is characterized by lack of margins on paired fins (ventral and pectoral fin. Juveniles have the characteristic hyaline band but in adults the band is a dark margin w/o hyaline edge, lack of humeral blemish.
> 
> Both fishes externally look similar save for those characters above. Internally, the skeletal and ectopterygoid teeth are disimilar with maculatus having more than spilopleura.


 There you have it folks. Based on that, both specimens in above thread seem to be _S. spilopleura_ then.

Locality data on both species?

Correct me if I am wrong then but by the above statement, those red throats thingys known as "Spilo CF" don't match.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> There you have it folks. Based on that, both specimens in above thread seem to be S. spilopleura then.
> 
> Locality data on both species?
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong then but by the above statement, those red throats thingys known as "Spilo CF" don't match


Maculatus is known from the Rio Guapore where it shares its range with spilopleura, hence the problems with differentiation of the two when collected.

Spilopleura is widespread opposite of maculatus.

SpiloCF is not the same species. It is actually closer to fitting the description of S. sanchezi, yet to be verified. The spiloCF names come from authors lumping into that group because of physical similarities but is not really in the complex form group. Hence it is just a common name until placed in proper nomenclature.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Maculatus is known from the Rio Guapore where it shares its range with spilopleura, hence the problems with differentiation of the two when collected.


 Is it acceptable then to state that in this case, environmental factors influence the phenotypic variations that assist in the ongoing confusion of proper identification/seperation of these two similar, but taxonomically distict species then?


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

my brain juice just exploded. But I like it.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> B. Scott Posted on Sep 25 2003, 05:21 AM
> 
> Is it acceptable then to state that in this case, environmental factors influence the phenotypic variations that assist in the ongoing confusion of proper identification/seperation of these two similar, but taxonomically distict species then?


 Yes, that is close to a true statement and moreso in particular if spilopleura is in breeding condition then the marginal differences that exist between the two then become very vague. That is why Gery et al., was unable to discern maculatus from spilopleura because of the terminal band. Norman 1929, thought the terminal band that pertained to maculatus was simply a regional varience or simply worn from repeated bites from other species. Jegu who rehabilitated maculatus vs spilopleura holds that there are enough characters that differentiate them based on morphometrics, however DNA has not concluded the species is distinct. Also, the problems with inbreeding may also be considered. That however, is my own opinion.


----------



## NIKE (Jan 27, 2003)

Xenon said:


> my brain juice just exploded. But I like it.


:laugh: yep it's kinda cool when these two get going


----------



## mmmike247 (Jul 22, 2003)

spilo hybrid definately...hmmm


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Norman 1929, thought the terminal band that pertained to maculatus was simply a regional varience or simply worn from repeated bites from other species.


 Please remind me? Wasn't Norman's suggestion based on one solitary aquarium specimen though?


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

God I love it when the minds collide!


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> B. Scott Posted on Sep 25 2003, 02:29 PM
> 
> Please remind me? Wasn't Norman's suggestion based on one solitary aquarium specimen though?


No, you are probably thinking of S. aesopus, the only species described from an aquarium specimen. Cope 1871.



> Atlanta Braves Baby! Posted on Sep 25 2003, 04:13 PM
> God I love it when the minds collide!


How do you get that off Brian's question?


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> No, you are probably thinking of S. aesopus, the only species described from an aquarium specimen. Cope 1871.


 OK, thanks, that must have been it.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

I have recieved a couple PMs and 2 phone calls now about what makes a fish classify as the common name of "Spilo CF" and "another" _Serrasalmus_ species.

Please allow me to make a few points.

1. The hyaline edge is a diagnosable trait that *ALL* fishes under the _spilopleura_ species-group MUST exhibit.

2. If you have a _Serrasalmus_ species and are unsure whether it is a Spilo or not, look at the caudal (tail) fin and see if the trailing edge is clear. If it is *NOT CLEAR* then it is *NOT* a spilo-species group fish.

3. If your fish has a clear hyaline edge then you can accurately state that you have a _Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _spilopleura_.

*SIDE NOTE:*
_Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _spilopluera_ is the name that I use to most accurately describe any pirembeba that has a hyaline edge. As of *TODAY*, no other species of _Serrasalmus_ has a hyaline edge. This will change as the spilo species-group is further broken up and properly classified.

_Serrasalmus_ = Belonging to the genus _Serrasalmus_
sp. (p. spp.) = Species of the genus X
aff. = Affinitively belonging to X (due to the lack of a better classification)
_spilopleura_ = a species of pirembeba

Another thing to keep in mind:

This is as of today. In the future we will possibly see pirembebas with the hyaline edge fall into a different species catagory than spiolopleura.

4. Spilo CF is a common name.

5. The proper way to list fishes falling under the "Spilo CF" name in scientific literature is _Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _spilopleura_.

Any question?

:smile:


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

B. Scott said:


> The proper way to list fishes falling under the "Spilo CF" name in scientific literature is _Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _spilopleura_.


Do we have any examples of "Spilo CF" being listed as _Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _spilopleura_ in any current scientific literature?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

All that just to state spiloCF is a common name.







One thing I want to add to Brian's accurate writing, the tail band whle a clear indicator of spilopleura proper, it may (as adult) appear full without the clear edging. If one looks at the maculatus photos (see OPEFE) you can see a very very thin hyaline edge. According to Jegu, this also differentiates from spilopleura proper. And that my friends is where it gets touchy because of my opinion that it might be do to inbreeding.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Xenon Posted on Sep 25 2003, 07:06 PM
> QUOTE (B. Scott @ Sep 25 2003, 01:34 PM)
> The proper way to list fishes falling under the "Spilo CF" name in scientific literature is Serrasalmus sp. aff. spilopleura.
> 
> Do we have any examples of "Spilo CF" being listed as Serrasalmus sp. aff. spilopleura in any current scientific literature?


 Look at the laundered list in PSci from David Schleser. You can see examples there but w/o the spilopleura mention as Brian is showing.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

so its settled then?


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

Xenon said:


> B. Scott said:
> 
> 
> > The proper way to list fishes falling under the "Spilo CF" name in scientific literature is _Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _spilopleura_.
> ...


 No because most taxonomists do not recognize common names.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> And that my friends is where it gets touchy because of my opinion that it might be do to inbreeding.


 Agreed. They only need to overlap a little or even infrequently (seasonal) in order to mix up the genes. That could be an issue for sure.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

B. Scott said:


> Xenon said:
> 
> 
> > B. Scott said:
> ...


 misunderstood the question....has Serrasalmus sp. aff. spilopleura been used in any recent sci documents? Frank said yes


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Mike: SpiloCF is nothing than an abbrev. of spilopleura complex form a common catch name for a species that is still floating out there that we see in photos of from time to time, yet resembles S. medinai in some respects. I began using the name "spilopleura CF" simply because it was captioned as _S. spilopleura complex_ under various authors which appeared in print. It was then as is now nothing more than a common name for a better lack of placement. However Antonio disagrees with this species being a member of the spilopleura complex because of its snout and the characters that make up the group of fishes that resemble Pygocentrus in terms of head shape, spotting and yes, even coloration. Going back to what i wrote earlier; SpiloCF actually appears (characters) to Gery's S. sanchezi. However, when Jegu described S. altispinis, he did not compare to sanchezi. Why? I don't know, so now we have 2 close appearing species that may or may not be one and the same. Certainly altispinis is better described, however if one goes by the "rules" sanchezi is the older name. Lets hope over time, Michel can explain this to me (and us all) on why he didn't look at sanchezi while doing his work on altispinis.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Xenon Posted on Sep 25 2003, 08:09 PM
> 
> misunderstood the question....has Serrasalmus sp. aff. spilopleura been used in any recent sci documents? Frank said yes


 Actually Mike, I said no. It appears to this day as _Serrasalmus spilopleura complex_.

I use the term "form" as _old school_ meaning individual species. The term "form" is still acceptable.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

You have confused me. Brian, have you seen Serrasalmus sp. aff. spilopleura used in any recent scientific documents?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Here is example from Schleser collection list:

_Serrasalmus sp.? ( baby with black border to tail) possibly S. spilopleura complex 1, 2_


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

Xenon said:


> You have confused me. Brian, have you seen Serrasalmus sp. aff. spilopleura used in any recent scientific documents?


Only by me.

I also use _Cichla_ sp. aff. _monoculus_ to better describe the species of _Cichla_ found in the Rio Nanay and Rio Napo of the Peruvian Amazon.

For any species of _Serrasalmus_ that has a hyaline edge I use: _Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _spilopleura_ or just _S. spilopleura_ if it is the actual _spilopleura_ (i.e. the true gold piranha from the middle course of the Rio Amazonas that was previously, and erroneously, called _Serrasalmus calmoni, S. gibbus,_ and _S. sanchezi_).

For species such as the "red throated piranha," I use _Serrasalmus_ sp.

For species such as the so-called "high-backed" _rhombeus_, I use _Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _rhombeus_.

Is that better?


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

look what i started over some fish i bought


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Here is example from Schleser collection list:
> 
> _Serrasalmus sp.? ( baby with black border to tail) possibly S. spilopleura complex 1, 2_


 I have David's book. I will look into his naming system a little later, probably tomorrow actually, and see where he came up with numeral assignments. Perhaps he also is a fan of locality-specific common names (_Crenicichla_ sp. "Xingu I" etc...).


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

so since you call it this, is it "official"....just looking for an end point here.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

Xenon said:


> so since you call it this, is it "official"....just looking for an end point here.


 yes i am also wondering what is the offical name of my fish 
so much info i got confused


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

Xenon said:


> so since you call it this, is it "official"....just looking for an end point here.


 What I call official is this:

*Spilo CF* = Common name for a bunch of piranhas that need to have a hyaline edge on their caudal fin

_Serrasalmus_ sp. aff. _spilopleura_ = The proper scientific name given to those fish that show diagnosable charcteristics of _S. spilopleura_ but for one reason or another they are not matching the holotype or paratype of the species as it was originally described against.

_Serrasalmus_ sp. = Any species within the genus _Serrasalmus_ that has not been assigned a species name OR a species name cannot be assigned due to several factors: age, condition, etc...

That is all I have to say about it. I should have written this post first but then I would have only had to explain myself anyways


----------



## DiXoN (Jan 31, 2003)

the strange thing is i am now starting to understand this which is a good thing .
nice fish though.
frank stated to me in my id thread a while back qoute ' are you confused now' my answer then was yes but i am not as confused now.
and frank that serra that could have been 1 of 4 p's turned out to be a rhom it developed a terminal band on its caudal fin so i ruled out the spilo cf and the altispinis and sanchezi it just took a little time for it to settle and get used to its enviroment your advise was spot on.
thanks
dixon


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> B. Scott Posted on Sep 25 2003, 09:33 PM...
> I have David's book. I will look into his naming system a little later, probably tomorrow actually, and see where he came up with numeral assignments. Perhaps he also is a fan of locality-specific common names (Crenicichla sp. "Xingu I" etc...).


 No need to go to all that trouble. The cited reference on his collecting trip is in Pscience and could have been looked at to gather the info. By his listing of; _Serrasalmus sp.? ( baby with black border to tail) possibly S. spilopleura complex 1, 2 _ refers to the localities collected below:

1. Locations 1 km upriver from Maruba and across Amazon from Apayacu
2. Across Amazon River from mouth of Rio Apayacu


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> B. Scott Posted on Sep 25 2003, 09:47 PM
> QUOTE (Xenon @ Sep 25 2003, 04:35 PM)
> so since you call it this, is it "official"....just looking for an end point here.
> 
> ...


About time you got a taste of your own medicine.


----------



## v4p0r (Aug 14, 2003)

Ok you guys both stated that to be a spilo it must have a clear edge on its tail. But ive also seen you both state that coloration isnt a determining factor in species identification.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> v4p0r Posted on Sep 26 2003, 05:32 AM
> Ok you guys both stated that to be a spilo it must have a clear edge on its tail. But ive also seen you both state that coloration isnt a determining factor in species identification.


Color = pheno is but one character to consider about a species. That alone doesn't make it distinctive.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

DiXoN said:


> the strange thing is i am now starting to understand this which is a good thing .


That is why Frank and I do what we do. Good to hear


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> 1. Locations 1 km upriver from Maruba and across Amazon from Apayacu
> 2. Across Amazon River from mouth of Rio Apayacu


OK, great, thanks. Those are just locality data points for points of reference then, good.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

v4p0r said:


> Ok you guys both stated that to be a spilo it must have a clear edge on its tail. But ive also seen you both state that coloration isnt a determining factor in species identification.


 Good point.

Assume you had 5 specimens of a fish that looked identical to each other except the overall coloration.

OK, now assume that they all shared one disticnt characteristic, a hyaline edge on the terminal side of the caudal fin.

What you have then is 5 specimens of the same species with varying coloration which is probably due to environmental factors such as food, minerals, water chemistry etc..

The hyaline edge is simply a diagnosable feature of the species in general (a humeral blotch is also such a feature sometimes [i.e. _Pygocentrus cariba_]).

Better?


----------



## Ron (Mar 27, 2003)

Brian,

I think the reference he was making is that he felt a hyaline edge was a coloration of the fish, much as some may view a blackish humeral blotch as a coloration of a fish more than a trait of a species -- therefore coloration? Can't be sure, but that is what I think was meant.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Ron Posted on Sep 26 2003, 05:27 PM
> Brian,
> 
> *I think the reference he was making is that he felt a hyaline edge was a coloration of the fish*, much as some may view a blackish humeral blotch as a coloration of a fish more than a trait of a species -- therefore coloration? Can't be sure, but that is what I think was meant.





> v4p0r Posted on Sep 26 2003, 05:32 AM
> *Ok you guys both stated that to be a spilo it must have a clear edge on its tail.* But ive also seen you both state that coloration isnt a determining factor in species identification.


No, I think he understood quite well _clear edge_ is not coloration. Agree Brian?


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> No, I think he understood quite well _clear edge_ is not coloration. Agree Brian?


 Honestly I wasn't sure. That is why I wrote out what I did in hopes that I would answer the exact question in there somewhere









After reading this thread however, one should have no questions anymore


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> B. Scott Posted on Sep 26 2003, 06:22 PM
> QUOTE (hastatus @ Sep 26 2003, 12:45 PM)
> No, I think he understood quite well clear edge is not coloration. Agree Brian?
> 
> ...


You think? You are new to Pirana forums LOL


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> You think? You are new to Pirana forums LOL


























Yeah, I am actually starting to like these things called piranhas!!


----------



## DiXoN (Jan 31, 2003)

B. Scott said:


> DiXoN said:
> 
> 
> > the strange thing is i am now starting to understand this which is a good thing .
> ...


 and thats one of the main reasons i am always on this site.
thanks
dixon

ps you got my 2000th post


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

DiXoN said:


> ps you got my 2000th post


 I am glad to hear that people enjoy this site for more than looking at pretty pictures and talking about how their piranhas ripped apart a live mouse. This site has evolved as have the users. Its refreshing for me to see that people can appreciate the real work that piranhas need in order to give all of us a better understanding of them.


----------



## v4p0r (Aug 14, 2003)

What i was saying was couldnt the hyaline edge be considered part of the fish's coloration??


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> v4p0r Posted on Sep 26 2003, 11:31 PM
> What i was saying was couldnt the hyaline edge be considered part of the fish's coloration??


No, since majority of fishes (from larvae to adult) begin with hyaline fins (clear), later with maturity begin to color up as pigment forms. Spilopleura uniqueness comes from the mid-terminal band that often does not touch the edge. This may simply be a method of throwing predators off the main caudal fin portion. Why it is so with spilopleura is something to postulate.


----------



## Ron (Mar 27, 2003)

v4p0r,

It is confusing isn't it, but there are some things used in describing fish that are very hard to understand for me as well, this was one of them.

In many cases some things that appear to be a COLOR of a fish are actually used to identify a TRAIT of a fish, this makes things seem odd to me and some others, but it does have some sense to it.

For instance, just trying an analogy as a way of looking at things.

"All Cariba have humeral blotch" Although this statement is not entirely true I hope you will bear with this way of explaining. Why didn't wouldn't it be said that " All Cariba have a black spot on their side" ?? If reflecting on this spot, all of the spots are BLACK so it is not a needed statement really, but the importance of the Cariba spot is that is humeral and that it occurs on the majority of the Cariba, the spot has a variance of size, possibly even a variance as to darkness, shape, etc.... BUT the real trait is that one exists in the majority( a common factor ).

Another factor in using this as a descriptive trait and not a color is, ,,,, have you ever seen a cariba with a Blue spot, or a Red one which would show a variance in pigment in the same location and therefore the coloration of the spot having a separate meaning or significance?

Another way of looking at this is .......... many rhoms show a pigmented ( or colored) anal fin. Xingu are golden, Venezuela are red, Araguaia are reddish-orange. In this regard the COLOR of the fin does not distinguish the fish as being another species but a type locality or variance. In this regard the trait of the rhom is that it has color in the anal fin, but many fish do, so it is not a distinguishing feature really, nor does the color hold significance in the descriptive work concerning this species.

Lastly, when looking at Spilopleura,,,, a descriptive trait of the species is that it has a clear trailing edge to the caudal fin (no pigment of any color). I am sure someone might be able to find a spilopleura that could have a terminal black band, maybe a tiny one, BUT descriptively speaking THEY DON'T. Overall the spilopleura that are found in areas from Peru to Argentina are similar in this feature, no pigment there.

Maybe that helps, maybe it is more confusing.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

v4p0r...... let me try it this way using human traits:

Redheads, generally speaking all have freckles and blue eyes......that is the primary colors. Yet it is known that others that are red heads may not have freckles or blue eyes. The hair color may range from bright firey red to dark wine red. They are still a red head. So we are now talking genetic makeup. IF the redhead had dark skin it would still be a redhead and a **** sapien sapien. Now if they had 2 hearts and 2 heads and from another planet, it might still be considered a human being or an entirely different genus or species of human being.

IF you look at countries, you can also seem some resemblence to fish traits. Asia is composed of mongolian appearance, black hair, slanted eyes. If you look at the isolation of China where the genes are pretty much set without interbreeding, majority are thin, small stature. If you go into South America and look at natives, they to have set appearances where their is no outside blood mixing, and so on and so forth. With Latin America, it is now common to find fair skinned blondes with a nice Spanish accent







, but their genes have been washed by parentage mixing.

With fishes, the water and genes are the their makeup. If fishes are isolated, their traits are fixed and certain traits arise, whether it is eye color set or spotting fixed.

Where the rivers are spilled then the gene pool gets further washed and traits there were originally fixed become scattered by interbreeding. Which is why the varience of rhombeus is so prevalent. The one thing they all have in common is the eye color, though the body and color may appear "different". Also pH also affects the zygotes (eggs) and that too can alter appearance of fish. Then comes scientists that originally did not know this and began to place names on fishes.

Today try to tell someone they are Mexican and they will tell you they are not Mexican but hispanic, or Chicano, or Latin American lol.







However, contrary to some opinions, they are still **** sapien sapien.


----------

