# Gold Spilo or Gold Mac ??



## jp80911

Are these Gold Mac? or spilo? (I'm thinking Mac)

Fish 1








Fish 2


----------



## Murphy18

They both look like different fish to me. The only way you will know whether its Mac or not is if you know which river the fish came from.


----------



## AKSkirmish

I bet they are Mac's...


----------



## Big Den

Second one looks like my mac. First one looks more like a rhom shape but it isn't a rhom, could be spilo.


----------



## Guest

The second fish definately looks like a mac but the first fish does have a different shape. Perhaps it is younger and hasn't rounded out yet.


----------



## Lifer374

they appear to both be mac's. 
The first one just doesn't have as much fat storage built up in his dorsum as the second.


----------



## rchan11

1st Spilo, 2nd Mac.


----------



## FEEFA

I think theyre both macs


----------



## rchan11

Mac's black band is at the edge of the tail and the Spilo's black band is slightly off the edge.


----------



## Uncle Jesse

They are both Macs. IMO the first one looks to be the smaller/sometimes shoal-able red eyed variant, where as the second looks like the larger clear eyed variant who should be kept solo. If you are looking at getting one of them number two has my vote all the way.


----------



## Piranha Guru

Neither has a reddish tinge to the belly, so currently that would indicate they both must be macs.


----------



## Grosse Gurke

Yup...they are both S. maculatus.


----------



## FEEFA

rchan11 said:


> Mac's black band is at the edge of the tail and the Spilo's black band is slightly off the edge.


Actually the macs is off the edge aswell


----------



## Trigga

BioTeAcH said:


> Neither has a reddish tinge to the belly, so currently that would indicate they both must be macs.


 x2 that would be a for sure sign of either being a spilo...both of those fish are macs for sure


----------



## jp80911

thanks guys


----------



## hastatus

This is the only known photograph of an actual S. spilopleura verified by Antonio Machado-Allison that Jegu says is S. spilopleura.

There are few characters that separate the 2 species (S. maculatus v S. spilopleura). Locality is EVERYTHING.


----------



## Grosse Gurke

Ah...the elusive Strawberry Banana Spilo


----------



## hastatus

> Grosse Gurke Posted Today, 09:37 AM
> Ah...the elusive Strawberry Banana Spilo


Wow, been a long time since I heard that name.


----------



## SpeCiaLisT

yeh.. didnt george or one of the other fish providers called it that. i believe it was george..not sure. very nice looking fish indeed


----------



## diogenes

I may be wrong, but the top one is a S. spilopleura. You can tell from the caudal fin pattern, ie the presence of a "mid band."

The bottom one is S. maculatus. You can tell from the terminal black caudal band, and the more pygo like body shape.

Like I said I'm not expert, but thats what it looks like to me.


----------



## FEEFA

diogenes said:


> I may be wrong, but the top one is a S. spilopleura. You can tell from the caudal fin pattern, ie the presence of a "mid band."
> 
> The bottom one is S. maculatus. You can tell from the terminal black caudal band, and the more pygo like body shape.
> 
> Like I said I'm not expert, but thats what it looks like to me.


You are wrong they are both macs


----------



## diogenes

Feefa said:


> I may be wrong, but the top one is a S. spilopleura. You can tell from the caudal fin pattern, ie the presence of a "mid band."
> 
> The bottom one is S. maculatus. You can tell from the terminal black caudal band, and the more pygo like body shape.
> 
> Like I said I'm not expert, but thats what it looks like to me.


You are wrong they are both macs
[/quote]

yeah? So how do you explain the obvious difference in caudal fin pattern, body shape, etc. I mean I know color of life varies widely, but those are gene linked traits right? Why would one have a mid band in the caudal pattern, and the other have the interesting looking little dove tail with a terminal black band? Also one has red eyes, the other does not. Also the anal fin looks different on both fish. I wish the pics were good enough to count rays. One has a band of dark tissue running across the bottom. the other is just yellow. If there are actually two different species of gold piranhas then these look like two different species to me. I'm not trying to be contrary I honestly want to know.


----------



## Grosse Gurke

diogenes said:


> yeah? So how do you explain the obvious difference in caudal fin pattern, body shape, etc. I mean I know color of life varies widely, but those are gene linked traits right? Why would one have a mid band in the caudal pattern, and the other have the interesting looking little dove tail with a terminal black band? Also one has red eyes, the other does not. Also the anal fin looks different on both fish. I wish the pics were good enough to count rays. One has a band of dark tissue running across the bottom. the other is just yellow. If there are actually two different species of gold piranhas then these look like two different species to me. I'm not trying to be contrary I honestly want to know.


The problem is that you are trying to apply common sense to science..............Sorry Frank....I couldnt resist









These two fish might very well be two separate species....however....until they are studied and found to meet the qualifications to be classified as two distinct species....and then whatever write up and peer review requirements have been completed....they are both classified as S. maculatus.


----------



## hastatus

> The problem is that you are trying to apply common sense to science..............Sorry Frank....I couldnt resist


Its times like this where I truly understand why science says we have a common ancestor.











> yeah? So how do you explain the obvious difference in caudal fin pattern, body shape, etc. I mean I know color of life varies widely, but those are gene linked traits right?
> 
> *Not exactly, pH values in the water can effect the eggs, where genetic traits can vary. Good examples are species that are trapped in a closed off river. Their genetic markers can change so much that they can be called a different species from that locality. However, S. maculatus is widespread, whereas S. spilopleura is not. There are significant differences in the skeletal that determines what species is what. In the case of S. spilopleura vs S. maculatus they are considered distinctive species by sciencific methods. You might not agree with that by what you see by your eyes. But what you don't see is under that flesh that makes them different.*
> 
> Why would one have a mid band in the caudal pattern, and the other have the interesting looking little dove tail with a terminal black band?
> *My advice is go read up on both species at www.opefe.com*
> 
> Also one has red eyes, the other does not.
> *eye color is plastic.*
> 
> Also the anal fin looks different on both fish. I wish the pics were good enough to count rays. One has a band of dark tissue running across the bottom. the other is just yellow. If there are actually two different species of gold piranhas then these look like two different species to me. I'm not trying to be contrary I honestly want to know.


To sum it up, just read the information at OPEFE. That's the best source of information short of the actual scientific documents, which is what OPEFE is largely based on.


----------



## diogenes

hastatus said:


> The problem is that you are trying to apply common sense to science..............Sorry Frank....I couldnt resist
> 
> 
> 
> Its times like this where I truly understand why science says we have a common ancestor.:rasp:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah? So how do you explain the obvious difference in caudal fin pattern, body shape, etc. I mean I know color of life varies widely, but those are gene linked traits right?
> 
> *Not exactly, pH values in the water can effect the eggs, where genetic traits can vary. Good examples are species that are trapped in a closed off river. Their genetic markers can change so much that they can be called a different species from that locality. However, S. maculatus is widespread, whereas S. spilopleura is not. There are significant differences in the skeletal that determines what species is what. In the case of S. spilopleura vs S. maculatus they are considered distinctive species by sciencific methods. You might not agree with that by what you see by your eyes. But what you don't see is under that flesh that makes them different.*
> 
> Why would one have a mid band in the caudal pattern, and the other have the interesting looking little dove tail with a terminal black band?
> *My advice is go read up on both species at www.opefe.com*
> 
> Also one has red eyes, the other does not.
> *eye color is plastic.*
> 
> Also the anal fin looks different on both fish. I wish the pics were good enough to count rays. One has a band of dark tissue running across the bottom. the other is just yellow. If there are actually two different species of gold piranhas then these look like two different species to me. I'm not trying to be contrary I honestly want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To sum it up, just read the information at OPEFE. That's the best source of information short of the actual scientific documents, which is what OPEFE is largely based on.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys. I do read OPEFE. Religiously. I guess I will go and do some more of that now.

*"There are significant differences in the skeletal that determines what species is what. In the case of S. spilopleura vs S. maculatus they are considered distinctive species by sciencific methods. You might not agree with that by what you see by your eyes. But what you don't see is under that flesh that makes them different."*

If I can find two fish like this, I may just have to get out my dissection kit. Your seriously tempting me to cut piranhas open.









Thanks again guys.


----------



## hastatus

Make sure the fish is dead if you cut them open.


----------



## diogenes

hastatus said:


> Make sure the fish is dead if you cut them open.:laugh:


...being dissected quite naturally makes one dead...







just kiddin'


----------



## jp80911

I just did that to a LMB yesterday and it was very good eat


----------



## diogenes

ok I just re-read the OPEFE entry on spilopleura. I have a qestion though.

Spilo or Mac?

http://www.aquascapeonline.com/prodview.asp?idproduct=6


----------



## Grosse Gurke

S. maculatus. The true spilo is the one Frank posted. The problem is that dealers have been calling these fish gold spilos forever. The S. maculatus reclassification or clarification....(I think that what it was right Frank?)....only happened a few years ago.


----------



## diogenes

Grosse Gurke said:


> S. maculatus. The true spilo is the one Frank posted. The problem is that dealers have been calling these fish gold spilos forever. The S. maculatus reclassification or clarification....(I think that what it was right Frank?)....only happened a few years ago.


cool thanks.


----------



## hastatus

> Grosse Gurke Posted Today, 11:10 AM
> S. maculatus. The true spilo is the one Frank posted. The problem is that dealers have been calling these fish gold spilos forever. The S. maculatus reclassification or clarification....(I think that what it was right Frank?)....only happened a few years ago.


True, but the taxon problems go in deeper. Jegu overlooked _S. nigrican_ an older species than _S. maculatus_. Until a future systemist revisits the Jegu revision, this will continue to be a problem fish. In reality, there are *5 polymorphic* species of _S. maculatus _ that gene evidence puts them close, but nearly equal. What this means is, until the genetic markers are compared to _S. spilopleura,_ this fish will remain divided. My opinion (which is closer to Fink), is the fish should be put back as _S. spilopleura_ with all the available names put as synonyms. But that probably won't happen in my lifetime. But things change rather fast, so just maybe.


----------

