[Greg c]

Hi guys, i just bought this guy last week.. he's supposed to be a ruby red Spilopluera but since i had him he has lost a little red coloring most likely from being stressed out as i have only had him for a week, what do you think of him? does he look like a ruby red Spilopluera? he's about 3 inches long.

[Advertisements]

[Jimmywhispers]

You bet!

[Nzac]

definately a rrs, some lose the red, sadly mine has lost most of his red on natural color gravel, I have been tossing around the idea of going with a darker substrate to see if that brings some more red back.

[Greg c]

Nzac, on 19 April 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

definately a rrs, some lose the red, sadly mine has lost most of his red on natural color gravel, I have been tossing around the idea of going with a darker substrate to see if that brings some more red back.

I also have natural color gravel and was thinking about changing the color, i was thinking about using a lighter color but if black brings out their colors maybe I'll go with black..

[Nzac]

not sure which would be better, mine has always been on natural, I know when I put my caribas and piraya on black they got much darker.

[sledge760]

Yes RRS. Looks good to me.

[memento]

Imo it's pretty much impossible to tell the difference between S.maculatus and S.spilopleura, if not the same species.

[Nzac]

right but there is nothing called a "ruby red mac" so with the red gills it would be correct to call it rrs wouldn't it?

[memento]

"ruby red" is just a common name... not usable for an ID of a scientific classification.
Besides, I've seen yellow fish being called rrs as well, makes me wonder why it's called ruby red instead of ruby yellow.

Problem with the two species is, DNA sugest they are different species, morphology however has not shown any clear differences.

[Piranha-Freak101]

RRS

[FEEFA]

Beautiful maculatus.

[memento]

Allright, since the revision by Jégu and dos Santos turned out to be useless (he's working on a new one though), I must honestly say I really wouldn't know what characters would differentiate the two. I know geographical locality is used for it, but personally I do not agree with that. Most species migrate and given the range of both these species, it is unlikely they are not found in the same waters.

But looking back in the original description by Kner (1858), he mentions the difference between S.spilopleura and S.maculatus, is the less expansion of the suborbital in S.spilopleura :

Quote

Bei gleich grossen individuen ist der abstand des hinteren augenrandes sowohl vom aufsteigenden aste, wie noch mehr vom winkel des vordeckels, um ein paar linien kleiner als bei maculatus, und es bleibt auch stets ein ziemlich breiter theil der wange nach abwärts frei und nackthäutig, während bei maculatus auch nach unten die suborbitalknochen fast bis an den vordeckel reichen.

In same-sized individuals, the distance of the posterior eye margin both in vertical axis, and even more from the angle of the anterior plates, is a few lines smaller than in maculatus, and there is also always a fairly broad part of the cheek downwards free and naked, while in maculatus the suborbital bones also reach down to the anterior plates.

[jeeves]

^i dont think he was asking all that

looks like an RRS to me

[memento]

Without that, one doesn't know what to look for jeeves...

[Nzac]

ruby red spilomaculapleuratus.

most would call it a ruby red spilo, but since science doesn't know a difference between spilo and mac, other than collection point, it is just a nice fish.