 THREE (3) SPECIES of TRUE PIRANHAS and
CARIBE Potentially Dangerous To Man Pronunciation guide .wav file. genus Pygocentrus Müller & Troschel, 1844
...but only four of these are true piranhas. That is, only four of the species are really known to be dangerous to man, and these are the only species invariably known as piranha in Brazil." (Myers, 1972, The Piranha Book pg. 22). Etymology: Greek, pyge = rump + Greek, kentron = sting
If you do not wish to read this entire page, scroll down towards the bottom and you will see a link to the True Piranha List or click this link.
FROM FRANK MAGALLANES
I first became interested in true piranhas in 1957. Prior to the 1960's few people outside of science circles hardly knew what a piranha was. The few that did only assumed the animal was a man-eater similar to sharks, but would attack in large numbers and turn you into a skeleton in moments if you dared enter its waters. Further, most uninformed people (myself included) assumed the fish was from Africa based on the old Tarzan movies of the 1930's that aired in the 1950's. Even today, people fear the fish based on what former President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his adventures into the Brazilian wilderness. His tales of the man-eating piranha have even been made into Hollywood movies during the 1970's, where mechanical piranhas are used for the gory scenes. Hollywood made no effort to spare the audience gross inaccuracies about the animal. Not only was its natural behavior over zealously exaggerated, so was the biology and physiology of the fish.
The world considered the piranha blood thirsty man-eaters that flew out of the ocean water to attack humans and chase them around on land!
Largely in great part to Harald Schultz, the Brazilian anthropologist, the image of the piranha has changed considerably (Piranha Fact and Fiction,1964). Schultz stated: For more than twenty years my travels as a student of Indian life in connection with a scientific institute in Brazil have taken me to many far distant parts of the country. In all these years I have never had a harmful experience with these greatly feared piranhas.
Today, there have been some recent citations (covered in species pages) that document attacks on humans by piranhas, name S. rhombeus. But the reader should be aware, these attacks were not without provocation. Any species of piranhas should be considered dangerous when it comes to the potential of a bite. Some hobbyists even report hand-feeding their fish. This is a very dangerous and stupid practice. These animals are not able to distinguish between bait and flesh and the potential is there for a human to suffer a nasty bite, including amputation of a digit. So don't do it no matter how friendly your piranha behaves.
The aquarium trade imported few of the species, mostly during the early 1960's did they make it into dealer's tanks as a novelty fish. They commanded high prices, but was not unusual to find the common juvenile P. nattereri offered for sale at today's prices.
So in that regard, not much has changed. However, the other Pygocentrus species, such as P. cariba, were not distinguished from P. nattereri. It was simply considered unique only because of the humeral spot. The same went for P. piraya, except for the flaming sides and rayed adipose fin. Both P. cariba and P. piraya did not actually become fully available until the mid 1990's and since then, they have become fairly common in dealers aquariums for individual purchase. Today, scientists are examining the fish more closely than ever before and new information is giving the fish a more serious, well-needed makeover. They are indeed misunderstood and over hyped on the man-eating tendencies.
It is now known these fish form loose groups in the wild and do not school (shoal) with any regularity. All the species eat plant matter and seeds, something that in Eigenmann (1917) time would not have been considered nor acceptable to theorize about. It was believed in those days, the piranha would get plant matter from dining on plant eating fish. Those were the scientific explanation for finding fish parts and plant matter in the fishes stomach. P. nattereri, the species often associated with attacks on humans eats on a normal basis, Paspalum repens a tufted annual, with culms sprawling up to 2 meters long; flowering and fruiting August-October. This plant grows quite extensively on the banks of the Amazon and also serve as hiding spots for juveniles of all species.
Two recent publications regarding DNA have been published in 2007. 1) Phylogeography of the piranha genera Serrasalmus and Pygocentrus: implications for the diversification of the Neotropical ichthyofauna (Nicolas Hubert, et al. 2007). 2) Molecular systematics of Serrasalmidae: Deciphering the identities of piranha species and unraveling their evolutionary histories (Barbie Freeman, et al).
In the first paper, their findings suggest that the present results emphasize that an interaction among geology, sea-level changes, and hydrographical created opportunities for cladogenesis in the piranhas at different temporal and geographical scales.
The second paper, they found evidence for a well-supported clade comprised of Pygocentrus, Serrasalmus, and Pristobrycon (in part). The sister group to this clade is also robustly supported, and consists of Catoprion, Pygopristis, and Pristobrycon striolatus. According to these authors, if the term piranha is to refer to a monophyletic clade, it should be restricted to Serrasalmus, Pygocentrus, and Pristobrycon (in part), or expanded to include these taxa plus Pygopristis, Catoprion and Pristobrycon striolatus.
My opinion on this last portion is the authors are misusing the term piranha to imply those fish would be considered true piranha which Myers (1972) has already defined on pg. 22 of The Piranha Book and restricted to certain fish. This published account is ignored by some authorities when it comes to common name usage. So I disagree with this part of the abstract and their conclusion. Both papers state that there is much more work to be done and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
INTRODUCTION
The historical scientific genera names for piranhas have undergone a multitude of changes. Some of these historical names are still found in various State laws where piranhas are prohibited and the invalid names grossly used. Below is the list of authors and the reasoning why these names were originally proposed for those species regarded as true piranhas. Piranhas were only given a cursory glance by historical authors when these fish were first placed. This changed as improved methods to analyze fishes, including usage of radiography of specimens (to better see the bones and teeth) and the most recent method using DNA sequences of mitochondrial (mt) rRNA genes. The number of species loosely called piranhas is around 60 species or more. But only three (3) are true piranha.
Though not yet fully resolved, the systematic of Pygocentrus has been revised by Fink (1993) and followed up in subsequent works (Fink and Zelditch 1995, 1997). A diagnosis for the three species comes from the first work (p.665) shown below. Please take the time to read the material throughout the entire OPEFE web site. Each species is covered extensively with material, both scientific and personal knowledge by this author. I have taken the time to fully explore and condense much of the material here for all to read.
HISTORICAL LISTING OF GENERIC RANKING
Historical lumped all nominal species under genus Pygocentrus because they did consider the morphology and the worn-down palatine teeth. Because of this, it would present a monumental problem since it included species that were not Pygocentrus-like. The list would later be revised into a genera and subgenera using names like; Serrasalmus, Pristobrycon and Pygopristis. These authors included Serrasalmo piraya (Cuvier 1819) a true piranha, Serrasalmo niger (Schomburgk 1841), a pirambeba and Pygocentrus nigricans (Müller & Troschel, 1844), also a pirambeba. The description of the name Pygocentrus itself was very vague. They used historical methods acceptable for that time such as describing as type of body shape, size of mouth, eyes and color. Many of the historical photographs, were not photographs at all but drawings, some colored in by artists at the museum based on what the collector had written from the expedition. The diagnosis of the species was characterized by external observations that applied to almost any species of piranha (except the species piraya with its rayed adipose fin) using words like; lower jaw very heavy, including a convex dorsal outline between dorsal fin and the snout tip, a well-ossified third infraorbital, lack of ectopterygoid teeth, and a few other features, usually vaguely described (Fink 1993). It was at best, difficult to ascertain the actual fish described for this genus name (save one, P. piraya).
That is why original descriptions of piranhas are so vague for anyone to determine species easily.
Today, in reviewing various internet forums specializing in piranhas as pets, one can still find vague references in describing their piranha pet similar to the earliest scientist methodology. These hobbyists present out of focus photographs and sometimes no photograph at all, just a description and expect their fish to be identified accurately by this author. An impossible task, yet there are others that try often wrong. There are also situations in these forums where a hobbyist that has little knowledge of the species attempts to give credible information only find out the information is outdated or worse, plain wrong. Such is the type of information found in today's world-wide web. Hobbyist are becoming more sophisticated now and are able to determine factual information from hype or from those amateur's that are building home pages or forums based on erroneous or largely personal opinion based data on their fishes.
While the care and husbandry of these fish are important, everyone should keep in mind that the science is just as important and both go hand in hand in exploring these creatures. New hobbyists should always research their ideas and opinions before expressing them. No sense looking foolish on the web. The science of piranhas has been on-going for over 100 years and much of what today's hobbyists are learning in their aquariums is actually very close to what has already been learned in the field examinations.
Many of the preserved Holotype specimens are no longer in existence for today's scientists to examine. The majority of type specimens were lost or misplaced during World War II. Below is a summary of the changes that have occurred over the years from the beginning.
THE CLASSIFICATION HISTORY Genus Pygopristis has always historically remained a monotypic ranking
THE KEY TO THE SPECIES
Dr. William L. Fink (1991) reviewed the genus, then revised the individual species for genus Pygocentrus (1993) and included an actual key inidentifyingspecies of true piranha. Fink based his diagnosis on the following......"Relative to other serrasalmin, Pygocentrus is diagnosable by several features, including prepelvic serrae number, morphology of the gas bladder and skull, and head width. There are three species in the genus: P. piraya, P. nattereri, and P. cariba. P. piraya is diagnosed by presence of adipose fin rays; it is restricted to the Rio Sao Francisco of Brazil. P. nattereri is undiagnosed, and highly variable in pigmentation. Its included populations are found in tropical and subtropical South America, east of the Andes, including the Amazon basin, the Paraguay and Parańa system, and the rivers of the Guiana's and northeast Brazil.
P. cariba is diagnosed by presence of four supraneurals and a dark, prominent humeral blotch; it ranges through the Rio Orinoco and its tributaries in Colombia and Venezuela. A key to the species is provided (see top of page). All extant types or members of type series are illustrated. Morphometric analyses found no significant shape differences among the species; body shape is extremely stable both ontogenetically as well as within populations.
In contrast, color pattern in both preserved specimens and in life is highly variable ontogenetically and within populations." Fink also made an argument for the placement of the epithet "cariba" noting that an error was made in the original description and epithet.
The genus Pygocentrus is characterized by several anatomical key features;
CURRENT SPECIES AND THE COUNTRY RANGE - 2009 Species listed with a question mark (?) are those that have not been authenticated by current rehabilitations.
The region marked with an asterisk * very likely pertained to a misidentified species.
CONTRIBUTORS AND ADVISORS
REFERENCES
USE THIS LINK TO ACCESS PYGOCENTRUS SPECIES LIST
USE THIS LINK TO RETURN TO RESEARCH PAGE
The OPEFE web site and its contents; is disclaimed for purposes of Zoological Nomenclature in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth Edition, Article 8.3 and 8.4. No new names or nomenclature changes are available from statements at this web site.
Copyright© 1994-2009 Oregon Piranha Exotic Fish Exhibit (The OPEFE fish exhibit is permanently CLOSED as of 2000) Sutherlin, Oregon. Information posted on this web site is archival data on fish scientific classifications and other information. DISCLAIMER: The copyrighted material may not be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship or research. Cited information requires credit and this link www.opefe.com. All rights reserved. All images shown (unless otherwise noted) is property of OPEFE. UPDATED: 09/04/2009 |
