FROM FRANK MAGALLANES (Book review and OPINION are my own). Readers are cautioned that they must read this online manuscript (including the book above) in its entirety to form their own opinions:

Carl Popper (1966): As a realist I look upon logic as the organon of criticisms (rather than of proof) in our search for true and highly informative theories - or at least for new theories that contain more information, and correspond better to the facts, than our older theories. And I look upon criticism, in its turn, as our main instrument in promoting the growth of our knowledge about the world of facts. Source and references view.

Part of my responsibility at OPEFE is to review the publication and evaluate any future problems for hobbyists who collect these fish for the home aquarium. This review includes examining the material and photographs to see if they correspond correctly to imports of piranha fish. Also to evaluate the methods used to ascertain whether or not the descriptions are correct and easy to understand. This is very important for hobbyists and world wide fish dealers who rely on OPEFE for that information in their day to day operations.

I was made aware of this species in 2005, however I did not carry it on OPEFE until just recently. The following gives an explanation; the material in its book form presents some interesting views and potential problems with S. odyssei. The book uses molecular and evolutionary perspectives. Beginning in the 1960s, evolutionary biology was significantly transformed by the incorporation of ideas and techniques from molecular biology. This led to many novel views (and as many controversies) about phylogenetic relationships, rates and mechanisms of evolutionary change, and standards of inference and hypothesis testing VIEW.

The scientific literature from previous work was included in the body of work by Hubert  in the creation of this new species.  Much of the method is DNA related. The comparison is done for this description with only 4 species; Serrasalmus compressus (20 specimens) Bolivia, Madeira, Serrasalmus hastatus (11 specimens) Brazil, Amazonas, Serrasalmus hollandi (24 specimens) Bolivia, Madeira, and Serrasalmus altispinis (9 specimens) Brazil, Amazonas. What I don't understand is why S. hollandi is even mentioned in this comparison. It is not a member of the compressus group to my knowledge. Gery placed S. hollandi as a member of the humeralis group in 1976. Then in 1977 revised it again as follows; S. brandtii, S. elongatus. S. hollandi, S. humeralis, S. rhombeus, S. rhombeus-marginatus, S. sanchezi, S. spilopleura. In the Hubert body of work, S. sanchezi has been moved to a compressus group member, which I support based on the morphological features. but because S. altuvei  was not considered (see below) it raises some taxonomic issues. S. geryi was not included in the finished new description. It too is a member of the compressus group.

Currently, two species remain difficult to visually separate in the hobby, they are S. maculatus and S. spilopleura. These two species present morphology and locality issues since the Jegu rehabilitation. The only helpful tool is to determine where the fish was collected. Also problematic is S. eigenmanni and S. humeralis. While both those species are valid, there remains questions on the taxonomy and especially the range. S. humeralis is found in Amazon River basin: Bolivia, Brazil and Peru. S. eigenmanni is from the Amazon River basin and northern and eastern Guiana Shield rivers: Brazil, French Guiana, Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela. Both species are difficult to differentiate and overlap their respective range. However, S. eigenmanni is not found in Bolivia according to Eschmeyer (California Academy of Sciences). Also problems with S. humeralis is the species itself (more on this below), there is no Holotype specimen. I have photos of this species by Adrian Leroy who stated Nicholas Hubert identified the species for him (see S. humeralis). Yet these species look nothing like the fishbase.org specimen photos. Not mentioned by Hubert is Serrasalmus nigricans. (Spix & Agassiz 1829) Amazon River basin, Brazil. This species is valid according Jegu in Reis et a., 2003:191 with author as Agassiz. One wonders why this important species was overlooked or not considered in the S. odyssei paper. Perhaps it was because no types exist (Kottelat, 1988); See Kottelat, 988: 79 for details on authorship. And because there is only a painted drawing of it and a specimen with wrong label? VIEW

According to Hubert, S. spilopleura is found in one river in Bolivia. However, in the Hubert map it overlaps S. maculatus range; Amazon and Paraguay-Paraná River basin: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Current distribution for S. spilopleura  is listed as; Guaporé River basin, Paraná River basin: Argentina and Brazil according to Jegu, et al.

Hubert further states that there is possible hybridization between S. compressus and S. sp (= S. odyssei). Hybridization between 2 sympatric species that don't spawn together in polygyny is like our native sunfish (Lepomis), where sperm drift is possible, would be rare indeed!?! One must wonder about S. hollandi, especially since no one seems to be comfortable with delineating what it really is.

Serrasalmus hollandi, according to CAS, is a valid name. Its locality falls under questionable river's; Madeira River basin and ? Guyana rivers: Brazil and Guiana (?).

S. hollandi has not had any recent rehabilitation except in a few of lines of description by Jegu in his rehabilitation of Serrasalmus maculatus. Photos would be nice, but not seen in this book except for a preserved specimen collected in 2005 (MNHN 2005-2268). The actual holotype of this species is lost. I do not know if the preserved species is recognized as a new holotype or simply a specimen that fits the Jegu/Hubert & Renno description. Since it appears that S. hollandi is rarely collected, begs the question, what is Hubert actually looking at? Is it  S. manueli Venezuela?  or this one Jegu S. humeralis? or is this S. humeralis in fishbase.org? Another S. manueli is from the Rio Negro VIEW.

S. humeralis has historical description problems such as contradicting descriptions and locality questions. One can pick and choose which drawing or plate image to follow.

As one can see, both the Venezuela S. manueli and the Amazonia S. humeralis at fishbase.org look strikingly similar. If they are the same then S. manueli, Fernández-Yépez & Ramírez, 1967 would likely be considered a synonym by some future authority to S. humeralis Valenciennes in Cuvier et Valenciennes 1849 (Pl. XI, Fig. 2). Why? Because S. manueli is younger name than S. humeralis, assuming both species were properly described. This would make S. manueli a Venezuelan sister to S. humeralis Amazonia. If they are not the same, then it would be up to a future Systematician to diagnosis both species in a comparison study.

Hubert lists the cladogram (hypotheses) of phylogenetic relationships with the characid subfamily Serrasalminae. Part of the material for this species is derived from DNA analysis using several species, including some questionable ones in the first body of work. The author was unable to find any single diagnostic or semi-diagnostic locus between S. eigenmanni and S. spilopleura. He could not rule out that they might be different species. S. eigenmanni is largely distributed  in the upper Madeira basin, but not in the upper Guapore River where only Serrasalmus spilopleura has been found until now. Hubert et al 2006 showed the citation  by Jegu and Dos Santos 2001 from the Madeira was erroneous regarding S. eigenmanni.

The error originated from confusion with S. spilopleura (see Hubert & Renno 2009, 2010). Could this be S. spilopleura  specimen VIEW that Hubert said was misidentified as S. eigenmanni by Jegu? This specimen, an unknown Pristobrycon-type sp. collected by George Fear and photographed by David M. Schleser. It has since been identified as S. serrulatus. It has a thin black band and clear edge of the caudal fin. According Dave, this fish was collected at the Tachshacurary river (a blackwater stream) just upstream from the village of Tacshacuraray which is located where the Tachsahcuraray empties into the Napo, Peru. David has caught many more in all age classes.

Any advanced hobbyist who has seen S. spilopleura and S. eigenmanni know those two species look nothing like each other. But as a hobbyist, I personally wonder how Jegu could have easily misidentify a specimen like S. eigenmanni and S. spilopleura. But even S. eigenmanni has historical description and locality problems (see further down below).

Ortega & Vari (1986) tentatively placed specimens morphologically  very similar S. spilopleura from the Ucayali within S. humeralis, another closely related species  (Jegu & Dos Santos 2001).The results of the present study by Hubert suggest that the specimens from the Ucayali analyzed here currently belong to S. spilopleura. In my thoughts (whether right or wrong),  I suggest the image by Schleser fits the misidentified specimen. Again, this is just a guess on my part and no scientific license to say so. In dealing with bad scientific descriptions and samples, one has to work with what one has. In this case, samples spread out over the world that not just anyone can have access to. It would also involve a team of researchers to explore all the world museums for specimens and comparison's.

Also left to wonder why he mentions S.compressus as ENDEMIC to Madeira...when it isn't an endemic species limited to that river but wide spread species. Hubert, however offers an explanation; through a combined use of biogeographic, phylogenetic and phylogeographic approaches at several spatial scales (see back cover of this book).

For hobbyists, biogeography is a relatively new term in the field of science. It takes into account several suppositions. It is usually considered to be part of physical geography as it often relates to the examination of the physical  environment and how it effects species and shaped their distribution across space. Below are applicable definitions;

DEFINITIONS

1. Biogeographic: (McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Encyclopedia): The scientific study of the geographic distribution of plant and animal life. Factors affecting distribution include the geologic history of a region, its climate and soil composition, and the presence or absence of natural barriers like deserts, oceans, and mountains. Biotic factors such as interactions among competing species, coevolutionary influences, and the reproductive and nutritional requirements of populations and species are also studied.  A biogeographic region is a large, generally continuous division of the Earth's surface having a distinctive biotic community. Biogeographic regions are usually defined separately for floral and faunal communities and are largely restricted to the terrestrial areas of the Earth.

Comparative Biogeography

Discovering and Classifying Biogeographical Patterns of a Dynamic Earth (2009)

Lynne R. Parenti, R. Claro and K.C. Lindeman co-editor with M.L.J. Stiassny and G. D. Johnson.

(Quoted text) Description; To unravel the complex shared history of the Earth and its life forms, biogeographers analyze patterns of biodiversity, species distribution, and geological history. So far, the field of biogeography has been fragmented into divergent systematic and evolutionary approaches, with no overarching or unifying research theme or method. In this text, Lynne Parenti and Malte Ebach address this discord and outline comparative tools to unify biogeography. Rooted in phylogenetic systematics, this comparative biogeographic approach offers a comprehensive empirical framework for discovering and deciphering the patterns and processes of the distribution of life on Earth. The authors cover biogeography from its fundamental ideas to the most effective ways to implement them. Real-life examples illustrate concepts and problems, including the first comparative biogeographical analysis of the Indo-West Pacific, an introduction to biogeographical concepts rooted in the earth sciences, and the integration of phylogeny, evolution and earth history.

Another good book to read : Biogeography and Plate Tectonics (1987)

J.C. Briggs, Department of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA

(Quoted text) Description; One needs to look at only a small portion of the enormous literature on plate tectonics published in the last 15 years to realize that there are many differences between the various reconstructions that have been presented. It becomes obvious that, although there is a general agreement about the presence of an assembly of continents (a Pangaea) in the early Mesozoic, there is considerable disagreement among earth scientists as to the configurement of the assembly and the manner and timing of the subsequent dispersal. While the revolution in geophysics was taking place, systematic work in paleontology and neontology was being carried out. This book is an attempt to incorporate the biological evidence into the theory of plate tectonics. The author traces the changing relationships among the various biogeographic regions and demonstrates how such changes may often be correlated with the gradual geographic alteration of the earth's surface. He analyses recent information about the distribution of widespread groups of terrestrial and freshwater vertebrates, invertebrates and plants, and discusses the biogeographical effects of the movement of oceanic plates. It is particularly important to obtain dependable information about certain critical times in the history of continental relationships. We need to know when the terrestrial parts of the earth were broken apart and when they were joined together. The present investigation makes it clear that we cannot depend entirely on evidence from plate tectonics nor will purely biological evidence suffice. This book thus provides much of interest to systematists working on contemporary groups of plants and animals, paleontologists, evolutionary biologists, and professors teaching courses in biogeography.

2. Phylogenetic: (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology the sequence of events involved in the evolution of a species, genus, etc.

3. Phylogeographic: (Wikipedia English) Phylogeography is the study of the historical processes that may be responsible for the contemporary geographic distributions of individuals. This is accomplished by considering the geographic distribution of individuals in light of the patterns associated with a gene genealogy.

So what exactly is Hubert telling us in his book? For that you have to go back in time to Charles Darwin and  Alfred R. Wallace

One hundred and fifty years after the publication of the Origin (Darwin), there is a revival of dispersal explanations, occasioned in part by the development of molecular systematics and molecular clocks. This is credited to Alfred Wallace work in the mid-to-late 19th Century in England, as naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, and biologist.. He extensively studied the Amazon River and other land masses. He is today, considered the father of biogeography.

(Quoted text) Molecular dating of lineage divergence favours oceanic dispersal over tectonic vicariance as an explanation for disjunct distributions in a wide variety of taxa (de Queiroz, 2005). The molecular clocks mostly indicate that divergences in phylogenetic trees occurred too recently to be explained by vicariance. de Queiroz (2005) pointed out that although mismatches between area cladograms and tectonic fragmentation do not necessarily imply oceanic dispersal, in many cases dispersal is the most plausible explanation. Thus in the past few years there has been an increase in the number of molecular studies that support oceanic dispersal (e.g. Calsbeek & Smith, 2003; Howarth et al., 2003; Heinicke et al., 2007; Vidal et al., 2008). Therefore, dispersal hypotheses have claimed a new-found respect, with molecular clock theory providing decisive evidence. But there are those who strongly question the precise estimate of divergence events by molecular clocks (e.g. Graur & Martin, 2004) and their attributed evidence in favour of dispersal. (e.g. Heads, 2005b; Grehan, 2007; Nelson & Ladiges, 2009). view PDF for conclusions and references.

As an additional  foot note, biogeography and the related sciences,  raises red flags for believers in  creationism (Intelligent design) and a banner for atheists who do not believe in creationism or God and support simple evolution of species through processes. That is part of the controversy in researching this field for hobbyists. I considered seriously whether or not to include this in the page. But I asked myself, why not? It is part of the ongoing debate.