It was a case of mistaken identity
Red-bellied pacu incorrectly identified as a piranha
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
23 Comments
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
It may have been a case of mistaken identity, but Wallace Hartsfield still was not ready to go for a swim in the San Antonio River on Monday.
Hartsfield met with Scott Mitchell, a wildlife biologist with Texas Parks and Wildlife, Monday morning at Saski Taxidermy, where Mitchell examined the fish and officially identified it as a red-bellied pacu.
In a Saturday story, the fish was incorrectly identified as a red-bellied piranha.
But this was not Mitchell's first experience with a case of mistaken identity over a pacu and a piranha.
Another case almost happened two years ago, Mitchell said.
A fisherman brought him a fish that looked like a red-bellied piranha, but after checking with the inland fisheries division of Texas Parks and Wildlife, Mitchell learned it was a red-bellied pacu.
"It's an easy mistake to make," Mitchell said.
The fish are very similar, Mitchell said, but the biggest reason piranhas cannot live in the San Antonio River is the temperature.
"They don't operate well under 70 degrees (fahrenheit)," Mitchell said. "During the summer time, they would do OK, but winter would kill them."
Mitchell also gave two physical qualities that differentiate the piranha from the pacu - the teeth and the bite.
Piranhas, which are carnivores, always have an underbite, Mitchell explained, and serrated, shark-like teeth. The omnivorous pacus, on the other hand, have a normal bite and flat teeth like a human's molars and premolars.
Other than that, the fish are very similar, Mitchell said.
Hartsfield said Mitchell had mostly convinced him the fish was a pacu.
"I'm going to further look into it, but I'm pretty sure it is a pacu," Hartsfield said. "It ain't no big deal, I guess."
Mitchell said the pacu is not a fish native to Texas. The fish was most likely released into the San Antonio River by a pet owner, Mitchell said.
"We don't like them there because we don't know what effect these will have on our native wildlife," Mitchell said.
-
Print
- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
23 Comments
- •
- Favorite
- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Comments
Now Podunk, why would you denigrate someone you have not met? I suspect the person who made the original ID mistake actually has a college degree. Even non-hillbilly's can make mistakes.
October 31, 2008 at 4:17 p.m.Why wasn't this subject rapidly turned over to ICE and have it deported it? We can not afford to have illegal wildlife trying to take over our rivers.
October 28, 2008 at 12:45 p.m.OK, I would understand you people if the Advocate had not posted this second story stating that the facts were wrong. However, it seems to me like there is way too much over thinking here. Did they not find their mistake and correct it?
October 28, 2008 at 11:42 a.m.Please tell me you didn't just say a piranah would cause mass histeria! you're funny!
October 28, 2008 at 10:59 a.m.Bottom line is that journalists can't know everything. Therefore they need to know where to find the answers. Just because a person works for TPWD doesn't mean they are an authority on everything wild. For law enforcement of wildlife and fisheries laws, game wardens are the experts. For terrestrial wildlife, wildlife biologists are the experts. For aquatic wildlife (fish), fisheries biologists are the experts. An honest mistake was made in this case.In the comments to the original article a link was posted to an authoritative brochure for piranha-pacu ID. Biologist Mitchell correctly identified the fish even though this apparently is not his area of expertise. Kudos to him.
October 28, 2008 at 10:31 a.m.Podunk....Get a grip. It was ONE fish that was caught....it's not like the rivers and lakes are full of these things.
October 28, 2008 at 10:28 a.m.How was it the reporter's fault? Well lets see.....the reporter did not substantiate the story before printing it and to top it off it was put on the front page of the newspaper starting with "BEWARE"!!!!
October 28, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.Podunk, you have hurt my feelings. I have always looked up to you as a voice of reason and intelligence. I hang on your every word. Why are you being so mean to me?
October 28, 2008 at 9:42 a.m.Okay, seriously, if this were such a big deal, where was the warning from TP&WD? Never heard a thing about staying out of the water. Isolated incident, turned out to be not much of anything. People who made the mistake owned it.
How is this the reporter's fault?
This reporter did not substantiate the 1st story before printing - he went on the word of an individual and did not confirm anything. No where in the 1st story did the reporter say he spoke with Parks and Wildlife to confirm that they identified the fish as a piranha. There is no apology from the reporter stating he printed a story without substaniating it and that his story was based on the statement of the individual that caught the fish.
October 28, 2008 at 8:36 a.m.southtexas--DON'T HAVE A STROKE--this time, you are right. I cannot believe I just wrote that, but I did. I'll try to see that it never happens again.
October 28, 2008 at 6:38 a.m.SugarMagnolia--this is a story about a fish. Regardless of what kind of fish it is, this is hardly hard hitting news. It's a human interest story. This is not a Dewey/Truman story at all. Unless, of course, what fish are in the Guadalupe are an extremely important part of your life.
Ooooooo-WHEEEEEE! Now dat's what I'm talkin' about! Dat be so good it make me wanna slap yo' mama!
October 28, 2008 at 12:48 a.m.No,Sugar. That bland food ain't gonna get it! I'm gonna have to heat up some oil this weekend with all this talk........fo sho......
October 27, 2008 at 11:43 p.m.Me too! What say, a little slaw on de side, wit a mess o'greens and a little o'dat dirty rice to boot? MMM MMM....Ok I need to stop. Oh, and Southern Comfort to wash it down with. Ok now I really need to stop! Now my tummy is gonna be grumblin' till the morning, and I don't think a bowl of oatmeal will quite satisfy me then.
October 27, 2008 at 11:17 p.m.Ya' makin' ma hungry!
October 27, 2008 at 11:08 p.m.Lots of Tabasco on the side!!
October 27, 2008 at 10:55 p.m.Get the peanut oil HOT!
October 27, 2008 at 10:53 p.m.bighorn - dunno, but most anything tastes better with a little of that cajun dusting, doesn't it? YUM.
October 27, 2008 at 10:50 p.m.SugarMagnolia....for pete's sake, how can you blame the reporter.....he reported the information he got from the experts....they made a mistake....guess you don't ever do that?
October 27, 2008 at 10:49 p.m.You are right, LBB, that a reporter shouldn't have to second-guess a warden's word, but I am disappointed because apparently someone had their doubts (including me; I never for one minute believed it was a piranha), enough to look for a second opinion here and get a positive I.D. Lo and behold, it is not a piranha after all. I believe the VicAd jumped the gun and rushed to publish this story just to grab attention, nevermind having its reporter WORK to really confirm its veracity. This was misleading to the public, and while I appreciated the VicAd is now printing the "rest of the story", I think that they could have waited a day or two and INVESTIGATED the story before printing and subsequently looking like fools. It is a "Dewey defeats Truman" sort of thing that really doesn't have to happen in this day and age, with all the resources available now to journalists. I thank you for your take, though. I just know that this isn't the first time this has happened in the VicAd, and it could have been so easily prevented by a little journalistic homework.
October 27, 2008 at 10:44 p.m.How do they taste when fryed up with a little cajun cornbread batter?
October 27, 2008 at 10:34 p.m.OK, so here we go again. Can't the VicAd check these things out more carefully before printing a blaring headline about piranhas, chupacabras, and the like? It seems the very least that journalistic integrity would demand. I am so tired of the VicAd reporters not doing their homework and jumping the gun, as evidenced by the previous report of this fish being a piranha before getting a confirmation. C'mon, VicAd, get on track! You can and MUST do better than this!
October 27, 2008 at 9:41 p.m.Thanks for the knowledge, I would have not known that there was a difference without this article.
October 27, 2008 at 9:32 p.m.