FROM FRANK MAGALLANES

An example at the top left, on what can happen when two (2) of the same species are mixed together in large aquarium (55g). Only 1 remains alive while the other is partially eaten. There will always be hobbyist's that will advise others to keep experimenting with their fishes in the hopes that somehow the nature of the beast will be changed. Fishes are not like that, any more than other wild animals are. Yet, one can find many such internet forums where the practice of cohabitation or shoaling is still being tested and encouraged. To the hobbyist that is unaware of what the nature of the piranha is, it can be a very costly mistake not just for the hobbyist but the animal itself! After 40 plus years in this hobby of keeping piranhas, I still hear that folks want to try and make their home the Amazon river without taking into consideration that these fish are predators of each other and their tank mates!

If you are a frequent visitor or member of a piranha forum on the internet, you have probably heard it before i.e., my piranhas are cohabitating together in a fish aquarium. Are they really? What is the definition of cohabitation? And how does it apply with piranhas? In order to answer this question we have to explore what cohabitation means. You can access the internet dictionary and find some examples. For now, here is the web dictionary definition of cohabitation:

1. The practice of living together as a male-female couple without marrying.

2. The sharing of a household by a couple who live together without being legally married.

3. The situation where two people are living together as husband and wife, whether or not they are actually married to each other.

4. living together (as spouses).

What is the legal definition of cohabitate?

• In Andrea N. Keene v. Ashley J. Bonser, Case No. 20030841-CA; F I L E D
  (January 27, 2005) Utah: Courts often refer to the dictionary to define statutory terms. We follow this approach today and adopt common, non-technical, dictionary-definition meanings of the words used to define "cohabitant" under the Act. Although the district court was correct in concluding that "resides or had resided in the same residence" under the definition of "cohabitant" has a broader meaning in Utah's Cohabitant Abuse Act than in other contexts, it is not as open-ended as the court apparently envisioned. We have therefore clarified what it means to "reside" in the same "residence" for purposes of the definition under the Act. The inquiry into whether a person is a "cohabitant" under the Act is a fact-sensitive determination that requires a court to make detailed findings of fact, on a case-by-case basis, in reaching its conclusion. Because the district court failed to make findings of fact in support of its conclusion that Bonser was a "cohabitant" for purposes of the Act, and because, in our view, the evidence does not clearly and uncontrovertibly indicate to us that the district court's conclusion was correct, we reverse and remand to the district court for entry of detailed findings on the criteria outlined above, and for the making of legal conclusions and a judgment in conformity therewith.

• In Lester v. Lester (May 14, 1981), Franklin App. No. 81AP-84, unreported, 1981 WL 3186, this court quoted from the Sindel decision and reiterated that "cohabitation means the act of living together."

• While involving the termination of sustenance alimony, this court held in paragraph two of its syllabus in Fuller v. Fuller (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 253:

• "Cohabitation usually will be manifested by a man and woman living together in the same household and behaving as would a husband and wife, although there need not be an actual assertion of marriage." (Emphasis added.)

• In Taylor v. Taylor (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 279, 280-281, the court held: " * * * Sexual intercourse, in short, is not the sine qua non of the 'cohabitation' intended * * *. It may be a persuasive indicium's of cohabitation, but it is not everything. " * *[We] conclude that the cause should be remanded to the trial court for a determination of the issue of cohabitation absent reliance on the conclusive nature of a sexual relationship between the parties."

• The one factor common among each of the foregoing cases was that the parties were living together. This is also common to the definition of "cohabit" set forth by Random House Dictionary: "to live together as husband and wife, usually without legal or religious sanction * * * to live together in an intimate relationship. * * * " The Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2 Ed.1987) 400.

So it stands; the term cohabitation finds its way largely in defining  people with people. 

What about fish? How does cohabitation fit in?  Here are some short examples:

• Cohabitation of Competing Territorial Damselfishes on a Caribbean Coral Reef.

• Experimentally, fish can be infected by cohabitation, immersion, intra-peritoneal.

• Is it possible to make live together those fishes (+ an others like ... Cohabitation between shrimps and loaches.

In the above examples, cohabitation means; being or living together. So in this sense, cohabitation is a loose word being applied to a specific circumstance. Are fish living with plants cohabitating? If one does a search on Google, using the term fish cohabitation, it is used as a loose term. Many of the reports spell out problems with cohabitating certain species or diseases/parasite transference. Below are examples of fishes that were so-called cohabitating:

This Pygocentrus piraya was kept as a pair in a 55g aquarium. Both were well fed, then one day the smaller one decided it no longer wanted a tank mate and began to eat its larger neighbor. It became a rather expensive meal! There will always be an elite few that will try disprove the nature of the beast only to find out the beast thanks them for the meal.

How does all of this apply to piranhas and pirambebas?

Consider the above photos.  According to Stauffacher, M. (1994). A prerequisite for successful cohabitation is that the restrictive artificial environment should be structured in such a way that animals are able to avoid contact with each other or initiate new contacts according to circumstances."What this means is; if you wish to put two different species of piranhas together then you must either put a divider between them or find a way to successfully keep them from damaging or killing each other in the container or habitat. Using the lion and human in a cage scenario. The question begs are they cohabitating? The answer with a question would be, what is the human doing? hiding? or looking for a way out? or is he looking at the lion as a potential mate? And what is the lion doing? licking his chops for a next meal (i.e.; at the human) or just licking the human's leg in loving way. It now rests on what the reality of the situation. Piranhas are not tame by nature, nor is a lion. They are both predators and so is man. The big difference is, man is not equipped to kill and eat a lion with his bare hands and teeth. A lion (and a piranha) can and will if the opportunity is there. So can you cohabitate different piranha species? Sure, but the results will be less than friendly. So the word now means something else. Using that term cohabitate is erroneous in defining placing opposite species in a tank. Because, when it is used literally, it conjures up images of friendly play. Or to put it more directly cohabitating neon's with glow-light tetras. Put an angelfish (Cichlid) in there and you will quickly find out why cohabitating is not the proper terminology. 

To the angelfish, cohabitating with a smaller species means lunch.  The idea that piranhas cohabitate in an aquarium with other fishes without being eaten is well, short sighted, bordering on ignorance of the species. As stated above, does a piranha cohabitate with a plant? Of course, but it also eats it as well.

According to a well respected authority and expert, cohabitation is a stupid word to use when it comes to piranhas....And I agree with him.

REFERENCES:

• Stauffacher, M. (1994). Improved husbandry systems - an ethological concept. In J. Bunyan (ed), Welfare and Science, Proceedings of the Fifth FELASA Symposium (pp. 68-73) London, UK: Royal Society of Medicine Press.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN 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© 1994-2012 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: 12/05/2015