False Corydoras sipaliwini

[niederle]

This image from PlanetCatfish shows a fish that differs from

Corydoras sipaliwini

and resembles the fishes from the Venezuelan part of Guayana Highland.

false image has been removed in the meantime

[Jools]

How does it differ?

Jools

[MatsP]

Can I also point out that Guyana, Venezuela and Surinam are fairly close together - there aren't any shared major waterways, but that in itself doesn't mean that the same species can't occur in several places.

--
Mats

[Coryman]

The pictured fish was featured in an article in the CSG's magazine Cat Chat Vol 3 No 2,the picture was taken by Danny Blundell and although the origin of the specimen was unknown it was thought to be C. sipaliwini, which it has been proven not to be.

The picture below was taken by Oliver Lucanus and is of a specimen he collected from the type locality of C. sipaliwini. This also falls in line with the picture in my book Identifying Corydoradinae Catfish taken by co-author Hans-Georg Evers, of a specimen I believe he also collected from the type locality.


Ian

[Jools]

The pictured fish was featured in an article in the CSG's magazine Cat Chat Vol 3 No 2,the picture was taken by Danny Blundell and although the origin of the specimen was unknown it was thought to be C. sipaliwini, which it has been proven not to be.

Why? The pictured fish from Oliver and the fish from Steve look mighty close (OK, one looks to me like is a mature female) but not much more difference as you might expect to see in a breeding pair of <em>Corydoras paleatus</em> to use one example. Perhaps we are going just on the size of of the eye but I am not sure of the size of the larger fish in relation.

Are you discounted Steve's pic because the locality is unknown or is there another reason and I am missing something (quite possible!)?

Jools

[Coryman]

I am only surmising, but I believe the fish was a contaminant in a shipment form Manaus and did not originate from Suriname. I would therefore exclude C. sipaliwini. Most species coming into the hobby from Suriname are being collected by scientists or visiting hobbyists and are being introduced in small numbers, single specimen contaminants are unlikely to be introduced this way. There was a fair amount of speculation as to the true identity of the fish at the time and viewed against the type description it seemed to key in very well except for its locality.

niederle

This image from PlanetCatfish shows a fish that differs from Corydoras sipaliwini and resembles the fishes from the Venezuelan part of Guayana Highland.

Can you expand on your above statement and supply more information regarding location and comparison pictures, to substantiate it.

Ian

[niederle]

The image presented by Ian seems to be Corydoras sipaliwini. There are several differences, the most obvious is the long dorsal spine of Corydoras sipaliwini which is somewhat longer than the first soft ray. The false Corydoras sipaliwini has short dorsal spine much shorter than the first soft ray.

Josef

[niederle]

There was a fair amount of speculation as to the true identity of the fish at the time and viewed against the type description it seemed to key in very well except for its locality.

Ian,
Will you specify where the speculation can be found.

Josef

[niederle]

This image from PlanetCatfish shows a fish that differs from Corydoras sipaliwini and resembles the fishes from the Venezuelan part of Guayana Highland.

Can you expand on your above statement and supply more information regarding location and comparison pictures, to substantiate it.

Ian,
It is similar to the fish in the image taken by Julian Dignall in a hotel in Venezuela.

The owner of the hotel wrote to me that the fish had been caught in Gran Sabana, a forestfree part of the Venezuelan Guayana Highland. I have not been there but I know that in Venezuela the Guayana Highland is like a large 1000 m high tepuy from which small tepuis stick out. Therefore its ichthyofauna differs considerably from the surrounding lowland.
The fishes are probably not identical, but have common features. One of them is the large mouth.

Josef

[Coryman]

niederle,

Ian,
Will you specify where the speculation can be found

The pictured fish was featured in an article in the CSG's magazine Cat Chat Vol 3 No 2,the picture was taken by Danny Blundell and although the origin of the specimen was unknown it was thought to be C. sipaliwini, which it has been proven not to be. Ian

A lot of discussion about the validity and identification about this species has been oral and not in any particular publication.

It is similar to the fish in the image taken by Julian Dignall in a hotel in Venezuela.

The owner of the hotel wrote to me that the fish had been caught in Gran Sabana, a forestfree part of the Venezuelan Guayana Highland. I have not been there but I know that in Venezuela the Guayana Highland is like a large 1000 m high tepuy from which small tepuis stick out. Therefore its ichthyofauna differs considerably from the surrounding lowland.
The fishes are probably not identical, but have common features. One of them is the large mouth.

Josef

The fish you show taken by Jools to me represents a true C. bondi. The so called false C. sipaliwini to me is a one off specimen and as such without the catching locality it should be listed as C. sp cf bondi.

Ian

[niederle]

The fish you show taken by Jools to me represents a true C. bondi.

You may be right, but the description of Corydoras bondi contains the following.
Head darker than body, with rather indefinite
markings. Fins also without definite markings,
except that there may be small spots
on the central caudal rays of some specimens.
The fish in the image has the head not darker than body, with definite spots, and a spotted dorsal spine and spotted dorsal rays. Moreover, the type locality of Corydoras bondi is Yuruari, which is a lowland river flowing from low hills near Orinoco. It can be an exception but there are too many differences.

Josef

[Coryman]

The real problem here is two fold: -
1. we only have one specimen and,
2. we don't actually know where it came from.

If we knew the species which it was imported with then we may have a clue as to what it might be. With work I have been doing with C150 I have a female that is producing two colour forms, the following two pictures show, the normal coloured and the second shows the second, there form approximately 10-12% of each brood produced and it does not matter which of the 3 males she mates with.

Normal form


variant


If these were imported I am sure you would be arguing that they are two separate species. By the way the growth rates are different as is the head and body shape.

Ian

[niederle]

If these were imported I am sure you would be arguing that they are two separate species. By the way the growth rates are different as is the head and body shape.

Ian,

The head and body shape are fairly similar. I guess that the variant is the commonly encountered abberation in domestic animals the English name of which is perhaps mottled. Nevertheless, you are right that I would not expect that it is the same species.

We can assume that neither the type of Corydoras bondi nor the fish in the image by Julian Dignall are abberations. The former is based on several specimens caught on two separate localities, the latter has been caught also by others in Gran Sabana. Only collecting in Yuruari river can solve the problem.

Josef

[niederle]

We are slightly off topic. My starting remark proved to be well based and therefore the false Corydoras sipaliwini should be removed and replaced.

Josef

[niederle]

The two images listed as C126


in PlanetCatfish gallery also
seem to belong to two different species, one with long transparent fins, the other with short painted fins. It is the same as with the typical Corydoras bondi and the alleged one.

Josef

[Coryman]

niederle.

Disregarding the last post because it is of topic, which if you want to compare then the question should be in a new topic. My post was not off topic, as I explained, it was used to show what can and does happen in species populations.

Your original post referred to the picture from the Cat-eLog labelled as C. sipaliwini.
1. The fish is obviously a female and as such like many female of a species, may very well have a shorter dorsal spine than that of the males of the species, which would eliminate your comment about dorsal length.
2. The fishes actual catching locality is unknown, it was a contaminant and therefore it can only be referred to as C. sp aff sipaliwini.

You have made the statement "resembles the fishes from the Venezuelan part of Guayana Highland." How do we know! do you have images of the fish you are comparing with, if not how can you be certain and more importantly how are we supposed to make any comparisons other than just taking your word as fact, with out factual evidence you don't really have a case.

Although I do not believe the fish to be C. sipaliwini, it is as close to being a female of that species as it is to others.

Ian

[niederle]

Yes, it should be labelled Corydoras sp. aff. sipaliwini or similarly regardless where it comes from. Otherwise the PlanetCatfish gallery will be a source of confusion. Curiously, in Scotcat gallery, the same picture is contained both as Corydoras bondi and as Corydoras sipaliwini.
For me the galleries are source of information, I use them as an identification tool and expect that they are reliable. I would be surprised if your opinion is different.
What concerns the sexual dimorphism, in similar fishes being not necessarily the same species have males longer two first soft rays, not the spine.
I will not start a new topic.

Josef

[Jools]

I've updated the image for C. sipalwini on the site. I guess it's best just not to use Steve Grant's fish as it could be anything and as such isn't very useful

I will not start a new topic.

You should as things will get confused otherwise.

Jools

[Marc van Arc]

For me the galleries are source of information, I use them as an identification tool and expect that they are reliable.

That goes for all of us, don't you think? And I believe everyone involved is doing his/her utmost to achieve that reliability. But you shouldn't forget almost all people here are amateurs, who spend their spare time on PC, trying to make the most of it. Thus mistakes do and may happen imo. That can hardly be something to be ashamed of and in due course things will be straightened out.
With regard to the latter remark I think it's too bad you do not seem to be happy with your own posts: almost one-third is "withdrawn" and several are edited, which make both threads very hard, if not impossible to understand. I'd rather still seen your opinion.
Again, everyone can and may make mistakes. That's how we learn.