PlanetCatfish.com

I just bought a Corydoras yesterday that was labeled as "Corydoras reticulatus". My catfish obviously isn't that, but I'm having a little trouble with it. Maybe someone here can help.



I think I have a Corydoras lamberti, is that right? How commonly are they found in the hobby?

It looks a lot like C09 to me.



(Photo taken from Aqualog All Corydoras)

I was thinking that as well, but C09 is apparently C. cf lamberti, and that cf means that it is likely to be the same species, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I can't see a difference between C. lamberti and C09.
C. lamberti- http://www.nettaigyo.com/corydoras/ency ... berti.html

Thanks, and any further help will be much appreciated.

Judging by the relatively few pictures of Corydoras lamberti I can find, it appears to have a more stout body and more distinct spots (as opposed to reticulations) than C09.

However, some of the online pictures I am finding of C09 look different than the first picture I posted, Having a taller dorsal fin with no black blotch and a more spotted (less reticulated) body pattern.

The range of Corydoras leopardus appears to be closer to that of C09 than Corydoras lamberti, so I would say that it is more likely that the former species be imported as Leopardus.

I took another picture of it tonight:



It isn't that clear and again there is another Corydoras trying to hog the spotlight (those pests!), but you can see that the spotting has darkened up. The first picture was taken on the night I bought the fish, so it was still stressed out.

Is Corydoras lamberti still the prime suspect? Thanks again.

Although the body marking would suggest C. lamberti the caudal marking would not. C. lamberti is also a deep bodied species and does not have the bold vertical bars in the caudal fin that your fish has.

In my new book "Identifying Corydoradinae Catfish" I have featured a picture of the holotype of C. lamberti because there were no specimens to be found in the hobby. The species was described in 1986 and to my knowledge has never been commercially collected.

Question, what is the size of your fish not counting the tail, this could have a major influence because many of the spotted/blotched species go through dramatic colour pattern changes before they reach their full size, so much so that their identities could potentially go through several species. At the moment I would favour a juvenile C18.

Ian

It is just short of four cm SL, and appears to be about one and a half cm wide at its widest point (behind the pectoral fins, midway up on the body).

I think your fish has another 20 mm before it is full grown and I can almost guarantee that the colour pattern will change. I will be interested to see what it looks like in another six months.

Ian

You won't be the only one. Thanks for the pointers on C. lamberti as well. I checked and most sources say that this species only reaches four to four and a half cm in length. If my fish grows beyond that, then I guess C. lamberti will be for sure ruled out.

It's been over three and a half months now, so I guess I'll post an update. The cory in question is about 41.5 mm in length, and is growing slowly. This could be affected by the relatively low temperature in my tank, 23 degrees or so. Two pictures follow:





Ian, I noticed that in a post (http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... highlight=) you noted the possibility that another member's fish might be Corydoras lamberti. I suppose this means that they have been imported at least recently? Once again, I appreciate all help in this matter.

That was my fish you were referring to...they are the same size as yours (SL) and looks a lot like it. All I could find pointed towards C. lamberti, allthough someone in another forum thought it to be C. ambiacus.

But as my/your fish looks a lot like all the pics og C. lamberti and cf. lamberti, then why shouldn't it be? My fish is from Peru, as should C. lamberti be also. It was imported as "Peru II", so it might be a fish that is not so commonly exported? If it was a common fish, it would have been given a proper name?

Well, they definitely aren't C. agassizii. I do think they look a lot like C. lamberti, but then again I'm not very familiar with the fish. I just don't know how likely it is that my fish are actually C. lamberti... Sort of the same case as with true C. julii. I'll post up some more updates in the future, to see if the fish's patterning has altered.