PlanetCatfish.com

Hi,

in the DB there are some pictures wrongly labeled C. nanus.
On the species page pictures 4 & 5 are IMHO for sure no C. nanus.
Pic 3 is quite doubtful, I could imagine that old C. nanus might look like this but given the extreme rarity of this species and the very frequent mis-use of this name I also have doubts.
Pictures 1 & 2 are without any doubt the real one.

Cheers,

So, the question arises, what are the other ones? I agree with the comment, this is a case of "what we always used to call species X" and needing the update in light of current information. But what are the fishes in pictures 4 & 5 (and so probably 3 too)?

Jools

I know this distracts by mixing two separate issues in one thread, but suffering from the same problem... Is the 17th photo of actually ? The position of the lower dark line is just below and parallel to the midlateral seam between the armor scutes. That is consistent with pulcher but inconsistent with all other photos of CW028.

Cheers, Eric

bekateen wrote:I know this distracts by mixing two separate issues in one thread, but suffering from the same problem... Is the 17th photo of

Cw028

actually

Corydoras pulcher

? The position of the lower dark line is just below and parallel to the midlateral seam between the armor scutes. That is consistent with pulcher but inconsistent with all other photos of CW028.

Yes, I agree. I've moved it.

Jools

Thanks Jools. Now to figure out what photos 4 and 5 of nanus are.

Cheers, Eric

Hi,

I do know how C. nanus looks like and that they are not very flexible wrt. pattern.
However, I don't have much own experience with most of the other species and forms of the elegans group. Some species have a quite variable pattern, males and females can look quite different and without origin it's difficult to identify most of them.

The species from pics 4 & 5 looks close to C. napoensis, but I don't really think that they are this one.
The one in pic 4 are looking similar to CW100 and CW105, the other one seems to be closer to CW018 (unlikely) and C 123, but I'm not really convinced of my own suggestions.
I guess Ian could say more about them...

Cheers,

I think these are all moved now.

Jools