lthough similar in looks, habits
and often confused by the aquarist, Corydoras hastatus
and C. pygmaeus, Knaack,1966 have differing reproductive
modes. Previous efforts to induce C. hastatus
to spawn have met with no success, although spawning
of their own volition had been observed in my Corydoras
community tank, where two young C. hastatus have
been produced over a six-month period.
hastatus may not have spawned in the prepared tank
because only ten fish were available - 5 males, 3 females
and 2 juvenile fish. This I felt was a little low in
numbers as C. hastatus are a naturally shoaling
My total stock of 10 C. hastatus were introduced
into a 61cm x 25cm x 25cm tank filled to 10cm with stock
tank water (pH 6.87 Temp. 72°F). Substrate was Dorset
pea and sandy outcrops. The tank was planted with different
Cryptocoryne's and pieces of bogwood. After the fish
were introduced the tank was topped up with fresh tap
water - Temp. 72°F. the tank was lit by room lighting.
A week and several water changes later, the C. hastatus
were very inactive. All of them were hiding at the rear
of the tank and were seldom seen shoaling in the normal
manner. This action was expected. I decided to introduce
10 C. pygmaeus. This should lift the C. hastatus
off the gravel and make them feel more at ease.
It had paid off. Both C. hastatus and C.pygmaeus
were shoaling together and feeding well. Water conditions
were pH 6.8, temp. 72°F.
The fish have been observed for the past few days and
the extra fish have made a great difference.
C.pygmaeus spawned, laying 40 - 50 eggs on the
front glass and on the plants. The spawning was typical
of C. aeneus (Gill,1858) and C. paleatus
(Jenyns, 1842)., i.e. plenty of activity. The C.
pygmaeus were not removed as the C. hastatus
have become very active and the eggs were not being
eaten. Checking the tank that evening, 5 male C.
hastatus were seen chasing one female. There was
a very interesting point the female's eyes were completely
black. The iris was not visible - only the pupils could
be seen and they were jet black. The males chased the
female for 2 hours and no eggs were laid. I was ready
to give up when I noticed the female with one very small
egg held firmly in her ventral fins. Actual delivery
of the egg was not seen, but the males were all quivering
round her at this time. (The other females were shoaling
C. pygmaeus and their eyes were normal. With
the egg cradled in her ventral fins, she then began
to swim over and under the plant leaves with the males
in close pursuit. They seemed to be cleaning the leaves.
She swam around with the one egg for half an hour, before
depositing it under a plant leaf. I am quite sure only
one egg was laid at this time.
This spawning activity has continued in the evening
for 2 weeks. Only one female spawning at a time, and
laying only one egg. Whether or nor it is the same female
each time is hard to tell as they are all similar in
size. During the period when the C. hastatus
spawned, fry were seen in the tank. They were silver
in colour with 2 - 4 dark patches along the back. Some
had a distinct black patch through the caudal peduncle.
As the fry grew, 4 C.hastatus fry of varying
sizes were seen swimming with the 30 C. pygmaeus
1) To date (mid- March). The
C. pygmaaeus have not spawned again, but still
the odd C. hastatus appears. Could the C.
hastatus be a periodic spawner, as are some of the
Julidochromis species from Lake Tanganyika?
2) The eyes of the spawning female
turned completely black. The gold iris vanished and
the full eye appeared black.
3) The growth rate of the C.
hastatus is quicker than that of C. pygmaeus.
The older C.hastatus are 1cm whereas the 30 C.pygmaeus
are under 6mm.
4) Feeding: Powder food was fed
as soon as the first fry were seen and thereafter every
day in small quantities for any newly hatched fry. Brine
shrimp and micro worm were fed along with normal daily
food for adult fish.
5) Regarding the high mortality
rate reported by some aquarists, which can occur at
4/ 6 weeks period, i.e. the fry will try to lift to
the water surface and spin to the bottom (water depth
does not matter). The fry were very weak and wasting
away and would die in a week. The size of the fry seems
to be the important factor - not the age. I have a few
a) At first I thought that a nutritional deficiency
was the trouble. If the fry were left with the parents
the high mortality rate did not occur. Perhaps the parents
helped feed the fry, or they received nutrition from
mulm caused by the parents. Of course you will lose
some due to the parents eating fry or eggs. No deaths
occurred. Could the fry be developing their secondary
breathing system and getting chilled (as do anabantids
when the labyrinth organ is developing). Lately, a very
high success rate with C. barbatus (Quoy &
Gaimard,1824) and C. aeneus, with the parents
removed, perhaps the tanks were higher than normally
used and so water and air temperature were not equal
Or can it be put down to bad management.
This article first appeared in
the Catfish Association of Great Britain Newsletter
Photo Credit: Allan James @