New 🐟 2024 Mercury Safety Guide Now Available. Omega-3 Rankings Updated. View Omega-3 Rankings →

💧 Freshwater Least Concern 🌡️ Tropical

Ewaso Nyiro barb

Enteromius mimus Boulenger, 1912
Max Length
4.6 cm
Max Weight
Lifespan
Trophic Level
3
Depth
Climate
Tropical
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
10.00/100
Typical Length
Depth Zone

📖 Overview

Ewaso Nyiro barb (Enteromius mimus) is a ray-finned fish of the family Cyprinidae. It inhabits freshwater waters. This species can reach a maximum total length of 4.6 cm. With a trophic level of 3, it is a low-level carnivore, feeding on invertebrates and small organisms. It is assessed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List.

Scientific Name
Enteromius mimus
Authority
Boulenger, 1912
Habitat
Freshwater
Climate
Tropical
IUCN Status
LC
Max Length
4.6 cm
Latitude
5°S – 5°N
Trophic Level
3
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
10.00/100
Salinity
0–0.5 ppt

🔬 Taxonomy

🐟 Physical Description

Dorsal spines (total): 0; Dorsal soft rays (total): 10 - 11; Anal spines: 0; Anal soft rays: 8 - 9. Diagnosis: Enteromius mimus belongs to the group of species of Enteromius with a flexible last unbranched dorsal fin ray that lacks serrations along its posterior edge . Enteromius mimus can easily be distinguished from the other species of this group from the East Coast and Nilo-Sudan ichthyofaunal regions by the following combinations of characteristics: a complete lateral line vs. an incomplete lateral line in E. atkinsoni, E. pumilus, E. serengetiensis, E. tongaensis and E. toppini; two pairs of barbels vs. one pair in E. pseudotoppini, and no barbels in E. anema and E. profundus; one to three dark spots on the flanks, which sometimes fuse into a mid-lateral line in preserved specimens, starting posterior to the operculum vs. a dark line running from the tip of the snout to the caudal fin base in E. bifrenatus and E. yongei, and a thin dark line from the beginning of the operculum to the caudal fin base in E. viviparus; 11-12 scales around the caudal peduncle vs. 8 in E. leonensis, 9-10 in E. venustus, and 10 in E. magdalenae and E. yeiensis; 24-27 lateral line scales vs. 30 in E. lineomaculatus, and 31 in E. innocens; 3.5-4.5 scales between the dorsal fin base and the lateral line vs. 5.5 in E. unitaeniatus and 6 in E. usambarae; 3-4 scales between the lateral line and the pelvic fin vs. 2 in E. trispilopleura, and 2-2.5 in E. neglectus; 7-8 branched dorsal fin rays vs. 9 in E. quadripunctatus; a body depth which is larger than the head length vs. a body depth which is equal to the head length in E. nigeriensis; a smaller snout length, 4.1-7.1% of standard length vs. 7.1-10.1% in E. radiatus . It differs from E. perince by a combination of a lower number of lateral line scales, 24-27 vs. 29-30, a lower number of scales between the dorsal fin base and lateral line, 3.5-4.5 vs. 5.5, a lower number of scales around the caudal peduncle, 11-12 vs. 14, a smaller interorbital width, 6.3-8.3% of standard length vs. 9.8-10.2%, a larger pre-pectoral distance, 26.0-29.0% of standard length vs. 23.1-24.5%, a lower minimum caudal peduncle depth, 11.1-14.0% of standard length vs. 15.0-16.4%, a lower maximum caudal peduncle depth, 12.9-16.5% of standard length vs. 17.7-19.4%, and a smaller anal fin base length, 7.3-8.7% of standard length vs. 8.5-9.6% . It differs from E. stigmatopygus by a combination of a smaller pre-pectoral distance, 26.0-29.0% of standard length vs. 29.1-33.1%, and a larger anal fin length, 18.0-19.7% of standard length vs. 12.6-17.4% . Enteromius mimus differs from E. alberti by a lower number of lateral line scales, 24-27 vs. 27-34, a larger pre-anal distance, 68.4-74.8% of standard length vs. 65.1-73.0%, a smaller post-anal distance, 16.3-19.3% of standard length vs. 16.3-24.2%, a larger body depth, 26.5-34.3% of standard length vs. 21.7-31.2%, a larger head depth, 17.8-21.8% of standard length vs. 15.1-19.0%, and a larger pelvic fin length, 18.2-22.4% of standard length vs. 15.0-20.9% . Specimens from E. mimus differ from the specimens of the population of E. cf. mimus from the Lake Edward system by a lower number of scales between the origin of the dorsal fin and the lateral line, 3.5-4.5 vs. 3.5-4.5, a larger pelvic fin length, 18.2-22.4% of standard length vs. 14.4-21.3%, a smaller snout length, 4.1-7.1% of standard length vs. 4.6-8.3%, a smaller interorbital width, 6.3-8.3% of standard length vs. 6.9-9.9%, a larger post-dorsal distance, 34.8-40.4% of standard length vs. 31.0-39.9%, and a larger anal fin length, 18.0-19.7% of standard length vs. 14.4-21.8% .

🌀 Behaviour

Behavioural data for Ewaso Nyiro barb is currently being reviewed.

🦐 Diet

Diet information for Ewaso Nyiro barb is currently being compiled.

🥚 Reproduction

Reproduction data for Ewaso Nyiro barb is currently being compiled.

🌍 Habitat & Distribution

Freshwater; benthopelagic. Tropical; 5°N - 5°S

🌿 Ecology

Zone Preferences
💧 Freshwater
Trophic Level
3±0.3

📐 Morphometrics

Length–Weight Relationship: W = 0.00603 × L3.06 (TL)
Max TL
4.6cm
Dorsal Rays
11
Anal Rays
9

🌡️ Water Parameters & Tolerance

Salinity Range
0–0.5ppt

🛡️ Conservation Assessment

IUCN Category
Least Concern
Assessment Date
2006

📊 Population Risk & Fisheries

Population Resilience
High
Minimum doubling time
Fishing Vulnerability
10.00/100
Low vulnerability
Trophic Level
3
Predator
Climate Zone
Tropical
Latitude Range
5°N – 5°S
Described By
Boulenger, 1912

🌐 Names & Taxonomy

Scientific Synonyms

Scientific Name Author Year Status
Barbus mimus Boulenger 1912 Synonym

🗺️ Global Occurrence Map

Occurrence records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) — 1 records indexed .

Occurrence density from GBIF View GBIF records ↗

👥 Community & Contribute

Aquareap Community Observations
0 Observations logged on Aquareap

No observations yet — be the first to log one!

View all observations for Ewaso Nyiro barb ↗
Suggest an Edit

Spotted incorrect or outdated data? Submit a correction and our editorial team will review it. Approved edits go live within 48 hours.

Link to a scientific paper, FishBase, or other authoritative source
Report an Issue

Found a factual error, broken data, or inappropriate content? Let us know and we will investigate promptly.