New 🐟 Mercury Safety Guide & Omega-3 Rankings Updated for 2026. View Omega-3 Rankings →

💧 Freshwater 🌡️ Tropical

Enteromius Radari

Enteromius radari Kisekelwa, Snoeks, Decru, Schedel, Isumbisho & Vreven, 2022
Max Length
8.7 cm
Max Weight
-
Lifespan
-
Trophic Level
3
Depth
-
Climate
Tropical
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
16.00/100
Typical Length
-
Depth Zone
-

📖 Overview

Found in shallow areas, about 1 m of depth, of small streams, about 1-10 m width, under tree canopy cover; the bottom is composed of either silt, sand, gravel, or a combination with mud and detritus .

Scientific Name
Enteromius radari
Authority
Kisekelwa, Snoeks, Decru, Schedel, Isumbisho & Vreven, 2022
Habitat
Freshwater
Climate
Tropical
Max Length
8.7 cm
Trophic Level
3
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
16.00/100
Water Temp
23–23 °C
Salinity
0–0.5 ppt

🐟 Physical Description

Dorsal spines (total): 0; Dorsal soft rays (total): 10 - 11; Anal spines: 0; Anal soft rays: 8; Vertebrae: 31 - 33. Diagnosis: Within the Congo basin, Enteromius radari belongs to the group of sawfin minnows with a thickened last unbranched dorsal-fin ray and is thereby distinguished from all congeners from the Congo basin with a soft last unbranched dorsal-fin ray . It differs from other species with a weakly thickened spine, notably E. mediosquamatus, E. taeniurus and E. tomiensis, by its serrations on the spine vs. unserrated dorsal spine . Within the group of the sawfin minnows, having a thickened spine with serrations, it differs from E. afrovernayi, E. apleurogramma, E. oligogrammus and E. petchkovskyi by its complete lateral line vs. incomplete; in addition, it differs from E. apleurogramma and E. oligogrammus by its weakly thickened dorsal spine vs. a strongly thickened, and further by its lower number of lateral line scales from E. afrovernayi, 22-26 vs. 29-32; it differs from the remaining sawfin minnows by its weakly thickened, thin dorsal spine of which only the middle part is weakly serrated, vs. a strongly thickened, stout spine, well serrated over almost its entire length in E. ansorgii, E. eutaenia, E. kerstenii as well as E. tangandensis, E. mattozi, E. miiolepis, E.neumayeri, E. pellegrini and E. trinotatus; it can further be distinguished from E. pellegrini by its lower number of lateral line scales, 22-26 vs. 28-30; it can be distinguished from E. afrohamiltoni, E. lukindae, E. neumayeri, E. paludinosus, E. trimaculatus and E. vanderysti by its lower number of lateral line scales, 22-26 vs. 29-33, 29-30, 30-31, 34-39, 30-36 and 29, respectively . Furthermore, based on its colour pattern, E. radari can be distinguished from E. eutaenia, E. devosi, E. miolepis and E. luikae by the presence of three or four blotces along the flanks, situated just above the lateral line, and interconnected or not by a narrow, sometimes inconspicuous, black stripe vs. a permanent, continuous, black mid-lateral band; E. radari can be distinguished from E. guirali and E. machadoi as well, by the presence of these black markings along the body flanks vs. absence; E. radari can be distinguished from E. multilineatus and E. trinotatus also, by the above black marking character vs. a large black, mid-lateral band on the body but with several thin longitudinal black bands above and below this main band, and three elongated, narrow black spots respectively . Within the group of Enteromius species with a weakly thickened, serrated spine, it differs from E. chicapaensis and E. chiumbeensis by its higher number of lateral line scales, 22-26 vs. 21-23 and 20-21, respectively; in addition, it differs from E. chicapaensis by the presence of a series of three or four black blotches just above the mid-lateral line of the body vs. absence; furthermore, within this group it differs from E. holotaenia and E. martorelli by a series of three or four black blotches just above the mid-lateral line of the body vs. a continuous black band; finally, E. radari differs clearly from E. janssensi by the absence of cephalic pitlines vs. presence, and by the presence of blotches vs. indistinct black band larger on the anterior part and narrowing at mid-body level, by its lower number of lateral line scales, 22-26 vs. 24-27, and its lower number of circumpeduncular scales, 10-12 vs. 12 .

🌀 Behaviour

Behavioural data for Enteromius Radari is currently being reviewed.

🦐 Diet

Diet information for Enteromius Radari is currently being compiled.

🥚 Reproduction

Reproduction data for Enteromius Radari is currently being compiled.

🌍 Habitat & Distribution

Freshwater; benthopelagic; pH range: 6.5 - 7.0. Tropical; 23°C - 23°C

🌿 Ecology

Zone Preferences
💧 Freshwater
Trophic Level
3±0.3

📐 Morphometrics

Length–Weight Relationship: W = 0.01096 × L3.02 (TL)
Max TL
8.7cm
Dorsal Rays
11
Anal Rays
8
Vertebrae
32

🌡️ Water Parameters & Tolerance

Temperature Range
23–23°C
pH Range
6.5–7
Salinity Range
0–0.5ppt

📊 Population Risk & Fisheries

Population Resilience
High
Minimum doubling time
Fishing Vulnerability
16.00/100
Low vulnerability
Trophic Level
3
Predator
Climate Zone
Tropical
Described By
Kisekelwa, Snoeks, Decru, Schedel, Isumbisho & Vreven, 2022

👥 Community & Contribute

Aquareap Community Observations
0 Observations logged on Aquareap

No observations yet - be the first to log one!

View all observations for Enteromius Radari ↗
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.