Enteromius Thespesios

📖 Overview

Overview information for Enteromius Thespesios is currently being compiled by our editorial team.

🔬 Taxonomy

🐟 Physical Description

Dorsal spines (total): 0; Dorsal soft rays (total): 11; Anal spines: 0; Anal soft rays: 8; Vertebrae: 34. Diagnosis: Enteromius thespesios belongs to the group of Enteromius species from the Congo basin of which the last unbranched dorsal-fin ray is weakly ossified, flexible and lacking serrations along its posterior edge . It can be easily distinguished from all other members of this group by the following unique combination of characters: two pairs of barbels vs. no barbels in Enteromius aspilus, E. baudoni, E. brazzai, E. carens, E. erythrozonus, E. haasianus, E. jae, E. stigmatopygus and E. toppini and a single pair of barbels in Enteromius brevidorsalis, E. candens, E. hulstaerti, E. nigrifilis, E. owenae, E. papilio and E. syntrechalepis; one prominent dark vertical bar situated behind gill-opening vs. a series of 10-15 black vertical bars on body in E. fasciolatus; no spots on flanks vs. well-defined spots on flanks in E. atromaculatus, E. barotseensis, E. camptacanthus, E. castrasibutum, E. collarti, E. lornae, E. lukusiensis, E. neefi, E. stanleyi, E. tetrastigma, E. trispilomimus and E. urostigma; a series of crescent-like spots along lateral line vs. a well-marked continuous black band running from snout to caudal fin base in E. ablabes, E. luluae, E. kessleri, E. lamani, E. macrops and E. radiatus; lateral line complete vs. lateral line incomplete in E. brachygramma and E. lujae; 23-26 lateral line scales vs. 21 in E. okae, 21-22 in E. pygmaeus, 20-22 in E. stigmasemion, 27-29 in E. bifrenatus, 30 in E. caudosignatus, 29-32 in E. cercops, 28 in E. citrinus, 32-33 in E. deguidei, 29-33 in E. innocens, 27-30 in E. kamolondoensis, 30-32 in E. lineomaculatus, 28-29 in E. marmoratus, 32-33 in E. mocoensis, 33-37 in E. motebensis, 31-33 in E. poechii, 27-30 in E. quadrilineatus, 27-29 in E. taeniopleura and 29-35 in E. unitaeniatus; and 11-12 circumpeduncular scales vs. 8-10 in E. amanpoae, 10 in E. humeralis and 8 in E. lufukiensis . Enteromius thespesios differs from E. tshopoensis by a long dorsal-fin length, 27.1-35.6% of standard length, vs. shorter, 22.3-24.0% of standard length, and by a large body depth, 29.4-34.1% of standard length, vs. smaller, 18.0-20.4% of standard length; it differs from E. validus by a dorsal fin without a conspicuous black tip vs. dorsal fin with a conspicuous black tip, a small eye diameter, 25.5-33.1% of head length, vs. larger, 37.2-46.9% of head length, and a small body depth, 22.2-24.6% of standard length, vs. larger, 26.3-35.5% of standard length . Finally, E. thespesios besides its high number of circumpeduncular scales, 11-12 vs. lower, 10, is further distinguished from E. humeralis by its small eye diameter, 25.5-33.1% of head length, vs. larger, 33.8-41.2% of head length; short anterior barbel length, 22.2-33.1% of head length, vs. longer, 35.1-45.0% of head length; short posterior barbel length, 25.9-32.0% of head length, vs. longer, 34.2-44.6% of head length, and its short, dorsal fin length, 22.3-24.0% of standard length, vs. 24.0-27.3% of head length . : fusiform / normal.

🌀 Behaviour

Behavioural data for Enteromius Thespesios is currently being reviewed.

🦐 Diet

Diet information for Enteromius Thespesios is currently being compiled.

🥚 Reproduction

Reproduction data for Enteromius Thespesios is currently being compiled.

🌍 Habitat & Distribution

Freshwater; benthopelagic; pH range: 7.9 - 8.7. Tropical; 25°C - 28°C

🌿 Ecology

📐 Morphometrics

🌡️ Water Parameters & Tolerance

📊 Population Risk & Fisheries

🐠 Related Species

🔍 Similar Species

👥 Community & Contribute