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

💧 Freshwater Least Concern 🐠 Aquarium 🌡️ Tropical

Haplochromis Mentatus

Haplochromis mentatus Regan, 1925
Max Length
11.5 cm
Max Weight
-
Lifespan
-
Trophic Level
3.3
Depth
-
Climate
Tropical
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
14.00/100
Typical Length
-
Depth Zone
-

📖 Overview

Found in offshore areas, mostly in shallow waters . Based on its morphology, most probably a piscivorous species .

Scientific Name
Haplochromis mentatus
Authority
Regan, 1925
Habitat
Freshwater
Climate
Tropical
IUCN Status
LC
Max Length
11.5 cm
Trophic Level
3.3
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
14.00/100
Salinity
0–0.5 ppt

🔬 Taxonomy

Kingdom
Animalia
Phylum
Chordata
Class
Teleostei
Teleostei
Order
Cichliformes
Cichliformes
Family
Cichlidae
Cichlidae
Genus
Haplochromis
Haplochromis
Species
Haplochromis Mentatus
Haplochromis mentatus

🐟 Physical Description

Dorsal spines (total): 15 - 16; Dorsal soft rays (total): 9 - 10; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays: 8 - 9; Vertebrae: 30 - 32. Diagnosis: Species with a piscivorous morphology; body shallow, body depth 29.0-32.3% of standard length; snout very acute in dorsal and lateral views; outer oral teeth few and large, number of upper outer teeth 28-46; vertebrae many, 30-32; dominant males yellow-green with a red anterior part of flank . Amongst piscivorous species from the Lake Edward system, Haplochromis mentatus differs from H. latifrons by the combination of a longer dorsal fin base, dorsal-fin base 50.3-54.2% of standard length vs. 47.2-50.1%; a weakly vs. strongly prominent premaxillary pedicel; a steeper sloping lower jaw side, 30-45° vs. 25-30°; and absence vs. presence of a well-defined mid-lateral band . It differs from H. rex and H. aquila by the combination of a longer caudal peduncle, caudal peduncle length 15.7-17.5% of standard length vs. 13.5-16.2%; a gentler sloping snout, 30-35° vs. 35-50°; and dominant males yellow-green with a red anterior part of flank vs. cream-coloured with an orange operculum, or light grey with a black head, respectively; further from H. rex by a lower number of infraorbital cheek scales, 3-4 vs. 5-6, rarely 4 or 7; further from H. aquila by smaller eyes, eye diameter 25.4-29.9% of head length vs. 30.0-31.5% . It differs from H. simba by the combination of a broader interorbital area, interorbital width 51.3-61.0% of head width vs. 45.5-50.4%; a larger number of outer upper jaw teeth, 28-46 vs. 22-31; absent to weakly prominent vs. strongly prominent premaxillary pedicel and mentum; and dominant males yellow-green with a red anterior part of flank vs. yellow with an orange anterior part of flank . It differs from H. glaucus by the combination of a longer caudal peduncle, caudal peduncle length 15.7-17.5% of standard length vs. 13.4-16.1%; a narrower lower pharyngeal bone, lower pharyngeal width 83.6-85.7% of lower pharyngeal length vs. 93.3-95.1%; a slightly shorter pre-pectoral distance, 33.1-38.2% of standard length vs. 36.4-39.4%; and dominant males yellow-green with a red anterior part of flank vs. uniformly blue . It differs from H. kimondo and H. quasimodo by the combination of a narrower head, head width 39.4-42.3% of head length vs. 42.0-48.1%; and dominant males yellow-green with a red anterior part of flank vs. grey dorsally and yellow or blue-black ventrally; further from H. kimondo by a very acute vs. blunt snout, and a gentler sloping snout, 30-35° vs. 40-50°; further from H. quasimodo by a shallower body, body depth 27.2-30.1% of standard length vs. 33.5-41.7% . It differs from H. falcatus by the combination of a shorter predorsal distance, 33.3-36.4% of standard length vs. 36.9-41.1%; a shorter head, head length 33.4-37.0% of standard length vs. 36.6-39.6%; straight to weakly recurved vs. strongly recurved outer oral teeth, a steeper lower jaw side, 30-45° vs. 15-25°; absence vs. presence of well-defined mid-lateral and dorsal-lateral bands . It differs from H. curvidens and H. pardus by the combination of a deeper lacrimal, 18.1-20.9% of head length vs. 16.0-18.3%; and smaller eyes, eye diameter 25.4-29.9% of headclength vs. 29.4-34.1%; further from H. pardus by dominant males yellow-green with a red anterior part of flank vs. speckled to uniformly black . It differs from H. squamipinnis by the combination of large vs. small outer oral teeth and a smaller number of outer upper jaw teeth, 28-46 vs. 46-71; a shallower body, body depth 29.0-32.3% of standard length vs. 32.4-39.3%; absence vs. presence of minute scales on proximal part of dorsal fin; and dominant males yellow-green with a red anterior part of flank vs. uniformly slate blue .

🌀 Behaviour

Behavioural data for Haplochromis Mentatus is currently being reviewed.

🦐 Diet

aquatic invertebrates
small fish
algae
detritus

🥚 Reproduction

🐣 Oviparous 👄 Mouth Brooder 🛡️ Egg Guarder
Spawning Season
spring
Spawn Location
Substrate
Fertilization
External

Mouthbrooding by females.

🌍 Habitat & Distribution

Freshwater; benthopelagic. Tropical; 0° - 1°S endemic to Lake Edward system (Ref.

🌿 Ecology

Zone Preferences
💧 Freshwater
Trophic Level
3.3±0.4

📐 Morphometrics

Length–Weight Relationship: W = 0.00389 × L3.12 (TL)
Max TL
11.5cm
Dorsal Spines
16
Dorsal Rays
10
Anal Spines
3
Anal Rays
9
Vertebrae
31

🌡️ Water Parameters & Tolerance

Salinity Range
0–0.5ppt

🛡️ Conservation Assessment

IUCN Category
Least Concern
Assessment Date
2021

📊 Population Risk & Fisheries

Population Resilience
High
Minimum doubling time
Fishing Vulnerability
14.00/100
Low vulnerability
Trophic Level
3.3
Predator
Climate Zone
Tropical
Described By
Regan, 1925

🌐 Names & Taxonomy

Scientific Synonyms

Scientific Name Author Year Status
Harpagochromis mentatus Regan 1925 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 Haplochromis Mentatus ↗
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.