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

💧 Freshwater Vulnerable 🐠 Aquarium 🌡️ Tropical

Cardinal Nothobranchius

Nothobranchius cardinalis Watters, Cooper & Wildekamp, 2008
Max Length
2.7 cm
Max Weight
-
Lifespan
-
Trophic Level
3.1
Depth
-
Climate
Tropical
Resilience
-
Vulnerability
10.00/100
Typical Length
-
Depth Zone
pelagic

📖 Overview

Nothobranchius cardinalis is found in residual, ephemeral pools, which would dry up completely on a seasonal basis; except for some grasses on the banks that hung over into the water, the pool of the type locality was devoid of vegetation of any sort; the substrate comprised a thick layer of very fine, soft, black mud . Eggs deposited in the substrate by the adult fish survive therein through the dry season, experiencing numerous phases of development with intervening diapauses; the eggs then hatch at the onset of the following rainy season .

Scientific Name
Nothobranchius cardinalis
Authority
Watters, Cooper & Wildekamp, 2008
Habitat
Freshwater
Climate
Tropical
Body Shape
Fusiform / normal
IUCN Status
VU
Max Length
2.7 cm
Trophic Level
3.1
Vulnerability
10.00/100
Salinity
0–0.5 ppt

🔬 Taxonomy

🐟 Physical Description

Dorsal spines (total): 0; Dorsal soft rays (total): 15 - 16; Anal spines: 0; Anal soft rays: 13 - 14. Diagnosis: The color pattern of males of Nothobranchius cardinalis and N. rubripinnis have some features that are quite similar: red snout; red pectoral, anal, and caudal fins; and narrow black marginal band to the caudal fin . There are, however, some consistent differences: the anal fin of N. rubripinnis has a blue-green background color with red rays and red spots that form irregular transverse bands, especially apparent in the outer, posterior part of the fin, while the anal fin of N. cardinalis is almost a solid red; the pectoral and ventral fins of N. cardinalis are a solid red, whereas in N. rubripinnis these fins are not as intensely coloured and have a translucent quality; the background iridescent blue-green body colour of N. rubripinnis is dominant and the red scale margins are relatively narrow, while in N. cardinalis the red scale margins are much wider, resulting, in some specimens in a dominantly red body; N. rubripinnis always shows a strongly developed, rearward-pointing, chevron pattern on the posterior part of the body, due to the arrangement and slightly increased width of the red scale margins, while in N. cardinalis it is very weakly developed and barely discernible . The principal difference in colour pattern of the females of N. cardinalis and N. rubripinnis is the strong and consistent presence of a rearward-pointing chevron pattern on the rear part of the body of N. rubripinnis, which is most strongly developed on the caudal peduncle and is due to enhanced, dark gray scale margins; on females of N. cardinalis the scale margins on the rear part of the body are pale gray and narrow, and may, in some specimens only, form an almost indiscernible chevron pattern on the caudal peduncle . The principal differences in colour pattern of males of N. annectens when compared to N. cardinalis are: the main body colour of N. annectens is iridescent blue with golden yellow scale margins; in the rear half of the body there is a strongly developed rearward-pointing chevron pattern caused by red scale margins to every second to fourth row of scales, while the scale margins on N. cardinalis are red, wide, and uniform across the body and, if a chevron pattern is present at all, it is barely discernible; the caudal fin of N. annectens is red with a broad black, vertical, marginal bar, quite different to the relative narrow marginal band shown by N. cardinalis; the pectoral ad ventral fins of N. annectens are pale yellow, whereas on N. cardinalis they are a bright solid red; the anal fin of N. annectens is pale blue, grading out into pale yellow in some populations, while the anal fin of N. cardinalis is almost completely red . In contrast to both N. cardinalis and N. rubripinnis, N. annectens lacks the light blue or white margin to the dorsal fin; in N. annectens the dorsal fin margin, if present at all, is always red . Although there is some small overlap in the ranges of some characters, males of N. cardinalis differ morphologically from those of N. rubripinnis by: a lesser snout length, 7.1-7.6% of standard length vs. 8.0-9.4%; a lesser snout to eye end length, 17.3% of standard length vs. 17.6-18.9%; a lesser head length, 28.6-32.4% of standard length vs. 31.4-38.3%; a lesser caudal peduncle depth, 13.1-14.3% of standard length vs. 14.2-15.4%; a lesser caudal peduncle length, 19.8-22.9% of standard length vs. 23.1-25.7%; a greater body width, 17.3-19.5% of standard length vs. 12.9-16.7%; a lesser body depth, 30.1-31.6% of standard length vs. 31.1-35.8%; and a greater body length, 67.5-71.4% of standard length vs. 63.5-68.6% . Morphological characteristics of the female of N. cardinalis compared to those of N. rubripinnis are less distinctive: a greater body width, 18.7% of standard length vs. 13.2-18.8%; a lesser interorbital width, 7.7% of standard length vs. 8.3-13.5%; a shorter snout to eye end length, 16.4% of standard length vs. 16.5-17.4%; a lesser caudal peduncle depth, 10.8% of standard length vs. 11.6-13.2%; and a shorter anal fin base, 12.6% of standard length vs. 14.1-15.1% . The males of N. cardinalis differ in morphology from those of N. annectens by: a greater body width, 17.3% of standard length vs. 14.1-15.0%; a lesser predorsal length, 55.3-57.9% of standard length vs. 56.0-66.7%; a lesser preanal length, 58.2-60.5% of standard length vs. 59.2-66.9%; a lesser number of anal fin rays, 13-14 vs. 15-16; a greater number of scales on the side of the body at the ventral fin position, 12 vs. 11; and a greater number of scales around the caudal peduncle, 16 vs. 14 . The morphological characteristics of the female of N. cardinalis compared to those of N. annectens are more distinctive than for the male: a greater body length, 69.0% of standard length vs. 65.3%; a lesser body depth, 28.3% of standard length vs. 28.5-32.3%; a lesser interorbital width, 7.7% of standard length vs. 11.1-12.7%; a lesser snout length, 5.1% of standard length vs. 5.7-7.9%; a greater preanal length, 67.0% of standard length vs. 59.6-67.3%; a greater prepelvic length, 53.7% of standard length vs. 46.8-53.1%; a lesser caudal peduncle depth, 10.8% of standard length vs. 12.1-14.4%; and a lesser number of anal fins rays, 14 vs. 15-16 . : fusiform / normal.

🌀 Behaviour

Behavioural data for Cardinal Nothobranchius is currently being reviewed.

🦐 Diet

aquatic invertebrates
small fish
algae
detritus

🥚 Reproduction

🐣 Oviparous
Spawning Season
spring
Spawn Location
Substrate
Fertilization
External

Eggs deposited in the substrate by the adult fish survive in the seasonal pool through the dry season, experiencing numerous phases of development with intervening diapauses; the eggs then hatch at the onset of the following rainy season .

🌍 Habitat & Distribution

Freshwater; pelagic. Tropical

🌿 Ecology

Zone Preferences
💧 Freshwater 🐟 Pelagic
Trophic Level
3.1±0.4

📐 Morphometrics

Length–Weight Relationship: W = 0.01122 × L2.94 (TL)
Max TL
2.7cm
Dorsal Rays
16
Anal Rays
14

🌡️ Water Parameters & Tolerance

Salinity Range
0–0.5ppt

🛡️ Conservation Assessment

IUCN Category
Vulnerable
Assessment Date
2018

📊 Population Risk & Fisheries

Fishing Vulnerability
10.00/100
Low vulnerability
Trophic Level
3.1
Predator
Body Shape
Fusiform / normal
Climate Zone
Tropical
Described By
Watters, Cooper & Wildekamp, 2008

🌐 Names & Taxonomy

Language Common Names
🇬🇧English Cardinal Panchax
🌍CES halančík kardinálský

🗺️ Global Occurrence Map

Occurrence records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) - 2 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 Cardinal Nothobranchius ↗
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.