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

💧 Freshwater 🌡️ Tropical

Orthochromis Indermauri

Orthochromis indermauri Schedel, Vreven, Katemo Manda, Abwe, Chocha Manda & Schliewen, 2018
Max Length
6.9 cm
Max Weight
Lifespan
Trophic Level
Depth
Climate
Tropical
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
11.00/100
Typical Length
Depth Zone

📖 Overview

Found in part of river which is rocky with some patches of sand and gravel, about 20 meters wide and on average 50 cm deep . This species is benthic-rheophilic and prefers stretches of fast flowing water where it is found between and among large rocks or patches of gravel . It is a maternal mouthbrooder .

Scientific Name
Orthochromis indermauri
Authority
Schedel, Vreven, Katemo Manda, Abwe, Chocha Manda & Schliewen, 2018
Habitat
Freshwater
Climate
Tropical
Body Shape
Fusiform / normal
Max Length
6.9 cm
Resilience
High
Vulnerability
11.00/100
Water Temp
23–28 °C
Salinity
0–0.5 ppt

🐟 Physical Description

Dorsal spines (total): 17 - 18; Dorsal soft rays (total): 8 - 10; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays: 7 - 9; Vertebrae: 28 - 29. Diagnosis: Orthochromis indermauri is distinguished from all species currently placed in Orthochromis, except O. torrenticola, by having hypurals 1 and 2 clearly separated or separated by distinct seam vs. always fused . It is further distinguished from Malagarasi-Orthochromis species, except O. mazimeroensis, O. malagaraziensis, and O. rubrolabialis, by having fewer caudal vertebrae, 14-15 vs. 16-18, and total vertebrae, 28-29 vs. 30-32; it is also distinguished from O. luichensis, O. malagaraziensis, O. mazimeroensis, O. mosoensis by having more inner series of teeth in upper jaw, 3-5 vs. 1-2; moreover, it differs from O. kasuluensis by having fewer anal-fin rays, 7-9 vs. 10; from O. malagaraziensis by having more scales between upper lateral line and dorsal-fin origin, 5-7 vs. 3-4, and by having more ceratobranchial gill rakers, 8-11 vs. 6-7; from O. mazimeroensis by having more abdominal vertebrae, 14-15 vs. 12-13; from O. mosoensis and O. rubrolabialis by having more ceratobranchial gill rakers, 8-11 vs. 5-7, and total gill rakers, 11-15 vs. 8-10; from O. uvinzae by having fewer horizontal line scales, 25-29 vs. 30-32, fewer dorsal-fin spines, 17-18 vs. 19-20, and by position of pterygiophore supporting last dorsal-fin spine, vertebral count 16-17 vs. 18-19 . It is distinguished from O. kalungwishiensis, O. luongoensis, and O. torrenticola by having fewer horizontal line scales, 28-29 vs. 30-32, and by having fewer caudal vertebrae, 14-15 vs. 17-18; further, it differs from O. luongoensis and O. machadoi by having fewer series of scales on cheek, 0-1 vs. 2-5; from O. kalungwishiensis by having fewer total vertebrae, 28-29 vs. 31-33 . It is distinguished from Schwetzochromis neodon by having fewer horizontal line scales, 28-29 vs. 30-31, more circumpeduncular scales, 16 vs. 12, fewer caudal vertebrae, 14-15 vs. 16-17, fewer total vertebrae, 28-29 vs. 30-32, fewer dorsal-fin rays, 8-10 vs. 11-12, and by having hypurals 1 and 2 clearly separated or separated by distinct seam vs. fused; it differs from Haplochromis snoeksi by having fewer scales on cheek, 0-1 vs. 2-3, fewer horizontal line scales, 25-29 vs. 30-31, more abdominal vertebrae, 14-15 vs. 13, fewer caudal vertebrae, 14-15 vs. 17, fewer total vertebrae, 28-29 vs. 30, more anal-fin rays, 7-9 vs. 5-6, more dorsal-fin spines, 17-18 vs. 16, more ceratobranchial gill rakers, 8-11 vs. 6, and total gill rakers, 11-15 vs. 9; from Haplochromis bakongo by having more inner series of teeth, 3-5 vs. 1-2, more dorsal-fin spines, 17-18 vs. 14-15, and in position of pterygiophore supporting last dorsal-fin spine, vertebral count 16-18 vs. 13-14; from Haplochromis moeruensis by having hypurals 1 and 2 clearly separated or separated by distinct seam vs. always fused; meristic values of O. indermauri overlap with those of Haplochromis vanheusdeni but is distinguished in head mask, nostril stripe present vs. absent, caudal corner of cheek with blackish element vs. no such element present, and by size and colouration of eggspot-like maculae on anal fin, deep red centre vs. orange centre in Haplochromis vanheusdeni . It is distinguished from O. mporokoso and O. katumbii by having fewer caudal vertebrae, 14-15 vs. 16-17, fewer total vertebrae, 28-29 vs. 30-31, and by having hypurals 1 and 2 and hypurals 3 and 4 clearly separated or separated by distinct seam vs. always fused; further from O. mporokoso by having fewer series of scales on cheek, 0-1 vs. 2-4; from O. katumbii by having fewer horizontal line scales, 25-29 vs. 30-31; it is distinguished from O. kimpala by having fewer series of scales on cheek, 0-1 vs. 3-4, and by having more dorsal-fin spines, 17-18 vs. 15-16; meristic values of O. indermauri overlap with those of O. gecki but is distinguished by having a wider interorbital width, 13.5-18.2% of head length vs. 9.6-12.9% . : fusiform / normal.

🌀 Behaviour

Behavioural data for Orthochromis Indermauri is currently being reviewed.

🦐 Diet

Diet information for Orthochromis Indermauri is currently being compiled.

🥚 Reproduction

Reproduction data for Orthochromis Indermauri is currently being compiled.

🌍 Habitat & Distribution

Freshwater; benthopelagic; pH range: 8.0 - 8.6. Tropical; 23°C - 28°C

🌿 Ecology

Zone Preferences
💧 Freshwater

📐 Morphometrics

Length–Weight Relationship: W = 0.00389 × L3.12 (TL)
Max TL
6.9cm
Dorsal Spines
18
Dorsal Rays
9
Anal Spines
3
Anal Rays
8
Vertebrae
29

🌡️ Water Parameters & Tolerance

Temperature Range
23–28°C
pH Range
8–8.6
Salinity Range
0–0.5ppt

📊 Population Risk & Fisheries

Population Resilience
High
Minimum doubling time
Fishing Vulnerability
11.00/100
Low vulnerability
Body Shape
Fusiform / normal
Climate Zone
Tropical
Described By
Schedel, Vreven, Katemo Manda, Abwe, Chocha Manda & Schliewen, 2018

👥 Community & Contribute

Aquareap Community Observations
0 Observations logged on Aquareap

No observations yet — be the first to log one!

View all observations for Orthochromis Indermauri ↗
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.