You can sponsor this page

Orthochromis mporokoso Schedel, Vreven, Katemo Manda, Abwe, Chocha Manda & Schliewen, 2018

Upload your photos and videos
Google image
Image of Orthochromis mporokoso
No image available for this species;
drawing shows typical species in Cichlidae.

Classification / Names Common names | Synonyms | Catalog of Fishes(genus, species) | ITIS | CoL | WoRMS | Cloffa

Teleostei (teleosts) > Cichliformes (Cichlids, convict blennies) > Cichlidae (Cichlids) > Pseudocrenilabrinae
Etymology: Orthochromis: Greek, ortho = straight + Greek, chromis = a fish, perhaps a perch (Ref. 45335)mporokoso: The species name mporokoso is derived from Mporokoso, a town in the Northern Province of Zambia, near the type locality of the species; a noun in apposition (Ref. 122085).

Environment: milieu / climate zone / depth range / distribution range Ecology

Freshwater; benthopelagic; pH range: 6.7 - 7.3. Tropical; 19°C - 20°C (Ref. 122085)

Distribution Countries | FAO areas | Ecosystems | Occurrences | Point map | Introductions | Faunafri

Africa: Kasinsha stream, Lake Mweru drainage, in Zambia (Ref. 122085).

Size / Weight / Age

Maturity: Lm ?  range ? - ? cm
Max length : 7.5 cm SL male/unsexed; (Ref. 122085)

Short description Identification keys | Morphology | Morphometrics

Dorsal spines (total): 16 - 17; Dorsal soft rays (total): 9 - 10; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays: 7 - 9; Vertebrae: 30. Diagnosis: Orthochromis mporokoso can be readily distinguished from all species currently placed in Orthochromis and O. sp. "Igamba" from the Malagarasi drainage system by having more scale rows on cheek, 2-4 vs. 0-1 (Ref. 122085). Furthermore, O. mporokoso can be distinguished from O. kasuluensis, O. mosoensis, and O. rugufuensis by having more scales on operculum, 3-4 vs. 0-2; from O. kasuluensis by having fewer total vertebrae, 30 vs. 31-32; from O. rugufuensis by fewer dorsal-fin spines, 6-17 vs. 19; from O. mazimeroensis by more horizontal line scales, 29-30 vs. 26-28, more abdominal vertebrae, 14 vs. 12-13, and more total vertebrae, 30 vs. 28-29; from O. rubrolabialis and O. uvinzae by fewer dorsal-fin spines, 16-17 vs. 18-20; it has more total gill rakers than O. rubrolabialis, 10-12 vs. 8-9, and differs in position of pterygiophore supporting last dorsal-fin spine, vertebral count 16 vs. 17-18 (Ref. 122085). It differs from O. uvinzae additionally by having fewer scales between upper lateral line and dorsal-fin origin, 4-5 vs. 6-8, fewer abdominal vertebrae, 14 vs. 15-16, fewer total vertebrae, 30 vs. 31-33, position of pterygiophore supporting last dorsal-fin spine, vertebral count 16 vs. 18-19, position of pterygiophore supporting last anal-fin spine, vertebral count 14-15 vs. 16-17; from O. luongoensis and O. torrenticola by having fewer caudal vertebrae, 16 vs. 17-18, and total vertebrae, 30 vs. 31-33; from O. kalungwishiensis by having fewer total vertebrae, 30 vs. 31-33, and fewer horizontal line scales, 29-30 vs. 31-32; from O. torrenticola additionally by having fewer anal-fin spines, 3 vs. 4, and position of pterygiophore supporting last anal-fin spine, vertebral count 14-15 vs. 16-17 (Ref. 122085). It can be distinguished from O. stormsi and O. polyacanthus by having fewer scales between upper lateral line and dorsal-fin origin, 4-5 vs. 6-9; in addition, it is distinguished from O. stormsi by having more horizontal line scales, 29-30 vs. 26-28, more total vertebrae, 30 vs. 28-29, and fewer total gill rakers, 10-12 vs. 13-15; from O. polyacanthus by having more series of scales on cheek, 2-4 vs. 0, fewer dorsal-fin spines, 16-17 vs. 18-20, and in position of pterygiophore supporting last dorsal-fin spine, vertebral count 16 vs. 17-18, as in position of pterygiophore supporting last anal-fin spine, vertebral count 14-15 vs. 16-17 (Ref. 122085). Meristic values of O. mporokoso overlap with those of O. machadoi, but it can be readily distinguished by having more vertical bars on flanks, 13-15 vs. 9-10, which moreover extend mainly ventrally; those of O. machadoi extend mainly dorsally; in addition, it is distinguished in head mask pattern, i.e. V-shape nostril stripe in O. mporokoso vs. straight nostril stripe in O. machadoi; cheek stripe present vs. absent in O. machadoi (Ref. 122085). It differs from Schwetzochromis neodon by ahving more circumpeduncular scales, 16 vs. 12, fewer inner series of teeth, 1-3 vs. 4-6, and fewer dorsal-fin rays, 9-10 vs. 11-12; it differs from Haplochromis bakongo and Haplochromis moeruensis by having more horizontal line scales, 29-30 vs. 26-28, more caudal vertebrae, 16 vs. 12-15, and more total vertebrae, 30 vs. 26-29; additionally, it is distinguished from H. moeruensis by having more upper lateral line scales, 21-23 vs. 19-20; from H. bakongo by having more dorsal-fin spines, 16-17 vs. 14-15, and in position of pterygiophore supporting last dorsal-fin spine, vertebral count 16 vs. 13-14; and from H. snoeksi it is distinguished by having more abdominal vertebrae, 14 vs. 13, fewer caudal vertebrae, 16 vs. 17, more anal-fin rays, 7-9 vs. 5-6, more total gill rakers, 10-12 vs. 9, and in position of pterygiophore supporting last dorsal-fin spine, vertebral count 16 vs. 15, and position pterygiophore supporting last anal-fin spine, vertebral count 14-15 vs. 13 (Ref. 122085). Meristic values of O. mporokoso overlap with those of Haplochromis vanheusdeni, but it lacks eggspots, has a nostril stripe vs. absent in H. vanheusdeni, exhibits a cheek stripe vs. absent in H. vanheusdeni, and has a higher number of vertical bars on flank, 13-15 vs. 6-7 (Ref. 122085). It differs from O. kimpala by having fewer scales between upper lateral line and dorsal-fin origin, 4-5 vs. 6-7; from O. indermauri by having more series of scales on the cheek, 2-4 vs. 0-1, more caudal vertebrae, 16 vs. 14-15, and more total vertebrae, 30 vs. 28-29 (Ref. 122085). Meristic values of O. mporokoso overlap with those of O. katumbii but former differs by having more vertical bars on flank, 13-15 vs. 7-9, and by head mask pattern, cheek stripe present vs. absent in O. katumbii; meristic values of O. mporokoso overlap with those of O. gecki but former is distinguished by having much wide interorbital, 1.3-19.5% of head length vs. 9.6-12.9%, and by lacking eggspots on anal fin vs. present in O. gecki (Ref. 122085).

Biology     Glossary (e.g. epibenthic)

A benthic-rheophilic species (Ref. 122085).

Life cycle and mating behavior Maturity | Reproduction | Spawning | Eggs | Fecundity | Larvae

Main reference Upload your references | References | Coordinator : Kullander, Sven O. | Collaborators

Schedel, F.D.B., E.J.W.M.N. Vreven, B. Katemo Manda, E. Abwe, A. Chocha Manda and U.K. Schliewen, 2018. Description of five new rheophilic Orthochromis species (Teleostei: Cichlidae) from the Upper Congo drainage in Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Zootaxa 4461(3):301-349. (Ref. 122085)

IUCN Red List Status (Ref. 130435: Version 2024-1)


CITES

Not Evaluated

CMS (Ref. 116361)

Not Evaluated

Threat to humans

  Harmless





Human uses

FAO - Publication: search | FishSource |

More information

Trophic ecology
Food items
Diet composition
Food consumption
Food rations
Predators
Ecology
Ecology
Population dynamics
Growth parameters
Max. ages / sizes
Length-weight rel.
Length-length rel.
Length-frequencies
Mass conversion
Recruitment
Abundance
Life cycle
Reproduction
Maturity
Maturity/Gills rel.
Fecundity
Spawning
Spawning aggregations
Eggs
Egg development
Larvae
Larval dynamics
Distribution
Countries
FAO areas
Ecosystems
Occurrences
Introductions
BRUVS - Videos
Anatomy
Gill area
Brain
Otolith
Physiology
Body composition
Nutrients
Oxygen consumption
Swimming type
Swimming speed
Visual pigments
Fish sound
Diseases & Parasites
Toxicity (LC50s)
Genetics
Genetics
Heterozygosity
Heritability
Human related
Aquaculture systems
Aquaculture profiles
Strains
Ciguatera cases
Stamps, coins, misc.
Outreach
Collaborators
Taxonomy
Common names
Synonyms
Morphology
Morphometrics
Pictures
References
References

Tools

Special reports

Download XML

Internet sources

AFORO (otoliths) | Aquatic Commons | BHL | Cloffa | BOLDSystems | Websites from users | Check FishWatcher | CISTI | Catalog of Fishes: genus, species | DiscoverLife | ECOTOX | FAO - Publication: search | Faunafri | Fishipedia | Fishtrace | GenBank: genome, nucleotide | GloBI | Google Books | Google Scholar | Google | IGFA World Record | MitoFish | Otolith Atlas of Taiwan Fishes | PubMed | Reef Life Survey | Socotra Atlas | Tree of Life | Wikipedia: Go, Search | World Records Freshwater Fishing | Zoobank | Zoological Record

Estimates based on models

Phylogenetic diversity index (Ref. 82804):  PD50 = No PD50 data   [Uniqueness, from 0.5 = low to 2.0 = high].
Bayesian length-weight: a=0.01000 (0.00244 - 0.04107), b=3.04 (2.81 - 3.27), in cm total length, based on all LWR estimates for this body shape (Ref. 93245).
Resilience (Ref. 120179):  High, minimum population doubling time less than 15 months (Preliminary K or Fecundity.).
Fishing Vulnerability (Ref. 59153):  Low vulnerability (10 of 100).