You can sponsor this page

Enteromius mimus (Boulenger, 1912)

Ewaso Nyiro barb
Upload your photos and videos
Pictures | Google image
Image of Enteromius mimus (Ewaso Nyiro barb)
Enteromius mimus
Picture by NMK

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

Teleostei (teleosts) > Cypriniformes (Carps) > Cyprinidae (Minnows or carps) > Smiliogastrinae
Etymology: Enteromius: Greek, enteron = intestine + Greek, myo, mys = muscle (Ref. 45335);  mimus: The specific epithet 'mimus' means 'imitator', a reference to the 'striking resemblance' to Enteromius neglectus (Ref. 127947).
More on author: Boulenger.

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

Freshwater; benthopelagic. Tropical; 5°N - 5°S

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

Africa: Northern Ewaso Nyiro below the falls and Tana River system, Kenya (Ref. 52331, 127947).

Size / Weight / Age

Maturity: Lm ?  range ? - ? cm
Max length : 4.6 cm SL male/unsexed; (Ref. 127947)

Short description Identification keys | Morphology | Morphometrics

Dorsal spines (total): 0; Dorsal soft rays (total): 10 - 11; Anal spines: 0; Anal soft rays: 8 - 9. Diagnosis: Enteromius mimus belongs to the group of species of Enteromius with a flexible last unbranched dorsal fin ray that lacks serrations along its posterior edge (Ref. 127947). Enteromius mimus can easily be distinguished from the other species of this group from the East Coast and Nilo-Sudan ichthyofaunal regions by the following combinations of characteristics: a complete lateral line vs. an incomplete lateral line in E. atkinsoni, E. pumilus, E. serengetiensis, E. tongaensis and E. toppini; two pairs of barbels vs. one pair in E. pseudotoppini, and no barbels in E. anema and E. profundus; one to three dark spots on the flanks, which sometimes fuse into a mid-lateral line in preserved specimens, starting posterior to the operculum vs. a dark line running from the tip of the snout to the caudal fin base in E. bifrenatus and E. yongei, and a thin dark line from the beginning of the operculum to the caudal fin base in E. viviparus; 11-12 scales around the caudal peduncle vs. 8 in E. leonensis, 9-10 in E. venustus, and 10 in E. magdalenae and E. yeiensis; 24-27 lateral line scales vs. 30 in E. lineomaculatus, and 31 in E. innocens; 3.5-4.5 scales between the dorsal fin base and the lateral line vs. 5.5 in E. unitaeniatus and 6 in E. usambarae; 3-4 scales between the lateral line and the pelvic fin vs. 2 in E. trispilopleura, and 2-2.5 in E. neglectus; 7-8 branched dorsal fin rays vs. 9 in E. quadripunctatus; a body depth which is larger than the head length vs. a body depth which is equal to the head length in E. nigeriensis; a smaller snout length, 4.1-7.1% of standard length vs. 7.1-10.1% in E. radiatus (Ref. 127947). It differs from E. perince by a combination of a lower number of lateral line scales, 24-27 vs. 29-30, a lower number of scales between the dorsal fin base and lateral line, 3.5-4.5 vs. 5.5, a lower number of scales around the caudal peduncle, 11-12 vs. 14, a smaller interorbital width, 6.3-8.3% of standard length vs. 9.8-10.2%, a larger pre-pectoral distance, 26.0-29.0% of standard length vs. 23.1-24.5%, a lower minimum caudal peduncle depth, 11.1-14.0% of standard length vs. 15.0-16.4%, a lower maximum caudal peduncle depth, 12.9-16.5% of standard length vs. 17.7-19.4%, and a smaller anal fin base length, 7.3-8.7% of standard length vs. 8.5-9.6% (Ref. 127947). It differs from E. stigmatopygus by a combination of a smaller pre-pectoral distance, 26.0-29.0% of standard length vs. 29.1-33.1%, and a larger anal fin length, 18.0-19.7% of standard length vs. 12.6-17.4% (Ref. 127947). Enteromius mimus differs from E. alberti by a lower number of lateral line scales, 24-27 vs. 27-34, a larger pre-anal distance, 68.4-74.8% of standard length vs. 65.1-73.0%, a smaller post-anal distance, 16.3-19.3% of standard length vs. 16.3-24.2%, a larger body depth, 26.5-34.3% of standard length vs. 21.7-31.2%, a larger head depth, 17.8-21.8% of standard length vs. 15.1-19.0%, and a larger pelvic fin length, 18.2-22.4% of standard length vs. 15.0-20.9% (Ref. 127947). Specimens from E. mimus differ from the specimens of the population of E. cf. mimus from the Lake Edward system by a lower number of scales between the origin of the dorsal fin and the lateral line, 3.5-4.5 vs. 3.5-4.5, a larger pelvic fin length, 18.2-22.4% of standard length vs. 14.4-21.3%, a smaller snout length, 4.1-7.1% of standard length vs. 4.6-8.3%, a smaller interorbital width, 6.3-8.3% of standard length vs. 6.9-9.9%, a larger post-dorsal distance, 34.8-40.4% of standard length vs. 31.0-39.9%, and a larger anal fin length, 18.0-19.7% of standard length vs. 14.4-21.8% (Ref. 127947).

Biology     Glossary (e.g. epibenthic)

Life cycle and mating behavior Maturities | Reproduction | Spawnings | Egg(s) | Fecundities | Larvae

Main reference Upload your references | References | Coordinator | Collaborators

Maetens, H., M. Van Steenberge, J. Snoeks and E. Decru, 2020. Revalidation of Enteromius alberti and presence of Enteromius cf. mimus (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) in the Lake Edward system, East Africa. Eur. J. Taxon. 700:1-28. (Ref. 127947)

IUCN Red List Status (Ref. 130435)

  Least Concern (LC) ; Date assessed: 31 January 2006

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 compositions
Food consumptions
Food rations
Predators
Ecology
Ecology
Population dynamics
Growths
Max. ages / sizes
Length-weight rel.
Length-length rel.
Length-frequencies
Mass conversions
Recruitments
Abundances
Life cycle
Reproduction
Maturities
Fecundities
Spawnings
Spawning aggregations
Egg(s)
Egg developments
Larvae
Larval dynamics
Distribution
Countries
FAO areas
Ecosystems
Occurrences
Introductions
BRUVS - Videos
Anatomy
Gill areas
Brains
Otoliths
Physiology
Body compositions
Nutrients
Oxygen consumptions
Swimming type
Swimming speeds
Visual pigment(s)
Fish sounds
Diseases / Parasites
Toxicities (LC50s)
Genetics
Genetics
Electrophoreses
Heritabilities
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 | Zoological Record

Estimates based on models

Phylogenetic diversity index (Ref. 82804):  PD50 = 0.5000   [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).
Trophic level (Ref. 69278):  3.0   ±0.3 se; based on size and trophs of closest relatives
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).