You can sponsor this page

Labeotropheus chirangali Pauers & Phiri, 2023

Upload your photos and videos
Google image
Image of Labeotropheus chirangali
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: Labeotropheus: Latin, labeo = one who has large lips + Greek, tropaion = defeat, a memorial of a fighting war, trophy; because of their specialized teeth were such an obvious feeding adaptation (Ref. 45335);  chirangali: Chirangali is the Chichewa word for beacon, referring to the navigational beacon present on Mphanga Rocks (Ref. 128773).

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

Freshwater; benthopelagic. Tropical

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

Africa: Malawi,

Size / Weight / Age

Maturity: Lm ?  range ? - ? cm
Max length : 11.2 cm SL male/unsexed; (Ref. 128773)

Short description Identification keys | Morphology | Morphometrics

Dorsal spines (total): 18 - 19; Dorsal soft rays (total): 8 - 9; Anal spines: 3; Anal soft rays: 7 - 9. Diagnosis: Labeotropheus chirangali differs from the robust Labeotropheus, except L. chlorosiglos and L. candipygia, due to its slender body, 26.6-33.2% of standard length vs. 35.2-41.6% in L. fuelleborni, 33.8-41.5% in L. aurantinfra, 35.2-41.5% in L. obscurus, 37.4-40.6% in L. alticodia and 34.3-42.0% in L. artatorostris; it has a slenderer body than L. chlorosiglos and L. candipygia, although its range of body depth partially overlaps with those of these species, 31.9-34.7% in L. chlorosiglos and 31.9-38.6% in L. candipygia (Ref. 128773). There are additional morphometric differences between L. chirangali and both L. chlorosiglos and L. candipygia, although some of the ranges overlap; it differs from both L. chlorosiglos and L. candipygia by shorter distances between the tip of the snout and the origin of the dorsal fin, 28.4-32.7% of standard length vs. 31.2-34.4% in L. chlorosiglos and 32.2-36.8% in L. candipygia, between the origin of the dorsal fin and the origin of the anal fin, 32.2-51.5% of standard length vs. 51.3-54.6% in L. chlorosiglos and 47.6-54.0% in L. candipygia, and between the origin of the dorsal fin and the attachment of the pelvic fins, 28.6-33.4% of standard length vs. 33.0-36.0% in L. chlorosiglos and 32.7-38.8% in L. candipygia; additionally, L. chirangali has a greater width between the opercular tabs, 15.1-17.8% of head length vs. 14.7-15.7% in L. chlorosiglos (Ref. 128773). Labeotropheus chirangali differs from the other slender-bodied Labeotropheus primarily due to the nuptial colouration of the males; male L. chirangali have a dark blue head, flank, and ventrum, and the scales in this region may have small ochreous-orange highlights; above this extensive dark blue patch, male L. chirangali have a bright sky-blue dorsum; this pigmentation extends onto the dorsal fin; the tips of the dorsal fin are yellow, as is the trailing edge of this fin; the anal fin and the pelvic fins are the same bright sky blue as the dorsal fin (Ref. 128773). Many of the morphometric and meristic values of L. chirangali overlap with those of the other slender Labeotropheus, although there are some distinctions; it differs from L. trewavasae due to a larger snout pad, 13.6-19.4% of head length vs. 10.3-14.2%, a wider lower jaw, 39.0-49.5% of head length vs. 34.7-43.9%, fewer rows of teeth in the lower jaw, 3-5 vs. 5-6, and more infraorbital neuromasts, 14-38 vs. 8-25; it differs from L. simoneae due to a greater rostral length, 39.2-47.6% of head length vs. 34.3-43.0%, a larger snout pad, 13.6-19.4% of head length vs. 9.5-15.9%, and fewer overlapping lateral line scales, 0-3 vs. 4-5; finally, L. chirangali differs from L. rubidorsalis due to a smaller distance between the tip of the snout and the origin of the dorsal fin, 28.4-32.7% of standard length vs. 31.4-35.0%, a greater distance between the insertion of the dorsal fin and the attachment of the pelvic fins, 54.1-58.8% of standard length vs. 49.5-55.1%, a smaller preorbital depth, 23.4-28.4% of head length vs. 26.6-32.9%, a larger snout pad, 13.6-19.4% of head length vs. 10.3-14.2%, and a greater number of ceratobranchial gill rakers, 7-10 vs. 5-8 (Ref. 128773).

Biology     Glossary (e.g. epibenthic)

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

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

Pauers, M.J. and T.B. Phiri, 2023. Six new species of Labeotropheus (Cichliformes: Cichlidae) from the Malawian shore of Lake Malawi, Africa. Ichthyology & Herpetology 111(2):264-292. (Ref. 128773)

IUCN Red List Status (Ref. 130435)


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 = No PD50 data   [Uniqueness, from 0.5 = low to 2.0 = high].
Trophic level (Ref. 69278):  3.4   ±0.4 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).