Neolamprologus devosi, Schelly et al., 2003

Indermaur, Adrian, Schedel, Frederic D. B. & Ronco, Fabrizia, 2025, Morphological diversity of the genus Telmatochromis from the Lake Tanganyika drainage with the description of a new riverine species and the generic reassignment of the Malagarasi River lamprologine, Journal of Fish Biology 106 (4), pp. 1214-1230 : 1219-1220

3.2 | Reassignment of N. devosi Schelly et al., 2003 to the genus Telmatochromis Boulenger, 1898

N. devosi was described in 2003 from the lower reaches of the Malagarasi River in Tanzania and had been provisionally placed in the genus Neolamprologus ( Schelly et al., 2003) . This placement was based on Max Poll's ( Poll, 1986) classification, which assigns lamprologines to the genus Neolamprologus if the first ray of the pelvic fin is the longest and if they lack the defining characters of Chalinochromis , Julidochromis , Telmatochromis , Altolamprologus , and Lepidiolamprologus . However, recent phylogenomic work on Lake Tanganyika cichlids indicates that N. devosi is phylogenetically associated with the genus Telmatochromis (Ronco et al., 2021; see Figure 1b). Our analyses showed that N. devosi shares highly similar morphological features with Telmatochromis sp. “lufubu”, and many traits, particularly meristic traits, fell within the defining characteristics of the genus Telmatochromis , as defined in Boulenger (1898), Poll (1986), and Hanssens and Snoeks (2003) (see Figures S2 and S3; Tables S3 and S4). For example, the anterior teeth of the upper and lower jaws of N. devosi bear numerous (six) enlarged teeth (canines), which fall within the range commonly observed in Telmatochromis ( Poll, 1986) .

A few morphological characters of N. devosi , however, lay outside the original diagnostic features for Telmatochromis ( Boulenger, 1898; Poll, 1986). For example, N. devosi lacks a partial tricuspid dentition in the inner rows of teeth on the oral jaws (see Figure 3). Further, Poll (1986) reports a generally high number of dorsal-fin spines (20 – 21) for the genus Telmatochromis , which is slightly lower in N. devosi (18 – 19) but, in fact, within the range observed for the T. temporalis complex in our data (18 – 23). In general, riverine Telmatochromis appear to have fewer dorsal-fin spines than their lacustrine congeners (18 – 19 vs. 18 – 23).

Taken together with the phylogenomic results of Ronco et al. (2021), our morphological analyses support the placement of N. devosi within the genus Telmatochromis , and therefore, we introduce Telmatochromis devosi comb. nov. ( Schelly, Stiassny & Seegers, 2003)

T. devosi comb. nov. differs from all congeners by having exclusively unicuspid teeth in the inner rows of the oral jaws (Figure 3). Further, T. devosi comb. nov. can be distinguished from all members of the T. temporalis complex (i.e., T. brachygnathus , T. dhonti , T. temporalis , and allies such as Telmatochromis sp. “shell”) based on a significantly shallower relative body depth (22.31 – 24.94 vs. 26.71 – 32.45 BD%SL) and caudal peduncle depth (11.14 – 12.07 vs. 12.39 – 14.79 CPD%SL; see Figures 4 and S2; Table S3). T. devosi comb. nov. differs from all members of the T. vittatus complex (i.e., T. bifrenatus , T. brichardi , T. vittatus , and allies such as Telmatochromis sp. “longola”) and T. brachygnathus by having a longer head (27.83 – 30.25 vs. 20.4 – 26.65 HL%SL) and longer jaws (32.71 – 39.25 vs. 19.56 – 28.96 PML% HL; 40.09 – 47.05 vs. 22.04 – 35.6 LJL%HL; Figures 4 and S2; Table S3). Additionally, T. devosi comb. nov. differs from members of the T. vittatus complex by having a larger LPJ (29.11 – 31.05 vs. 23.88 – 24.92 PJS%HL), greater pre-dorsal and pre-pectoral distance (31.18 – 33.93 vs. 23.32 – 30.05 PDD%SL; 32.1 – 35.23 vs. 23.72 – 31.04 PPecD %SL), and a dorsal fin with fewer spines (18 – 19 vs. 20 – 22 DFS) that ends more dorsally (17 – 18 vs. 19 – 21 VDS; Figures 4, S2, and S3; Tables S3 and S4). Finally, T. devosi comb. nov. differs from the only other known riverine congener Telmatochromis sp. “lufubu” by having a larger LPJ (29.11 – 31.05 vs. 26.46 – 28.26 PJS%HL; see Figures 4 and S2; Table S3) and a different colouration (see below).