The new genus is distinguished from all other chromidotilapiine genera by a unique combination of characters. It possesses twelve scales around the caudal peduncle vs. (13 or 14 scales) in Limbochromis Greenwood 1987, (14-16 scales) in Chromidotilapia, Boulenger 1898, and (16 scales) in Benitochromis Lamboj 2001, Pelvicachromis Thys van den Audenaerde 1968 and Thysochromis Daget 1988. Among the remaining chromidotilapiine genera with twelve circumpeduncular scales this new genus is further distinguished from Congochromis Stiassny & Schliewen 2007 and Nanochromis Pellegrin 1904 by: an infraorbital series containing a lachrymal and three additional tubular bones, and a gap between the 2nd and 3rd tubular infraorbitals (vs. lachrymal and one tubular bone), plus the lateral line is clearly separated from the dorsal-fin base (vs. posterior part contiguous with the dorsal-fin base). It is distinguished from Divandu Lamboj & Snoeks 2000 by: an infraorbital series with a lachrymal and three additional tubular bones and a gap between the 2nd and 3rd tubular infraorbitals (vs. four tubular bones), only four openings of the

laterosensory system in the lachrymal bone (vs. five), the first ray of pelvic fin in adult females is of equal length or longer than second ray of this fin (vs. first ray always longer), being a pair-bonding cave breeder (vs. a mouthbrooder), and by well developed sexual dichromatism (vs. weakly developed). Finally it is distinguished from Parananochromis Greenwood 1987 by: an infraorbital series with a lachrymal and three additional tubular bones with a gap between the 2nd and 3rd tubular infraorbitals (vs. four tubular bones in some species of Parananochromis), juveniles with 3 or 4 rows of irregular dark brown to black dots on body (vs. maximum of 2 rows), and the first ray of pelvic fin in adult females of equal length or longer than the second ray of this fin (vs. second ray slightly longer or of equal length) (Ref. 81928).