Laetacara araguaiae

Laetacara: from the Latin laetus, meaning 'happy', and acará, a vernacular term used for cichlids in certain parts of South America, in reference to patterning around the mouth and snout which give members of this genus a 'smiling' appearance.

araguaiae: named for the rio Araguaia, Brazil, to which this species is native.

Known from the rio Araguaia basin in central Brazil. Aquarium literature also gives the rios Tapajós and Xingu, but FishBase and Ota et al. (2018) list only the Araguaia basin. It has also been found in the upper rio Paraná basin, where Ota et al. (2018) treat it as introduced and link it to the aquarium trade.[5] Some populations differ from one another in colour pattern.

Type locality is 'Buriti palm near rio Verde, 32 kilometers north of São Miguel do Araguaia, rio Araguaia basin, Estado de Goiás, Brazil'.

Biparental substrate-spawner.

This species was known as L. sp. 'Buckelkopf' in the aquarium hobby prior to publication of its official description.

The genus Laetacara currently contains seven valid species and L. araguaiae can be distinguished from all congeners by possessing 7-8 dorsal-fin rays (vs. 9–10 in L. dorsigera, L. fulvipinnis and L. thayeri, 8–9 in L. curviceps and L. flamannellus, and 9–11 in L. flavilabris).

It further differs from L. dorsigera by possessing a narrow ectopterygoid (vs. wide), lesser head depth (80.0–88.7 % mm HL vs. 90.2–96.3 % mm HL), a shorter snout (snout length 26.7–32.2 % mm HL vs 33.0–37.9 % mm HL) and more scales in the longitudinal series (23–25 vs. 21–22).

It can be told apart from L. curviceps, L. dorsigera and L. flamannellus by lacking a dark spot on the dorsal-fin base (vs. possessing), from L. thayeri by possessing cycloid scales on the sides of the head (vs. ctenoid scales) and presence of a dark spot at the caudal-fin base (vs. absence), from L. flavilabris by having fewer total vertebrae (24 vs. 26) and fewer scales in the upper lateral line (12–14 vs. 15–18), and from L. fulvipinnis by possessing fewer scales in the upper lateral line (12–14 vs. 15–17), fewer scales in the lower lateral line (6–8 vs. 8–9) and lack of a dark dot at the edge of each scale on the midlateral portion of the flank (vs. presence).