This is a remarkable species, which looks like a Steatocranus rather than a Tilapia at the first glance. However, the authors discuss the generic assignment, and there can be little doubt that it is correct based on the currently available diagnoses. The new species is similar to Tilapia rheophila, a species previously placed in a subgenus of its own, Dagetia. However, Dunz & Schliewen have demonstrated that the diagnostic characters are unsuitable to separate this subgenus from Coptodon. Consequently, Dagetia is placed in the synonymy of the latter.
Alltogether, this is a solid work with all the results properly and comprehensibly discussed instead of merely 'producing' new taxa. As a blemish, the diagnosis appears somewhat inflated and contains several errors in punctuation and word order, which seriously distort some of the comparative statements, e.g. those which refer to T. joka, T. congica, T. tholloni and T. bilineata. Such errors can easily occur during writing, correcting and altering a manuscript, but isn't it the purpose of the peer review and the editing process to remove or at least reduce them? Be that as it may, none of the concerned species is likely to be confused with T. konkourensis.