Type species: Lestradea perspicax Poll, 1943
- Body spindle-shaped and elongated, 3.5-4 times as long as high.
- Dorsal fin contains 13-16 hard-rays and 13-16 soft rays; anal fin contains 3 hard rays and 9-11 soft rays. Outer ray in the ventral fins are elongated.
- 37-40 scales along the longitudinal line.
- Two lateral lines.
- Lower pharyngeal bone triangular covered densely with small more or less cuspid teeth.
- External and internal teeth tricuspid and cuspid (L. stappersii) or sub-conical to conical (L. perspicax), arranged in 2 to 4 rows.
- The color of the body is silvery, with the throat and ventral fins being black in sexually mature males.
- Total length 12 cm.
Species currently included:
Lestradea perspicax Poll, 1943
- Lestradea pespicax Poll, 1943 - by Poll 1986
- Lestradea perspicax perspicax Poll, 1943 - by Poll 1951
- Lestradea perspicax Poll, 1943
Link to Lestradea perspicax in the CRC Catalogue.
Lestradea stappersii (Poll, 1943)
Sambala in Kilewa Bay, DR Congo (former Zaire)
- Lestradea stappersii (Poll, 1943) - by Poll 1986
- Lestradea perspicax stappersii (Poll, 1943) – by Poll, 1951
- Ophthalmotilapia stappersii Poll, 1943
Remarks on taxonomic status:
Lestradea was described by Max Poll in 1943 as a monotypical genus with L. perspicax as type species. On the same occasion he described Ophthalmotilapia stappersii, which he transferred to the genus Lestradea in 1951 as a subspecies of L. perspicax under the name L. perspicax stappersii. In 1986 Poll changed the taxonomic status again and gave L. perspicax stappersii the status as an independent species, L. stappersii.
In 1998 Ad Konings suggested that L. stappersii should be regarded as a junior synonym of L. perspicax, stating that the only big difference between the two lay in the structure of the teeth (Konings 1998). This has recently been rejected by Koblmüller, Salzburger & Sturmbauer in their molecular analyses of the Ectodini tribe. Their work have shown that Lestradea stappersii may in fact be a valid taxa and that the genus Lestradea is paraphyletic and therefore in need of a taxonomic revision (Koblmüller et al. 2004) – this topic will be addressed in a separate paper.