Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis , Tri, Ngo Van, Grismer, Lee & Grismer, Jesse L., 2010
Tri, Ngo Van, Grismer, Lee & Grismer, Jesse L., 2010, A new species of Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) in Phu Quoc National Park, Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern Vietnam, Zootaxa 2604, pp. 37-51: 40-48
treatment provided by
Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov.
Holotype: LSUHC 0 5975, an adult male collected by Ngo Van Tri on 2 February 2007 on Phu Quoc Island, Phu Quoc National Park, Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve, Kien Giang province, southwestern Vietnam at 10 o 17.452 ’N 104 o02.380’E at approximately 100m. s.a.l.
Paratypes: UNS 0 255, collected by Ngo Van Tri at the same time and locality as the holotype. UNS 0272– 77 were collected by Ngo Van Tri, L.L. Grismer and J.L. Grismer on 25 and 26 July 2007 at the same locality as the holotype.
Common name: English name: Phu Quoc bent –toed gecko, Vietnamese name “Than lan chan ngon Phu Quoc”.
Diagnosis. A moderately sized Cyrtodactylus , adult SVL 80.0– 85.8mm; body slender; limbs and digits long, slender; original tail long with 9 or 10 dusky white rings; one pair of enlarged postmental scales in broad contact; 16–18 rows of weekly keeled dorsal tubercles; 22–25 paravertebral tubercles; 42–46 ventral scales between ventrolateral folds; no precloacal groove; 7–9 pore-bearing precloacal scales in contact with 10 or 11 enlarged femoral scales; enlarged scales on heel; 18–20 subdigital lamellae on first toe; 15–18 subdigital lamellae on fourth toe; and dorsal caudal tubercles extending 57.8–75 % down length of tail. Subcaudal scales forming large, transverse plates. Five dorsal body bands, narrowest in middle of dorsum, edged by white tubercles between limb insertions; single broad band at base of tail on yellowish brown ground color.
Description of holotype. Adult male ( Fig. 3 AView FIGURE 3. A), SVL 88.9 mm; head moderately long (Head/SVL ratio 0.29), relatively narrow (HeadW/HeadL ratio 0.70), depressed (HeadH/HeadL ratio 0.43), distinct from neck; lores and interorbital regions inflated; canthus rostralis not prominent; frontolnasal region concave; snout elongate (Sneye/HeadL ratio 0.37), relatively pointed, longer than eye diameter (OrbD/SnEye ratio 0.75); scales on snout and forehead small, rounded, granular, homogeneous; scales on snout larger than those on occipital region; eye large (OrbD/HeadL ratio 0.28); pupil vertical with crenellate margins when closed; supraciliaries short, bearing tiny conical spines posteriorly; ear opening oval, small (EarL/HeadL ratio 0.09); eye to ear distance smaller than diameter of eye (EyeEar/OrbD ratio 0.10); rostral incompletely divided dorsally by a shallow horizontal groove; two enlarged supranasals in broad contact with two intersupranasals of equal size and all contacting smaller snout scales posteriorly ( Fig. 4 AView FIGURE 4. A); nostril oval bordered by rostral anteriorly, first supralabial posteriorly, supranasal dorsally, two enlarged postnasals; 2–4 rows of small scales separate orbit from supralabials; mental triangular, wider (2.7 mm) than deep (2.2 mm); one pair of enlarged postmentals in broad medial contact, bordered anterolaterally by first infralabial and portion of second infralabial, followed posterolaterally by six enlarged chinshields ( Fig. 4View FIGURE 4. A B); eight (R,L) supralabials to midorbital position; enlarged supralabials to angle of jaws 11 (R) 9 (L); 9 (R) 7 (L) infralabials; 20 interorbital scale rows across narrowest point of frontal region; 19 scales between eye and nostril.
Body slender, elongate (TrunkL/SVL ratio 0.42) with ventrolateral folds; dorsal scales granular to conical; regularly distributed conical weakly keeled tubercles (2–12 times size of adjacent scales) extending from frontal region to base of tail; approximately 18 irregular rows of tubercles at midbody; smallest tubercles on flanks ( Fig. 4View FIGURE 4. A c) and in frontal region; 22 paravertebral tubercles; ventral scales much larger than dorsals, smooth, round, subimbricate, largest posteriorly; 46 scale rows across belly at midbody between ventrolateral folds; gular region bearing relatively homogeneous, smooth scales; precloacal groove absent; precloacal region bearing four enlarged centrally located scales and six slightly smaller enlarge scales, bordered anteriorly by eight enlarged pore-bearing scales out of a an angular series of nine ( Fig. 4View FIGURE 4. A F); several other slightly enlarged scales lie anterior to pore-bearing scales ( Fig. 4View FIGURE 4. A E); 11 (R) 10 (L) smooth enlarged femoral scales contacting enlarged scales of precloacal region; scales on plantar and hind limb scales granular; hind limbs bearing scattered dorsal tubercles extending to knee; 4–6 enlarged scales in a row of each heel.
Forelimbs and hind limbs slender (ForeL/SVL ratio 0.15; CrusL/SVL ratio 0.19); digits relatively slender, strongly inflected at basal interphalangeal joints, all bearing slightly curved claws; basal subdigital lamellae nearly as broad as digit, lacking a scansorial surface; 7 – 7–9 – 8 – 8 proximal subdigital lamellae on fingers; 9– 10 – 9 – 7 – 7 proximal subdigital lamellae on toes; narrow lamellae distal to inflection and not including ventral claw sheath 8 – 8–11 – 10 – 9 on manus, 10 – 10 – 10 – 10 – 8 on pes; 1–3 rows of small, non –lamellar granules between basal and distal lamellar series; interdigital webbing present but weakly developed; relative length of digits of manus IV(6.3)> II(5.9)> III(5.8)> V(5.5)> I(4.3); (pes): II(8.0)> I(7.8)> III(7.4)> IV(6.2)>V(4.1).
Original tail long (TailL/SVL ratio 1.29), segmented, cylindrical, tapering to regenerated tip; six smooth cloacal tubercles on each side; segments of the original two –thirds of tail consist of eight or nine row scales; anterior region of tail bearing eight longitudinal rows of smaller conical tubercles extending posteriorly from body ( Fig. 4View FIGURE 4. A D); medial row subcaudals smooth, round, subimbricate; 75 subcaudals juxtaposed, extending in medium the whole of subcaudal surface ( Fig. 4View FIGURE 4. A E), first three of which obliquely divided; dorsal caudal scales flat, round, hexagona, or pentagona in juxtaposed.
Coloration in life ( Fig. 3 AView FIGURE 3. A). Head brown; eye rings yellowish; broad dark brown nuchal loop bordered anteriorly and posteriorly by white tubercles; followed posteriorly by five broad brown body bands extending to caudal constriction and bordered anteriorly and posteriorly by yellowish tubercles, posterior two bands lack bordering tubercles; five band interspaces on body much lighter, nearly same color as head; seven dark caudal bands on original tail alternating with dusky white; regenerated portion of tail dark brown; limbs yellowish brown; generally unicolor; ventral portion of body pinkish white; ventral portion of limbs and tail darker.
Variation. All paratypes approach the holotype in aspects of coloration and pattern. UNS 0 255 has the fourth and fifth dorsal body bands broken into blotches in UNS 0 255 ( Fig. 3View FIGURE 3. A B). Measurements for the type series are presented in Table 1.
Etymology. The specific epithet is derived from Phu Quoc National Park, the type locality.
Natural history. All specimens were collected at night among rocky outcroppings along a small stream in Phu Quoc National Park, Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve, Ham Ninh forest commune, Phu Quoc district, Kien Giang province, Southwestern Vietnam. Other lizards observed in the area were Gekko gecko, Lipinia vittigera, Sphenomorphus maculatus, Physignathus cocincinus, and Draco maculatus .
Comparison with other species. Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis is similar to C. intermedius but differs in size (adult SVL 80.0– 81.8 mm vs. 68.3–85.1 mm); having fewer precloacal pores (7– 9 vs. 8–10), a lower number of longitudinal rows of dorsal body tubercles (16–18 nine vs. 18–22), a lower number of paravertebral tubercles (25 or 26 vs. 26–32), a lower number of ventral scales (38–43 vs. 42–46), and a lower number of subdigital lamellae on fourth toe (15–18 vs. 21); and a higher number of intersuparanasal scales (2–5 vs. one), a higher number of postanal tubercles (3–4 vs. 1–2), tubercles present on 61–75 % of the tail as opposed to only 25 % of the tail; the contact between the enlarged precloacal scales and the enlarged femoral scales vs. these series of scales being separate; and the type of bands on the dorsum (broad band narrowed in the middle vs. broad band).
Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov. differs all other Vietnamese Cyrtodactylus badenensis Nguyen et al. ; C. cattienensis Geissler et al; C. chauquangensis Hoang et al. ; C. condorensis (Smith) ; C. caovansungi Orlov et al; C. cryptus Heidrich et al. ; C. eisenmanae Ngo ; C. grismeri Ngo ; C. hontreensis Ngo et al. ; C. huynhi Ngo & Bauer ; C. irregularis (Smith) ; C. nigriocularis Nguyen et al. ; C. paradoxus (Darevsky & Szczerbak) ; C. phongnhakebangensis Ziegler et al. ; C. pseudoquadrivirgatus Rösler et al. ; C. takouensis Ngo & Bauer ; and C. ziegleri Nazarov et al. by the presence of two intersupranasals in contact with the supranasals and tubercles present of more than 50 % of the proximal length of the tail. Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov. differs from all Cyrtodactylus from Indochina in having precloacal pores ( Table 2).
continued next page Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov. differs from C. badenensis Nguyen et al. ; C. darmandvillei (Weber) ; C. eisenmanae Ngo ; C. grismeri Ngo ; C. jarakensis Grismer et al. ; C. jellesmae (Boulenger) ; C. laevigatus (Darevsky) ; C. semenanjungensis Grismer & Leong ; C. sermowaiensis (De Rooij) ; C. thirakhupti Pauwels et al. ; and C. wallacei Hayden et al. by the presence of precloacal pores in males as opposed their absence ( Table 2).
Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov. has homologous precloacal pores as those of C. peguensis (Boulenger) and C. pubisulcus Inger , but differs from C. peguensis (Boulenger) in dorsal pattern (broad bands narrowed in the middle vs. spots), number of tubercles on the dorsum (16–18 vs. 20), number of ventral scales (38–43 vs. 29–38), tubercles on the ventrolateral folds (vs. absent); and differs from C. pubisulcus Inger in larger size (80.0– 85.8 vs. 74mm), number of tubercles on the dorsum (16–18 vs. 17–22), number of ventral scales (38–43 vs. 43–55), number of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (15–18 vs. 23), and the shape of the subcaudal scales (enlarged vs. round).
Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov. differs from Cyrtodactylus aaroni ; C. aequalis Bauer ; C. agusanensis (Taylor) ; C. annandalei Bauer ; C. baluensis Mocquard ; C. batucolus Grismer et al. ; C. biordinis Brown & McCoy ; C. brevipalmatus (Smith) ; C. caovansungi Orlov et al. ; C. capreoloides Rösler et al. ; C. chanhomae Bauer et al. ; C. consobrinoides Annandale ; C. consobrinus Malkmus ; C. deveti (Brongersma) ; C. epiroticus Kraus ; C. feae (Boulenger) ; C. fumosus (Müller) ; C. gubernatoris (Annandale) ; C. halmahericus Oliver et al. ; C. huynhi Ngo & Bauer ; C. interdigitalis Ulber ; C. jarujini Ulber ; C. klugei Kraus ; C. loriae (Boulenger) ; C. louisianensis (De Vis) ; C. macrotuberculatus Grismer & Ahmad ; C. marmoratus Gray ; C. mimikanus (Boulenger) ; C. novaeguineae (Schlegel) ; C. phongnhakebangensis Ziegler et al; C. pulchellus Gray ; C. redimiculus King ; C. robustus Kraus ; C. russelli (Bauer) ; C. sadleiri Wells & Wellington ; C. salomonensis Rösler et al. ; C. seribuatensis Youmans & Grismer ; C. serratus Kraus , C. slowinskii Bauer ; C. takouensis Ngo & Bauer ; C. tigroides Bauer , et al.; C. tiomanensis Das & Lim ; C. tripartitus Kraus ; C. tuberculatus (Lucas & Frost) ; C. variegatus (Blyth) ; C. wetariensis (Dunn) and C. zugi Oliver et al. by lacking femoral pores as opposed to their presence.
Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov. differs from C. agamensis (Bleeker) by its larger size (62.2–85.8mm vs. 49.7mm), lower number of ventral scales (38–43 vs. 67) and lower number of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (15–18 vs. 26); from C. buchardi David et al. 2004 it differs by its larger size (62.2–85.8mm vs. 33.4mm), presence, as opposed to absence, of a nuchal loop; the presence of enlarged femoral scales as opposed to their absence; more subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (15–18 vs. 12); the presence of plate-like subcaudal scales as opposed to smaller, rounded subcaudals; a banded as opposed to blotched body pattern. From C. derongo Brown & Parker it is differentiated by its by smaller size (62.2–85.8mm vs. 112mm), lower number of ventral scales (38–43 vs. 46–48), fewer subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (15–18 vs. 24–26), and enlarged subcaudal scales as opposed to small subcaudals. From C. murua Kraus & Allison it differs by its smaller SVL (62.2–85.8mm vs. 113mm), body pattern (6–7 bands vs. 5 bands), lower number of longitudinal rows of dorsal tubercles (16–18 vs. 20–22), fewer subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (15–18 vs. 24–25), and having enlarged, as opposed to smaller and rounded subcaudal scales.
Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov. differs from C. adleri Das ; C. annulatus (Taylor) ; C. aurensis Grismer ; C. brevidactylus Bauer ; C. cavernicolus (Inger & King) ; C. cracens Batuwita & Bahir ; C. edwardtaylori Batuwita & Bahir ; C. fraenatus (Günther) ; C. ingeri Hikida ; C. matsuii Hikida ; C. nuaulu Oliver et al. ; C. papuensis (Brongersma) ; C. ramboda Batuwita & Bahir ; C. rubidus (Blyth) ; C. soba Batuwita & Bahir ; C. spinosus Linken et al. ; C. subsolanus Batuwita & Bahir ; C. sworderi (Smith) ; C. tautbatorum Welton et al. ; and C. zhaoermii Lei & Hui by having a higher number of precloacal pores in males ( Table 2).
n 8 <2 21 3 4 4 1 SVL 62.2–85.8 66.0 ≤ 69 90.9–99.3 70.2– 82.9 74.0– 84.8 67.5 continued.
Cyrtodactylus phuquocensis sp. nov. differs from C. ayeyarwadyensis Bauer , C. chrysopylos Bauer ; C. gansi Bauer ; C. irianjayaensis Rösler ; C. khasiensis (Jerdon) ; C. lateralis (Werner) ; C. malayanus (De Rooij) ; C. malcolmsmithi (Constable) ; C. pantiensis Grismer et al. ; C. philippinicus (Steindachner) ; C. stresemanni Rösler & Glaw ; C. wakeorum Bauer ; and C. yoshii Hikida by having a lower number of precloacal pores in males ( Table 2).
|Holotype LSUHC 5975|
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.