identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
09022A4D7BB15FFD86DDD59A1E1F1E3A.text	09022A4D7BB15FFD86DDD59A1E1F1E3A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Eublepharis jhuma Mohapatra & Ray & Das & Satrusallya & Jena & Bhupathi & Das & Mahapatra 2026	<div><p>Eublepharis jhuma sp. nov.</p><p>Figs 5, 6, 7, 8, Table 4</p><p>Type materials.</p><p>Holotype (Figs 5, 6). • ZSI -R-29431, male, Parari, outskirts of Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary, Bihar, India; collected by Pratyush P. Mohapatra &amp; party on 3 October 2021 .</p><p>Paratypes (Fig. 7). • ZSI -R-29344, 29345, females, collection data same as holotype .</p><p>Suggested common English name.</p><p>Jhuma’s leopard gecko.</p><p>Etymology.</p><p>The specific epithet is a matronym, derived from the nickname “ Jhuma ” of Dr. Dhriti Banerjee, the first woman Director of ZSI, in recognition of her contributions to the taxonomy and conservation of faunal diversity in India. The epithet is used as noun in apposition.</p><p>Diagnosis.</p><p>A medium-sized Eublepharis reaching SVL of 142.2 mm, with 18–22 rows of flat, tubercle-like moderately keeled scales across the dorsum intermixed with much smaller granular scales, two pale bands between the nuchal loop and caudal constriction; feebly tuberculate subdigital lamellae on digit IV of pes 22–25; 12–13 precloacal pores in an angulate series lacking any poreless scales in between them.</p><p>Comparison.</p><p>The new species differs from all its congeners by the following combination of characters: SVL 123–142 mm (vs. E. macularius 170 mm, E. fuscus 252 mm, E. angramainyu Anderson &amp; Leviton 150 mm); it bears large flat, tubercle-like moderately keeled scales across the dorsum, interspaces much more than the size of the tubercles (vs. dorsum with small scales mixed with large, flat, moderately keeled tubercles, interspaces much less than the size of the tubercles in E. hardwickii and E. pictus); two pale bands between the nuchal loop and caudal constriction (vs. single pale band in E. hardwickii, E. fuscus and E. pictus, three in E. madarensis); subdigital lamellae tuberculate (vs. subdigital lamellae smooth in E. angramainyu, E. fuscus, E. hardwickii and E. pictus); 23–25 subdigital lamellae on fourth toe (vs. 17 in E. hardwickii, 17–19 in E. madarensis, 19 in E. pictus, 18–22 in E. satpuraensis, 20–23 in E. turcmenicus Darevsky); dorsal scales on regenerated tail flat and rectangular (vs. circular scales in E. angramainyu, E. macularius and E. turcmenicus); 12–13 precloacal pores (vs. 10–11 in E. fuscus, 15–16 in E. hardwickii, 17–18 in E. pictus, 13–14 in E. satpuraensis, 5–7 in E. turcmenicus); no poreless scales in the angulate series of precloacal pores (vs. 1–4 in E. turcmenicus); one postcloacal spur on each side (vs. two in E. angramainyu, E. fuscus, E. hardwickii, E. macularius, E. madarensis, E. pictus and E. satpuraensis). Additionally, the new species can be distinguished from its closest congener, i. e., E. satpuraensis, by having 22–25 subdigital lamellae under fourth toe (vs. 18–22 in E. satpuraensis); VS 26–31 (vs. 22–25 in E. satpuraensis); dorsal tubercles heterogeneous (vs. uniform in E. satpuraensis) (see Fig. 6 F, G).</p><p>Contrary to the statement by Mirza et al. (2014), E. satpuraensis does not possess smooth subdigital lamellae, instead, the lamellae are feebly tuberculate, closely resembling those of E. jhuma sp. nov. (see Fig. 6 D, E).</p><p>Description of the holotype.</p><p>(Figs 5, 6 A – C) The holotype is in good condition of preservation; it is preserved in a linear manner with a slightly curved tail. The specimen bears a 12.6 mm long insertion at the belly for collecting tissue sample for phylogenetic study.</p><p>A large-sized gecko (SVL 142.2 mm) with a quite large head (HL / SVL ratio 0.27). Head longer than wide (HW / HL ratio 0.75), depressed (HH / HL ratio 0.54), distinct from neck; canthus rostralis inflated; snout short (SE / HW ratio 0.46); longer than eye diameter (OD / SE ratio 0.7); scales on the snout heterogenous in shape and size, convex; scales become flatter towards the nuchal region. Eyes large (OD / HL ratio 0.24), pupil vertical with crenulated edges; supraciliaries 18, anterior ones smaller. Ear-opening large (EL / OD ratio 0.87), sub-oval, vertically oriented, lobules absent; eye to ear distance much greater than the diameter of eye (EE / OD ratio 1.38); rostral much wider than deep, incompletely divided by rostral groove for less than half its length; rostral in contact with nasal, first supralabial and internasals; two large and a much smaller (in the middle) internasal between the nasals; nostrils large, situated medially in the nasal scale, nasal bordered by first supralabial, rostral, internasal and eight small scales; mental sub-pentangular, wider than long; a pair of postmentals, in contact medially; scales around the postmentals and infralabials large, gradually decreasing in size on gular area up till the upper thoracic region, overall these scales are round, convex, smaller than the scales on the ventral aspect of trunk; supralabials and infralabials eleven on each side.</p><p>Body elongate (TRL / SVL ratio 0.46) and dorsoventrally flattened; dorsal scalation on trunk comprises of large tubercle-like convex scales intermixed with small, round-edged flat scales; the large tubercle-like scales are sub-regularly arranged in 19 longitudinal rows at mid-body, each large scale is surrounded by 10 small scales (in average); ventral scales on trunk smooth, flat, smaller than dorsal tubercle-like scales; mid body scales across belly 28; 13 precloacal pores present in an angulate series lacking any poreless scales in between them.</p><p>Limbs short, stout; digits dilated, clawed, with tuberculate lamellae on the ventral surface, oriented horizontally; claw much smaller than length of the lamellar region; forelimbs short (FL / SVL ratio 0.13), slightly shorter in length than the hind limbs (CL / SVL ratio 0.14). Lamellae beneath the digits: right manus 10-15 - 17 - 18 - 15; right pes 11-16 - 21 - 23 - 22. Relative lengths of digits (in mm): III (6.9)&gt; IV (6.7)&gt; V (6.4)&gt; II (6.1)&gt; I (5.8) (right manus), IV (10.5)&gt; III (9.5)&gt; II (8.6)&gt; V (8.5)&gt; I (7.1) (right pes).</p><p>Tail regenerated, stout, flat on its ventral aspect, circular in cross section, shorter than snout-vent length (TL / SVL ratio 0.63). Caudal segments distinct on original tail; pholidosis of original tail dorsum with small scales intermixed with comparatively large sub-conical tubercles; scales on regenerated portion of tail heterogenous, flat and rectangular, lacking tubercles. Ventral aspect of original tail with large, broad scales, median row of scales not enlarged. Single post cloacal spur on each side.</p><p>Coloration.</p><p>Dorsum dark-brown, two pale bands between the nuchal loop and caudal constriction, one on groin; the pale bands are with dark-brown spots and blotches. A mid-dorsal light band runs from the nuchal region to groin intercepting the bands on the body; dorsal side of the head with light-cream reticulation, which extends up to the lateral sides; ventral side of the head with dark patches confined to the edges. Limbs paler than body color with whitish spots on the legs. Original tail brown with a few light bands at intervals, towards the lateral sides there are white spots on the brown ground color; regenerated tail tip is also with white patches. Venter whitish in color, chin with a few scattered light brown spots and light brown along the edges; belly with scattered brown spots along the flanks. Ventral side of the tail is mostly off-white with dark brown stripes approaching towards the center, the regenerated tip of the tail is mostly of same color but without bands, which are replaced by spots.</p><p>Variation.</p><p>A summary of the variations observed in the type series is presented in Table 4. In one uncollected male specimen (Fig. 8 B) from the type locality, 22 subdigital lamellae were present on the fourth toe, and the number of precloacal pores was 12. While paratype ZSI -R-29345 (male) exhibits a color pattern similar to that of the holotype, including a distinct mid-dorsal band, the other paratype, ZSI -R-29344 (female), has fewer spots on the head and lacks a mid-dorsal band on the body.</p><p>Distribution and natural history.</p><p>The new species is currently known only from its type locality in the Kaimur Plateau, in the outskirts of the Kaimur Wildlife Sanctuary in the Bihar state of India. The habitat is tropical dry deciduous forest in the Kaimur range, isolated from the main forest of the sanctuary by agricultural fields (Fig. 8 A, C). In the type locality, the new species was found along with other sympatric reptile species such as Calotes versicolor (Daudin, 1802) and Sitana cf. sivalensis Schleich, Kästle &amp; Shah, 1998 of family Agamidae; Hemidactylus flaviviridis Ruppell, 1835, Hemidactylus cf. kushmorensis Murray, 1884 and Hemidactylus cf. malcolmsmithi (Constable, 1949) of family Gekkonidae; Eutropis macularia (Blyth, 1853) of family Scincidae; Eryx conicus (Schneider, 1801) of family Boidae and Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus, 1758), Boiga trigonata (Schneider, 1802), Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803), Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus, 1758), Lycodon striatus (Shaw, 1802), and Oligodon russelius (Daudin, 1803) of family Colubridae .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/09022A4D7BB15FFD86DDD59A1E1F1E3A	Public Domain	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.		Pensoft via Plazi	Mohapatra, Pratyush P.;Ray, Sumidh;Das, Ashis K.;Satrusallya, Ranjit;Jena, Sudheer K.;Bhupathi, Bharath;Das, Ritesh;Mahapatra, Ajay Kumar	Mohapatra, Pratyush P., Ray, Sumidh, Das, Ashis K., Satrusallya, Ranjit, Jena, Sudheer K., Bhupathi, Bharath, Das, Ritesh, Mahapatra, Ajay Kumar (2026): Description of a morphologically distinct and phylogenetically divergent new species of the leopard gecko in the genus Eublepharis Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Eublepharidae) from India. Herpetozoa 39: 161-176, DOI: 10.3897/herpetozoa.39.e183441
