Cnemaspis temiah, Grismer & Wood & Anuar & Riyanto & Ahmad & Muin & Sumontha & Grismer & Onn & Quah & Pauwels, 2014

Grismer, Lee, Wood, Perry L., Anuar, Shahrul, Riyanto, Awal, Ahmad, Norhayati, Muin, Mohd A., Sumontha, Montri, Grismer, Jesse L., Onn, Chan Kin, Quah, Evan S. H. & Pauwels, Olivier S. A., 2014, Systematics and natural history of Southeast Asian Rock Geckos (genus Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887) with descriptions of eight new species from Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, Zootaxa 3880 (1), pp. 1-147 : 81-85

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3880.1.1

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:03A6448A-25D7-46AF-B8C6-CB150265D73D

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5708527

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FA0350-FFFF-255A-FF51-C892FB4D286B

treatment provided by

Felipe

scientific name

Cnemaspis temiah
status

sp. nov.

Cnemaspis temiah View in CoL sp. nov

Temiah Rock Gecko

Fig. 44 View FIGURE 44

Cnemaspis affinis Grandison 1972:80 View in CoL ; Dring 1979:221

Cnemaspis flavolineata Manthey & Grossmann 1997:211 View in CoL (in part); Chan-ard et al 1999:104, Grismer 2008:30; Grismer et al. 2008c:9 (in part); Grismer 2011a:317

Cnemaspis flavolineatus Lim et al. 2002:51

Holotype. Adult female LSUHC 9110 View Materials collected on 11 November 2008 by L. Lee Grismer, Norhayati Ahmad, and Chan K. Onn on trail 11, Tanah Rata, Cameron Highlands, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia (03°09.01 N, 106°14.03 E) at approximately 1600 m in elevation. GoogleMaps

Paratypes. All paratypes are from the same locality as the holotype. GoogleMaps LSUHC 9159–60 View Materials have the same collectors and collection dates. GoogleMaps LSUHC 9739 View Materials was collected by Chan K. Onn on 22 March 2010 GoogleMaps ; LSUHC 9816–18 View Materials were collected by L. Lee Grismer, Chan K. Onn, and R. Gregory on 27 August 2010 .

Diagnosis. Maximum SVL 46.7 mm; eight or nine supralabials; 7–9 infralabials; ventral scales keeled; 5–7 continuous, pore-bearing precloacal scales with round pores; 22–27 paravertebral tubercles; body tubercles semilinearly arranged, weakly present on flanks; tubercles present in lateral caudal furrows; no ventrolateral row of caudal tubercles; lateral row of caudal tubercles present; caudal tubercles not encircling tail; all subcaudals keeled, no enlarged median scale row; three postcloacal tubercles on each side of tail base; no enlarged femoral or subtibial scales; subtibials keeled; no enlarged submetatarsal scales on first toe; 22–26 subdigital fourth toe lamellae; lightcolored, vertebral stripe variably present (Tables 6,7).

Description of holotype. Adult female; SVL 38.6 mm; head oblong in dorsal profile, moderate in size (HL/ SVL 0.27), somewhat narrow (HW/SVL 0.18), flattened (HD/HL 0.39), distinct from neck; snout short (ES/HL 0.46), flat in lateral profile; postnasal region constricted medially, flat; scales of rostrum keeled, slightly raised, larger than similarly shaped scales on occiput; low, supraorbital ridges; weak frontorostral sulcus; canthus rostralis smoothly rounded; eye large (ED/HL 0.21); extra-brillar fringe scales largest anteriorly; pupil round; ear opening oval, taller than wide; rostral slightly concave, dorsal 75% divided by longitudinal groove; rostral bordered posteriorly by supranasals and two smaller scales and laterally by first supralabials; 9R,8L raised supralabials of similar size; 9R,L infralabials, decreasing in size slightly posteriorly; nostrils elliptical, oriented dorsoposteriorly; bordered posteriorly by small, granular, postnasal scales; mental large, triangular, bordered posteriorly by four postmentals, outer two largest; gular scales raised, keeled; throat scales larger, raised, keeled.

Body slender, not particularly long (AG/SVL 0.43); small, keeled, dorsal scales equal in size throughout body, intermixed with much larger, multicarinate tubercles more or less randomly arranged; tubercles extend from occiput to base of tail; tubercles on flanks prominent; 26 paravertebral tubercles; pectoral scales raised, keeled, not elongate; abdominal scales slightly larger than dorsals, flat, keeled; no precloacal pores; forelimbs moderately long (FL/SVL 0.15), slender; dorsal scales of brachium raised, keeled; dorsal scales of forearm keeled, raised; ventral scales of brachium keeled, raised, juxtaposed; ventral scales of forearm smooth, raised, juxtaposed; palmar scales smooth, juxtaposed, raised; digits long with an inflected joint; claws recurved; subdigital lamellae unnotched; lamellae beneath first phalanges wide; lamellae beneath phalanx immediately following inflection granular, lamellae of distal phalanges wide; interdigital webbing absent; fingers increase in length from first to fourth with fourth and fifth nearly equal in length; hind limbs slightly longer and thicker than forelimbs (TBL/SVL 0.20); dorsal scales of thigh keeled, raised, juxtaposed; scales of anterior margin of thigh keeled; ventral scales of thigh keeled; subtibial scales keeled, flat, imbricate, with no enlarged anterior row; plantar scales smooth, juxtaposed, raised; no enlarged submetatarsal scales beneath first metatarsal; digits elongate with an inflected jointed; claws recurved; subdigital lamellae unnotched; lamellae beneath first phalanges wide; lamellae beneath phalanx immediately following inflection granular, lamellae of distal phalanges wide; interdigital webbing absent; toes increase in length from first to fourth with fourth being slightly longer than fifth; 25 subdigital lamellae on fourth toe; caudal scales arranged in segmented whorls; dorsal caudal scales raised anteriorly, weakly keeled, juxtaposed; middorsal and lateral caudal furrows present; no row of enlarged, median subcaudal scales; subcaudal scales keeled; caudal tubercles do not encircle tail; caudal tubercles present in lateral caudal furrow; no enlarged postcloacal tubercles on lateral surface of hemipenal swellings at base of tail.

Color pattern in life ( Fig. 44 View FIGURE 44 ). Dorsal ground color light brown to yellowish; head, body (including flanks), and limbs overlain with irregularly shaped, blotched, dark markings, those in the paravertebral region somewhat paired and alternating with somewhat larger, yellowish marking; tail generally immaculate; ground color of all ventral surfaces beige, weak dark stippling on throat, pectoral region, limbs and tail. There is no sexual dimorphism in color pattern and the pattern lights considerably at night.

Variation. Paratypes LSUHC 9160 View Materials and 9816 resemble the holotype in all aspects of coloration and pattern ( Fig. 44 View FIGURE 44 ). The other paratypes show differing degrees of vertebral stipping . LSUHC 9159 View Materials and 9739 have a wide, yellow vertebral stipe extending from occiput to onto the tail . LSUHC 9817 View Materials also bears a vertebral stripe but it is interrupted just posterior to the shoulder region . LSUHC 9818 View Materials has a vertebral stripe that extends only to a point midway down the body between the limb insertions . LSUHC 9159 View Materials 60,9739 View Materials , 9816 View Materials have broken tails . LSUHC 9816 View Materials is a male with a series of seven, contiguous, pore-bearing precloacal scales with round pores. Morphometric variation and variation in scalation are presented in Table 9 View TABLE 9 .

Distribution. Cnemaspis temiah sp. nov. is known only from the Cameron Highlands plateau, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 ).

Natural History. Grismer (2011a) reported Cnemaspis temiah sp. nov. to be an inhabitant of hill dipterocarp forests occurring in the vicinity of 1,150 meters in elevation ( Fig. 44 View FIGURE 44 ). Unlike most Sundaic species of Cnemaspis that have a high affinity for rocky microhabitats, C. temiah sp. nov. occurs exclusively on vegetation. It is assumed this species is secretive and diurnal although it has never been observed during the day. Grismer (2011a) noted that all the lizards observed at night were sleeping on the trunks of trees or on the surfaces of leaves. Cnemaspis temiah sp. nov. appears to be very localized in distribution as well. At Cameron Highlands, lizards are found regularly but only along one 200 m stretch of a certain trail. They are very rare elsewhere. Gravid females carrying two eggs have been found during March, April and October ( Grismer 2011a), suggesting C. temiah sp. nov. may breed yearround.

Etymology. The specific epithet temiah is an invariable noun in apposition in reference to the Temiah Tribe of Orang Asli people that are also endemic to the Cameron Highland region.

Comparisons. Cnemaspis temiah sp. nov. is a member of the affinis group and was previously considered conspecific with C. flavolineata (see Grismer 2011a and references therein). The molecular analysis indicates that not only is C. temiah sp. nov. separate from C. flavolineata but may not even its closest relative ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 ). Cnemaspis temiah sp. is separated from C. flavolineata by not having caudal tubercles that encircle the tail as opposed to having caudal tubercles encircling the tail anteriorly. It is further separated by lacking as opposed to having large, white, dorsal tubercles on the body and tail and having an uncorrected p- distance of 18.0% ( Table 4 View TABLE 4 ). Cnemaspis temiah sp. nov. differs from species of the affinis group as follows. From all species of the affinis group except C. bayuensis , C. flavolineata , C. hangus sp. nov., C. selamatkanmerapoh , and C. stongensis sp. nov. C. temiah sp. nov. differs by lacking an ocellus in the shoulder region. From all species of the affinis group except C. harimau it differs by having as opposed to lacking caudal tubercles that encircle the tail at least anteriorly. Cnemaspis temiah sp. nov. differs from C. affinis , C. bayuensis , C. hangus sp. nov., C. selamatkanmerapoh , and C. stongensis sp. nov. and C. mcguirei by having fewer subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (22–26 versus 27–35 collectively). From C. affinis , C. bayuensis , C. grismeri , C. harimau , and C. narathiwatensis it differs by having as opposed to lacking precloacal pores. Cnemaspis temiah sp. nov. differs further from C. harimau and C. selamatkanmerapoh in having 22–27 as opposed to 18–20 and 30 paravertebral tubercles, respectively. From C. affinis and C. bayuensis it differs in having as opposed to lacking tubercles in the lateral caudal furrows. It differs from C. shahruli by not having a yellow gular region and from C. grismeri and C. mcguirei by not having nearly immaculate white caudal bands and a wide, yellow, postscapular band.

Relationships. The sister species relationship between Cnemapspis temiah sp. nov. and C. flavolineata is not supported and the two are separated by an uncorrected p -distance of 18.0% ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 ; Table 4 View TABLE 4 ).

TABLE 9. Meristic and mensural character states of the type series of Cnemaspis temiah sp. nov. w = weak; f = female;

  LSUHC LSUHC LSUHC LSUHC LSUHC LSUHC LSUHC
  9110 9159 9160 9739 9816 9817 9818
  holotype paratype paratype paratype paratype paratype paratype
Supralabials 9 8 9 8 9 9 8
Infralabials 9 7 9 8 7 8 8
Ventral scales keeled (1) or not (0) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No. of precloacal pores / / / / 7 / /
Precloacal pores continuous (1) or separated (0) / / / / 1 / /
Precloacal pores elongate (1) or round (0) / / / / 0 / /
No. of paravertebral tubercles 26 23 27 22 26 22 22
Tubercles linearly arranged (1) or more random (0) w 0 1 1 w 0 0

......continued on the next page

R

Departamento de Geologia, Universidad de Chile

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Chordata

Class

Reptilia

Order

Squamata

Family

Gekkonidae

Genus

Cnemaspis

Loc

Cnemaspis temiah

Grismer, Lee, Wood, Perry L., Anuar, Shahrul, Riyanto, Awal, Ahmad, Norhayati, Muin, Mohd A., Sumontha, Montri, Grismer, Jesse L., Onn, Chan Kin, Quah, Evan S. H. & Pauwels, Olivier S. A. 2014
2014
Loc

Cnemaspis flavolineatus

Lim, K. K. P. & Leong, T. M. & Lim, B. L. 2002: 51
2002
Loc

Cnemaspis flavolineata

Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. 1997: 211
1997
Loc

Cnemaspis affinis

Dring, J. C. 1979: 221
Grandison, A. G. C. 1972: 80
1972
GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF