Tarentola protogigas PROTOGIGAS JOGER 1984
Creators: name: Vasconcelos, Raquel
name: Perera, Ana
name: Geniez, Philippe
name: Harris, D. James
name: Carranza, Salvador
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2012
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Reptilia
Squamata
Phyllodactylidae
Tarentola
Tarentola protogigas

description: TARENTOLA PROTOGIGAS JOGER 1984 B
Diagnosis: Medium to large-sized gecko [maximum SVL 98.5 mm (Schleich, 1987); 71.9 mm on average, see Appendix 2]; eye/ear opening ratio averages 1.69; ear–eye/eye–snout distance ratio averages 0.75. Eight to 12 supralabials; seven to nine infralabials; ten to 13 enlarged lamellae under the 4th finger; 144–181 midbody scales (Joger, 1984b); conical to apical prominent dorsal tubercles with a narrow central keel (Fig. 5D 4), especially on the sacral region, with 12–15 transverse rows and 15–21 longitudinal rows; several enlarged tubercles between the eye and the ear opening. Grey, brownish to yellowish dorsal pattern with a series of four (sometimes five) light middorsal patches, each preceded by a more indistinct and lighter W-shaped dark mark, usually connected by a light middorsal line (Figs 6D 3–5 and 7D 3–5); goldenyellowish grey ventral parts; dark spots on the labials, sometimes creating an alternating light and dark pattern; eye iris grey with an indistinct broad horizontal dark area.
It differs from T. bocagei, T. fogoensis, T. darwini, T. substituta, T. raziana, T. caboverdiana, and T. nicolauensis by having prominent conical dorsal tubercles, enlarged tubercles between the eye and ear opening and a different dorsal pattern (Fig. 6), and from T. gigas by the presence of a narrow wellmarked central keel, especially on the sacral region. It also differs from T. gigas by having important morphological, bioacustical, ecological, and behavioural differences. It differs from T. boavistensis, T. rudis, and Tarentola from Maio by its yellower ventral coloration. It also differs from T. rudis by a higher number of scales around midbody and interorbital scales [18–21 versus 16–19 (Joger, 1984b)], by having four to five more indistinct and lighter W-shaped dorsal bands (Fig. 6), fader spots on the labials and less contrasted eye iris coloration (Fig. 7). It differs from Tarentola from Maio by a higher number of scales and lamellae under the fifth toe [22–26 versus 19–21, rarely 22 (Joger, 1984b)] and interorbital scales [19–21 versus 16–18 (Joger, 1984b)].
Distribution: The southern islands of Fogo, Brava, and Rombos Islets, Cape Verde.
Genetic and phylogeographical remarks: Tarentola protogigas is monophyletic (Fig. 2) and presents a considerable level of genetic divergence from other sister taxa from clade D, as T. gigas, T. rudis, and Tarentola from Maio: D3–D1, D3–D2, and D3–D6 p- dist (cyt b) = 2.5 ± 1.2, 2.6 ± 0.9, and 5.3 ± 1.2%, respectively (Table 5). The population from Fogo presents a considerable level of genetic divergence with the populations from Brava and Rombos: D3–D4 and D3–D5 p- dist (cyt b) = 2.1 ± 0.8 and 2.3 ± 0.8%, respectively. However, the Snn test values for PDC, ACM4, and MC1R are not significant between T. protogigas from Fogo versus Brava and Rombos (Appendix 5). The population from Brava presents very low values of genetic divergence with the population from Rombos: D4–D5 p- dist (cyt b) = 0.4 ± 0.3%. Therefore, only one of the three lines of evidence (morphology) differentiates the population of Fogo from Brava and Rombos. Consequently, according to the IPC protocol, T. p. protogigas and T. p. hartogi comb. nov. are considered only distinct subspecies (Fig. 2). The lack of differentiation in at least two of the three lines of evidence precludes any further differentiation between the island populations from Brava and Rombos.
TARENTOLA PROTOGIGAS PROTOGIGAS JOGER,
description: Published as part of Vasconcelos, Raquel, Perera, Ana, Geniez, Philippe, Harris, D. James & Carranza, Salvador, 2012, An integrative taxonomic revision of the Tarentola geckos (Squamata, Phyllodactylidae) of the Cape Verde Islands, pp. 328-360 in Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 164 (2) on page 353, DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2011.00768.x, http://zenodo.org/record/5406490