Lepidodactylus makira Kraus 2023, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Kraus, Fred
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2023
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Squamata
Gekkonidae
Lepidodactylus
Lepidodactylus makira

description: Lepidodactylus makira sp. nov.
Figs. 2B, 3
Holotype. KU 350843 (field tag SLT 1204), mature female, collected by I. Tigulu at Na’ra Village, Naepaepa Mt., Central Bauro Highlands, 10.5639°S, 161.9049°E, 775 m a.s.l., Makira Island, Makira Province, Solomon Islands, 4 July 2018.
Paratype. BMNH 1973.222, mature male, collected 7 mi (11.6 km) S of Wainoni (presumably Wainoni Bay, since I can find no village of that name), Makira Island, Makira Province, Solomon Islands. The BMNH catalogue lists no collector or collection date for this specimen.
Diagnosis. An intermediately sized (adult female SVL 52.5 mm, adult male 45.0 mm) species of Lepidodactylus having 44–45 enlarged pore-bearing precloacal/femoral scales in a continous row extending to distal end of each thigh, 45 precloacal/femoral pores in sole male, enlarged scales of pore-bearing series entirely separated from patch of enlarged pubic scales by intervening row of tiny scales, entirely undivided subterminal lamellae on all toes though two on each toe may be grooved, 17–19 T4 lamellae, 12 T1 lamellae, moderately long toes (T4L/ SVL = 0.10–0.11), lamellae occupying almost all of toes or extending onto palm (T4 lamellaeL/T4L = 0.94–1.04), toes fairly wide (T4W/T4L = 0.32–0.36) with extensive webbing (T3T4webL/T4L = 0.28–0.30, T4T5webL/T4L = 0.22–0.28), two internasals between supranasals along posterior margin of rostral, 8–10 supralabials to center of eye, circumorbital scales dark brown, foot webbing dark brown dorsally and ventrally, dorsum dark brown with darker-brown dorsolateral and lateral blotches, and pale ventral field ~15 scale rows wide.
Comparisons with other species. The undivided lamellae under the toes place Lepidodactylus makira sp. nov. in Brown & Parker’s (1977) phenetic Group I. Hence, it is readily distinguished from Melanesian species belonging to Group II (L. buleli Ineich, L. dialeukos Kraus, L. gardineri Boulenger, L. guppyi, L. kwasnickae Kraus, L. laticinctus, L. mitchelli Kraus, L. novaeguineae Brown & Parker, L. pulcher, L. shebae), which have two or more divided subterminal lamellae, and from Group III species (L. lugubris [Duméril & Bibron], L. pantai Stubbs, Karin, Arifin, Iskandar, Arida, Reilly, Bloch, Kusnadi & McGuire, and L. woodfordi Boulenger), which have the terminal and several subterminal lamellae divided.
From other Group I species, L. makira sp. nov. is distinguished from L. aignanus, L. listeri, L. manni, and L. orientalis in having a continuous row of 45 precloacal/femoral pores in the sole male (vs. 31 or fewer precloacal/ femoral pores in L. aignanus, L. listeri, L. manni, L. orientalis) and far more T4 lamellae (17–19 vs. 9–12 in L. aignanus, L. listeri, L. manni, L. orientalis); from L. pumilus, L. sacrolineatus, and L. zweifeli by its continuous row of precloacal/femoral pores and enlarged precloacal/femoral scales (vs. enlarged precloacal scales/pores divided from enlarged femoral scales/pores by intervening smaller scales lacking pores, producing three discrete pore series in L. pumilus, L. sacrolineatus, and L. zweifeli); from L. magnus by its much smaller size (45.0– 52.5 mm SVL vs. 50–71 mm in L. magnus), greater number of T4 lamellae (17–19 vs. 11–14 in L. magnus), and greater amount of toe webbing (T3T4webL/T4L = 0.28–0.30 vs. 0.12–0.19 in L. magnus); from L. oorti in its greater number of T4 lamellae (17–19 vs. 12–14 in L. oorti) and T1 lamellae (11–12 vs. 9–10 in L. oorti), greater number of enlarged precloacal/femoral scales (44–45 vs. 32–36 in L. oorti) and pores (45 vs. 28–30 in L. oorti), and greater toe webbing (all toes webbed and T3T4webL/T4L = 0.28–0.30 vs. basal webbing only between T3 and T 4 in L. oorti); and from L. euaensis and L. mutahi in its greater number of T4 lamellae (17–19 vs. 10–13 in L. euaensis, 10–11 in L. mutahi) covering most of toe or more (T4 lamellaeL/T4L = 0.94–1.04 vs. ~ 0.75 in L. euaensis, ~ 0.67 in L. mutahi), greater number of enlarged precloacal/femoral scales (44–45 vs. 28–36 in L. mutahi) and pores (45 vs. 33 in L. euaensis, 27–34 in L. mutahi).
Lepidodactylus makira sp. nov. is most similar to L. flaviocularis from nearby Guadalcanal. From that species, L. makira sp. nov. differs in its larger size (female SVL 52.5 mm vs. 46.0 mm in L. flaviocularis) and in having more extensive toe webbing (T3T4webL = 0.28–0.30 vs. 0.26–0.27 in L. flaviocularis, T4T5webL = 0.22–0.28 vs. 0.14–0.18 in L. flaviocularis), two internasal scales (vs. three in L. flaviocularis), 45 precloacal/femoral pores in the sole male (vs. 36 in the sole male L. flaviocularis), 44–45 enlarged precloacal/femoral scales (vs. 36–37 in L. flaviocularis), a continuous row of tiny scales entirely separating the enlarged pore-bearing precloacal/femoral scales from the patch of enlarged pubic scales (vs. tiny scales only intervening between these enlarged scale series laterally in L. flaviocularis), brown circumorbital scales (vs. yellow in L. flaviocularis), and pale ventral field 15 scale rows wide (vs. ~25 rows wide in L. flaviocularis).
Description of holotype. A mature female of medium size (SVL = 52.5 mm) with a mid-ventral incision behind the pectoral region. Head relatively long (HL/SVL = 0.24) and wide (HW/HL = 0.82), distinct from neck (Fig. 3A). Loreal region slightly inflated; no distinct canthus rostralis. Top of snout, area between nares, and area posterior to nares shallowly concave. Snout tapered and rounded at tip, relatively long (SN/HL = 0.45), significantly longer than eye diameter (SN/EY = 1.9). Eye of modest size (EY/HL = 0.23, EY/EN = 0.64); pupil vertical, constricted into series of four lobes; anterior supraciliaries slightly larger than adjacent granules, posterior ones subequal to adjacent granules. Ear opening small (Ear/HL = 0.086), narrowly compressed, oriented obliquely; distance between ear and eye larger than eye diameter (EE/EY = 1.4). Rostral twice as wide (2.4 mm) as high (1.2 mm), highest just medial to nares, lower between these points; length 0.55 mm. Supranasals separated by two internasals along posterior rostral margin. Rostral in contact with first supralabials, two supranasals, and two internasals. External nares circular; each bordered by rostral, two supranasals, first supralabial, and one postnasal. Mental triangular, 0.95 mm wide. Mental bordered posteriorly by one small scale, and this bordered posteriorly by subequal scales that progressively decrease in size posteriorly to join granular chin scales. First five infralabials bordered below by enlarged scales; remaining scales below infralabials smaller, rapidly decreasing posteriorly to approximately same size as throat scales, which decrease in size medially. Supralabials to mid-orbital position eight on each side; three (R) or two (L) enlarged supralabials posterior to this; angle of jaw bordered with granular scales. Infralabials 12 (R) and 11 (L).
Body of rather narrow habitus (TrL/SVL = 0.52), slightly depressed. Dorsal scales on head, body, limbs, and throat tiny, juxtaposed granules, slightly larger on sides and snout; tubercles absent. Ventral scales larger, flat and smooth, subimbricate, gradually decreasing in size laterally to become granular.
Enlarged precloacal/femoral scales in single series of 44 scales extending to distal end of each thigh, 20 of these containing small, shallow pores or dimples; thigh scales anterior to this row larger than those posterior. Enlarged scales form a pubic patch between precloacal series and vent (Fig. 3B); continuous row of tiny scales entirely separate precloacal series and pubic patch; nine scales in a row between apex of enlarged precloacal series and vent. Scales on palms and soles rounded, flattened, smooth, subimbricate.
Fore- and hindlimbs relatively small but well-developed (FA/SVL = 0.10, CS/SVL = 0.13). Digits well-developed (Fig. 3C, D), moderately dilated throughout their length (T4W/T4L = 0.36), all but first fingers and toes with recurved claws; clawed phalanges laterally compressed, free above and extending slightly beyond terminal lamellae. Subdigital lamellae narrow and smooth, all undivided (Fig. 3C, D); lamellae extend for entire length of each toe (T4lamellaeL/T4L = 1.04). Lamellae of manus 11–12–14–16–12 on right, 9–13–14–15–11 on left; of pes 12–15–16–18–12 on right, 12–13–16–19–12 on left. Relative lengths of digits on manus and pes I <II <V <III <IV. Webbing present between all digits, most extensive between T3 and T4 (T3T4webL/T4L = 0.30, T4T5webL/ T4L = 0.28). A fringe of scales extends from base of fifth toe anteriorly along inner margin of leg.
Tail missing. Cloacal sacs not swollen (Fig. 3B), with small external orifices situated near lateral margins of vent; three (R) or two (L) slightly enlarged, blunt postcloacal spurs on each side of tailbase; midventral scales of sac hexagonal, subimbricate, slightly larger than those ventrolaterally.
Color in preservative: Dorsal ground color on body, head, and limbs dark brown with four dark chocolatebrown dorsolateral blotches between limbs on each side (Fig. 3A) below which are several smaller dark chocolatebrown lateral blotches. Approximately 15 mid-ventral rows of white scales; sides of venter brown like dorsum. Chin and throat white heavily spotted with brown, brown decreasing posteriorly (Fig. 3B). Palmar and plantar surfaces white punctated with some brown (Fig. 3C, D); tips of digits brown; webbing dark brown above and below. Iris gold veined with brown.
Measurements (in mm). SVL = 52.5, TrL = 27.5, FA = 5.4, CS = 7.0, HL = 12.8, HW = 10.5, Ear = 1.1, EE = 4.3, EY = 3.0, SN = 5.8, EN = 4.7, IN = 2.6, T4L = 5.0, T4W = 1.8, T4lamellaeL = 5.2, T3T4webL = 1.5, T4T5webL = 1.4.
Variation. The sole paratype is similar to the holotype in most respects but is a male of smaller size (45.0 mm SVL), with 45 enlarged precloacal/femoral scales and 45 well-developed precloacal/femoral pores that extend to distal end of each thigh. It has nine (R) and ten (L) supralabials to center of eye, and 14 infralabials on each side. Lamellae of manus 9–13–14–17–14 on right, 11–13–17–17–13 on left; of pes 12–16–17–17–14 on right, 12–14– 19–18–14 on left. It has somewhat less toe webbing (T3 T4 webL/ T4 L = 0.28, T4 T5 webL/ T4 L = 0.22), but this may reflect a longer period of shrinkage in alcohol. The specimen is highly bleached such that reliable information on color pattern is unavailable.
Measurements of paratype (in mm). –SVL = 45.0, TrL = 23.0, FA = 4.7, CS = 6.0, HL = 11.8, HW = 9.2, Ear = 1.0, EE = 4.0, EY = 2.9, SN = 5.2, EN = 4.3, IN = 2.4, T4L = 5.0, T4W = 1.6, T4lamellaeL = 4.7, T3T4webL = 1.4, T4T5webL = 1.1.
Color in life. A photo of the holotype in life (Fig. 2B) shows an animal that is yellow brown dorsally with five dark-brown dorsolateral blotches and smaller dark-brown lateral spots. It has two narrow brown lines behind the eye followed by three smaller brown lines arrayed behind those. The eye is golden, and the circumorbital scales are the same color as the dorsum.
Etymology. The species name is a noun in apposition and is named for its island of residence.
Range. Known only from two localities that are within ~ 15 km of each other although the paratype locality is inexact (Fig. 4).
Ecology. The holotype was collected on the leaf of a shrub ca. 2 m above ground on a ridge in thickly forested lower-montane primary rainforest (Fig. 5).
Remarks. Lepidodactylus species are often distinguished from each other in part by degree of toe webbing, with differences usually being estimated for the webbing between T3 and T4. I have found that distinction to generally work well, as it does for distinguishing L. makira sp. nov. from L. flaviocularis. However, for this particular species pair, the difference in degree of webbing between T4 and T5 is even more striking, and I have included it in the diagnosis for both species. As well, differences in numbers of digital lamellae are generally summarized by comparing numbers under T4 and sometimes T1. Again, those numbers well serve to distinguish L. makira sp. nov. from most other Melanesian Lepidodactylus but not so well from L. flaviocularis. However, L. makira sp. nov. does have more digital lamellae overall than does L. flaviocularis, and this is best captured by summing total numbers of lamellae across all digits. For L. makira sp. nov., numbers of lamellae on each manus vary from 62–71 (mean 66.2) and each pes from 72–76 (mean 74.0), whereas those same figures for L. flaviocularis are 57–59 (mean 58.0) and 60–73 (mean 67.0). This better captures the impression of greater numbers of lamellae in L. makira sp. nov. even though comparisons for only T4 or T1 are less distinctive.
There may be additional differences between L. makira sp. nov. and L. flaviocularis, but these need to be better assessed when a broader series of each species becomes available. In preservative, the holotype of L. makira sp. nov. has dark-brown webbing between the toes, which contrasts with the paler-brown color of the surrounding scales on the feet; this stands in contrast to what is seen in L. flaviocularis, in which the webbing and surrounding scales are the same color and do not contrast with each other. The bleached nature of the paratype of L. makira sp. nov. does not allow me to determine whether this feature is shared by both specimens. Similarly, the iris of the holotype of L. makira sp. nov. is gold veined with brown; that of both specimens of L. flaviocularis appears brown instead of gold, as does the photograph in life of that species (Fig. 2A). Apparent differences in extent of webbing would also benefit from further evaluation as specimens become available, as would variation in the enlarged chin shields medial to the infralabials, which are smaller in the two specimens of L. flaviocularis currently available than they are in the two specimens of L. makira sp. nov..
description: Published as part of Kraus, Fred, 2023, Redescription of Lepidodactylus flaviocularis (Squamata: Gekkonidae), with the description of a new species from Makira Island, Solomon Islands, pp. 562-576 in Zootaxa 5339 (6) on pages 566-572, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5339.6.5, http://zenodo.org/record/8313789