Gekko nutaphandi Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels, 2008, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Bauer, Aaron M.
name: Sumontha, Montri
name: Pauwels, Olivier S. G.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2008
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Reptilia
Squamata
Gekkonidae
Gekko
Gekko nutaphandi

description: Gekko nutaphandi sp. nov.
Figures 1–4
Holotype. CUMZ.R. 2003.123, adult female; Thailand, Kanchanaburi Province, Sai Yok District, Sai Yok Noi waterfall (14°25’N, 98°55’E); collected by Montri Sumontha, 26 August 2003.
Paratypes. IRSNB 2647, adult female, IRSNB 2648-2649, adult males; same locality and collector data as holotype.
Diagnosis. A medium-sized Gekko, snout-vent length at least 116 mm. Dorsum with 14 rows of prominent, large conical tubercles. Rostral approximately three times wider than deep, without rostral groove, excluded from contact with nostril rim. Precloacal pores (represented by a series of distinct pale scales in females) in a continuous series of 17–22, femoral pores absent. Digit IV of pes with 15 enlarged subdigital scansors. Dorsal pattern of bright white spots arranged in a series of eight transverse bands from nape to sacrum. Iris color in life deep brick red.
Gekko nutaphandi may be distinguished from G. subpalmatus, G. m e l l i, G. a t h y m u s Brown & Alcala, 1962, G. scientiadventura Rösler et al., 2005, G. t a w a e n s i s Okada, 1956 by the presence of dorsal tubercles; from G. t a w a e n s i s and two new species from the Ryukyus (Toda et al. 2008) by the presence of precloacal pores in males; from G. japonicus Schlegel, 1836, G. swinhonis, Günther, 1864, G. hokouensis Pope, 1928, G. taibaiensis, Song, 1985, G. auriverrucosus Zhou & Liu, 1982, G. scabridus, Liu & Zhou, 1982, G. chinensis, Gray, 1842, G. yakuensis Matsui & Okana, 1968, G. liboensis, Zhou & Li, 1982, G. badenii, Szczerbak & Nekrasova, 1994, and a new species from China (Zhou & Wang 2008) by larger size (to at least 116 mm SVL versus <80 mm SVL); from G. vittatus Houttuyn, 1782, G. porosus Taylor, 1922, G. gigante Brown & Alcala, 1978, G. kikuchii Oshima, 1912, G. mindorensis Taylor, 1919, G. monarchus, G. romblon Brown & Alcala, 1978, G. palawanensis Taylor, 1925, G. ernstkelleri Rösler et al., 2006, and a new species from the Philippines (Brown et al. 2008), by the lack of femoral pores; from G. petricolus and G. ulikovskii, Darevsky & Orlov, 1994 by its lack of a rostral groove (versus an X- or Y-shaped groove) and by a more robust body and distinctive pattern of transverse series of white spots (versus scattered pale or pale and dark spots or a greenish-yellow dorsum without spots, respectively); from G. grossmanni, Günther, 1994 by lack of nostril-rostral contact and by larger, keeled to mucronate dorsal tubercles.
Gekko nutaphandi is most similar to G. gecko, G. s m i t h i i, G. siamensis, G. verreauxi, and G. albofasciolatus Günther, 1872, which have previously been considered to be closely related based on their shared possession of a suite of features: adult SVL> 110 mm; scales on snout as large or slightly larger than those on dorsum of body;> 18 subdigital scansors under digit IV of pes; absence of femoral pores and a relatively low number of precloacal pores (<24) (Ota & Nabhitabhata 1991; Ota et al. 1991). From these species, G. nutaphandi differs in its lower number of subdigital scansors (15 under digit IV of pes). From G. verreauxi it differs in having a greater number of dorsal tubercle rows (14 versus 11), rostral excluded versus entering nostril, and a regular pattern of transversely oriented light spots (versus dark spots and irregular blotches); from G. s m i t h i i in having more rows of dorsal tubercles (14 versus 8-13), rostral groove absent versus present, and eye color red versus green; from G. albofasciolatus in having more rows of dorsal tubercles (14 versus 10-11), rostral groove absent versus present (though variable in G. albofasciolatus), and eyes red versus green; and from G. gecko in having the rostral groove absent versus present, and eye color red versus pale golden, copper, or brown to olive (see Grossmann 2004 for color photographs). It bears the greatest resemblance to G. s i a m e n - sis from which it differs in generally having fewer rows of dorsal tubercles (14 versus 14–19, but usually> 15), a much larger internasal scale, fewer ventral scales (30–31 versus 33–36), fewer supralabial scales (12– 14 versus 17–21), and red versus green eyes in life. The 17–22 precloacal pores (or pitted scales in females) in G. nutaphandi exceed the ranges for G. verreauxi (13), G. albofasciolatus (14), G. siamensis (10–13), and G. smithii (7-16) and falls within the range of G. g e c k o (10-24). Although superficially similar to G. siamensis, G. albofasciolatus, and G. smithii in having a relatively drab body with transverse series of pale spots, it differs strongly from typical G. g e c k o in lacking a bluish-gray dorsum with widely distributed orange to red spots and a series of pale (whitish to gray or sky blue) spots arranged in transverse bands between the occiput and sacrum (but see Discussion for comparison of other “ G. gecko ” morphs). Selected features of taxa within this group of large-bodied Gekko are summarized in Table 1.
Description (based on the holotype). Adult female, SVL 92.2 mm (Figs. 1–2). Head long (HeadL/SVL ratio 0.30), relatively broad (HeadW/HeadL ratio 0.74), somewhat depressed (HeadH/HL ratio 0.41), strongly distinct from neck. Lores and interorbital region slightly inflated. Snout moderate (SnEye/HeadL ratio 0.42), less than twice eye diameter (OrbD/SnEye ratio 0.61); scales on snout and forehead small to moderate in size, granular and slightly domed to flattened; scales on snout much larger than those on interorbital region. Eye relatively large (OrbD/HeadL ratio 0.25); pupil vertical with crenulated margins; supraciliaries short, posteriormost bearing minute spines. Ear opening oval, vertically oriented, large (EarL/HeadL ratio 0.14); eye to ear distance only slightly greater than diameter of eyes (EyeEar/OrbD ratio 1.04). Rostral approximately 3 times wider (3.8 mm) than deep (1.2 mm), no rostral groove present; two much enlarged supranasals incompletely separated by a single, very large, oval internasal; rostral in contact with supralabial I and supranasals, internasal separated from rostral by narrow anterior contact of supranasals; nostrils oval, each surrounded by supranasal, first supralabial, two dorsally located postnasals and a large nasal, which enters the nostril forming a recessed valvular flange in its posterior third; 3 rows of scales separate orbit from supralabials. Mental triangular, somewhat deeper (3.0 mm) than wide (2.4 mm) and not much deeper than infralabials; one pair of greatly enlarged postmentals meeting at a point behind the mental, each postmental bordered anteriorly by first infralabial, medially by mental, laterally by the first scale in a row of enlarged scales bordering the infralabials, and posteriorly by two small (3-4 times the size of a granular gular scale) chin shields, the medial one in shared contact with both left and right postmentals. Infralabials bordered by a row of enlarged scales, decreasing in size posteriorly. Enlarged supralabials to midpoint of orbit 10 (left and right); supralabials to angle of jaws 12 (right)–14 (left); enlarged infralabials 10 (left and right); interorbital scale rows across narrowest point of frontal 12, between supraciliaries 24. Supraorbital scales highly heterogeneous in size, largest at medial edge of orbit in midorbital position.
FIGURE 1. Dorsal view of the holotype (CMUZ.R.2003.123) of Gekko nutaphandi sp. nov. from Sai Yok Noi waterfall, Sai Yok District, Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand (14°25’N, 98°55’E). Scale bar = 20 mm.
Body robust, trunk relatively long (TrunkL/SVL ratio 0.39), dorsoventrally depressed in cross-section, with small but distinct ventrolateral folds without denticulate margins. Dorsal scales heterogeneous, granular, rectangular to oval, flattened; regularly arranged, small (5-6 times size of granules), conical, posteriorlydirected tubercles extending from posterior margin of orbit to tail; tubercles much smaller on parietal region than elsewhere, larger on mid-flanks than middorsally or on ventral flanks; tubercles in 14 rows at midbody. Ventral scales smaller than dorsal tubercles, subimbricate; somewhat larger on abdomen than on chest, becoming granular and much smaller in gular region; midbody scale rows across belly to ventrolateral folds 31. Slightly enlarged precloacal scales in a single row of 22, pitted but without pores, in a pale, sharply contrasting row. Scales on palm and sole smooth, flat, rounded; scales on dorsal aspects of hind limbs heterogeneous – granular, intermixed with larger tubercules, some conical, others flattened with a small distal point at distal scale margin; scales on dorsal surface of forelimb proximal to elbow subimbricate, weakly heterogeneous, those distal to elbow granular intermixed with larger oval to triangular tubercles.
Fore- and hindlimbs moderately long, stout; forearm and tibia moderately long (ForeaL/SVL ratio 0.15; CrusL/SVL ratio 0.19); digits relatively short, digit I, both manus and pes, clawless, all remaining digits strongly clawed; digits of manus and pes feebly webbed at base; distal portions of digits strongly curved, arising from distal portion of expanded subdigital pad; scansors beneath each toe undivided; scansors from proximalmost at least twice diameter of palmar scales to distalmost: 12-12-14-15 -13 (left manus), 11-[damaged]- 13-15-13 (right manus), 12-14-14-15 -14 (left pes), 12-12-14-14 -13 (right pes). Relative length of digits of manus: IV> III> V> II> I; of pes: IV> III> V> II> I.
Tail depressed, slightly longer than head and body (TailL/SVL ratio 1.04); dorsal surface of tail covered with small, square to oval, juxtaposed to weakly subimbricate granules forming regular transverse rows, about 10 such rows per distinct caudal segment (corresponding to underlying muscle segments); ventral scales much larger (3 rows per caudal segment), smooth, imbricate, with a median pair of enlarged subcaudal plates extending about 2/3 across the width of tail. Posterior portion of dorsum of each tail segment with a single transverse row of 6 enlarged, rounded tubercles, each with upturned keeled or mucronate distal margin (ventrolateral pair of tubercles largest, not keeled or mucronate). Distal portion of tail present, but partly damaged. One small, rounded postcloacal spur on each side of tail base.
Coloration (in preservative). Body grayish brown with a series of 8 transverse rows of bright white spots, mostly corresponding to tubercles (one on nape, one across shoulders, 4 between axilla and groin, 2 across sacrum). Anterior margin of each row of white spots coincident with a slightly diffuse dark brown band 1-1.5 tubercles in width. One transverse row of white tubercles at level of first postpygal vertebra; postpygal tail with a series of 7 grayish bands, basally corresponding to every fourth caudal segment. Base color of hindlimbs and tail purplish brown, slightly darker than dorsum and forelimbs. Limbs patterned as dorsum with rows of white tubercles continuing on to joints of digits. Scattered white tubercles extending forward from ear (base of nuchal band) to posterior edge of orbit and across temporal region. Three bright white spots forming a triangle at the occiput, one small white spot in midorbital position, and scattered white spots on canthus, across nasals and at border of supralabials. Rostral and anterior supralabials paler than remainder of snout. Venter cream, each scale with diffuse, minute dark speckles, pigmentation heaviest under parts of throat and anterior margins of hindlimbs. Palms and soles slightly yellowish brown; distal portion of subdigital scansors densely covered with dark brown speckles. Tail venter more-or-less uniform grayish brown.
In life background color from grayish brown to chestnut brown (Figs. 2–3). Venter pearly grayish-white. Iris brick red (Fig. 4).
Variation. The paratypes, although not as well preserved as the holotype, are very similar in most respects (Table 2). The two male paratypes possess well-developed precloacal pores in 17 (IRSNB 2649) and 19 (IRSNB 2648) rows, and the female paratype, IRSNB 2647, has 19 pitted scales in corresponding position. The color in preservative of the paratypes is uniformly bolder than the holotype, with a dark, almost purplishbrown background, and transverse bands of bright white spots.
Etymology. The specific epithet is a patronym honoring the late Thai herpetologist Wirot Nutaphand (1932-2005) for his many technical and popular publications on reptiles and amphibians. He contributed remarkably to the popularity of reptiles and amphibians in Thailand, and to the respectability of studying them – stimulating the avocations and careers of many amateur and professional Thai herpetologists.
Distribution and Natural history. At present known only from a single limestone hill surrounded by bamboo forest. Specimens were located in the walls of shallow caves and on slender vegetation, particularly bamboo. The area has a diverse gecko fauna including Dixonius siamensis Boulenger, 1898, D. hangseesom Bauer et al., 2004, Hemidactylus frenatus, Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann, 1834), G. fehlmanni (Taylor, 1962), G. lacerata (Taylor, 1962), Cyrtodactylus cf. peguensis (Boulenger, 1893), and C. tigroides Bauer et al., 2003. Gekko gecko occurs near the type locality in anthropogenic habitats, but the two congeners are not strictly syntopic. Other reptiles and amphibians at Sai Yok Noi are Acanthosaura crucigera Boulenger, 1885, Calotes mystaceus Duméril & Bibron, 1837, C. emma Gray, 1845, Eutropis multifasciata (Kuhl, 1820), Sphenomorphus maculatus (Blyth, 1853), Ahaetulla prasina (Boie, 1827), A. nasuta (Bonnaterre, 1790), Dryocalamus davisonii (Blandford, 1878), Lycodon capucinus Boie, 1827, Lycodon subcinctus Boie, 1827, Pareas carinatus (Boie, 1828), Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor, 1836), Cryptelytrops albolabris (Gray, 1842), C. kanburiensis (Smith, 1943), Ingerophrynus macrotis (Boulenger, 1888), Microhyla ornata (Duméril & Bibron, 1841), M. heymonsii Vo g t, 1 9 11, Kaloula pulchra Gray, 1831, Calluella guttulata (Blyth, 1855), Fejervarya limnocharis (Gravenhorst, 1829), Polypedates leucomystax (Gravenhorst, 1829) and P. mutus (Smith, 1940) (M. Sumontha, pers. obs.). Kitti’s hog-nosed bat (Craseonycteris thonglongyai) and the Blue Whistling Thrush (Myophonus caeruleus) are among the characteristic endothermic vertebrates of the area.
It is clear that G. nutaphandi is distinct from the recognized species of Gekko, however, given that variation in G. g e c k o is extensive and only incompletely assessed (Mertens 1955; Grossmann 1987; 2004; Rösler 1995, 2005), it is necessary to rule out synonyms that might apply to this population. A number of names are currently in synonymy of G. g e c k o (Kluge 2001). Several of these (G. verticillatus Laurenti, 1768; G. t e re s Laurenti, 1768) are based, at least in part, on illustrations appearing in Seba (1734) that appear to be referable to typical G. g e c k o. Likewise, G. v e r u s Merrem, 1820 and G. i n d i c u s Girard, 1857 are clearly attributable to the typical, brightly colored tokay. Rösler (2005) suggested that neither G. perlatus Houttuyn, 1782 nor G. a c u l e a - tus Houttuyn, 1782 were unambiguously assignable to G. g e c k o, or even to the genus Gekko. We agree with this assessment and, in the absence of extant type material or illustrations of such, we consider any allocation of these names to the synonymy of recognized species as tentative at best. Certainly there is nothing that would suggest synonymy with G. nutaphandi. Gekko annulatus (Kuhl, 1820) was questionably synonymized with G. g e c k o by Wermuth (1965), and Rösler (2005) considered this identification likely. We, however, consider the description to be too uninformative to be definitive. Gekko guttatus (Daudin, 1802) appears to be a composite of several taxa. One of these is certainly the typical form of G. g. gecko, but the others are not unambiguously identifiable, and Daudin’s original material is no longer extant (Brygoo 1990).
Among the morpho-groups of Gekko gecko identified by Rösler (2005) G. nutaphandi is superficially most similar to Form A, which is characterized by distinct pale bands on a more or less dark background. This would appear to correspond to the “black” or “dark form” tokays of China (e.g., Chan et al. 2006). However, Rösler (2005) regarded this form as limited in distribution to southern China and northern Vietnam, whereas all of Thailand was characterized by having Form B, which resembles the typical red or orange-spotted tokay. Both Vietnamese (Grossmann 2004, figs. pp. 11–12; Rösler 2005, fig. 8) and Chinese (Chan et al. 2006, fig. 1; but see Rösler 2005, fig. 7) “black” tokays, however, exhibit extensive patterning on the dorsum of the head (versus few, scattered, small white spots in G. nutaphandi) and have higher lamellar counts (e.g., 18–24 versus 15 under digit IV of pes; Rösler 2005). These darker tokays may be referable to Gekko reevesii (Gray, 1831); the status of this name is under investigation by Rösler (see Rösler et al. 2005).
The discovery of Gekko nutaphandi in association with karstic landscape features highlights the significance of limestone habitats for gecko biodiversity in Southeast Asia. The recently described Gekko scientiadventura was also discovered on and around karst limestone outcrops in Vietnam (Rösler et al. 2005) as have been a diversity of recently discovered Southeast Asian geckos in the genus Cyrtodactylus (Bauer et al. 2002, 2003; Ziegler et al. 2002; Nguyen et al. 2006; Heidrich et al. 2007). The type locality of Gekko nutaphandi is also the type locality of the recently described Dixonius hangseesom (Bauer et al. 2004). Further surveys are required to determine the total distributional range of G. nutaphandi relative to its probable sister taxon, G. siamensis, which until now has been recorded only from central Thailand (Grossmann & Ulber 1990; Ota & Nabhitabhata 1991).
description: Published as part of Bauer, Aaron M., Sumontha, Montri & Pauwels, Olivier S. G., 2008, A new red-eyed Gekko (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) from Kanchanaburi Province, Thailand, pp. 32-42 in Zootaxa 1750 on pages 34-40, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.274239