Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis
Creators: name: Kraus, Fred
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2008
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Chordata
Reptilia
Squamata
Gekkonidae
Cyrtodactylus
Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis

description: Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis
Fig. 1 A
Gymnodactylus louisiadensis de Vis, 1892a: 98; 1892b: 11. Type locality: “Sudest” [Island, Papua New Guinea]. Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis. – Underwood, 1954: 475. Gonydactylus louisiadensis. – Kluge, 1991: 12.
Neotype. BPBM 19741 (field tag FK 9721), adult female, collected by F. Kraus along Gesirava River, W slope Mt. Riu, 11.49179ºS, 153.41261ºE, 127 m, Sudest Island, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea, 21 April 2004.
Referred specimens. Papua New Guinea: Milne Bay Province: Sudest Island: along Gesirava River, W slope Mt. Riu, 11.49179ºS, 153.41261ºE, 127 m (BPBM 19742); W slope Mt. Riu, 11.49610° S, 153.42413° E, 410 m (BPBM 19743); W slope Mt. Riu, 11.486413ºS, 153.4148351ºE (BPBM 19744); Rewa (MCZ 156549).
Diagnosis. A large (SV = 116–133 mm) species of Cyrtodactylus having a single row of enlarged subcaudals; enlarged dorsal tubercles flat, unkeeled, 2–3 times size of adjacent granules (Fig. 2 C), in 27–32 rows; lateral tubercles indistinct, ~2–3 times size of adjacent granules and approximately same size as scales of lateral skin fold; 34–39 midbelly scale rows; precloacal/femoral pores 69, in a single continuous row; lamellae under fourth toe 24–26; head of moderate width (HW/HL = 0.67–0.72, mean 0.69); four dark dorsal bands between head and hindlimb insertion, of even width, typically not well margined in black, with 8–13 tubercles sagitally through 3rd dark band; dark spots absent from light dorsal ground color; mouth and cloacal linings pink; ventral scales dirty white clouded with brown; and posterior supralabials brown.
Comparisons with other species. Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis is distinguished from all other Australo- Papuan members of the genus except C. aaroni, C. mimikanus, C. murua, C. tuberculatus, and C. salomonensis by its single row of enlarged subcaudals. From C. aaroni and C. mimikanus it is distinguished by its larger size (SV = 116–133 mm vs. 70–86.5 mm in C. aaroni and 67–103 in C. mimikanus), greater number of precloacal/femoral pores (69 vs. 17–27 in C. aaroni and <40 in C. mimikanus) in a single series (vs. three discrete patches), and fewer dark dorsal bands between the head and hindlimbs (4 vs. 8–11 in C. aaroni and C. mimikanus). From C. murua it is distinguished by having a greater number of dorsal tubercles (27–32 rows vs. 20– 22 rows in C. murua); dorsal tubercles flat (vs. conical in C. murua); and dorsal bands narrower than or of equal depth to intervening ground color (vs. wider in C. murua), of even width across dorsum (vs. broadening medially in C. murua), and with straight margins (vs. irregular margins in C. murua). From C. tuberculatus it is distinguished by its larger size (SV = 116–133 mm vs. 80–89 mm in C. tuberculatus), greater number of midbelly scale rows (34–39 vs. 27–36 in C. tuberculatus), greater number of precloacal/femoral pores (69 vs. 36–46 in C. tuberculatus), and by having fewer dark dorsal bands (4 vs. 6–7 in C. tuberculatus) that are unmargined or poorly margined in black. From C. salomonensis it is distinguished by having no conspicuously enlarged tubercles (vs. having series of enlarged tubercles) along the lateral skin fold, fewer 4th toe lamellae (24-26 vs. 28–31 in C. salomonensis), and fewer dark dorsal bands (4 vs. 6–7 in C. salomonensis) having even (vs. irregular in C. salomonensis) margins.
Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis is unique among members of this complex in having small, flat tubercles that are not elevated above the surrounding granules and shares with only one other species (following) brown posterior supralabials.
Description of neotype: A mature female, with two large eggs, and lateral incision. Animal large (SV = 127 mm, TrL = 58.2 mm); tail folded back on itself and unamenable to accurate measurement, approximately as long as SV. Head relatively long (HL/SV = 0.29) and wide (HW/HL = 0.67), not depressed (HH/HL = 0.40), distinct from neck. Loreal region slightly inflated; canthus rostralis poorly defined. Interorbital region and top of snout concave. Snout relatively long (SN/HL = 0.39), much longer than eye diameter (SN/EY = 1.8). Eye relatively large (EY/HL = 0.22); pupil vertical, with weakly crenellated margins; supraciliaries large, frill-like, well-differentiated from adjacent granules. Ear opening small (Ear/HL = 0.073), somewhat depressed; distance between ear and eye larger than eye diameter. Rostral wider (5.9 mm) than high (3.2 mm), highest just medial to nares, lower between these points; length 2.8 mm; dorsal half divided by weak medial groove. Two enlarged supranasals separated by single internasal. Rostral in contact with first supralabials, two supranasals, and one internasal. External nares circular; each bordered by rostral, supranasal, first supralabial, and nasal. Nasal bordered posteriorly by five (right) or six (left) small granular scales. Four rows of small scales separate orbit from supralabials at narrowest point. Mental shallowly triangular, wider (5.2 mm) than long (3.4 mm). Mental bordered posteriorly by two enlarged postmentals. First four infralabials bordered by enlarged, elongate scales; fifth infralabial bordered on anterior third by same; these followed posteriorly by tiny granules. Supralabials to mid-orbital position eight on right side, nine on left; to angle of jaw 13 on right, 14 on left. Infralabials nine on right, ten on left.
Body moderately robust (TrL/SV = 0.46), with poorly developed lateral skin folds consisting of slightly enlarged scales approximately same size as adjacent ventral scales and lateral tubercles. Dorsal scales on head, body, and limbs tiny, juxtaposed granules, each with small raised asperities. Small, flat tubercles present on head, body, and limbs; best developed posteriorly; 2–3 times size of adjacent granules; not distinct from granules in profile. Dorsal tubercles with one weak keel; those on head, limbs, and sides of body unkeeled. Tubercles arranged in approximately 32 poorly defined rows between the lateral folds. Ventral scales flat and smooth; those on chin and throat smaller and juxtaposed; those on abdomen larger and subimbricate, arrayed in 39 rows across mid-venter.
Precloacal and femoral pores absent. Scales of precloacal and femoral regions of approximately uniform size and not distinct from those on abdomen; scales on posterior femoral region smaller, one-third to one-half size of precloacal scales. No precloacal groove. Scales on palms and soles rounded, smooth.
Fore- and hindlimbs relatively well-developed (FA/SV = 0.13, CS/SV = 0.16). Digits well-developed, reflected at basal interphalangeal joints; all with robust, recurved claws surrounded by two scales. Subdigital lamellae narrow and smooth, expanded proximally. Lamellae of manus 18–22–21–23–19 on right, 18–20–22– 22–20 on left; of pes 17–21–22–25–21 on right, 17–21–23–25–20 on left. Relative lengths of digits on manus I <V <II <III <IV; on pes I <II <V <III <IV. No interdigital webbing on manus, slight webbing on pes.
Tail complete, with rather narrow base (TW/SV = 0.058), tapering to a blunt point, with single row of enlarged subcaudals until distal ~ 2 cm. Cloacal sacs small, with small external orifices situated near lateral margins of vent; midventral scales of sac distinctly larger than those ventrolaterally. Scales of tail small, flat, smooth, subimbricate; with approximately six rows of enlarged dorsal tubercles just behind cloacal sacs but disappearing after first light ring on tail; three (left) or four (right) small, flat postcloacal spurs on sides of tailbase.
Color in preservative: Dorsal ground color medium sienna brown; slightly darker sienna brown chevron on nape whose anterior arms enter posterior border of eye; three more dark sienna brown bands to region between hindlimbs; five more on tail, with last tail band faint and the three middle bands darkest and most distinct. Dark dorsal bands of approximately even width across dorsum. No light margins to dark dorsal bands; faint indication of narrow dark margining on third dorsal band but not on remainder. Tubercles same color as surrounding granules. Labials brown, not contrasting with face. Venter with dirty white ground color but largely suffused with same medium brown color as dorsal ground. Palms and soles light gray suffused with some brown color.
Measurements (in mm). SV = 127, TrL = 58.2, TW = 7.4, FA = 17.0, CS = 20.3, HL = 36.8, HW = 24.5, HH = 14.8, Ear = 2.7, EE = 11.0, EY = 8.0, SN = 14.2, EN = 11.0, IN = 5.2, IO = 8.1.
Color in life. A color photo of BPBM 19742 (Fig. 1 A) indicates the dorsal ground color to be a medium sienna brown, with four slightly darker sienna dorsal bands that lack dark or light margins to set them off from the ground color. Second and third light bands on tail medium tan; last dark band charcoal gray. Iris rich reddish brown.
Variation. All four adult specimens are females and range in size from 116–133 mm SV; the sole juvenile is a 64 mm male. Mensural data for the five known specimens of this species are given in Table 1. Supralabials to center of eye vary from 8–11, to angle of jaw 13–16. Infralabials vary from 9–11, fourth toe lamellae 24–26, mid-belly scale rows 34–39, and number of rows of dorsal tubercles 27–32.
Color pattern uniformly includes four dark dorsal bands (including the nuchal chevron), which typically lack or have poorly developed black margins and contrast relatively little with the slightly lighter ground color. Ground color varies slightly among the four available recent specimens, with one having a dark tan ground color that contrasts better with the dark bands than what is seen in the neotype. Another has somewhat darker sienna ground color, providing less contrast with the dark bands than seen in the neotype. One specimen (BPBM 19744) has dark margins moderately well developed along the dark dorsal bands. All have brown labials.
Range. Known only from Sudest Island, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea (Fig. 3, star).
Ecology. Most of my specimens came from primary lowland rainforest in the vicinity of a small river at 130 m elevation, although one came from primary rainforest on a ridge at 400 m elevation. One specimen was collected in a drift-fence bucket set at the first locality. It occurred syntopically with the next described species as well as with the geckos Gehyra oceanica (Lesson) and two undescribed species of Nactus. It likely occurs as well with Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann), G. v o r a x Girard, Gekko vittatus Houttuyn, Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril and Bibron), L. orientalis Brown and Parker, and Nactus sphaerodactylodes Kraus, which were found in forested situations elsewhere on Sudest.
Remarks. In his original description of the sole specimen of Gymnodactylus louisiadensis, de Vis (1892a) mentioned three features useful for deciding which of the two Sudest species he had in hand. His specimen possessed (1) small, smooth tubercles arrayed in (2) 26 dorsal rows, and it had (3) five dark dorsal bands. Of these features, the first two accord with the species I have chosen to represent C. louisiadensis. In my limited sample, though, all specimens have only four dark dorsal bands between the head and tail, not five. It might be thought possible that de Vis was including an additional dark band on the tail anterior to a regenerated (and, hence, unbanded) tail, but this seems unlikely inasmuch as de Vis specifically referred to black rings on the base of the tail and the fact that the intervals between caudal bands and the terminal part of the tail were white. Hence, I conclude that numbers of dark bands may be variable within this species and that de Vis had a colorpattern phenotype not included in my limited sample. Arguing in favor of my allocation of C. louisiadensis to the chosen species is the fact that it is the only member of the complex to have small, smooth dorsal tubercles and the number of rows of these tubercles in the lost holotype more closely matches this species (range = 27– 32 in my sample) than its sympatric congener (range = 20–23), whose description follows.
The text usually cited as the original description of Gymnodactylus louisiadensis is that cited here as de Vis (1892b). However, in the introduction to that article, de Vis states that it consists of the substance of a prior report cited here as de Vis (1892a). The two are verbatim copies except that four short and irrelevant introductory paragraphs found in de Vis (1892a) were omitted from de Vis (1892b).
Beyond noting that the specimen came from Sudest Island, de Vis provided no other information on the specimen’s provenance. MacGregor (1892) made clear that the material reported on by de Vis was obtained by Mr. Charles Hedley, then employed at the Queensland Museum, who engaged in a collecting trip to British New Guinea from May to August, 1890 (Hedley, 1891). Hedley himself makes clear in his report on land snails (Hedley, 1891) that he did not collect on Sudest but relied on the services of Messrs. Kowald and Belford, whom MacGregor directed to assist Hedley. The only trip taken to Sudest Island by government officials during Hedley’s sojourn in New Guinea occurred July 8–9, with their ship leaving that island and anchoring at Rossel Island on July 10 (MacGregor, 1892). While on Sudest, MacGregor’s ship was anchored at Tagula, on the western end of the island, although he and his staff roamed over much of the western third of that island. Hence, the provenance of the type specimen was likely the western end of Sudest and collected on the night of either 8 or 9 July 1890.
Cyrtodactylus klugei sp. nov. Fig. 4
Holotype. BPBM 19739 (field tag FK 9506), mature male, collected by F. Kraus along Gesirava River, W slope Mt. Riu, 11.49179ºS, 153.41261ºE, 127 m, Sudest Island, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea, 12 April 2004.
Paratypes. Papua New Guinea: Milne Bay Province: Sudest Island: along Gesirava River, W slope Mt. Riu, 11.49179ºS, 153.41261ºE, 127 m (BPBM 19740); Rambuso, 0–100 m (AMNH 76754); W slope Mt. Riu, 250–350 m (AMNH 76765).
Diagnosis. A large (SV = 130–143 mm) species of Cyrtodactylus having a single row of enlarged subcaudals; enlarged dorsal tubercles conical, keeled, ~4–5 times size of adjacent granules (Fig. 2 B), in 20–23 rows; lateral tubercles distinct, ~4 times size of adjacent granules and larger than scales of lateral skin fold, which lack tubercles; 43–49 midbelly scale rows; precloacal/femoral pores 66–76, in a single continuous row; lamellae under fourth toe 27–31; head of moderate width (HW/HL = 0.65–0.73, mean 0.70); five dark dorsal bands between head and hindlimb insertion, of even width, margined in black, with 5–6 tubercles sagitally through 3rd dark band; dark spots absent from light dorsal ground color; mouth and cloacal linings pink; and posterior supralabials brown.
Comparisons with other species. Cyrtodactylus klugei sp. nov. is distinguished from all other Papuan members of the genus except C. aaroni, C. mimikanus, C. murua, C. tuberculatus, C. salomonensis, and C. louisiadensis by its single row of enlarged subcaudals. From C. aaroni and C. mimikanus it is distinguished by its much larger size (SV = 130–143 mm vs. 70–86.5 mm in C. aaroni and 67–103 in C. mimikanus), greater number of precloacal/femoral pores (66–76 vs. 17–27 in C. aaroni and <40 in C. mimikanus) in a single series (vs. three discrete patches), and fewer dark dorsal bands between the head and hindlimbs (5 vs. 8–11 in C. aaroni and C. mimikanus). From C. murua it is distinguished by having lateral tubercles larger than scales of lateral skin fold (vs. of equal size in C. murua), a greater number of lamellae under the fourth toe (27–31 vs.
24–25 in C. murua), no dark markings on dorsal ground color (vs. present in C. murua), brown (vs. white in C. murua) posterior supralabials, and dorsal bands five (vs. four in C. murua), narrower than or of equal width to intervening ground color (vs. wider in C. murua), of even width across dorsum (vs. broadening medially in C. murua), and with straight margins (vs. irregular margins in C. murua). From C. tuberculatus it is distinguished by its larger size (SV = 130–143 mm vs. 80–89 mm in C. tuberculatus), greater number of mid-belly scale rows (43–49 vs. 27–36 in C. tuberculatus), greater number of precloacal/femoral pores (66–76 vs. 36–46 in C. tuberculatus), in having lateral tubercles larger than scales of lateral skin fold (vs. of equal size in C. tuberculatus), and by having fewer dark dorsal bands (5 vs. 6–7 in C. tuberculatus). From C. salomonensis it is distinguished by fewer rows of dorsal tubercles (20–23 vs. 28–29 in C. salomonensis), lacking (vs. having in C. salomonensis) enlarged tubercles along the lateral skin fold, greater number of mid-belly scale rows (43– 49 vs. 34–39 in C. salomonensis), fewer dark dorsal bands (5 vs. 6–7 in C. salomonensis), and having even (vs. irregular in C. salomonensis) margins to the dark dorsal bands. From C. louisiadensis it differs in having conical, keeled dorsal tubercles (vs. flat and unkeeled in C. louisiadensis) of larger size (~4–5 times size of adjacent granules vs. ~2–3 times in C. louisiadensis) and in fewer rows (20–23 vs. 27–30 in C. louisiadensis); lateral tubercles large (~4 times size of adjacent granules vs. ~2–3 times in C. louisiadensis), larger than (vs. approximately equal size in C. louisiadensis) scales of lateral skin fold; with 5–6 tubercles sagitally through 3rd dark band (vs. 8–13 in C. louisiadensis); a greater number of lamellae under the fourth toe (27–31 vs. 24– 26 in C. louisiadensis); a greater number of mid-belly scale rows (43–49 vs. 34–39 in C. louisiadensis); and five (vs. four in C. louisiadensis) dark dorsal bands.
Description of holotype: A mature male, with lateral incision. Animal large (SV = 130 mm, TrL = 56.0 mm); tail folded back on itself and unamenable to accurate measurement, shorter than SV. Head relatively long (HL/SV = 0.29) and wide (HW/HL = 0.73), not depressed (HH/HL = 0.43), distinct from neck. Loreal region slightly inflated; canthus rostralis poorly defined. Interorbital region and top of snout concave. Snout relatively long (SN/HL = 0.42), much longer than eye diameter (SN/EY = 2.2). Eye relatively large (EY/HL = 0.19); pupil vertical, with weakly crenellated margins; supraciliaries large, frill-like, well-differentiated from adjacent granules. Ear opening small (Ear/HL = 0.069), somewhat depressed; distance between ear and eye larger than eye diameter. Rostral wider (5.6 mm) than high (3.2 mm), highest just medial to nares, lower between these points; length 1.8 mm; dorsal half divided by weak medial groove. Two enlarged supranasals separated by two internasals. Rostral in contact with first supralabials, two supranasals, and two internasals. External nares circular; right bordered by rostral, supranasal, first supralabial, and one postnasal; left bordered by rostral, two supranasals, first supralabial, and three postnasals. Circa ten rows of small scales separate orbit from supralabials at narrowest point. Mental shallowly triangular, wider (5.1 mm) than long (3.0 mm). Mental bordered posteriorly by two enlarged postmentals. Infralabials bordered by enlarged, elongate scales that gradually decrease in size posteriorly. Supralabials to mid-orbital position seven on right side, ten on left; to angle of jaw 12 on right, 14 on left. Infralabials ten on right, 11 on left.
Body moderately robust (TrL/SV = 0.43), with lateral skin folds consisting of scales approximately same size as adjacent ventral scales and dorsal granules; no enlarged tubercles in lateral skin fold. Dorsal scales on head, body, and limbs tiny, juxtaposed granules, each with small raised asperities. Conical tubercles present on head, body, and limbs; best developed posteriorly; 4–5 times size of adjacent granules; distinct from granules in profile. Dorsal tubercles usually unkeeled or weakly keeled, but keels better developed posteriorly. Tubercles arranged in approximately 23 rows between the lateral folds. Ventral scales flat and smooth; those on chin and throat smaller and juxtaposed; those on abdomen larger and subimbricate, arrayed in 49 rows across mid-venter.
Precloacal and femoral pores 76, in a single continuous series. Scales of precloacal and femoral regions of approximately uniform size and not distinct from those on abdomen; scales on posterior femoral region smaller, one-third to one-half size of precloacal scales. No precloacal groove. Scales on palms and soles rounded, smooth.
Fore- and hindlimbs relatively well-developed (FA/SV = 0.14, CS/SV = 0.17). Digits well-developed, reflected at basal interphalangeal joints; all with robust, recurved claws surrounded by two scales. Subdigital lamellae narrow and smooth, expanded proximally. Lamellae of manus 18–23–25–25–23 on right, 18–24–24– 25–22 on left; of pes 20–23–28–31–26 on right, 20–24–28–30–28 on left. Relative lengths of digits on manus I <V <II <III <IV; on pes I <II <V <III <IV. No interdigital webbing on manus, slight webbing on pes.
Tail regenerated, with rather narrow base (TW/SV = 0.072), tapering to a blunt point, with single row of enlarged subcaudals until distal 2.4 cm. Cloacal sacs swollen, with small external orifices situated near lateral margins of vent; midventral scales of sac not distinctly larger than those ventrolaterally. Scales of tail small, flat, smooth, subimbricate; with approximately five rows of enlarged dorsal tubercles just behind cloacal sacs but disappearing distally; two (right) or three (left) enlarged postcloacal spurs on sides of tailbase.
Color in preservative: Dorsal ground color medium sienna brown; slightly darker sienna brown chevron on nape whose anterior arms enter posterior border of eye; four more dark sienna brown bands to region between hindlimbs; one more on tail before unicolor of regenerated portion. Dark dorsal bands of approximately even width across dorsum, the centers little different from ground color, but each marked by dark brown margins, these in turn bordered externally by light margins. Tubercles same color as surrounding granules. Labials light brown, not contrasting with face. Venter with dirty white ground color but evenly suffused with same medium brown color as dorsal ground. Palms and soles light gray suffused with some brown color.
Measurements (in mm). SV = 130, TrL = 56.0, TW = 9.4, FA = 18.3, CS = 22.2, HL = 37.5, HW = 27.2, HH = 16.0, Ear = 2.6, EE = 11.0, EY = 7.3, SN = 15.8, EN = 11.5, IN = 5.1, IO = 9.8.
Variation. The four known specimens include two adult males, one adult female, and one juvenile male. The adults range in size from 130–143 mm SV; the juvenile is 92 mm. Mensural data for the four specimens of the type series are given in Table 1. Supralabials to center of eye vary from 7–10, to angle of jaw 10–15. Infralabials vary from 9–11, fourth toe lamellae 27–31, mid-belly scale rows 43–49, and number of rows of dorsal tubercles 20–23. Numbers of precloacal/femoral pores vary from 66–76.
Color pattern uniformly includes five dark dorsal bands (including the nuchal chevron), all of which have black edges that are further margined in light tan. These dark bands contrast moderately well with the somewhat lighter ground color. The two recently collected specimens differ in no important degree in color pattern or shading. Both have brown labials.
Etymology. The trivial epithet is named for Arnold Kluge in recognition of his many contributions to gekkonid systematics.
Range. Known only from Sudest Island, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea (Fig. 3, star).
Ecology. This species was found in primary lowland rainforest along a small river at 130 m elevation. It occurred syntopically with the geckos Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis, Gehyra oceanica and two undescribed species of Nactus. It likely occurs with Gehyra mutilata, G. v o r a x, Gekko vittatus, Lepidodactylus lugubris, L. orientalis, and Nactus sphaerodactylodes, which were found in forested situations elsewhere on Sudest.
description: Published as part of Kraus, Fred, 2008, Taxonomic partitioning of Cyrtodactylus louisiadensis (Lacertilia: Gekkonidae) from Papua New Guinea, pp. 1-27 in Zootaxa 1883 on pages 3-12, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.184270