Lepidoblepharis conolepis AVILA-PIRES, 2001
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Lepidoblepharis conolepis?
Lepidoblepharis conolepis
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Sphaerodactylidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | S: Salamanquesa de Tandapi |
| Synonym | Lepidoblepharis conolepis AVILA-PIRES 2001 Lepidoblepharis conolepis — CARRERA et al. 2009 Lepidoblepharis conolepis — BÖHME 2014: 132 |
| Distribution | Ecuador (neighborhood of the border between the provinces Pichincha and Cotopaxi, on the western slopes of the Andes. Elevation: 1200–2000 m). Type locality: Tandapi [M. Cornejo Astorga], Pichincha, Ecuador, collected by G. Onore, in October 1984. |
| Reproduction | oviparous |
| Types | Holotype: MHNG 2240.5; Paratypes: ZFMK 46379 (adult male), and ZFMK 46378 and 46380 (two adult females) |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis: A relatively large Lepidoblepharis (maximum SVL 44 mm) with the following characters: 3–5 postrostrals; mental V-shaped with no or one small cleft, followed by 5–7 small postmentals; dorsal and lateral body scales relatively high, conical or flat-conical, homogeneous in size; 14–17 lamellae under the fourth toe; general color dark brown, without any pattern or with few light spots. Lepidoblepharis conolepis can be distinguished from L. miyatai Lamar, 1985; L. montecanoensis Markesich and Taphorn, 1994; L. peraccae Boulenger, 1908; L. sanctaemartae (Ruthven, 1916); L. buchwaldi Werner, 1910; and L. williamsi Ayala and Serna, 1986 by its larger size (respectively maximum SVL 44 mm versus 31 mm or less) and its larger number of lamellae under the fourth toe (14–17 versus 11 or less). It is also easily distinguishable from L. sanctaemartae by the shape of the dorsals, respectively conical versus flat, imbricate. The presence of heterogeneous dorsal lepidosis separates L. duolepis Ayala and Castro, 1983 and L. ruthveni Parker, 1926 from L. conolepis . All remaining species— L. colombianus Mechler, 1968; L. festae Peracca, 1897; L. grandis Miyata, 1985; L. heyerorum Vanzolini, 1978; L. hoogmoedi Avila-Pires, 1995; L. intermedius Boulenger, 1914; and L. xanthostigma (Noble, 1916)—have relatively small, granular dorsal scales, which contrast with the raised, conical scales in L. conolepis. The new species differs from L. intermedius, L. xanthostigma, L. heyerorum, and L. hoogmoedi in the shape of the mental (V-shaped in L. conolepis, posterior margin with a transverse segment in L. intermedius and L. xanthostigma, convex in the other two), and in the relative size of the postmentals (respectively about as large as, versus larger than, posterior scales on chin). These four species, as well as L. colombianus and L. festae, present a smaller number of lamellae under the fourth toe (11–15 considering all six species together, 14–17 in L. conolepis). |
| Comment | Habitat: probably humid montane forest |
| Etymology | Named after the Greek konikos (= cone-like) and lepis (= scale), in reference to its conical scales. |
| References |
|
| External links |