Chondrodactylus laevigatus (FISCHER, 1888)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Chondrodactylus laevigatus?
Chondrodactylus laevigatus
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Button-scaled Gecko, Fischer's Thick-toed Gecko |
| Synonym | Pachydactylus laevigatus FISCHER 1888: 15 Pachydactylus bibroni laevigatus — HEWITT 1927: 401 Pachydactylus laevigatus laevigatus — FITZSIMONS 1938 Pachydactylus laevigatus laevigatus — LOVERIDGE 1947: 399 Pachydactylus laevigatus laevigatus — WERMUTH 1965: 119 Pachydactylus laevigatus — KLUGE 1993 Pachydactylus turneri laevigatus — BRANCH 1998 Chondrodactylus laevigatus — MARQUES et al. 2018 Pachydactylus laevigatus — SCHLEICHER 2020 Chondrodactylus laevigatus — HEINZ et al. 2021: 191 Condrodactylus laevigatus — LOBÓN-ROVIRA et al. 2022 (in error) |
| Distribution | Republic of South Africa, Namibia, Angola (Kamanyab) Type locality: “bei Aus und auf dem Wege nach Bethanien” [= near Aus and on the way to Bethanien], Karas Region, Namibia. |
| Reproduction | oviparous |
| Types | Syntypes: BMNH 1946.8.26.1–2 (formerly BMNH 89.12.16.9–10; collector J. Steingrover). Given as ZMH, Hamburg Museum (fide LOVERIDGE 1947: 399) |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis: A large Chondrodactylus (to ≥ 100 mm SVL, MCZ R190191) bearing prominent subdigital lamellae. Body robust and somewhat depressed. Head large, relatively depressed, and subtriangular, not as broad as long but proportionally wider across adductor region than C. pulitzerae; inflection at ear gently curved when viewed from above, snout somewhat longer and more acuminate than in C. turneri, canthus rostralis moderately developed, loreal region weakly to moderately inflated, interorbital region flattened to weakly concave or with a narrow furrow. Tubercles on occiput and posterior half of crown large very large and keeled to stellate, becoming smaller on the anterior crown and interorbital region and slightly larger again on the dorsum of the snout; interorbital and especially snout scales flattened or domed, keelless or with only weakly defined keels. Most anterior dorsal head tubercles in contact with one another, whereas tubercles of the crown and nape may be separated from one another by tiny granules (Fig. 5E–H), although typically not as widely spaces as in C. turneri. Tubercles anterior and dorsal to ear heterogeneous, generally large and bearing a prominent longitudinal keel. Chin and gular scales small and granular, becoming progressively smaller postero-medially (condition similar to Fig. 7B), approximately 5 chin scales contained within the diameter of a single paravertebral dorsal tubercle. Dorsal tubercles large, oval to rounded, from unkeeled to strongly keeled, if strongly keeled then variably bearing small peripheral radiating ridges, although not as strongly stellate as in C. bibronii, becoming smaller and more conical on flanks. Trunk tubercles usually well-separated by smaller granular scales, forming 14–20 (usually 18 in the western clade, 14 in the eastern clade, and 16–18 in the Kgaligadi clade), slightly irregular to very regular longitudinal rows of enlarged tubercles (Fig. 17). In addition, mid-vertebral line with a mixture of granules and smaller, rounded, unkeeled to moderately keeled tubercles (single or in pairs; Fig. 6F–H). Tubercles on dorsum and postaxial surface of thigh and shank large, somewhat flattened, to keeled or mucronate. Scales on upper arm non-tuberculate, flattened, imbricating, becoming tubercular on forearm, conical to mucronate, but smaller and less prominent than tubercles of shank. Tail distinctly verticillate, each whorl at tail-base bearing 6 (8 close to tail base) enlarged, keeled (proximal whorls) or conical to strongly mucronate tubercles; tubercles per whorl decreasing to 4 then 2 on distal portion of tail (Heinz et al. 2021). |
| Comment | Pachydactylus laevigatus fitzsimonsi LOVERIDGE 1947 and Pachydactylus laevigatus pulitzerae SCHMIDT 1933 have been elevated to full species status. BAUER & LAMB 2005 did not mention the former species though. Distribution: See map in Heinz et al. 2021: 190 (Fig. 16). Karyotype: Chrostek et al. 2023. |
| References |
|
| External links |