Cnemaspis manoae AMARASINGHE & KARUNARATHNA, 2020
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Cnemaspis manoae?
Cnemaspis manoae
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Mano’s Day-gecko |
| Synonym | Cnemaspis manoae AMARASINGHE & KARUNARATHNA 2020 |
| Distribution | Sri Lanka (Gampaha) Type locality: Pilikuttuwa (7 ̊03'28.14'' N, 80 ̊02'53.18'' E; alt. 52 m a.s.l.), Gampaha District, Western Province, Sri Lanka |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype: NMSL 2019.10.01, Adult male, SVL 25.3 mm, collected by Anslem de Silva on 22 November 2005. Paratypes (n=2). Adult male, NMSL 2019.10.02, SVL 24.6 mm; adult female, NMSL 2019.10.03, SVL 24.4 mm; other details are the same as holotype. See Table 1 for morphometric and meristic characters, other morphological characters is same as holotype. |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis. The following combination of characters distinguishes the new species from all other congeners: adult males reaching 25.3 mm SVL, adult females reaching 24.4 mm SVL; 7 or 8 supralabials; dorsal granules homogeneous, 119–126 paravertebral granules; four or five spines on flanks; throat, pectoral, and abdominal scales smooth; 117–121 ventrals; five precloacal pores and nine femoral pores (per thigh) in males, no interfemoral scales; 79–83 midbody scales, 15–17 ventral scale rows; 15 or 16 subdigital lamellae on fourth toe; subcaudals smooth, hexagonal shaped, median row of subcaudals greatly enlarged; the differences are summarized for geographically close congeners (Table 2) and for all Sri Lankan species in Karunarathna et al. 2019: Table 9. Diagnostic characters of C. podihuna C. molligodai, C. kandambyi, and C. manoae sp. nov. are summarized in Amarasinghe et al. 2020: Table 2. Coloration. In life, the holotype had a dorsal pattern of bright yellow vertebral markings on a uniform dark brown background color. The snout lighter brown, a dark brown streak along the canthus rostralis on each side of the head. Behind the eye, a sharp dark brown band until the shoulders; the neck had a bright yellow and black stripe, and a vertebral dark bright yellow stripe shading laterally. Arms and legs uniform light brown, antebrachium with pale cross stripes. The yellowish tail had ten bright yellow markings. After 14 years in preservative, the yellow pigment has faded to reddish brown and the dark brown background color to grayish brown. The ventral body and head is mostly brownish fading to cream medially and on the chin, tail pale in colour. Venter cream, tail pale yellowish. Comparison. Cnemaspis manoae sp. nov. is most similar to C. kandambyi, C. molligodai and C. podihuna, and its diagnostic chracters are listed in Table 2. The new species is distinguished from Cnemaspis scalpensis (Ferguson, 1877); C. gemunu Bauer, de Silva, Greenbaum et al., 2007; C. phillipsi Manamendra-Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007; C. godagedarai de Silva, Bauer, Botejue et al., 2019; and C. anslemi Karunarathna & Ukuwela, 2019 by having five precloacal pores (vs absent) and 9 femoral pores (vs 11–16) in males. It further differs from C. scalpensis by having 119–126 paravertebral granules (vs 102–112), 4–5 flank spines (vs 9–11), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (19–21), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 8– 12); from C. gemunu by having 119–126 paravertebral granules (vs 79–93), 4–5 flank spines (vs 7–8), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (18–19), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 10– 12); from C. phillipsi by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 128–143), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 18–25), 119–126 paravertebral granules (vs 86–93), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (17–19), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 11–14); from C. godagedarai by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 133–137), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 21–23), 79–83 midbody scale rows (vs 98–102), 119– 126 paravertebral granules (vs 101–106), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (20–21), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 8); and from C. anslemi by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 111–117), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 19–21), 79–83 midbody scale rows (vs 87–91), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (20–21), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 9–10). The new species is also distinguished from Cnemaspis alwisi Wickramasinghe & Munindradasa, 2007 in being smaller SVL 25.3 mm (vs 40.4 mm) and by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 145–153), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 27–31), 79–83 midbody scale rows (vs 71– 78), 119–126 paravertebral granules (vs 89–97), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (17–21), five precloacal pores (vs absent), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 18–19); from C. hitihamii Karunarathna, Poyakov, de Silva et al., 2019b in being smaller SVL 25.3 mm (vs 41.7 mm) and by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 132–135), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 21), 79–83 midbody scale rows (vs 96–99), 119–126 paravertebral granules (vs 143–149), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (21– 22), five precloacal pores (vs absent), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 24–26); from C. kohukumburai Karunarathna, Poyakov, de Silva et al., 2019b by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 131–134), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 23), 119–126 paravertebral granules (vs 150–159), 4–5 flank spines (vs 7–8), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (23–25), five precloacal pores (vs absent), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 25); from C. nilgala Karunarathna, Bauer, de Silva et al., 2019a by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 122– 129), 79–83 midbody scale rows (vs 71–78), 119–126 paravertebral granules (vs 179–187), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (17–18), five precloacal pores (vs absent), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 14–15); from C. punctata Manamendra-Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007 by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 129–137), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 20– 29), 79–83 midbody scale rows (vs 71–78), 119– 126 paravertebral granules (vs 83–91), 4–5 flank spines (vs 11–13), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (17–23), five precloacal pores (vs absent), nine femoral pores (vs 5–7), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 25–27); from C. rajakarunai Wickramasinghe, Vidanapathirana & Rathnayake, 2016 in being smaller SVL 25.3 mm (vs 40.2 mm) and by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 146–186), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 26–29), 79–83 midbody scale rows (vs 69– 74), 119–126 paravertebral granules (vs 81–85), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (19–22), five precloacal pores (vs absent), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 20–22); and from C. rammalensis Vidanapathirana, Rajeev, Wickramasinghe et al., 2014 in being much smaller SVL 25.3 mm (vs 53.8 mm) and by having 117–121 ventrals (vs 186–207), 15–17 ventral scale rows (vs 25–28), 79–83 midbody scale rows (vs 119–131), 94–96 paravertebral granules (vs 83–91), 4–5 flank spines (vs 11– 13), 15–16 lamellae on fourth toe (12–23), five precloacal pores (vs absent), nine femoral pores (vs 14–16), and lacking interfemoral scales (vs 19–24). Unlike the new species, Cnemaspis butewai Karunarathna, Poyakov, de Silva et al., 2019b; C. ingerorum Batuwita, Agarwal & Bauer, 2019; C. kallima Manamendra-Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007; C. kandiana (Kelaart, 1852); C. kivulegedarai Karunarathna, Poyakov, de Silva et al., 2019b; C. kotagamai Karunarathna, de Silva, Botejue et al., 2019c; C. menikay Manamendra-Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007; C. retigalensis Wickramasinghe & Munindradasa, 2007; C. pava Manamendra-Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007; C. pulchra, C. samanalensis; C. silvula Manamendra- Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007; C. tropidogaster (Boulenger, 1885); C. upendrai Manamendra-Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007; C. amith Manamendra-Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007; C. dissanayakai Karunarathna, de Silva, Madawala et al., 2019c; C. gotaimbarai Karunarathna, Poyakov, de Silva et al., 2019b; C. kawminiae Karunarathna, de Silva, Gabadage et al., 2019c; C. kumarasinghei Wickramasinghe & Munindradasa, 2007; C. latha Manamendra-Arachchi, Batuwita & Pethiyagoda, 2007; and C. nandimithrai Karunarathna, Poyakov, de Silva et al., 2019b have no enlarged median subcaudals. Furthermore, C. butewai, C. ingerorum, C. kallima, C. kandiana, C. kivulegedarai, C. kotagamai, C. menikay, C. pava, C. pulchra, C. retigalensis, C. samanalensis, C. silvula, C. tropidogaster and C. upendrai have heterogeneous dorsal granules (vs homogeneous in C. manoae sp. nov.). Finally C. pava, C. pulchra, C. samanalensis, C. silvula, C. tropidogaster, and C. upendrai have keeled ventral scales (vs smooth in C. manoae sp. nov.). |
| Comment | Habitat: dry, shaded, cool surfaces of large tree trunks, and on wattle and daub houses (Fig. 3). Found on 5 different types of trees in forested areas. Conservation: The application of the IUCN Red List criteria (2019) shows that C. manoae sp. nov. is Critically Endangered (CR) because it is restricted to an area of occupancy (AOO) < 1 km2 and the extent of occurrence (EOO) is < 2 km2 in the wet zone [Applicable criteria is B2-b (iii)] assuming that the three fragmented sites documented here are the extent of the species’ range. However, confirmation that the species does not occur in adjacent areas should be sought before a final determination on conservation status is made. See the maps (Figs. 4 & 6) for known distribution. Surrounding habitats of the type locality are currently being destroyed by pineaple plantations invading the natural forests, and illegal logging inside the forest. |
| Etymology | The specific epithet is an eponym latinized as a noun in the genitive singular, honoring Mrs. Mano Kalupahana, the biology teacher of the first author at his senior high school, The Royal College, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka. The author expresses sincere appreciation for her remarkable generous teaching and advice, which encouraged the first author to study zoology, and marked the turning point in his becoming a taxonomist. |
| References |
|
| External links |