Cyrtodactylus jatnai AMARASINGHE, RIYANTO, MUMPUNI & GRISMER, 2020
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Cyrtodactylus jatnai?
Cyrtodactylus jatnai
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Jatna’s bent-toed gecko |
| Synonym | Cyrtodactylus jatnai AMARASINGHE, RIYANTO, MUMPUNI & GRISMER 2020: 61 Cyrtodactylus fumosus – MCKAY 2006: 60 C. fumosus – RIYANTO & MUMPUNI 2013: 6 |
| Distribution | Indonesia (W Bali) Type locality: Teluk Menjangan, Taman Nasional Bali Barat, Bali, Indonesia (08°08′38.6′′S, 114°32′22.5′′; 20 m elevation) |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype. MZB uncat. (UIMZ 0085), Adult male, SVL 66.8 mm, collected from by A.A. Thasun Amarasinghe, on 26–27 August 2015. Paratypes (n=18). Adult male, MZB uncat. (UIMZ 0082); adult female, MZB uncat. (UIMZ 0084); subadult male, MZB uncat. (UIMZ 0083); collected from Mt. Lannying, Taman Nasional Bali Barat, Bali, Indonesia, other details same as holotype; adult male, MZB uncat. (UIMZ 0101); subadult males, MZB uncat. (UIMZ 0093, 0102); collected from Teluk Brumbun, Taman Nasional Bali Barat, Bali, Indonesia, other details same as holotype; adult males, MZB 8729, 8731; adult female MZB 8728; subadult males (MZB 8730, 8732, 8735); subadult females (MZB 8727, 8733, 8734); collected from Teluk Terima, Taman Nasional Bali Barat, Bali, Indonesia, by A. Riyanto, Mumpuni & Mulyadi on 11–15 April 2012; adult male (MZB 8726); adult female (MZB 8725); collected from Gerojogan, Taman Nasional Bali Barat, Bali, Indonesia, other details same as above; adult female (MZB 8737) collected from Teluk Menjangan, Taman Nasional Bali Barat, Bali, Indonesia, other details same as above. |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis: A combination of the following characters distinguishes the new species from all other Southeast Asian congeners: adult males reaching 66.8 mm SVL and females 64.8 mm SVL; 9–11 supralabials; 8 or 9 infralabials; strongly tuberculated body and limbs, lateral fold with tubercles, tubercles on anterior portion of tail; tubercles extend from occiput to waist, and becoming larger tubercles posteriorly; 24– 29 dorsal tubercle rows; 40–48 rows of smooth ventrals; distinctly enlarged femoral scales in two rows, extending to precloacal region; 40–43 continuous femoro-precloacal pores in males; six rows of enlarged post precloacal scales; 17– 19 subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; no enlarged median subcaudals; no reticulated pattern on head; paired dark blotches forming a V-shaped on occiput; dorsum blotched. Coloration in life. Dorsum yellowish brown with dark blotches; eight pairs of dark square blotches on the trunk; paired dark blotches form a V-shaped marking on occiput; a dark line extends from posterior margin of nares to the anterior supracliliaris, interrupted by eyes, then continues to the ear opening and is interrupted by yellowish blotches above the ear; labials greyish bearing yellow and brown blotches; paravertebral blotches extend from nape to base of the tail; dark body blotches extend to tail where light countershading transforms into cream-colored bands which do not encircle the tail, 16 dark bands on the tail; tubercles on lateral fold and two or three series of tubercles adjacent lateral folds are yellowish. Venter white stippled with gray; subcaudals darkened with fine mottling; iris golden in color. Comparison. Cyrtodactylus jatnai sp. nov. is most similar to the following species: C. batucolus Grismer, Chan, Grismer et al., 2008; C. darmandvillei (Weber, 1890); C. jellesmae (Boulenger, 1897); C. kimberleyensis Bauer & Doughty, 2012; C. petani Riyanto, Grismer & Wood, 2015a; C. sadleiri (Wells & Wellington, 1985); and C. seribuatensis Youmans & Grismer, 2006. However, the new species differs from them by characters listed in Table 3. In addition, among the other similar species, the new species is distinguished from Cyrtodactylus metropolis Grismer, Wood, Onn et al., 2014, by having 24–29 paravertebral tubercles (vs 32–34), 17–19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 20–21), and femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. majulah Grismer, Wood & Lim, 2012 by having 24–29 paravertebral tubercles (vs 39–46), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 7–11 precloacal pores) in males; from C. pantiensis Grismer, Chan, Grismer et al., 2008 and C. payacola Johnson, Quah, Anuar et al., 2012 together by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 8–12 precloacal pores) in males; from C. psarops Harvey, O’Connell, Barraza et al., 2015 and C. semicinctus Harvey, O’Connell, Barraza et al., 2015 together by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 28–38) in males; from C. rosichonariefi (sic) Riyanto, Grismer & Wood, 2015a by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. semenanjungensis Grismer & Leong, 2005 by having 24–29 paravertebral tubercles (vs 32–37), blotched dorsal color pattern (vs banded), and femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. tiomanensis Das & Lim, 2000 by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 36–40), 17–19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 20–22), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 3–5 precloacal pores). Furthermore, we compared the new species to the recognized Melanesian and Wallacean species. The new species is easily distinguished from C. agamensis (Bleeker, 1860) by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 67), and 17–19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 26); from C. batik Iskandar, Rachmansah & Umilaela, 2011 by a much smaller SVL 66.8 mm (vs 110 mm) and by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 48–57), blotched dorsal color pattern (vs banded), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. baluensis (Mocuard, 1890) by lacking enlarged transverse median subcaudals (vs enlarged) and by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 9–11 femoral pores and 4– 10 precloacal pores) in males; from C. cavernicolus Inger & King, 1961 by having 40– 48 ventral scale rows (vs 51–58), 17–19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 22–26), blotched dorsal color pattern (vs banded), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 4 precloacal pores) in males; from C. celatus Kathriner, Bauer, O’Shea et al., 2014 in being much larger SVL 66.8 mm (vs 38.4 mm) and by having 24–29 paravertebral tubercles (vs 16), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and four precloacal pores) in males; from C. consobrinus (Peters, 1871) in being much smaller SVL 66.8 mm (vs 121 mm) and by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 58– 65), 17–19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 23–28), blotched dorsal color pattern (vs. banded), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 1–6 femoral pores and 9–10 precloacal pores separately) in males; from C. deveti (Brongersma, 1948) in being much smaller SVL 66.8 mm (vs 106 mm), and by lacking enlarged transverse median subcaudals (vs enlarged); from C. fumosus (Müller, 1895) by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 35–40), 17–19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 20–22), tubercles along ventrolateral fold (vs absent), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 6 femoral pores and 10 precloacal pores separately) in males; from C. gordongekkoi (Das, 1994) by having 17–19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 20–23), 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 30–32), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no precloacal pores) in males; from C. gunungsenyumensis Grismer, Wood, Anuar et al., 2016 by having 24–29 paravertebral tubercles (vs 34–40), 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 38–41), 17–19 lamellae on the forth toe (vs 20–23), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. halmahericus (Mertens, 1929) by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 48–53) in males; from C. hikidai Riyanto, 2012 in being much smaller SVL 66.8 mm (vs 100 mm) and by having 17– 19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 22–24), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 6 precloacal pores) in males; from C. hitchi Riyanto, Kurniati & Engilis, 2016 by lacking enlarged transverse median subcaudals (vs enlarged), blotched dorsal color pattern (vs banded), and by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. klakahensis Hartmann, Mecke, Kieckbusch, 2016 by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 37–38) with two rows of enlarged precloacofemoral scales (vs three) in males; from C. laevigatus Darevsky, 1964 in being much larger SVL 66.8 mm (vs 38.5 mm) and by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 30–3), 17– 19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 10–15), and femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores) in males; from C. lateralis (Werner, 1896) by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 60–64), 17– 19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 21–22), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 13 precloacal pores) in males; from C. malayanus (De Rooij, 1915) by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 58–62), 17–19 lamellae on the fourth toe (vs 21–23), blotched dorsal color pattern (vs banded), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 8–10 precloacal pores) in males; from C. marmoratus Gray, 1831 by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 45–53) in males; from C. nuaulu Oliver, Edgar, Mumpuni et al., 2009 by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores) in males; C. papuensis Brongersma, 1934 by lacking deep groove-like precloacal depression (vs present); from C. pubisulcus Inger, 1958 by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 7–9 precloacal pores) in males; from C. quadrivirgatus Taylor, 1962 by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 34– 42), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless or 1–4 precloacal pores) in males; from C. semenanjungensis Grismer & Leong, 2005 by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 48–53), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. semiadii Riyanto, Bauer & Yudha, 2014 in being much larger SVL 66.8 mm (vs 47.1 mm) and by having 40–43 femoro- precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. spinosus Linkem, McGuire, Hayden et al., 2008 by lacking spine-like tubercles on dorsum (vs present) and by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 12–13 precloacal pores) in males; from C. stresemanni Rösler & Glaw, 2008 by having 9–11 supralabials (vs 13), 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 63), blotched dorsal color pattern (vs striped); from C. tahuna Riyanto, Arida & Koch, 2018a by having 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 49–50), 17–19 lamellae on the forth toe (vs 20–24), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 5 femoral pores and 14 precloacal pores) in males; from C. tambora Riyanto, Mulyadi, McGuire et al., 2017 in being much larger SVL 66.8 mm (vs 47.4 mm) and by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs no femoral pores and 5–6 precloacal pores) in males; from C. tanahjampea Riyanto, Hamidy & McGuire, 2018b by having 24–29 paravertebral tubercles (vs 31–34), and 40–48 ventral scale rows (vs 29–34), and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 28–34); from C. wallacei Hayden, Brown, Gillespie et al., 2008 in being much smaller SVL 66.8 mm (vs 114 mm) and by lacking enlarged transverse median subcaudals (vs enlarged), and by having 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs poreless) in males; from C. wetariensis (Dunn, 1927) by having 17–19 lamellae on the forth toe (vs 20–22) and 40–43 femoro-precloacal pores (vs 12–16 femoral pores and 5–6 precloacal pores) in males. Finally, the new species differs from C. boreoclivus, C. cavernicolus, C. elok, C. equitris, C. ingeri, C. matsuii, C. sermowaensis, and C. yoshii by having enlarged femoro-precloacal sclaes (vs not enlarged); from C. durio, and C. jarakensis by possessed an abrupt transition between rows of large and small postfemoral and ventral femoral scales (vs absent); from C. astrum, C. aurensis, C. australotitiwangsaensis C. bintangrendah, C. bintangtinggi, C. brevipalmatus, C. leegrismeri, C. lengkawiensis, C. macrotubercularus, C. peguensis, C. pulchellus, C. rex, and C. trilatofasciatus by lacking transversely enlarged median subcaudals (vs enlarged). |
| Comment | |
| Etymology | The specific epithet is a noun in the genitive singular case, honoring a leading conservationist, ecologist, and primatologist Prof. Jatna Supriatna (University of Indonesia) for his enormous contributions to biodiversity conservation in Indonesia, as well as his generous friendship and support of the first author. Prof. Supriatna was born on Bali where the new species was discovered. His valuable contributions to science, policy making, and conservation management, as well as to popularizing the conservation ethic among his students and the general public are highly commendable. He is a legend in the field of conservation and locally he is known as “The Noah of Modern History”. The NGO, Conservation International, has called him “the Conservation Warrior of Indonesia”. |
| References |
|
| External links |