You are here » home advanced search search results Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis

Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis NGUYEN, PHAM, ZIEGLER, NGO & LE, 2017

Can you confirm these amateur observations of Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis?

Add your own observation of
Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis »

We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: Google images

Higher TaxaGekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) 
Subspecies 
Common Names 
SynonymCyrtodactylus sonlaensis NGUYEN, PHAM, ZIEGLER, NGO & LE 2017 
DistributionNW Vietnam (Son La Province)

Type locality: karst forest near Bang Village (21o05.700’N, 104o48.179’E, elevation 1050 m above sea level, asl.), Muong Bang Commune, Phu Yen District, Son La Province, northwestern Vietnam  
Reproduction 
TypesHolotype: IEBR A.2017.1 (Field No. SL2016.68), adult male, collected on 18 June 2016 by A.V. Pham and H.V. Tu.
Paratypes. TBU 2017.1 (Field No. SL2016.67, subadult male), IEBR A.2017.2 (Field No. SL2016.69, adult female), the same data as the holotype; VNMN 2017.1 (Field No. SL2016.467, adult female), collected on 28 October 2016 by A.V. Pham and T.Q.L. Hoang, in the karst forest near Bang Village (21o06.406’N, 104o47.810’E, elevation 890 m a.s.l.), Muong Bang Commune, Phu Yen District, Son La Province, northwestern Vietnam 
DiagnosisThe new species can be distinguished from other members of the genus Cyrtodactylus by a combination of the following characters: medium size (SVL up to 83.2 mm); dorsal tubercles in 13–15 irregular rows; 34–42 ventral scale rows; ventrolateral folds present without interspersed tubercles; 15–17 enlarged femoral scales on each thigh; femoral pores 14 or 15 on each thigh of males, absent in females; precloacal pores 8, in a continuous row in males, absent in females; postcloacal tubercles 2 or 3; lamellae under toe IV 18–21; dorsal head with dark brown marking, oval and arched shape; nuchal loop discontinuous; five brown dorsal bands between limb insertions, third and fourth discontinuous; subcaudal scales transversely enlarged.

Comparisons. We compared the new species with its congeners from Vietnam and neighboring countries in mainland Indochina, including Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand based on examination of specimens (see Nguyen et al. 2017 for references and further details: Smith 1917, 1921a,b, 1935; Taylor 1963; Ulber 1993; Bauer 2002, 2003; Bauer et al. 2002, 2003, 2009, 2010; Ziegler et al. 2002, 2010, 2013; Pauwels & Sumontha 2014; Pauwels et al. 2004, 2013, 2014a,b, 2016; Nguyen et al. 2006, 2014; Hoang et al. 2007; Orlov et al. 2007; Grismer & Ahmad; Ngo 2008; Ngo & Bauer 2008; Ngo & Grismer 2010, 2012; Ngo & Pauwels 2010; Ngo & Chan 2010, 2011; Ngo et al. 2008, 2010; Sumontha et al. 2010, 2012, 2014; Chan-ard & Makchai, 2011; David et al. 2011; Schneider et al. 2011; Luu et al. 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016a,b,c; Grismer et al. 2012; Kunya et al. 2014, 2015; Nazarov et al. 2014; Panitvong et al. 2014; Le et al. 2016; and Connette et al. 2017). Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. has distinctly enlarged subcaudals, which are only slightly or not enlarged in the following species: C. ayeyarwadyensis Bauer, C. bidoupimontis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Phung, Nguyen, Hoang & Ziegler, C. bobrovi Nguyen, Le, Pham, Ngo, Hoang, Pham & Ziegler, C. brevidactylus Bauer, C. brevipalmatus (Smith), C. bugiamapensis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Phung, Nguyen, Hoang & Ziegler, C. buchardi David, Teynié & Ohler, C. cattienensis Geissler, Nazarov, Orlov, Böhme, Phung, Nguyen & Ziegler, C. cryptus Heidrich, Rösler, Vu, Böhme & Ziegler, C. cucdongensis Schneider, Phung, Le, Nguyen & Ziegler, C. dati Ngo, C. gunungsenyumensis Grismer, Wood, Anuar, Davis, Cobos & Murdoch, C. gansi Bauer, C. hitchi Riyanto, Kurniati & Engilis, C. huynhi Ngo & Bauer, C. irregularis (Smith), C. mandalayensis Mahony, C. martini Ngo, C. otai Nguyen, Le, Pham, Ngo, Hoang, Pham & Ziegler, C. papilionoides Ulber & Grossmann, C. phuocbinhensis Nguyen, Le, Tran, Orlov, Lathrop, Macculloch, Le, Jin, Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang, C. pseudoquadrivirgatus Rösler, Vu, Nguyen, Ngo & Ziegler, C. quadrivirgatus Taylor, C. ranongensis Sumontha, Pauwels, Panitvong, Kunya & Grismer, C. slowinskii Bauer, C. sommerladi Luu, Bonkowski, Nguyen, Le, Schneider, Ngo & Ziegler, C. tamaiensis (Smith), C. taynguyenensis Nguyen, Le, Tran, Orlov, Lathrop, Macculloch, Le, Jin, Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang, C. thuongae Phung, Van Schingen, Ziegler & Nguyen, C. vilaphongi Schneider, Nguyen, Duc Le, Nophaseud, Bonkowski & Ziegler, C. wakeorum Bauer, C. wayakonei Nguyen, Kingsada, Rösler, Auer & Ziegler, C. ziegleri Nazarov, Orlov, Nguyen & Ho. Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. differs from C. aequalis Bauer by the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 9), fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 24), and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 24); from C. annandalei Bauer by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 49.0–55.0 mm), more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 12–24), and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 16–18); from C. angularis (Smith) by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3), the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 3), and the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. astrum Grismer, Wood, Quah, Anuar, Muin, Sumontha, Ahmad, Bauer, Wangkulangkul, Grismer & Pauwels by having fewer dark caudal bands (10 vs. 13–14); from C. auribalteatus Sumontha, Panitvong & Deein by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 5– 7), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 4–5), and more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 6); from C. badenensis Nguyen, Orlov & Darevsky by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 25–29), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), and the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. bichnganae Ngo & Grismer by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 95.3–99.9 mm), having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 11–13), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 9), and fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 10); from C. bansocensis Luu, Nguyen, Le, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 34), more infralabials (9–11 vs. 8), and more ventral scales at midbody (189–202 vs. 158–170); from C. calamei Luu, Bonkowski, Nguyen, Le, Schneider, Ngo & Ziegler by having fewer postcloacal tubercles (2–3 vs. 4) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 38); from C. caovansungi Orlov, Nguyen, Nazarov, Ananjeva & Nguyen by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 90.4–94.0 mm), having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 8), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 6), fewer lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 22) and under toe IV (18–21 vs. 23–25); from C. chanhomeae Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 32) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 34); from C. chauquangensis Hoang, Orlov, Ananjeva, Johns, Hoang & Dau by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 90.9–99.3 mm), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 6), and the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 7); from C. chrysopylos Bauer by having fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 10) and the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. condorensis (Smith) by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 4–7) and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. consobrinoides (Annandale) by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 48.0 mm), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 4), and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 24–30); from C. cucphuongensis Ngo & Chan, by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 96.0 mm), the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence), having fewer lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 21), and under toe IV (18–21 vs. 24); from C. darevskii Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov & Chulisov by having fewer precloacalfemoral pores in males (37 vs. 38–44) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 24–34); from C. doisuthep Kunya, Panmongkol, Pauwels, Sumontha, Meewasana, Bunkhwamdi & Dangsri by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 90.5 mm), having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 6) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 19–20); from C. dumnuii Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Pauwels, Chanhome & Kunya by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 17–19), the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 0–7), and more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16); from C. eisenmanae Ngo by having fewer ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 44–45), more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 4–6), and the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. erythrops Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Panitvong, Pauwels, Chanhome & Kunya by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 28), fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 9), more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. feae Boulenger by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 45.0 mm) and the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. grismeri Ngo by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence) and the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence); from C. hinnamnoensis Luu, Bonkowski, Nguyen, Le, Schneider, Ngo & Ziegler by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 100.6 mm) and having fewer postcloacal tubercles (2–3 vs. 4–5); from C. hontreensis Ngo, Grismer & Grismer by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 2–5); from C. huongsonensis Luu, Nguyen, Do & Ziegler by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 89.8 mm), having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 7–9), more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 23), and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 23); from C. interdigitalis Ulber by having fewer femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 16–18) and fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 14); from C. intermedius (Smith) by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 6–10), the presence of femoral pores (vs. absent), having fewer lamellae under finger IV (17– 19 vs. 20) and under toe IV (18–21 vs. 22); from C. inthanon Kunya, Sumontha, Panitvong, Dongkumfu, Sirisamphan & Pauwels by having fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 18–20), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 6), and more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 5); from C. jaegeri Luu, Calame, Bonkowski, Nguyen & Ziegler by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 31–32), fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 44), and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 24); from C. jarujini Ulber, by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 85.0–90.0 mm), having fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 52–54), generally more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 15–17), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. khammouanensis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov & Chulisov by having fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 40–44); from C. khelangensis Pauwels, Sumontha, Panitvong & Varaguttanonda by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 2–5), fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 16–20), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 6) and the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 6); from C. kingsadai Ziegler, Phung, Le & Nguyen by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 9–12), more femoral pores on each thigh in the males (14–15 vs. 1–4), and the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 4–8); from C. kunyai Pauwels, Sumontha, Keeratikiat & Phanamphon by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 16–20); from C. lekaguli Grismer, Wood, Quah, Anuar, Muin, Sumontha, Ahmad, Bauer, Wangkulangkul, Grismer & Pauwels by the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 33–43); from C. lenya Mulcahy, Thura & Zug by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence) and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 29); from C. lomyenensis Ngo & Pauwels by having fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 39–40) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 32); from C. macrotuberculatus Grismer & Ahmad by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 120.0 mm), more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 17–28) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 19–27); from C. multiporus Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov & Chulisov by having fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 58–60); from C. nigriocularis Nguyen, Orlov & Darevsky by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 0–2), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. uniformly brown); from C. oldhami (Theobald) by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 1–4), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. striped and spotted); from C. pageli Schneider, Nguyen, Schmitz, Kingsada, Auer & Ziegler by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 4), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 4); from C. payarhtanensis Mulcahy, Thura & Zug by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence) and having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 26– 32); from C. peguensis Boulenger by the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence) and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. dark brown spots); from C. phetchaburiensis Pauwels, Sumontha & Bauer by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 57.5 mm), having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 33), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 5) and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. phongnhakebangensis Ziegler, Rösler, Herrmann & Vu by having fewer postcloacal tubercles (2–3 vs. 4–5), more scale rows from mental to the front of cloacal slit (189–202 vs. 161–177); from C. phuketensis Sumontha, Pauwels, Kunya, Nitikul, Samphanthamit & Grismer by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 114.7 mm) and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 22–24); from C. puhuensis Nguyen, Yang, Le, Nguyen, Orlov, Hoang, Nguyen, Jin, Rao, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 5), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and fewer lamellae under toe IV (18–21 vs. 23); from C. pulchellus Gray by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 114.1 mm), more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 29– 34), and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 22–26); from C. roesleri Ziegler, Nazarov, Orlov, Nguyen, Vu, Dang, Dinh & Schmitz by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 7–10), more precloacalfemoral pores in males (37 vs. 20–28), and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 17–22); from C. rufford Luu, Calame, Nguyen, Le, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 27–29) and fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 42–43); from C. russelli Bauer by having fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 15) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 22); from C. saiyok Panitvong, Sumontha, Tunprasert & Pauwels by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 56.7–61.0 mm), more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 23–24), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 5), and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 18–19); from C. samroiyot Pauwels & Sumontha by its larger size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 66.9 mm), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 7), and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 17–18); from C. sanook Pauwels, Sumontha, Latinne & Grismer by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 27–28), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3–4); from C. soni Le, Nguyen, Le & Ziegler by its smaller size (71.2–83.2 mm vs. 88.7–103.0 mm), having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 8–9), more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 18–22), and the absence of femoral pores in females (vs. 11–14); from C. soudthichaki Luu, Calame, Nguyen, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 32–33) and more precloacalfemoral pores in males (37 vs. 29); from C. spelaeus Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov & Chulisov by its smaller size (71.2–83.2 mm vs. 88.9–91.0 mm), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and fewer lamellae under toe IV (18–21 vs. 22–24); from C. sumonthai Bauer, Pauwels & Chanhome by the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 2), and more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16); from C. surin Chan-ard & Makchai by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 4) and the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. thochuensis Ngo & Grismer more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3–5) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 20–26); from C. takouensis Ngo & Bauer by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 3–5), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 0–2), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3–4), and generally more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16–17); from C. teyniei David, Nguyen, Schneider & Ziegler by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 89.9 mm), having fewer enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 23), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. thirakhupti Pauwels, Bauer, Sumontha & Chanhome by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and having more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16); from C. tigroides Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 21) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 21); C. variegatus (Blyth) by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 32) and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 22); from C. wangkulangkulae Sumontha, Pauwels, Suwannakarn, Nutatheera & Sodob by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence); and from C. yangbayensis Ngo & Chan by having more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 0–2) and more lamellae under toe IV (18–21 vs. 15–17). Morphologically, the new species resemble C. huongsonensis and C. soni. However, it can be distinguished from the latter by having a smaller size and differences in the number of enlarged femoral scales on thighs and the number of femoral and precloacal pores. 
CommentHabitat: evergreen karst forest of medium hardwood and shrub. 
EtymologyNamed after the type locality. 
References
  • NGUYEN, TRUONG QUANG; ANH VAN PHAM, THOMAS ZIEGLER, HANH THI NGO, MINH DUC LE 2017. A new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) and the first record of C. otai from Son La Province, Vietnam Zootaxa 4341 (1): 25-40 - get paper here
 
External links  
Is it interesting? Share with others:

As link to this species use URL address:

http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Cyrtodactylus&species=sonlaensis

without field 'search_param'. Field 'search_param' is used for browsing search result.



Please submit feedback about this entry to the curator