Dixonius kaweesaki SUMONTHA, CHOMNGAM, PHANAMPHON, PAWANGKHANANT, VIRIYAPANON, THANAPRAYOTSAK & PAUWELS, 2017
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Dixonius kaweesaki?
|Higher Taxa||Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)|
|Common Names||Thai: Djing-djok din Sam Roi Yot|
E: Sam Roi Yot leaf-toed gecko
F: Dixonius de Sam Roï Yot
G: Samroiyot Blattfingergecko
|Synonym||Dixonius kaweesaki SUMONTHA, CHOMNGAM, PHANAMPHON, PAWANGKHANANT, VIRIYAPANON, THANAPRAYOTSAK & PAUWELS 2017|
|Distribution||Thailand (Prachuap Khiri Khan)|
Type locality: Khao Daeng, Kui Buri District, Prachuap Khiri Khan Province, peninsular Thailand
|Types||Holotype. THNHM 25607 (field no. MS 566); adult male; collected by K. Keeratikiat on 20 June 2014.|
Paratypes. PSUZC 718 (field no. MS 568), adult male; PSUZC 719 (field no. MS 567), adult female; ZMKU Rep-000319 (field no. MS 570), subadult female; all same locality, collecting date and collector as holotype.
|Comment||Diagnosis. Dixonius kaweesaki sp. nov. can be distinguished from all other congeneric species by its combination of a maximal SVL of 41.6 mm; 12 or 13 longitudinal rows of dorsal tubercles; 24 longitudinal rows of ventrals across the abdomen; a continuous series of 9-11 precloacal pores in males, no pores in females; and two bold dark stripes from the snout to the base of the tail separated by a contrasting light vertebral stripe.|
Behavior: most active between 0100 and 0400 hrs, especially after rainfall.
Sympatry: Cnemaspis siamensis (Smith), Cyrtodactylus samroiyot Pauwels & Sumontha, 2014, Dixonius siamensis, Gehyra fehlmanni (Taylor), G. lacerata (Taylor) and G. mutilata (Wiegmann), Gekko gecko (Linnaeus) (Gekkonidae), Ahaetulla nasuta Bonnaterre, Dendrelaphis subocularis (Boulenger), Lycodon capucinus (Boie) (Colubridae), Indotyphlops braminus (Daudin) (Typhlopidae) and Trimeresurus sp. (Viperidae).
Comparisons: Based on its color pattern, Dixonius kaweesaki sp. nov. can be readily distinguished from all other recognized Dixonius species. The absence of dorsal spots, ocellae and transversal bands readily diagnoses it from D. hangseesom, D. minhlei, D. siamensis (Figure 10; see also individuals from Chaiyaphum, Chon Buri, Loei, Prachuap Khiri Khan, Sisaket and Udon Thani provinces illustrated by Manthey & Grossmann 1997, Chan-ard et al. 1999 and Taylor 1963), D. taoi and D. vietnamensis. The presence of a lateral wide dark stripe on the upper flanks distinguishes it from D. aaronbaueri (absence of stripes, bands or any pattern on dorsum), D. hangseesom (no dark dorsal stripe; see Figure 11), D. melanostictus (lateral wide dark stripe on the lower flanks, not on the upper flanks; see Figure 9 and individuals from Nakhon Ratchasima and Saraburi provinces illustrated by Taylor 1963 and Chan-ard et al. 1999), D. minhlei (no dark dorsal stripe), D. siamensis (no dark dorsal stripe), D. taoi (no dark dorsal stripe) and D. vietnamensis (no dark dorsal stripe). The presence of a vertebral stripe abruptly lighter than the upper flank background color is unique to Dixonius kaweesaki sp. nov. This latter contrast is most marked in young individuals where the vertebral stripe is white and the upper flank color is black. The drawings presented in the original description of Phyllodactylus paviei (Mocquard, 1904) from ‘‘Vatana (Siam)’’and in a complement to the description of Phyllodactylus burmanicus Annandale, 1905a (Annandale 1905b) from ‘‘Tavoy’’, both currently regarded as junior subjective synonyms of D. siamensis (Bauer et al. 2004), show a blotched dorsal pattern without dark stripes; they also both lack a dark canthal stripe.
Besides its unique color pattern Dixonius kaweesaki sp. nov. can be also easily distinguished from all other Dixonius by its combination of meristic and morphometric characters. It indeed differs from D. aaronbaueri by its slightly larger size (maximum SVL 41.6 vs. 38.6 mm), its higher SL number (10 or 11 vs. 8 or 9), distinctly higher Ven number (24 vs. 18 or 19), slightly higher DorTubR number (12 or 13 vs. 11) and its sensibly higher number of precloacal pores in males (9–11 vs. 5). From D. hangseesom it differs by its higher SL number (10 or 11 vs. 8), distinctly lower Interorb number (6 or 7 vs. 10), its higher SubLT4 (15 vs. 13) and its higher number of precloacal pores in males (9–11 vs. 6–8). It can be separated from D. melanostictus by its smaller maximum SVL (41.6 vs. 50 mm), its higher SL number (10 or 11 vs. 9), its higher Ven number (24 vs. 22), and slightly higher DorTubR number (12 or 13 vs. 10 or 11). From D. minhlei it differs by its slightly smaller size (maximum SVL 41.6 vs. 47.5 mm), its higher SL number (10 or 11 vs. 7–9), lower DorTubR number (12 or 13 vs. 14 or 15), higher Ven number (24 vs. 20–23), and its higher number of precloacal pores in males (9–11 vs. 7 or 8). From D. siamensis it differs by its much smaller size (maximum SVL 41.6 vs. 57 mm), higher SL number (10 or 11 vs. 7 or 8), and higher number of precloacal pores in males (9–11 vs. 6 or 7). It is distinguished from D. taoi by its higher SL number (10 or 11 vs. 7 or 8), higher Ven number (24 vs. 21–23), higher SubLT4 (15 vs. 12–14) and higher number of precloacal pores in males (9–11 vs. 5 or 6). From D. vietnamensis it differs by its higher SL number (10 or 11 vs. 7), higher Ven number (24 vs. 20), generally lower DorTubR number (12 or 13 vs. 13–17) and higher SubLT4 (15 vs. 13). Phyllodactylus burmanicus shows 6 SL, 6 IL, 8 or 9 SubLT4, 7 precloacal pores and a maximum known SVL of 35 mm (Annandale 1905a–b). Phyllodactylus paviei shows 8 SL, 6 precloacal pores and a maximum known SVL of 46 mm (Mocquard 1904).
|Etymology||The specific epithet honors the Thai naturalist Kaweesak (Toi) Keeratikiat from Bangkok, in recognition to his help in our herpetological field surveys, and who collected the type series.|
As link to this species use URL address:
without field 'search_param'. Field 'search_param' is used for browsing search result.