Gehyra kimberleyi BÖRNER & SCHÜTTLER, 1982
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Gehyra kimberleyi?
|Higher Taxa||Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)|
|Common Names||Robust termitaria gecko, Kimberley Dtella|
|Synonym||Gehyra punctata — BÖRNER & SCHÜTTLER 1982|
Gehyra kimberleyi BÖRNER & SCHÜTTLER 1983
Dactyloperus kimberleyi — WELLS & WELLINGTON 1984
Gehyra kimberleyi — KLUGE 1993
Gehyra kimberleyi — RÖSLER 2000: 80
Gehyra kimberleyi — OLIVER et al. 2016
|Distribution||Australia (NW Western Australia)|
Type locality: 5 km S Derby, Western Australia.
|Types||Holotype: private collection of AR Börner, BSRC Geck 65 SC (as of September 2012, this was still in Börner’s possession, though efforts were under way to try to have Börner’s types lodged in SMF -- G.M. Shea, pers. comm., 2 March 2014, confirmed on 3 March 2016)|
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis: small arboreal geeko (4 cm SVL) of the genus Gehyra with: no cutareous fold on the hind limbs; no digital web; a wide head in relation to its length, a moderately high but not a depressed or a distinctly high head;|
6-7 supralabials and sublabials; anterior pair of chin shields not in contact uith second sublabials; 9 completely divided scansors under 4th toe; 6 same scansors under 4th finger; light brom (fawn) ground colour fading to a creamy grayish towards the flanks, underneath white; light spots on the head; lower flanks and labials with dark points, fewer than in Gehyra pilbara; on the dorsum large white spots arranged in transversal rows (very conspicuous); few dark brown spots on head and, nape, fewer on dorsum, more on sacrum, where they may form chevrons [from BÖRNER 1983: 3].
Diagnosis. Digits broadly expanded basally and subdigital scansors present on all digits of manus and pes. Digit I of manus and pes clawless, penultimate phalynx of digits II–V free from scansorial pad. Differs from non- Australian Gehyra by the combination of: absence of webbing between third and fourth toes, absence of a skin fold along the posterior hindlimb and medium adult size (SVL < 62 mm). Differs from Australian Gehyra by the combination of moderate size (SVL < 62 mm), short snout (SnEye/HL mean 0.42) and deep head (HD/HL mean 0.48), subdigital lamellae divided without basal wedge of granules, moderate number of pre-cloacal pores (12–17), postmentals not contacting the second infralabial, one pair of chin shields and dorsal background colour light reddish-brown to pale tan or greyish-brown with diffuse, widely-spaced pale spots and small dark-brown blotches (Oliver et al. 2016).
Comparison with other species. Gehyra kimberleyi can be distinguished from all non-Australian Gehyra by the combination of absence of webbing between the third and fourth toes (versus present), the absence of a skin fold along the posterior hindlimb (versus present) and its smaller size (max SVL < 65 mm versus > 65 mm).
Within Australia, G. kimberleyi can be distinguished from all members of the G. australis species-group (which are largely restricted to the AMT) by its smaller size (max SVL < 65 mm versus max SVL > 65 mm), divided subdigital lamellae (versus at least some undivided) and single egg per clutch (versus two).
Gehyra kimberleyi can be distinguished from most other members of the G. variegata-punctata group that also occur in the AMT as follows; from G. xenopus Storr and G. spheniscus by the absence of a wedge of granules between proximal lamellae (versus present), and in the case of the former species, smaller size (max SVL 62 versus 79 mm); from G. occidentalis Storr by its smaller body size (max SVL 62 versus 76 mm), deeper head, postmentals 3 x longer than wide (versus 4 x), lower number of subdigital lamellae (6–8 versus 7–10), fewer pores in males (12–17 versus 18–30) and more clearly-defined spots on the dorsum; and from G. multiporosa Doughty, Palmer, Sistrom, Bauer & Donnellan, 2012 by fewer pores in adult males (12–17 versus 20–49), dark markings on dorsum not tending to form transverse bars and the absence of dark lateral head streaks.
Gehyra kimberleyi can be distinguished from both geographically proximate and type G. nana by short snout and deep head, tan or greyish brown dorsal colouration (versus reddish), generally larger body size (SVL 42.0–61.3 versus 35.0–44.3), more larger, irregular and pale blotches (versus small and clearly defined), diffuse and transversely oriented dark brown blotches on dorsum (versus clearly defined brown blotches or spots).
Gehyra kimberleyi overlaps with a number of other members of the G. variegata-punctata species-group from the Australian arid zone, especially in the northern Pilbara. It differs from species in this group in having dorsal markings of dark blotches that tend to coalesce to form transverse bars (versus continuous longitudinal lines or network in G. variegata and G. montium—Hutchinson et al. 2014), and by having 7–9 supralabial scales (versus 8–10 in G. variegata and 8–11 in G. montium—Hutchinson et al. 2014). It is distinguished from members of the Gehyra punctata species complex by its diffuse dorsal colouration (versus well defined dark and light spots or blotches) and postmentals that do not contact the second supralabial.
From Gehyra pilbara (with which it has frequently been confused) it can be distinguished by its larger size (max SVL 62.3 versus 45.1 mm), tall, narrow postmentals (versus extremely short and wide; cf. Fig. 4), and tan or greyish-brown dorsal colouration (vs. reddish-brown).
|Comment||Member of the Gehyra variegata-punctata species complex. The validity of this species is controversial, not the least because the journal in which this species was described is privately published. Not listed by COGGER 2000.|
Illustrations. Börner’s paper has only 2 very bad black and white photos of the (apparently) dead type, without showing any color or scalation details. However, he says that “another specimen referable to this species seems to be the one depicted by Cogger (1975, 1979) in figure 400”.
|Etymology||Although the original description mentions the ‘Kimberleys’ (sic) (Börner & Schüttler 1983, p. 1), no explicit etymology was provided. The presumed correct formation of the specific name is ‘kimberleyensis’, which means the taxon is from the Kimberley region. The proposed name ‘kimberleyi’ would refer to a male named Kimberley. The error, however, cannot be emended under current ICZN rules of nomenclature. The suggested common name refers to species’ body habitus, and ‘termitaria’ indicates this species’ habitat preference (although it is not exclusive to termitaria) (Oliver et al. 2016).|