Gehyra koira HORNER, 2005
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Gehyra koira?
|Higher Taxa||Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)|
|Subspecies||Gehyra koira koira HORNER 2005|
Gehyra koira ipsa HORNER 2005
|Synonym||Gehyra koira HORNER 2005|
Gehyra koira koira — OLIVER et al. 2010
Gehyra koira koira — WILSON & SWAN 2013: 122
Gehyra koira — COGGER 2014: 359
Gehyra koira koira — ELLIS et al. 2018
Gehyra koira ipsa HORNER 2005
Gehyra koira ipsa — OLIVER et al. 2010
Gehyra koira ipsa — WILSON & SWAN 2013: 122
Gehyra ipsa — COGGER 2014: 359
Gehyra koira ipsa — ELLIS et al. 2018
|Distribution||Australia (North-Western Australia, Ord Victoria region)|
Type locality: Nganlang Art Site, Keep River National
Park, Northern Territory, 15°48’26”S 129°06’23”E [koira].
Type locality: Piccaninny Massif, Purnululu (Bungle Bungle)
National Park, Western Australia, 17°27’S 128°24’E [ipsa].
|Types||Holotype: NTM R.22406, adult female (koira)|
Holotype: WAM R.101238, adult male [ipsa]
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis. A large, robust, dorsoventrally depressed, saxicoline gecko, G. koira sp. nov. is distinguished from Australian congeners by large adult size (mean snoutvent length = 76.8, range 65–96 mm) and the following combination of characters. Rostral scale oblong in shape, no prominent skin folds on hindlimbs, undivided smoothedged subdigital lamellae under the dilated section of the fourth toe and mean values of: 140 midbody scale rows; 43 (mode = 41) interorbital scales; 10 (mode = 10) supralabial scales; 12 (mode = 12) subdigital lamellae under the dilated section of the fourth toe; 15 (mode = 16) preanal pores in male; and a transversely aligned dorsal body pattern dominated by irregular, narrow pale bars [from HORNER 2005].|
Comparison with similar species. Gehyra koira sp. nov. is distinguished from most Australian congeners by attaining a larger size (maximum SVL: 96 versus <80 mm). Gehyra baliola exceeds G. koira sp. nov. in size, but is distinguished by having a characteristic U-shaped rostral scale and posterior skin folds on each hindlimb. Gehyra koira sp. nov. is further distinguished from G. borroloola, G. minuta, G. montium, G. mutilata, G. nana, G. occidentalis, G. pilbara, G. punctata, G. purpurascens, G. variegata and G. xenopus by having entire rather than medially divided subdigital lamellae on the dilated section of the fourth toe. Of the remaining Australian Gehyra, G. pamela has heavily notched or medially divided subdigital lamellae on the dilated section of the fourth toe, fewer midbody scale rows (mean: 119.0 versus 140.2) and more preanal pores in males (mean: 23.2 versus 15.1). Gehyra dubia has deeply notched subdigital lamellae on the dilated section of the fourth toe, and fewer interorbital scales (<37 versus a mean of 42.6). Gehyra robusta has medially depressed subdigital lamellae on the dilated section of the fourth toe, fewer fourth toe lamellae (mean: 10.3 versus 12.2) and interorbital scales (mean: 26.2 versus 42.6). Gehyra catenata has fewer subdigital lamellae on the dilated section of the fourth toe (7–8 vs 10–14) and a dark zigzag-like dorsal pattern. Gehyra australis has fewer interorbital scales (mean: 33.6 versus 42.6), midbody scale rows (mean: 123.3 versus 140.2) and preanal pores in males (mean: 12.8 versus 15.1) [from HORNER 2005].
Diagnosis of subspecies. G. koira ipsa is distinguished from G. koira koira ssp. nov. by having more interorbital scales (mean = 45.8 versus 41.8, Z = 3.69***) and preanal pores (mean = 16.7 versus 14.7, Z = 2.27*), a shorter body (mean % of snout-vent length = 45.1 versus 47.6, Z = -2.13*), longer forelimb (mean % of snout-vent length = 31.8 versus 30.2, Z = 2.04*) and by being larger (mean snout-vent length = 85.2 versus 74.6, Z = 3.52***).
|Etymology||Named after the Greek noun koira, meaning king, ruler or commander, in reference to Max King, in recognition of his landmark work on the cytology and taxonomy of Gehyra. The name is intended as a noun in apposition. The subspecifi c epithet is from the Latin word ipsa, meaning to make prominent one of two or more subjects, in reference to the morphological divergence of the Purnululu population from conspecifi c populations. The name is here intended as a noun in apposition.|