Hemidactylus hemchandrai DANDGE & TIPLE, 2015
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Hemidactylus hemchandrai?
|Higher Taxa||Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)|
|Synonym||Hemidactylus hemchandrai DANDGE & TIPLE 2015|
Type locality: India, Maharashtra, Bhandara: unprotected peripheral region of the Navega- on Bandh National Park (Fig. 1); 20°54’55.5’’ N 80°06’14.6’’ E
|Types||Holotype: ZSI V-6218 (male); date of collection 15GVG2014. Leg. Mr. Parag H. Dandge. Deposited in National Zoological Collection of Zoological Survey of India, Central Zone Regional Centre, Jabalpur 482002, India (note that Dandge & Tiple 2015 erroneously said that specimen was still under study; P. Dandge, pers. comm., 3 Feb 2016). Paratype (1 male, 1 female) ZSI V-6219. Para- type collected from the same locality. Leg. Mr. Parag H. Dandge. Deposited in National Zoological Collection of Zoological Survey of India, Central Zone Regional Centre, Jabalpur-482 002, India|
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis: A medium-sized Hemidactylus, SVL 63 to 86 mm. 12 to 15 rows of irregularly arranged, flattened to weakly conical tubercles. First supralabial contacting nostril narrowly. Two well-developed pairs of postmentals, the inner pair larger and in broad contact behind mental. 40 – 41 scale rows across venter between lowest rows of tubercles. 9 lamellae on first digit of pes, 14 lamellae on fourth digit of pes. 10 to 11 femoral pores on each thigh, separated by 5 to 6 scale, tail depressed, oval in trans- verse section, 6 to 7 tubercle present on the first segment of the tail, tail tuberculate with a median dorsal furrow; a single median row of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates started from second segment of the tail.|
Comparison. H. hemchandrai may be distinguished from H. gracilis Blanford, H. reticulatus Beddome, H. albofasciatus Grandison et Soman, H. imbricatus Bauer et al., H. sataraensis Giri and Bauer, and H. ana- mallensis Günther, on the basis of its divided subdigital lamellae (vs. lamellae undivided or only distal lamellae divided or notched), from H. scabriceps Annandale by its granular (vs. imbricate) dorsal scalation; in presence of 12 to 15 rows of tubercles on the dorsum usually few in number; with fewer enlarged tubercles, more often absent altogether in H. flaviviridis; small, uniform, granular dorsal scales except along the sides where they may form a single line of larger rounded tubercles in H. garnotii Duméril et Bibron; large trihedral tubercles arranged in 20 fairly regular longitudinal rows in H. maculatus, conical, keeled, or subtrihedral tubercles arranged in from 16 – 20 more of less regular longitudinal series in H. brookii; 16 – 18 longitudinal rows of fairly regularly arranged, subtrihedral, weakly keeled, striated tubercles at midbody in H. granticolus; femoral pores in male 10 to 11 one each side separated by 5 to 6 scales (5–7 in H. flaviviridis; 19 – 25 femoral pores on each side in H. maculates; from 7 – 12 (16) preano-femoral pores on each side, usually interrupted mesially in H. brookii (Smith, 1935; Giri et al., 2003); 7 – 16 in H. parvimaculatus, Deraniyagala; 6 – 14 femoral pores on each side in H. lankae Deraniyagala; H. subtriedrus Jerdon and H. triedrus (Daudin); 14 femoral pores in H. treutleri Mahony; it differs from H. karenorum and H. bowringii by having more number of lamellae, 10 under thumb and 12 under fourth finger of manus and 9 under the first and 14 under the fourth toe of pes vs. 5 under the thumb, 9 under the fourth finger, 5 or 6 under the first toe, and 10 to 12 under the fourth toe and 5 under the thumb, 7 or 8 under the fourth finger, 5 or 6 under the first toe, and 9 or 10 under the fourth toe, respectively, from H. robustus, H. persicus, H. turcicus, and H. porbandarensis by its lower number of precloacal femoral pores in males (10 – 11 on each thigh separated by 5 to 6 scales vs. 13 or fewer precloacal pores in a continuous series and no femoral pores). H. hemchandrai is looks closely similar to H. leschenaulti, H. giganteus, H. aaronbaueri, and H. gujaratensis can be distinguished by 9 lamellae under 1st and 14 lamellae under 4th toe of pes vs. 6 to 7 under 1st and 9 to 11under 4th lamellae of pes, 11 supralabials and 8 to 10 infralabials vs. 10 to 12 supralabials and 8 to 9 infralabials, 12 to 15 rows of tubercles vs. absent or few number of tubercle on the dorsum mostly 6 scale rows present in the lateral side of the body in central Indian population, 10 to 11 femoral pores in males vs. 12 to 16 femoral pores present in males of H. leschenaulti. 11 to 12 lamellae under 1st and 13 to 15 under 4th toe of pes vs. 9 lamellae under 1st and 14 under 4th toe of pes, 11 to 12 supralabials and 8 to 10 infralabials vs. 12 to 15 supralabials and 11 to 13 infralabials, dorsum with 12 to 15 rows of enlarge tuber- cles vs. no enlarge tubercles on dorsum, 10 to 11 femoral pores on each thigh in males vs. 19 to 22 femoral pores present in males in H. giganteus. Medium size upto 86 mm vs. large size hemidactylus up to 128 mm, 12 to 15 rows of enlarge tubercles on the dorsum vs. 18 to 20 rows of enlarge tubercles on dorsum, 9 lamellae under 1st and 14 under 4th toe of pes vs. 9 to 12 under 1st lamellae and 11 to 13 under 4th toe of pes, 10 to 11 femoral pores in males separated by 5 scales vs. 15 to 19 femoral pores in males separated by 6 scales, two postnasal scales vs. 4 postnasal, pair of postmental are in touch with 1st and 2nd infralabials vs. postmental are in touch with 1st infralabial in H. aaronbaueri. 12 to 15 rows of tubercles vs. 12 to 16 rows of tubercles, 9 lamellae under 1st and 14 under 4th toe of pes vs. 7 to 9 under 1st and 11 under 4th toe of pes, 10 to 11 femoral pores in males vs. 12 to 14 femoral pores in males, 40 to 41 scale rows across the venter vs. 28 to 30 scale rows across the venter, incompletely or undevel- oped rostral groove vs. strongly developed rostral groove in H. gujaratensis. All specimens studied and compare with collection available at Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata (Appendix 1).
Variations and additional information in types series (Tables 1 and 2, Fig. 3). Mensural data for the types and additional material is given in Table 1 and 2, respectively paratypes are one male and one female ranging in size 63 mm to 67 mm. Both paratypes resembles to the holotype except as follows: supralabial ranges from 11 to 12 and infralabials from 8 to 10. Range of lamellae is 10 un- der the first and 12 to 13 under the fourth digit of the manus, 9 under first and 13 to 14 under the fourth digit of the pes. Male have a series of 10 to 11 femoral pores separated by 5 to 6 scales. Female without femoral pores.
|Comment||Abundance: only known from its original description (Meiri et al. 2017).|
|Etymology||The species name hemchandrai is derived from the first author’s (PHD) late father’s name.|
As link to this species use URL address:
without field 'search_param'. Field 'search_param' is used for browsing search result.