Hemiphyllodactylus bonkowskii NGUYEN, DO, NGO, PHAM, PHAM, LE & ZIEGLER, 2020
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Hemiphyllodactylus bonkowskii?
Hemiphyllodactylus bonkowskii
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Bonkowski’s Slender Gecko Vietnamese: Thạch sùng dẹp bonkowski |
| Synonym | Hemiphyllodactylus bonkowskii NGUYEN, DO, NGO, PHAM, PHAM, LE & ZIEGLER 2020 |
| Distribution | Vietnam (Hoa Binh) Type locality: limestone cliff in the corn field (20o43.480’N, 104o54.344’E, at an elevation of 969 m a.s.l.), Hang Kia Commune, within Hang Kia—Pa Co NR, Mai Chau District, Hoa Binh Province, northwestern Vietnam |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype. IEBR 4689 (Field number HB 2014.44), adult male, collected on 15 April 2014 by T.Q. Nguyen, C.T. Pham, H.N. Ngo. Paratypes. IEBR 4690 (Field number HB 2014.45), adult male; IEBR 4691 (Field number HB 2014.46), adult female, the same data as the holotype; IEBR 4692 (Field number HB 2014.2), IEBR 4693 (Field number HB 2014.3), adult females, collected on 10 April 2014 by T.Q. Nguyen, C.T. Pham, H.N. Ngo from a limestone cliff near the corn field (20o43.481’N, 104o54.349’E, at an elevation of 970 m a.s.l.); IEBR 4749 (Field number HB 2014.40), subadult female, collected on 14 April 2014 by C.T. Pham, H.N. Ngo from a limestone cliff (20o43.644’N, 104o52.177’E, at an elevation of 933 m a.s.l.). |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis. A bisexual taxon; SVL of adult 40.70–48.00 mm; dorsal scale rows 24–27; ventral scale rows 13– 15; postmentals bordering mental and first infralabial, distinctly enlarged; digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) and 4554 (hindfoot); 19 pore bearing femoral and precloacal scales, in a continuous row, absent in females; cloacal spur single, present in both sexes; dorsal trunk pattern yellowish grey; body with a discontinuous light dorsolateral stripe. Comparisons. We compare the new species from Hoa Binh Province with other members of Hemiphyllodactylus from Vietnam and neighboring countries. For comparisons with other species of Hemiphyllodactylus see Table 4. Hemiphyllodactylus bonkowskii sp. nov. differs from H. banaensis by having fewer scales between supranasals (2–4 vs. 4–11 in H. banaensis), more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 17–20 in H. banaensis), and more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 9–12 in H. banaensis); from H. changningensis Guo, Zhou, Yan & Li by having more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 11–15 in H. changningensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 6–8 in H. changningensis), digital lamellae formula 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 3444/3333 in H. changningensis); from H. dushanensis by having fewer chin scales (5–7 vs. 8–10 in H. dushanensis), fewer supralabials (8–10 vs. 11–13 in H. dushanensis), more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 14–15 in H. dushanensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 8–9 in H. dushanensis), fewer precloacal and femoral pores in males (19 vs. 24–26 in H. dushanensis), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (vs. absence in H. dushanensis); from H. hongkongensis Sung, Lee, Ng, Zhang & Yang by having a larger size (maximum SVL 48 mm vs. 43 mm in H. hongkongensis), more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 12–15 in H. hongkongensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 9–10 in H. hongkongensis), and fewer precloacal and femoral pores in males (19 vs. 24–25 in H. hongkongensis); from H. huishuiensis Yan, Lin, Guo, Li & Zhou by having fewer chin scales (5–7 vs. 8–10 in H. huishuiensis), more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 13–15 in H. huishuiensis), and more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 7–9 in H. huishuiensis); from H. indosobrinus Eliades, Phimmachak, Sivongxay, Siler & Stuart by having a larger size (maximum SVL 48 mm vs. 39.8 mm in H. indosobrinus), fewer supralabials (8–10 vs. 15 in H. indosobrinus), fewer dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 30 in H. indosobrinus), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 11 in H. indosobrinus), and digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) (vs. 4554 in H. indosobrinus); from H. jinpingensis by having a larger size (maximum SVL 48.00 mm vs. 39.60 mm in H. jinpingensis), more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 11–12 in H. jinpingensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 5–7 in H. jinpingensis), fewer precloacal and femoral pores in males (19 vs. 20–24 in H. jinpingensis), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (vs. absence in H. jinpingensis); from H. kiziriani Nguyen, Botov, Le, Nophaseud, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having a larger size (maximum SVL 48 mm vs. 40.8 mm in H. kiziriani), fewer circumnasal scales (3 vs. 4 in H. kiziriani), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (19 vs. 10–13 in H. kiziriani); from H. longlingensis by having fewer circumnasal scales (3 vs. 4–5 in H. longlingensis), more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 10–14 in H. longlingensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 6–7), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (vs. absence in H. longlingensis); from H. serpispecus Eliades, Phimmachak, Sivongxay, Siler & Stuart by having a larger size (maximum SVL 48.00 mm vs. 41.90 mm in H. serpispecus), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 10 in H. serpispecus), digital lamellae formula 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 3445 in H. serpispecus), more precloacal and femoral pores in males (19 vs. 11 in H. serpispecus), and fewer cloacal spurs (1 vs. 2 in H. serpispecus); from H. typus by having fewer chin scales (5–7 vs. 9–14 in H. typus), more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 12–19 in H. typus), and digital lamellae formula 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 4454 in H. typus); from H. yunnanensis by having more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 9–18 in H. yunnanensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 6–12 in H. yunnanensis), digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) and 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 3333 and 3444, respectively, in H. yunnanensis), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (vs. absence in H. yunnanensis); and from H. zugi by having fewer chin scales (5–7 vs. 9–12 in H. zugi), fewer supralabials (8–10 vs. 10–13 in H. zugi), and more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 19–22 in H. zugi). |
| Comment | Habitat: disturbed evergreen karst forest of medium hardwood and shrub. |
| Etymology | Named in honour of Prof. Dr. Michael Bonkowski from the Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Germany for his support of our biodiversity research in limestone karst forests in Vietnam and Laos. |
| References |
|
| External links |