Mediodactylus aspratilis (ANDERSON, 1973)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Mediodactylus aspratilis?
|Higher Taxa||Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)|
|Common Names||Iranian Gecko, Iranian Keel-Scaled Gecko|
|Synonym||Bunopus aspratilis ANDERSON 1973|
Carinatogecko aspratilis — GOLUBEV & SZCZERBAK 1981
Carinatogecko aspratilis — RÖSLER 2000: 61
Mediodactylus aspratilis — ČERVENKA et al. 2010
Carinatogecko aspratilis — FATHINIA et al. 2011
Mediodactylus aspratilis — BAUER et al. 2013
|Distribution||SW Iran (Fars-Province: Zagros Mountains, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad)|
Type locality: Kohgiliye-va-Boyerahmad Province; “35 km E Gach Saran [30º20'N, 50º48'E], Fars Province, Iran” fide ANDERSON 1999. This locality is in Kohgiluyeh and Boyer Ahmad Province, fide Gholamifard 2011. Map legend:
- Type locality.
- Region according to the TDWG standard, not a precise distribution map.
NOTE: TDWG regions are generated automatically from the text in the distribution field and not in every cases it works well. We are working on it.
|Types||Holotype: USNM 193961|
|Comment||Type species: Bunopus aspratilis ANDERSON 1973 is the type species of the genus Carinatogecko GOLUBEV & SZCZERBAK 1981. ČERVENKA et al. (2010) synonymized Carinatogecko with Mediodactylus (Type species: Gymnodactylus kotschyi STEINDACHNER 1870).|
Diagnosis (genus Carinatogecko): All scales of the body, with exception of intermaxillaries, nasals, chin shields, and upper and lower labials, strongly keeled; three nasal scales contact nostril; digits weakly angularly bent, clawed, not dilated, not webbed, nor ornamented, with keeled transverse subdigital lamellae; dorsal pholidosis heterogeneous, small juxtaposed scales intermixed with tubercles; pupil vertical; tail segmented, caudal tubercles with bases in the middle of each seg- ment, separated from posterior margin of segment by ring of scales (Fathinia et al. 2011); This diagnosis is based on Anderson 1999 and Szczerbak & Golubev (1986).
Four key morphological characters discriminate between the species Carinatogecko heteropholis and Carinatogecko aspratilis (Golubev & Szczerbak 1981; Szczerbak & Golubev 1986; Anderson 1999). The first character is the size of the scales in the middle of the back, which should be smaller than the abdominals in C. aspratilis and more or less equal to the abdominals in C. heteropholis. Unfortunately, there seems to be a typographic error in Anderson (1999), where the stated relative size of the scales is reversed relative to the publications of Szczerbak and Golubev (Golubev & Szczerbak 1981; Szczerbak & Golubev 1986). Abdominals of the specimens we examined are more or less equal in size to the scales on the back. The second key character is the shape of caudal tubercles, which should be pointed with enlarged posterior facet in C. aspratilis, but flattened in C. heteropholis. The third key character is the presence (in C. aspratilis) or absence (in C. heteropholis) of identical tubercles on forelimbs as on dorsum. The last key character (the number of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe), does not contribute to unambiguous species identification. C. aspratilis is reported to have 17–18 lamellae and C. heteropholis 15 lamellae, but specimens studied by ČERVENKA et al. (2010) have 16–17. In the original description of C. aspratilis, 17–19 lamellae are mentioned (Anderson 1973). Hence, ČERVENKA et al. (2010) conclude that “C. aspratilis could be a junior synonym of C. heteropholis, but due to the low number of known specimens and hence poorly understood morphological variability, the final resolution requires further study.”