Sphaerodactylus parvus KING, 1962
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Sphaerodactylus parvus?
|Higher Taxa||Sphaerodactylidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)|
|Common Names||E: Anguilla Bank Geckolet|
|Synonym||Sphaerodactylus macrolepis parvus KING 1962: 16|
Sphaerodactylus macrolepis parvus — WERMUTH 1965: 169
Sphaerodactylus macrolepis parvus — THOMAS & SCHWARTZ 1966
Sphaerodactylus macrolepis parvus — SCHWARTZ & HENDERSON 1988
Sphaerodactylus macrolepis parvus — SCHWARTZ & HENDERSON 1991
Sphaerodactylus parvus — POWELL & HENDERSON 2001
Sphaerodactylus parvus — DAZA et al. 2019
|Distribution||Anguilla, St.-Barthélémy, St.-Martin, Tintamarre I., Dog. I., St. Barts.|
Type locality: Wayne King, St.-Martin Island, 2.5 miles west and .25 miles north of Philipsburg.
|Types||Holotype: UF/FSM 10034.1, adult male (Florida State Museum of Natural History)|
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis: This species was originally described as a subspecies of S. macrolepis by King (1962) and was elevated by Powell & Henderson (2001) who differentiated this species on the basis of 1) dorsal scales with hair bearing scale organs, with only one hair each along the dorso-distal edge; 2) maximum SVL size of 24 mm (18–24 mm, x̅ = 21.7); 3) having a higher mean number of midbody scale rows (48.4 ± 1.5); and 4) weak sexual dichroma- tism nor ontogenetic variation (King 1962; Thomas & Schwartz 1966). Nava et al. (2002) described six additional differences with other members of the S. macrolepis species complex: 5) less bulky habitus; 6) ventral scales keeled on the sides of abdomen of some specimens (King 1962); 7) less densely pigmented throat; 8) less conspicuous head patterns; 9) smaller scapular patch on females; and 10) ten toe lamellae on the fourth toe (9–11; King 1962). Our work shows that only characters 2, 3, 4, and 9 are actually diagnostic (Appendix 2). SVL Min/Max is 12.17/26.39 mm. Additional diagnostic traits for S. parvus include a scapular patch that can be brown and black (also present in S. macrolepis); males and females with no well-defined occipital spots and postorbital line; pale or yellowish ocelli from the scapular patch very close or united; males and females with no well-defined head patterns; males and females without dorsal lines, color pattern more ‘salt and pepper’. Females seem to have a more defined gular pattern than males (Daza et al. 2019: 162).|
|Comment||Sphaerodactylus parvus differs from most populations of S. macrolepis in having only hairbearing organs on the dorsal scales, in being much smaller, and in having a higher mean number of midbody scale rows (the range of the latter does not overlap with those known for five of the nine subspecies of S. macrolepis; see Table 1 in POWELL & HENDERSON 2001). Differences in pattern also exist, but “the lack of marked sexual dichromatism in parvus is of itself definitive” (Thomas and Schwartz, 1966).|
|Etymology||Named after Latin “parvus, -a, -um” = small.|
As link to this species use URL address:
without field 'search_param'. Field 'search_param' is used for browsing search result.