Tarentola protogigas JOGER, 1984
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Tarentola protogigas?
Tarentola protogigas
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Phyllodactylidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | Tarentola protogigas hartogi JOGER 1993 Tarentola protogigas protogigas JOGER 1984 |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Tarentola rudis protogigas JOGER 1984 Tarentola delalandii var. rudis — BOULENGER 1906 Tarentola delalandii — LOVERIDGE 1947 Tarentola rudis rudis — SCHLEICH 1984 Tarentola borneensis protogigas — JOGER 1984: 100 Tarentola rudis protogigas — JOGER 1993 Tarentola gigas protogigas — KLUGE 1993 Tarentola (Makariogecko) rudis protogigas — RÖSLER 2000: 117 ? Tarentola (Makariogecko) rudis protogigas — CARRANZA et al. 2000 Tarentola protogigas protogigas — VASCONCELOS et al. 2012: 353 Tarentola rudis hartogi JOGER 1993 Tarentola borneensis protogigas — JOGER 1984 Tarentola rudis protogigas — JOGER 1993 Tarentola (Makariogecko) rudis hartogi CARRANZA et al. 2000 Tarentola protogigas hartogi — VASCONCELOS et al. 2012: 354 |
| Distribution | Cape Verde Islands hartogi: Brava, Rombo (Cape Verde Islands); Type locality: Cima Island, Rombos group – central plateau, in sandy area under shrub of Malvaceae. protogigas: Fogo (Cape Verde Islands); Type locality: Fogo (Cape Verde Islands) |
| Reproduction | oviparous (manual and phylogenetic imputation, fide Zimin et al. 2022) |
| Types | Holotype: ZSM 145/1981/01 (given as ZSM 01/145/81 in the original description), Fogo, unknown locality; paratypes: ZSM 02/145/1981, Fogo, unknown locality; BMNH 1906.3.30.28-29; BMNH 1998.374-378; MCNG C.E. 28149. Holotype: RMNH 24131, paratypes: RMNH, HLMD [hartogi] |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis (protogigas): Medium to large-sized gecko [maximum SVL 98.5 mm (Schleich, 1987); 71.9 mm on average, see Appendix 2]; eye/ear opening ratio averages 1.69; ear–eye/eye–snout distance ratio averages 0.75. Eight to 12 supralabials; seven to nine infralabials; ten to 13 enlarged lamellae under the 4th finger; 144–181 midbody scales (Joger, 1984b); conical to apical promi- nent dorsal tubercles with a narrow central keel (Fig. 5D4), especially on the sacral region, with 12–15 transverse rows and 15–21 longitudinal rows; several enlarged tubercles between the eye and the ear opening. Grey, brownish to yellowish dorsal pattern with a series of four (sometimes five) light middorsal patches, each preceded by a more indistinct and lighter W-shaped dark mark, usually connected by a light middorsal line (Figs 6D3–5 and 7D3–5); golden- yellowish grey ventral parts; dark spots on the labials, sometimes creating an alternating light and dark pattern; eye iris grey with an indistinct broad horizontal dark area. It differs from T. bocagei, T. fogoensis, T. darwini, T. substituta, T. raziana, T. caboverdiana, and T. nico- lauensis by having prominent conical dorsal tubercles, enlarged tubercles between the eye and ear opening and a different dorsal pattern (Fig. 6), and from T.gigas by the presence of a narrow well- marked central keel, especially on the sacral region. It also differs from T. gigas by having important mor- phological, bioacustical, ecological, and behavioural differences. It differs from T. boavistensis, T. rudis, and Tarentola from Maio by its yellower ventral col- oration. It also differs from T.rudis by a higher number of scales around midbody and interorbital scales [18–21 versus 16–19 (Joger, 1984b)], by having four to five more indistinct and lighter W-shaped dorsal bands (Fig. 6), fader spots on the labials and less contrasted eye iris coloration (Fig. 7). It differs from Tarentola from Maio by a higher number of scales and lamellae under the fifth toe [22–26 versus 19–21, rarely 22 (Joger, 1984b)] and interorbital scales [19–21 versus 16–18 (Joger, 1984b)]. |
| Comment | MORPHOBANK M46037–M46055 (protogigas) MORPHOBANK M46056–M46091 (hartogi) Joger (1984) treated "rudis" and "gigas" as semi-species within one species which, because of the priority rule, had to be named "borneensis" Gray, 1845. Schleich (1984, 1987) did not accept it and considered "rudis" and "gigas" as separated species. The name "borneensis" is no longer valid by decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1990 (opinion 1585; Carranza et al. 2000), as applied for by Schleich in 1988 (Joger 1993) [fide Filipe Sousa (pers. comm.)]. |
| Etymology | T. rudis hartogi was named in honor of the collector, J. C. Den HARTOG. The name T. rudis protogigas refers to the intermediate differentiation degree of this subspecies between rudis of Santiago and gigas of Branco and/or gigas of Raso. |
| References |
|
| External links |