Blaesodactylus microtuberculatus JONO, BAUER, BRENNAN & MORI, 2015
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Blaesodactylus microtuberculatus?
Blaesodactylus microtuberculatus
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Blaesodactylus microtuberculatus JONO, BAUER, BRENNAN & MORI 2015 Blaesodactylus microtuberculatus — INEICH et al. 2016 |
| Distribution | N Madagascar (Antsiranana) Type locality: Ankarana National Park, Antsiranana Province, northern Madagascar (12°57’S, 49°07’E; Fig. 3), |
| Reproduction | oviparous (manual imputation, fide Zimin et al. 2022) |
| Types | Holotype: KUZ 069431 (field number AFP2012-002), adult male (Fig. 2A); collected by T. Jono and A. Mori on 4 December 2012. Paratypes. None. |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis: A large sized (SVL 117.4 mm), robust-bodied Blaesodactylus with tail slightly longer than SVL (Fig. 2A). Snout elongate, gular granules small and homogenous, internarial region convex (Fig. 4A). 162 scale rows around midbody, 15–17 longitudinal rows of relatively small tubercles on dorsum. Fourth digit of pes with 21 undivided subdigital lamellae. No tubercles on tail dorsum; midventral subcaudal scales transversely enlarged, about half width of tail. Body dorsum grayish, mid-dorsal row of five blotches, original tail weakly banded, venter pale, only gular region with very faint mottling (Fig. 4A). Among its congeners Blaesodactylus microtuberculatus sp. nov. may be differentiated from B. boivini by its smaller dorsal tubercles (Fig. 5; ~3 times size of adjacent scales versus ~10 times), absence of caudal tubercles (Fig. 5; versus caudal tubercles ~4 times size of adjacent scales and present on more than half of the tail), uniform pale venter except for gular region (versus mottled with areas of dark pigmentation), and lower number of dorsal tubercle rows (15–17 versus 18–21). It differs from B. sakalava in its smaller dorsal tubercles (Fig. 5; ~3 times size of adjacent scales versus ~6 times, with tubercles finely keel), absence of caudal tubercles (Fig. 5; versus keeled tubercles ~6 times size of adjacent scales and present on more than half of the tail), wider midventral subcaudal scales (Fig. 5; about half width of tail versus less than one-third width of tail), and mottled gular region (Fig. 4; versus pale). It is distinguished from B. ambonihazo by its smaller dorsal tubercles (Fig. 5; ~3 times size of adjacent scales versus ~6 times), absence of caudal tubercles (Fig. 5; versus keeled tubercles ~3 times size of adjacent scales present on proximal ~40% of the tail), wider midventral subcaudal scales (Fig. 5; about half width of tail versus less than one-third width of tail), mottled gular region (Fig. 4; versus pale), lower number of dorsal tubercle rows (15–17 versus 17–21). It is distinguished from B. antongilensis by its lower number of dorsal tubercles (15–17 versus up to 24), and mottled gular region (Fig. 4; versus pale). [JONO et al. 2015]. |
| Comment | Abundance: only known from the type locality (Meiri et al. 2017). |
| Etymology | The species epithet “microtuberculatus” refers to the presence of small tubercles, compared to all other congeners, on their trunk region. |
| References |
|
| External links |