You are here » home advanced search search results Cyrtodactylus hamidyi

Cyrtodactylus hamidyi RIYANTO, FAUZI, SIDIK, MUMPUNI, IRHAM, KURNIAWAN, OTA, OKAMOTO, HIKIDA & GRISMER, 2021

Can you confirm these amateur observations of Cyrtodactylus hamidyi?

Add your own observation of
Cyrtodactylus hamidyi »

We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: Google images

Higher TaxaGekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)
Subspecies 
Common NamesE: Hamidy’s Bent-toed Gecko
Indonesian: Cecak Jarilengkung Hamidy 
SynonymCyrtodactylus hamidyi RIYANTO, FAUZI, SIDIK, MUMPUNI, IRHAM, KURNIAWAN, OTA, OKAMOTO, HIKIDA & GRISMER 2021 
DistributionIndonesia (East Kalimantan)

Type locality: Samaenre Semaja village, Sei Menggaris district, Nunukan regency, East Kalimantan, Indonesia (N 04.27767; E 117.22990  
Reproduction 
TypesHolotype. MZB.Lace.8501 (T062), adult male, (Fig. 2), collected by I. Sidik and Mulyadi on 29 May 2011.
Paratypes: MZB.Lace.8498, 8499 and 8500 (n = 6), same data as holotype (Fig. 2). BORNEENSIS 09192, 09221, and 22149 (Fig. 3), collected from Tawau Hills National Park, Tawau, Sabah, Malaysia by M. Matsui, K. Nishikawa, and T. Shimada on 31 July to 5 August 2004. 
DiagnosisDiagnosis: Cyrtodactylus hamidyi sp. nov. can be distinguished from all other congeners by the combination of the following characters: maximum SVL of at least 63 mm; no tubercles on dorsal surface of upper arm; tubercles present on ventrolateral body folds; 28–30 paravertebral tubercles; 17–20 longitudinal dorsal tubercle rows; 39–46 ventral scale rows; 17–19 subdigital lamellae on fourth toe; precloacal pit present in males; 5–7 precloacal pores in male arranged in wide Λ-shaped, absent in females; no enlarged transverse median subcaudal; enlarged median row of transverse scales; and a pair of dark semilunar-shaped markings on the upper nape (Riyanto et al. 2021).

Colouration in preservative. Ground color of head, trunk, and tail brown; a pair of semilunar dark-brown markings on posterior of occiput; two large dark-brown crossbands between axilla and groin, bordered by white network that form a vertebral line. The anterior dark band is U-shaped, extending to the eyes; ground color of ventral surface of head, trunk, hindlimbs and forelimbs whitish.
On the dorsal part of original tail from base to border of regenerated part, there are six dark bands which alternate with white bands (Fig. 6A). On the ventral between the base to the borderfof regenerated part of the tail there are eight dark crossbands, alternating with seven white crossbands (Fig. 6C) (Riyanto et al. 2021).

Variation. The paratypes resemble the holotype in coloration and there seems to be no sexual dimorphism in coloration. Between axila and groin, all paratypes have a single large dark brown band forming a U-shape that extends to the eyes and is followed posteriorly by two large dark-brown bands. Two or three white networks are present between the dark bands but unlike the holotype, it does not form a vertebral line. Dorsal surface of original tail with 7 to 11 white bands. Males have precloacal pores; females do not. Detailed variation of mensural and meristic characters are presented in Table 1 (Riyanto et al. 2021).

Comparison. Among the recognized species occurring in Borneo, Cyrtodactylus hamidyi sp. nov. is morphologically most like C. matsui Hikida, 1990, in having tubercles along ventrolateral folds, lacking enlarged femoral scales, having a precloacal pit, lacking white reticulated pattern on occiput, lacking enlarged transverse median subcaudal, overlapping in number of paravertebral tubercles (28–30 versus 29), and overlapping in number of precloacal pores (5–7 versus 7–8). It differs from C. matsui in its smaller maximum SVL (65.8 versus 105 mm), in lacking tubercles on upper arm as opposed to having tubercles on upper arms, and more ventral scale rows (39–46 versus 48–51). Diagnostic character comparisons to the new species from its Bornean congeners are presented in Table 2.
It is differentiated from C. baluensis in its smaller maximum SVL (65.8 versus 95 mm), in lacking tubercles on occiput as opposed to having tubercles on occiput, in lacking enlarged femoral scales as opposed to having enlarged femoral scales, in lacking enlarged transverse median subcaudals as opposed to having enlarged transverse median subcaudals, and fewer paravertebral tubercles (28–30 versus 47–60), and fewer precloacal pores (5–7 versus 9–10). It differs from C. cavernicolus Inger & King, 1961, in its smaller maximum SVL (65.8 versus 85 mm), in having a precloacal pit as opposed to a groove, fewer ventral scale rows (39–46 versus 51–58), and fewer subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (17–19 versus 22–26). It differs from C. consobrinus (Peters, 1871), in its much smaller maximum SVL (65.8 versus 125 mm), in lacking a white reticulated pattern on occiput as opposed to having white reticulated pattern on occiput, in absence of tubercles on dorsal surface of upper arm as opposed to presence, in lacking of enlarged femoral scales as opposed to having enlarged femoral scales, in lacking of enlarged transverse median subcaudals as opposed to having enlarged transverse median subcaudals, fewer ventral scale rows (39–46 versus 58–71), fewer precloacal pores (5–7 versus 9–10), and fewer subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (17–19 versus 22–28). It differs from C. hantu Davis, Das, Leache, Karin, Brennan, Jackman, Nashriq, Chan & Bauer, 2021, in lacking tubercles on occiput as opposed to having tubercles on occiput, having precloacal pit as opposed to a groove, and fewer paravertebral tubercles (28–30 versus 37–48). It differs from C. ingeri Hikida, 1990, in lacking tubercles on occiput as opposed to having tubercles on occiput, in lacking enlarged transverse median subcaudals as opposed to having enlarged transverse median subcaudals, and fewer subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (17–19 versus 23– 29). It differs from C. limajalur Davis, Bauer, Jackman, Nashriq & Das, 2019, in its smaller maximum SVL (65.8 versus 94 mm), in having tubercles on ventrolateral body folds as opposed to lacking, in lacking of enlarged femoral scales as opposed to present, in lacking of enlarged transverse median subcaudals as opposed to having enlarged femoral scales, and more dorsal tubercle rows (17–18 versus 11–13). It differs from C. malayanus in its smaller maximum SVL (65.8 versus 93 mm), in absence of tubercles on the upper arms as opposed to presence, in lacking tubercles on occiput as opposed to having tubercles on occiput, in lacking enlarged transverse median subcaudal as opposed to present, and fewer ventral scale rows (39–44 versus 58–62). It differs from C. miriensis in lacking tubercles on occiput as opposed to having tubercles on occiput, having a precloacal pit as opposed to a groove, and fewer paravertebral tubercles (29–30 versus 47–57). It differs from C. muluensis Davis, Bauer, Jackman, Nashriq & Das, 2019, in its smaller maximum SVL (65.8 versus 88 mm), in lacking tubercles on occiput as having tubercles on occiput, in having tubercles on ventrolateral body folds as opposed to lacking, in lacking of enlarged femoral scales as opposed to having, in having a precloacal pit as opposed to groove, in lacking of enlarged transverse median subcaudals as opposed to having enlarged transverse median subcaudals, and more dorsal tubercle rows (17–20 versus 13–15). It differs from C. pubisulcus Inger, 1958, in having a precloacal pit as opposed to groove. It differs from C. yoshii Hikida, 1990, in its smaller maximum SVL (63 versus 96 mm), in lacking tubercles on occiput as opposed to having tubercles on occiput, in absence of tubercles on dorsal surface of upper arm as opposed to presence, fewer ventral scale rows (39–46 versus 50–58), and fewer subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe (17–19 versus 25–30).
Furthermore, we also compare the new species to the other congeners occurs in eastern Indonesia region especially from the Wallacean region. Tubercles on upper surface of arms are absent in Cyrtodactylus hamidyi sp. nov., whereas in C. batik Iskandar, Rachmansah & Umilaela, 2011, C. darmandvillei (Weber, 1890), C. halmahericus (Mertens, 1929), C. nuaulu Oliver, Edgar, Mumpuni, Iskandar & Lilley, 2009, C. spinosus Linkem, McGuire, Hayden, Setiadi, Bickford & Brown, 2008, C. tahuna, Riyanto, Arida & Koch, 2018, C. tanahjampea Riyanto, Hamidy & McGuire, 2018, and C. wallacei Hayden, Brown, Gillespie, Setiadi, Linkem, Iskandar, Umilaela, Bickford, Riyanto, Mumpuni & McGuire, 2008, present. The subcaudal scales are not transversely enlarged in C. hamidyi, a condition that is shared with C. celatus Kathriner, Bauer, O’Shea, Sanchez & Kaiser, 2014, C. fumosus (Müller, 1895), C. gordongekkoi (Das, 1994), C. jellesmae (Boulenger, 1897), C. halmahericus, C. laevigatus Darevsky, 1964, C. nuaulu, C. novaeguinea (Schlegel, 1837), C. spinosus, C. tahuna, C. tambora Riyanto, Mulyadi, McGuire, Kusrini, Febylasmia, basyir & Kaiser, 2017, C. tanahjampea, and C. wetariensis (Dunn, 1927). In contrast, transversely enlarged subcaudals are present in C. batik, C. boreoclivus Oliver, Krey, Mumpuni & Richards, 2011, C. darmandvillei, C. hitchi Riyanto, Kurniati & Engilis, 2016, C. rex Oliver, Richards, Mumpuni & Rösler, 2016, and C. wallacei. By lacking of spinose tubercles along ventrolateral body folds, the new species easily distinguished from C. nuaulu and C. spinosus.
Finally, we compare Cyrtodactylus hamidyi sp. nov. to congeners occurring in western Indonesia, especially from the Greater Sundas. The subcaudal scales are not transversely enlarged in C. hamidyi, a condition that is shared with C. jatnai Amarasinghe, Riyanto, Mumpuni & Grismer, 2020, C. lateralis (Werner, 1896), C. marmoratus Gray, 1831, C. petani Riyanto, Grismer & Wood, 2015b, C. psarop Harvey, O’Connell, Barraza, Riyanto, Kurniawan & Smith, 2015, C. rosichonarieforum Riyanto, Grismer & Wood, 2015a, C. semiadii Riyanto, Bauer & Yudha, 2014, C. semicinctus Harvey, O’Connell, Barraza, Riyanto, Kurniawan & Smith, 2015, and C. quadrivirgatus Taylor, 1962. In contrast, transversely enlarged subcaudals are present in C. hikidai. Enlarged femoral scales are absent in C. hamidyi sp. nov., whereas in C. agamensis (Bleeker, 1860), C. jatnai, C. marmoratus, C. petani, C. psarops, C. semicinctus, C. quadrivirgatus, present. It differs from C. rosichonarieforum in having enlarged precloacal scales. By lacking of spinose tubercles along ventrolateral body folds, the new species is easily distinguished from C. lateralis (Riyanto et al. 2021). 
Comment 
EtymologyThe specific epithet hamidyi is in reference to the Indonesian herpetologist, Dr. Amir Hamidy. He has spent time a lot of teaching herpetology to the younger generations in Indonesia as well as making significant contributions to the conservation of the Indonesian herpetofauna and its diversity. He also is one of the founders of the Indonesian herpetological scociety and today is its president. 
References
  • RIYANTO, A., FAUZI, M. A., SIDIK, I., IRHAM, M., KURNIAWAN, N., OTA, H., ... & GRISMER, L. L. 2021. Another New Bent-toed Gecko, genus Cyrtodactylus Gray 1837 (Squamata: Gekkonidae), from Borneo. Zootaxa, 5026(2): 286-300 - get paper here
 
External links  
Is it interesting? Share with others:

As link to this species use URL address:

https://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Cyrtodactylus&species=hamidyi

without field 'search_param'. Field 'search_param' is used for browsing search result.



Please submit feedback about this entry to the curator