Cyrtodactylus menglianensis LIU & RAO, 2022
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Cyrtodactylus menglianensis?
Cyrtodactylus menglianensis
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Menglian Bent-toed Gecko Chinese: 孟连裸趾虎” (Mèng Lián Luoˇ Zhıˇ Huˇ) |
| Synonym | Cyrtodactylus menglianensis LIU & RAO 2022 |
| Distribution | China (Yunnan: Menglian County) Type locality: Menglian County, Puer City, Yunnan Province, China (22°20'11"N,99°34'29"E, 980 m elevation) |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype: KIZ20210713, adult male, collected on 18 July 2021 by Shuo Liu Paratypes: KIZ20210714 and KIZ20210716, two adult females; KIZ20210715, adult male |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis: Medium body size (SVL 67.7–78.1 mm in adults); ventrolateral foldspresent with interspersed small tubercles; seven precloacal pores in a continuous seriesin males, absent in females; femoral scales not enlarged; femoral pores absent; two postcloacal tubercles on each side; 17–22 lamellae under finger IV, 21–23 lamellae un-der toe IV; one or two rows of subcaudals enlarged; dark postocular streak and nuchalloop absent; six or seven dark irregular dorsal bands between limb insertions, mostbands discontinuous (Liu et al. 2022). Comparisons: Cyrtodactylus menglianensis sp. nov. is distinguishable from all othermembers of the C. chauquangensis species group by a unique combination of mor -phological characters. Cyrtodactylus menglianensis sp. nov. differs from C. auribalteatusSumontha, Panitvong & Deein, 2010; C. bichnganae Ngo & Grismer, 2010; C. do-isuthep Kunya, Panmongkol, Pauwels, Sumontha, Meewasana, Bunkhwamdi & Dang-sri, 2014; C. dumnuii Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Pauwels, Chanhome &Kunya, 2010; C. erythrops Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Panitvong, Pauwels,Chanhome & Kunya, 2009; C. gulinqingensis Liu, Li, Hou, Orlov & Ananjeva, 2021;C. hekouensis Zhang, Liu, Bernstein, Wang & Yuan, 2021; C. huongsonensis Luu, Nguy-en, Do & Ziegler, 2011; C. ngoiensis Schneider, Luu, Sitthivong, Teynié, Le, Nguyen& Ziegler, 2020; C. soni Le, Nguyen, Le & Ziegler, 2016; C. sonlaensis Nguyen, Pham,Ziegler, Ngo & Le, 2017; and C. zhenkangensis Liu & Rao, 2021 by not having enlargedfemoral scales and femoral pores (vs having enlarged femoral scales and femoral pores).Cyrtodactylus menglianensis sp. nov. differs from C. puhuensis Nguyen, Yang, Le,Nguyen, Orlov, Hoang, Nguyen, Jin, Rao, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang, 2014and C. taybacensis Pham, Le, Ngo, Ziegler & Nguyen, 2019 by not having enlargedfemoral scales (vs having enlarged femoral scales). In addition, C. menglianensis sp. nov. differs from C. puhuensis by having more precloacal pores in males (seven vs five) anddiffers from C. taybacensis by having fewer precloacal pores in males (seven vs 11–13).Cyrtodactylus menglianensis sp. nov. differs from C. cucphuongensis Ngo & Chan,2011 by having precloacal pores in males (vs not having precloacal pores in males).Cyrtodactylus menglianensis sp. nov. differs from C. bobrovi Nguyen, Le, Pham,Ngo, Hoang, Pham & Ziegler, 2015; C. chauquangensis Hoang, Orlov, Ananjeva,Johns, Hoang & Dau, 2007; C. houaphanensis Schneider, Luu, Sitthivong, Teynié, Le,Nguyen & Ziegler, 2020; C. otai Nguyen, Le, Pham, Ngo, Hoang, Pham & Ziegler,2015; C. spelaeus Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov& Chulisov, 2014; and C. vilaphongi Schneider, Nguyen, Le, Nophaseud, Bonkowski& Ziegler, 2014 by not having dark postocular streak and nuchal loop (vs having veryobvious dark postocular streak and not obvious nuchal loop). yrtodactylus menglianensis sp. nov. differs from C. martini Ngo, 2011 by not hav-ing enlarged femoral scales (vs having indistinctly enlarged femoral scales), havingfewer longitudinal ventral scale rows (26–29 vs 39–43), having more precloacal poresin males (seven vs four), and having more white rings on the original tail (10 vs 7).Cyrtodactylus menglianensis sp. nov. differs from C. wayakonei Nguyen, Kingsada,Rösler, Auer & Ziegler, 2010 by having fewer longitudinal ventral scale rows (26–29 vs31–35), not having precloacal pores in females (vs having precloacal pores in females),and having more white rings on the original tail (10 vs 6) (Liu et al. 2022). Color in life: Dorsal ground color brownish yellow; dorsal surface ofhead with irregular brown blotches with black edges, largest at occiput; nuchal loopabsent; dorsum with many irregular brownish black blotches with black edges, form-ing eight transverse discontinuous bands faintly, one on the neck, one between hindlimbs, and six between fore and hind limb insertions; dorsal surfaces of limbs withbrown bands with black edges; a brown band with black edge on dorsal tail base, dorsalsurface of regenerated tail greyish black; ventral surface of head, limbs, and body grey-ish white; ventral surface of regenerated tail grey; iris bronze (Liu et al. 2022). |
| Comment | |
| Etymology | Named after Menglian County, the locality where the new species was found. |
| References |
|
| External links |