Diploderma drukdaypo (WANG, REN, JIANG, ZOU, WU, CHE & SILER, 2019)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Diploderma drukdaypo?
Diploderma drukdaypo
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Agamidae (Draconinae), Sauria, Iguania, Squamata (lizards) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Dwarf Mountain Dragon Chinese: 侏龙蜥 (Pinyin: Zhu Long Xi) or 侏攀蜥 (Pinying: Zhu Pan Xi) |
| Synonym | Japalura drukdaypo WANG, REN, JIANG, ZOU, WU, CHE & SILER in WANG et al. 2019 Japalura flaviceps — HU et al. 1987 Japalura flaviceps — ZHAO & YANG 1997 Japalura flaviceps — LI et al. 2010 Japalura cf. flaviceps — WANG et al. 2015 Japalura cf. flaviceps — WANG et al. 2016 Diploderma drukdaypo — WANG 2019 (pers. comm.) |
| Distribution | China (Tibet) Type locality: Chaya County, Chamdo, Tibet, China (30.7294 ̊ N, 97.3808 ̊ E, elevation 3,310 m; WGS 84 |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype. KIZ 027616, adult male, collected by Kai WANG on 19 June 2016 (Figs. 1, 2). Paratypes. KIZ 027617–19, 027629–30, adult females collected by Kai WANG and Gadeng NIMA on 19 June 2016; KIZ 027628, adult male collected by Kai WANG and Gadeng NIMA on 21 June 2016. KIZ 016486, adult female from Kanuo, Chamdo, Tibet, China (31.0433 ̊ N, 97.2239 ̊ E, elevation 3,245 m; WGS 84), collected by Dahu ZOU and Fang YAN on 13 May 2015. |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis. Japalura drukdaypo sp. nov. can be distinguished from all congeners by a combination of the following morphological characteristics: (1) adult body size small, SVL 49.85–58.93 mm; (2) head moderate, HW 65.94–75.16% HL; (3) limbs relatively short, FLL 37.52–45.40% SVL, HLL 58.18–63.75% SVL; (4) tail relatively short, TAL 153.01–154.40% SVL in males, 132.84–143.95% SVL in females; (5) transverse gular fold present, well developed; (6) tympanum concealed; (7) MD 43–56; (8) T4S 18–25; (9) ventral head and body scales feebly keeled or smooth; (10) nuchal and dorsal crest scales feebly developed, not distinctively erected or raised on skin folds; (11) dorsal enlarged scales relatively flat; (12) gular spots absent in both sexes; and (13) dorsolateral stripes present in both sexes, jagged, bright sulphur yellow in males, medium chrome orange in females. Comparisons. Previous phylogenetic study found that the Himalayan species of the genus Japalura are paraphyletic with respect to the East Asian species (Macey et al. 2000). In addition to the different zoogeography between the Himalaya region and the HMR (Zhang 1999), we exclude the comparisons between the new species and Himalayan species (including J. andersoniana, J. dasi, J. kumaonensis, J. major, J. otai, J. planidorsata, J. sagittifera, J. tricarinata, and J. variegata). Although populations of Japalura drukdaypo sp. nov. have been confused historically with J. flaviceps, the new species can be distinguished readily from the latter by having a smaller adult body size (SVL 49.85–58.93 mm vs. 64.35–75.35 mm), shorter hind limbs (HLL 58.18–63.75% SVL in males, 59.69–62.82% in females vs. 64.93– 70.86% SVL in males, 61.61–74.09% in females), shorter tails (TAL 153.01–154.40% SVL in males, 132.84– 143.95% SVL in females vs. 170.08–191.26% SVL in males, 167.18–181.98% SVL in females), less distinctive crests in males (slightly raised nuchal crest scales, flat dorsal crest scales, with no skin fold underneath vs. distinctively erected crest scales along skin fold), distinct gular pigmentation patterns (vermiculated stripes not reaching the center of the throat vs. highly reticulated, mosaic patterns occupying the center of the throat), as well as by the absence of strongly differentiated conical, post-rictal scales (vs. presence), absence of dark rhomboid-shaped patterns with yellow centers along the midline of the body (vs. presence), and presence of distinct radial stripes around the eyes (vs. absence or faded and indistinct) (Fig. 5; Table 2). The new species is phenotypically most similar to Japalura laeviventris and J. brevicauda, from the upper Salween and middle Jinsha River Valleys, respectfully. However, Japalura drukdaypo sp. nov. can be differentiated from J. laeviventris by having a smaller adult body size (SVL 49.85–58.93 mm vs. 64.00–71.60 mm), shorter hind limbs (HLL 58.18–63.75% SVL in males, 59.69–62.82% in females vs. 70.42%–74.33% SVL in males, 64.43%–74.06% in females), shorter tails (TAL 153.01–154.40% SVL in males, 132.84–143.95% SVL in females vs. 197.22–198.51% SVL in males, 168.57–184.38% SVL in females), fewer MD (43–56 vs. 57–59), feebly developed nuchal crest in males without strongly erected crest scales or skin fold (vs. distinctively erected crest scales on skin fold), and by the absence of distinct gular spots in both sexes (vs. presence), absence of M- shaped pigmentation patterns along body midline in males (vs. presence), and absence of distinct, dense dark speckles on all surfaces of head and dorsal and lateral surfaces of body (vs. presence) (Fig. 5); and from J. brevicauda by having relatively longer tails in males (TAL 153.01–154.40% SVL in males, 132.84–143.95% SVL in females vs. 140% in males, 125–145% in females), a greater number of MD (43–56 vs. 34–40), and smooth or weakly keeled ventral scales (vs. distinctively keeled) (Fig. 4). Japalura drukdaypo sp. nov. can be differentiated from J. vela by having shorter hind limbs (HLL 58.18– 63.75% SVL vs. 65.67–85.64% SVL), shorter tails (TAL 153.01–154.40% SVL in males, 132.84–143.95% SVL in females vs. 174.58–238.11% SVL in males, 159.8–202.17% SVL in females), feebly developed crests in males without strongly erected crest scales or skin fold (vs. distinctively erected crest scales on continuous, well developed skin fold), weakly keeled or smooth ventral scales of head and body (vs. strongly keeled), flat and relatively less enlarged scales on dorsal body (vs. distinctly keeled, raised, and relatively large), and faint yellowish ventral coloration in live males (vs. uniform white) (Figs. 3–5). The new species differs from all remaining congeners in Tibet and adjacent areas (J. batangensis, J. dymondi, J. iadina, J. micangshanensis, J. splendida, J. yulongensis, J. varcoae, and J. zhaoermii) by having a shorter tail (TAL 153.01–154.40% SVL in males, 132.84–143.95% SVL in females vs. >160.00% SVL in males, >150.00% SVL in females), shorter hind limbs (HLL 58.18–63.75% SVL in males, 59.69–62.82% in females vs. >64.00% SVL), and smooth or feebly keeled ventral scales (vs. distinctively keeled). Furthermore, from J. batangensis, J. iadina, and J. yulongensis, the new species differs by the absence of gular spots in both sexes (vs. presence); from J. batangensis, J. dymondi, J. iadina, J. micangshanensis, J. splendida, J. yulongensis, and J. zhaoermii by the presence of narrow, orange dorsolateral stripes in females (vs. absence); from J. batangensis, J. iadina, J. micangshanensis, J. yulongensis, and J. zhaoermii by having feebly developed crests in males without strongly erected crest scales or skin fold (vs. distinctively erected crest scales on well developed skin fold); and from J. dymondi and J. varcoae by having concealed tympana (vs. exposed). For remaining congeners from the mainland Asia, the new species differs from J. bapoensis, J. chapaensis, J. hamptoni, J. fasciata, and J. yunnanensis by feebly developed nuchal crest scales (vs. well developed in triangular shape), from J. chapaensis and J. yunnanensis by differential oral coloration (Light Flesh Color [Code 250] vs. Light Chrome Orange [Color 76] to Dark Spectrum Yellow [Color 78]); and from J. fasciata by differential dorsal ornamentation (jagged dorsolateral stripes vs. hourglass-shaped transverse bands across midbody). Lastly, the new species differ from all island congeners (J. brevipes, J. luei, J. makii, J. polygonata, J. swinhonis) by the presence of distinct transverse gular fold (vs. absent), feebly developed nuchal crest (vs. well developed), and by the differential ecology (terrestrial vs. arboreal). |
| Comment | Authorship: the order of authors is different in the actual description and at the beginning of the paper, but there are the same authors. |
| Etymology | The species name, drukdaypo, was derived from the pronunciation of the Kham Tibetan word that means “dwarf dragon”, which describes the diagnostic dwarf-morphology of the new species. We name the new species using Kham Tibetan in honor of the local culture and people, as well as their positive impacts on wildlife conservation. Suggested English common name is: Dwarf Mountain Dragon, and the suggested Chinese common name is 1f (Pinying: Zhu Pan Xi). |
| References |
|
| External links |