You are here » home advanced search search results Gekko phuyenensis

Gekko phuyenensis NGUYEN, NGUYEN, ORLOV, MURPHY & NGUYEN, 2021

Can you confirm these amateur observations of Gekko phuyenensis?

Add your own observation of
Gekko phuyenensis »

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

Higher TaxaGekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)
Subspecies 
Common NamesE: Phu Yen Marbled Gecko
Vietnamese: Tắc kè phú yên 
SynonymGekko phuyenensis NGUYEN, NGUYEN, ORLOV, MURPHY & NGUYEN 2021 
DistributionS Vietnam (Phu Yen Province)

Type locality: Ninh Dong Commune, Tuy An District, Phu Yen Province, Vietnam, at an elevation of 5 m above sea level (13 ̊21’N, 109 ̊17’E).  
Reproduction 
TypesHolotype. ITBCZ 6653, adult male (Figs. 2, 3A), collected by V.D.H. Nguyen on 16 July 2018.
Paratypes. ITBCZ 6654 and ITBCZ 6656 (adult males), and ITBCZ 6655 (adult female, Fig. 3B), the same data as the holotype. 
DiagnosisDiagnosis. Gekko phuyenensis sp. nov. is distinguished from all of its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characters: medium size in adults (SVL up to 92.8 mm; nares in contact with rostral; nasals 3; internasal 1; interorbitals 35 or 36; ventrals 30–32; dorsal tubercle rows 9 or 10; precloacal pores (in males) 12 or 13, precloacal pits (in female) 13; subdigital lamellae under first finger 18–21, fourth finger 19 or 20, first toe 18–20, and fourth toe 21–23; subcaudals median enlarged; no webbing between toes, and absence of tubercles on hind limbs (Nguyen et al. 2021).

Coloration. In life, dorsal background dark green to dark brown. Dorsum with darkish blotches and smaller whitish blotches alternately. Blotches enlarged on vertebrate and symmetrically but smaller on flanks. Ventral side yellowish to white without pattern. In preservative, the color became faint, but pattern is constant (Fig. 2 A&B) (Nguyen et al. 2021).

Variation. Paratypes agree with holotype in color pattern both in life and in preservation. Maximum SVL is 92.8 mm in paratype ITBCZ 6654 (male). Series of precloacal pores of two males, including the holotype (ITBCZ 6653) and paratype (ITBCZ 6654), are interrupted by a pore-less scale, while they are continuous in paratype (ITBCZ 5566). Variation in size and scalation of the type series are shown in Table 3 in Nguyen et al. 2021.

Sexual dimorphism. The adult female slightly smaller than adult males (SVL 90.2 mm versus 91.8–92.8 mm [n = 3]). The female with 13 precloacal pits (Fig. 3B) while males bear distinct pores (Fig. 3, Nguyen et al. 2021).

Comparisons. Among members of the Gekko petricolus group, Gekko phuyenensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from G. badenii by having fewer dorsal tubercles rows (9 or 10 versus 12–17), more subdigital lamellae beneath first and fourth toes (18–20 versus 12–14 and 21–23 versus 15–20, respectively), absence (versus presence) of back banded, and presence (versus absence) of precloacal pits in the female; from G. boehmei by having fewer dorsal tubercles rows (9 or 10 versus 12–15), absence (versus weakly developed) of toe webbing, absence (versus presence) of tubercles on hind limbs, presence (versus absence) of precloacal pits in the female, and higher number of subdigital lamellae under first and fourth fingers, first and fourth toes (18–21 versus 12 or13, 19 or 20 versus 15 or 16, 18–20 versus 14–16, and 21–23 versus 17 or 18, respectively); from G. canaensis by having more subdigital lamellae under first and fourth fingers, first and fourth toes (18–21 versus 14–17, 19–20 versus 16–18, 18–20 versus 14–16, and 21–23 versus 17–19, respectively) and more precloacal pits in the female (13 versus 0–3); from G. grossmanni by having more subdigital lamellae under fourth fingers, first and fourth toe (19 or 20 versus 17 or 18, 18–20 versus 15 or 16, and 21–23 versus 19 or 20, respectively) and more precloacal pits in the female (13 versus 0–2); from G. cf. grossmanni in Binh Hung, Khanh Hoa Province, Vietnam (n=1) by having fewer dorsal tubercle rows (9–10 versus 12), presence (versus absence) of internasal, and more subdigital lamellae under fourth fingers, first and fourth toes (19 or 20 versus 17, 18–20 versus 16, and 21–23 versus 16, respectively); from G. cf. grossmanni in Hon Ba, Khanh Hoa Province, Vietnam (n=3) by fewer dorsal tubercle rows (9 or 10 versus 12 or 13), presence (versus absence) of internasal, and more subdigital lamellae under first and fourth fingers, first and fourth toes (18–21 versus 17, 19 or 20 versus 17 or 18, 18–20 versus 17, and 21–23 versus 18 or 19, respectively); from G. cf. grossmanni in Ninh Hoa, Khanh Hoa Province, Vietnam (n=3) by having a larger SVL (90.2–92.8 versus 70.2–76.4 mm), fewer interorbitals (35 or 36 versus 42–44), more granule surrounding dorsal tubercle (9 versus 8), more subdigital lamellae under fourth fingers, first and fourth toes (19 or 20 versus 15, 18–20 versus 14–16, and 21–23 versus 16–18, respectively); from G. flavimaritus by having a larger SVL (90.2–92.8 versus 67.5–84.5 mm), fewer dorsal tubercles rows (9 or 10 versus 12–16), more subdigital lamellae under first and fourth toes (18–20 versus 10–15, and 21–23 versus 15–18, respectively), absence (versus weakly developed) of toe webbing, more precloacal pores in males (12 or 13 versus 7 or 8) and presence (versus absence) of precloacal pits in the female; from G. lauhachindai by having fewer dorsal tubercles rows (9 or 10 versus 14), absence (versus presence) of back banded, presence (versus absence) of precloacal pits in the female, and more subdigital lamellae under first and fourth toes (18–20 versus 13 and 21–23 versus 13–15, respectively); from G. petricolus by having fewer dorsal tubercles rows (9 or 10 versus 15–18), more subdigital lamellae under first and fourth toes (18–20 versus 12–14 and 21–23 versus 16–18, respectively), and absence (versus presence) of tubercles on hindlimbs; from G. russelltraini by having fewer dorsal tubercles rows (9 or 10 versus 12–16), more subdigital lamellae under first and fourth fingers, first and fourth toes (18–21 versus 12–16, 19 or 20 versus 14–17, 18–20 versus 15 or 16, and 21–23 versus 17–19, respectively), more precloacal pores in males (12 or 13 versus 8–11) and presence (versus absence) of precloacal pits in the female; and from G. takouensis by having fewer dorsal tubercles rows (9 or 10 versus 14–17), more subdigital lamellae under first and fourth fingers, first and fourth toes (18–21 versus 15, 19 or 20 versus 17 or 18, 18–20 versus 14–16, and 21–23 versus 18–20, respectively), and presence (versus absence) of precloacal pits in the female (Nguyen et al. 2021). 
CommentGroup: G. petricolus group. 
EtymologyThe specific epithet phuyenensis is a toponym derived from the Phu Yen Province, southern Vietnam where the new gecko was discovered. 
References
  • NGUYEN, V. D. H., NGUYEN, L. T., ORLOV, N. L., MURPHY, R. W., & NGUYEN, S. N. 2021. Gekko phuyenensis sp.nov.(Squamata: Gekkonidae), a new species from southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 4966(2): 175-186
 
External links  
Is it interesting? Share with others:

As link to this species use URL address:

https://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Gekko&species=phuyenensis

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



Please submit feedback about this entry to the curator