Hemidactylus gujaratensis GIRI, BAUER, VYAS & PATIL, 2009
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Hemidactylus gujaratensis?
|Higher Taxa||Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)|
|Common Names||E: Gujarat gecko|
|Synonym||Hemidactylus gujaratensis GIRI, BAUER, VYAS & PATIL 2009|
Hemidactylus gujaratensis — LAJMI et al. 2018
Type locality: Vagheshwari Mata Temple, Junagadh City, Junagadh District, Saurashtra Peninsula, Gujarat, Gujarat, India (21°31.3489’N, 70°28.8639E, 179 m elevation.
|Reproduction||oviparous (manual imputation, fide Zimin et al. 2022)|
|Types||Holotype: BNHS = BNHM 1818, Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), an adult female, collected by Sunny Patil and Raju Vyas on 27 October 2007.|
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis: A medium-sized Hemidactylus, SVL to at least 65.0 mm. Twelve to 14 rows of irregularly arranged, flattened to weakly conical tubercles. First supralabial scale narrowly contacting nasal. Two well-developed pairs of postmentals, the inner pair larger and in broad contact behind mental. Ventrolateral folds indistinct, 28–30 scale rows across venter between lowest rows of tubercles. Ten to 11 enlarged scansors beneath fourth digit and 7–9 beneath first digit of both manus and pes. Twelve to 14 femoral pores on each thigh, separated by a median diastema at least five scales in males. Original tail depressed, oval in transverse section, slightly constricted at base, tuberculate with a median dorsal furrow; a single median row of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates. Dorsal pattern with a pale vertebral stripe and eight irregular pairs of alternating light and dark transverse markings. Among its south Asian congeners (24 occur- ring in India, plus the endemic Sri Lankan Hemidactylus depressus Gray, and Hemidactylus turcicus (Linnaeus), and Hemidactylus robustus Heyden, both recorded from Pakistan) H. gujaratensis may be distinguished from Hemidactylus gracilis Blanford, Hemidactylus reticulatus Beddome, Hemidactylus albofasciatus Grand- ison and Soman, Hemidactylus imbricatus Bauer et al., Hemidactylus sataraensis Giri and Bauer, and Hemidactylus anamallensis (Günther) on the basis of its divided subdigital lamellae (vs. lamellae undivided or only distal lamellae divided or notched), from Hemidactylus scabriceps Annandale by its juxtaposed (vs. imbricate) dorsal scalation, from Hemidactylus platyurus (Schneider) by its lack of a distinct lateral skin flap, from Hemidactylus frenatus Dume ́ril and Bibron, Hemidactylus garnotii Dume ́ril and Bi- bron, and Hemidactylus karenorum by its longer first digit of the manus (more than half the length of digit II vs. less than half the length of digit II), and from H. robustus, H. persicus, H. turcicus, and H. porbandarensis by its greater number of precloacal femoral pores in males (12–14 on each thigh with a median diastema of five or more scales vs. 13 or fewer precloacal pores in a continuous series and no femoral pores). In the presence of 12–16 rows of irregularly arranged, slightly enlarged, feebly keeled, flattened to weakly conical tubercles H. gujaratensis n. sp. differs from Hemidactylus giganteus Stoliczka, Hemidactylus cf. bowringii (Gray), Hemidactylus flaviviridis Ru ̈ ppel, and Hemidactylus leschenaultii Duméril and Bibron, (tubercles small, few and scattered or absent entirely) and from Hemidactylus maculatus Duméril and Bibron, Hemidactylus depressus, Hemidactylus triedrus Daudin, Hemidactylus subtriedrus, Hemidactylus brookii Gray, Hemidactylus prashadi Smith, and Hemidactylus mahendrai (14 or more rows of large, strongly conical, keeled, subtrihedral, or trihedral tubercles). The new species bears some resemblance to the recently described Hemidactylus aaronbaueri Giri but differs (H. aaronbaueri vs. H. gujaraten- sis) with respect to maximum size (128 mm vs. 65 mm SVL), dorsal pholidosis (18–20 vs. 12–16 rows of dorsal tubercles), scansors beneath the fourth toe (11–13 vs. 10–11), femoral pores on each side (15–19 vs. 12–14), supraciliary scales (large, mucronate; posterior scales forming short, stout, projecting spines versus small, pointed, those at the anterior end of orbit only slightly enlarged), and coloration (dorsal pattern of five relatively well-defined, dark, transverse, undulating crossbars between occiput and sacrum versus eight clearly demarcated to ill-defined alternating light and dark irregular to straight-edged bands).|
|Comment||This medium-sized, chiefly rupicolous gecko may be distinguished from its south Asian congeners by having 12–16 rows of irregularly arranged, flattened to weakly conical dorsal tubercles, 7–9 subdigital lamellae on digit I of the pes and 10–11 on digit IV, and 12–14 femoral pores on each thigh separated by a median diastema.|
This is the second Hemidactylus currently regarded as endemic to Gujarat and the 10th member of the genus recorded for the state, despite the fact that it is more closely related to SE Asian species of Hemidactylus (Lajmi et al. 2018).
Abundance: only known from its original description (Meiri et al. 2017).
|Etymology||The species is named for the western Indian state of Gujarat.|