Hemidactylus malcolmsmithi (CONSTABLE, 1949)
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Hemidactylus malcolmsmithi?
|Higher Taxa||Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos)|
|Common Names||E: Smith’s bent-toed Gecko|
|Synonym||Gymnodactylus malcolmsmithi CONSTABLE 1949|
Cyrtodactylus malcolmsmithi — UNDERWOOD 1954: 475
Gymnodactylus (Cyrtodactylus) malcolmsmithi — WERMUTH 1965: 61
Cyrtodactylus malcolmsmithi — DAS 1997
Cyrtodactylus (Cyrtodactylus) malcolmsmithi — RÖSLER 2000: 66
Cyrtodactylus malcomsmithi — VENUGOPAL 2010 (in error)
Cyrtodactylus malcomsmithi — PYRON & BURBRINK 2013
Hemidactylus malcolmsmithi — AGARWAL et al. 2018
Hemidactylus malcolmsmithii — SINGH et al. 2021
Type locality: Beas River Basin, Punjab, India.
|Types||Holotype: MCZ R-3252, adult male; Paratype. MCZ-R-4335, Subadult male,|
|Diagnosis||Diagnosis: Hemidactylus malcolmsmithi can be distinguished from many other congeners from India and Pakistan on the basis of its heterogenous dorsal pholidosis that consists of small granules intermixed with 15–20 longitudinal rows of slightly enlarged, keeled, conical tubercles at midbody. This includes H. imbricatus Bauer et al., 2008 and H. scabriceps (Annandale, 1906), which have homogenous dorsal pholidosis of imbricate scales without tubercles; the smooth-bodied species H. aquilonius McMahan and Zug, 2007, H. garnotii Dume ́ ril and Bibron, 1836, and H. platyurus (Schneider, 1792), with homogeneous dorsal pholidosis of small granules without tubercles; H.frenatusDume ́rilandBibron,1836, H.leschenaultiiDume ́ril&Bibron,1836,and H. flaviviridis Ru ̈ppel, 1835, which either lack tubercles entirely or have a few small rounded tubercles toward the flanks; and H. lankae Deraniyagala, 1953 and H. triedrus (Daudin, 1802), which have enlarged, strongly keeled, and trihedral tubercles forming more-orless regular longitudinal rows.|
The small size of H. malcolmsmithi (SVL up to 54 mm) distinguishes it from several large-bodied species that approach or exceed 90 mm SVL: H. aaronbaueri Giri, 2008, H. acanthopholis Mirza and Sanap, 2014, H. giganteus Stoliczka, 1871, H. graniticolus Agarwal et al., 2011, H. hemchandrai Dandge and Tiple, H. maculatus Dume ́ril and Bibron, 1836, H. prashadi Smith, 1935, and H. yajurvedi Murthy et al., 2015.
Hemidactylus malcolmsmithi may be diagnosed by the condition of the femoral pores (10–14 femoral pores on each side separated by two poreless scales) from the following species: H. albofasciatus Grandison & Soman, 1963, H. gracilis Blanford, 1870, H. persicus Anderson, 1872, H. reticulatus Beddome, 1870, H. robustus Heyden, 1827, and H. sataraensis Giri & Bauer, 2008, which all have only precloacal pores; and H. gujaratensis Giri et al., 2009 which has four or fewer poreless scales separating the two series of femoral pores.
Within the H. brookii complex, H. malcolmsmithi can be diagnosed by its heterogenous dorsal pholidosis of small granules intermixed with slightly enlarged, keeled, conical tubercles from H. gleadowi, which has trihedral or subtrihedral enlarged tubercles; the condition of the femoral pores (10– 14 femoral pores on each side separated by two [range one to three] poreless scales from H. chipkali Mirza and Raju, 2017, H. murrayi, and H. treutleri, which have four or fewer poreless scales separating the two series of femoral pores; by the presence of three to five undivided subdigital lamellae under toe 4 and the extent of the subdigital lamellae (extending till base of sole) from H. parvimaculatus (one to three undivided subdigital lamellae under toe 4, enlarged subdigital lamellae do not extend till base of sole); and by the size of the one to three poreless scales separating the femoral pores (subequal to pore-bearing scales) from H. brookii (one poreless scale, less than half the size of pore-bearing scales). Hemidactylus malcolmsmithi is most similar to H. kushmorensis, from which it can be diagnosed by the condition of the inner postmentals, which are similar in size to and in broad contact with the first infralabials, the outer postmentals either excluded from or just in contact with the first infralabials (vs. inner postmentals much narrower than first infralabials, inner and outer postmentals in broad contact with first infralabials). [from Agarwal et al. 2018]