Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus ELIADES, PHIMMACHAK, SIVONGXAY, SILER & STUART, 2019
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus?
Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | |
| Synonym | Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus ELIADES, PHIMMACHAK, SIVONGXAY, SILER & STUART 2019: 138 Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 8 — GRISMER et al. 2015:863 Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 9 — GRISMER et al. 2013:852; Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 9 — GRISMER et al. 2014:490 Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 9 — GRISMER et al. 2014:541 Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 9 — NGUYEN et al. 2014:46 Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 9 — YAN et al. 2016:544 Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 9 — GRISMER et al. 2017:6 Hemiphyllodactylus sp. nov. 9 — SUKPRASERT et al. 2018:365 Hemiphyllodactylus cf. yunnanensis — NGUYEN et al. 2013:91 |
| Distribution | Laos (Champasak Province) Type locality: Bolaven Plateau, Dong Hua Sao National Protected Area, Pakxong District, Champasak Province, Laos, 15.07694°N, 106.13750°E, WGS84 (Fig. 1A in Eliades et al. 2019), ca. 1,000 m elev |
| Reproduction | oviparous (manual imputation, fide Zimin et al. 2022) |
| Types | Holotype. FMNH 258695 (field number HKV 63933), adult male, collected 13 September 1999 by BLS, Harold F. Heatwole, and Bee Thaovanseng. |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis. Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov. can be distinguished from all congeners by having the following combination of characters: supralabials 15; infralabials 12; precloacofemoral pores 18 in males (females unknown); subdigital lamellae on Fingers II–V 4-5-5-4; total lamellae on hand 18; subdigital lamellae on Toes II– V 4-5-5-5; total lamellae on foot 19; dorsal scales across midbody within one orbital diameter 30; ventral scales across midbody within one orbital diameter 11; cloacal spurs two; chin scales eight; and internasal scales three. Comparisons. Hemiphyllodactylus indosobrinus sp. nov. can be differentiated from all other congeners in mainland Southeast Asia and southern China by a combination of the following characters: chin scales eight (versus ≥10 in H. aurantiacus and ≤6 in H. linnwayensis Grismer, Wood, Thura, Zin, Quah, Murdoch, Grismer, Li, Kyaw, & Lwin, 2017); postmentals distinctly enlarged (versus not enlarged in H. aurantiacus); circumnasal scales three (versus ≥4 in H. flaviventris, H. khlonglanensis Sukprasert, Sutthiwises, Lauhachinda, & Taksintum, 2018, H. kiziriani, and H. linnwayensis); supralabial scales 15 [versus ≤13 in H. aurantiacus, H. banaensis, H. changningensis Guo, Zhou, Yan, & Li, 2015, H. chiangmaiensis Grismer, Wood, & Cota, 2014, H. dushanensis (Zhou & Liu, 1981), H. flaviventris, H. huishuiensis Yan, Lin, Guo, Li, & Zhou, 2016, H. jinpingensis (Zhou & Liu, 1981), H. khlonglanensis, H. kiziriani, H. linnwayensis, H. longlingensis (Zhou & Liu, 1981), H. montawaensis Grismer, Wood, Thura, Zin, Quah, Murdoch, Grismer, Li, Kyaw, & Lwin, 2017, H. tonywhitteni Grismer, Wood, Thura, Zin, Quah, Murdoch, Grismer, Li, Kyaw, & Lwin, 2017, H. yunnanensis, and H. zugi Nguyen, Lehmann, Le, Duong, Bonkowski, Ziegler, 2013]; infralabial scales 12 (versus ≤10 in H. changningensis, H. linnwayensis, H. montawaensis, and H. tonywhitteni); dorsal scales within one orbital diameter 30 (versus ≤27 in H. aurantiacus, H. banaensis, H. changningensis, H. chiangmaiensis, H. flaviventris, H. huishuiensis, H. khlonglanensis, H. kiziriani, H. linnwayensis, H. montawaensis, H. tonywhitteni, H. yunnanensis, and H. zugi); ventral scales within one orbital diameter 11 (versus ≤9 in H. changningensis, H. huishuiensis, H. linnwayensis, H. montawaensis, H. tonywhitteni, and 14–16 in H. zugi); total lamellae on hand 18 (versus ≤16 in H. aurantiacus, H. changningensis, H. chiangmaiensis, H. dushanensis, H. flaviventris, H. jinpingensis, H. khlonglanensis, H. kiziriani, H. linnwayensis, H. longlingensis, H. montawaensis, H. yunnanensis, and H. zugi); total lamellae on foot 19 (versus ≤16 in H. aurantiacus, H. changningensis, H. chiangmaiensis, H. khlonglanensis, H. longlingensis, and H. yunnanensis); subdigital lamellae on Finger I four (versus three in H. huishuiensis, H. tonywhitteni and ≥5 in H. banaensis, H. dushanensis, H. flaviventris, H. jinpingensis, H. khlonglanensis, H. kiziriani, and H. longlingensis); subdigital lamellae on Toe I five (versus ≤4 in H. changningensis, H. chiangmaiensis, H. huishuiensis, H. montawaensis, H. tonywhitteni, and seven in H. dushanensis); and continuous precloacofemoral pores 18 (versus ≥20 in H. dushanensis, H. jinpingensis, H. tonywhitteni, and ≤13 in H. flaviventris, H. kiziriani). |
| Comment | Habitat: the holotype was collected approximately 1 m above the ground inside of a vertical palm tree in wet evergreen forest during the morning (Fig. 1B). Only known from the holotype. |
| Etymology | The specific epithet is taken from the Latin indus for belonging to India, and sobrinus for maternal cousin, in reference to its close relationship, along with H. flaviventris, in maternally-inherited mitochondrial sequence data to the Indian endemic H. aurantiacus (Fig. 2; Grismer et al. 2013, 2014a,b, 2015, 2017; Nguyen et al. 2013, 2014; Ngo et al. 2014; Yan et al. 2016; Sukprasert et al. 2018). |
| References |
|
| External links |