Hemiphyllodactylus nahangensis DO, PHAM, PHAN, LE, ZIEGLER & NGUYEN, 2020
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Hemiphyllodactylus nahangensis?
Hemiphyllodactylus nahangensis
We have no photos, try to find some by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E: Nahang Slender Gecko Vietnamese: Thạch sùng dẹp na hang |
| Synonym | Hemiphyllodactylus nahangensis DO, PHAM, PHAN, LE, ZIEGLER & NGUYEN 2020 |
| Distribution | Vietnam (Tuyen Quang) Type locality: limestone karst area near Trung Phin Village (20°30.215’N, 105°23.402’E, at an elevation of 915 m a.s.l.), Sinh Long Commune, Na Hang District, Tuyen Quang Province, northern Vietnam |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype. IEBR 4741 (Field number TQ.2018.140), adult male, collected on 20 June 2018 by C.T. Pham, A.M. Luong, T.Q. Phan and H.T. Ninh. Paratypes. Two specimens collected from the same site as the holotype: IEBR 4742 (Field number TQ.2018.141), adult male, collected on 20 June 2018 and IEBR 4743 (Field number TQ.2018.96), adult female, collected on 18 June 2018, by C.T. Pham, A.M. Luong, T.Q. Phan and H.T. Ninh. |
| Diagnosis | Hemiphyllodactylus nahangensis sp. nov. is distinguished from the remaining congeners by having the unique combination of the following characters: a bisexual taxon; SVL of adults 41.4–43.6 mm; dorsal scale rows 18–23; ventral scale rows 9–13; chin scales bordering mental and first infralabial distinctly enlarged; 22–24 pore-bearing femoral and precloacal scales, in a continuous row, absent in females; digital lamella formula 3-4-5-4 (forefoot) and 4-5-5-5 (hindfoot); cloacal spur single, present in both sexes; dark lateral head stripe indistinct; postsacral mark cream and bearing anteriorly projecting arms. Diagnosis. The new species from northern Vietnam differs from the remaining congeners of the genus Hemiphyllodactylus by a combination of the following characters: a bisexual taxon; SVL of adults 41.4–43.6 mm; dorsal scale rows 18–23; ventral scale rows 9–13; chin scales bordering mental and first infralabial, distinctly enlarged; digital lamellae formula 3-4-5-4 (forefoot) and 4-5-5-5 (hindfoot); 22–24 pore-bearing femoral and precloacal scales, in a continuous row, absent in females; cloacal spur single in both sexes; dark lateral head stripe indistinct; postsacral mark cream and bearing anteriorly projecting arms. Sexual dimorphism and variation. Measurements and scalation characters of the paratypes are given in Table 2. The female differs from the males in the absence of hemipenial swellings at the tail base. The scale counts vary among the type series: scales between supranasals 4–6; supralabials 10–12; infralabials 9–11; chin scales 8 or 9; dorsal scale rows 18–23; ventral scale rows 9–13. The males have 22–24 femoral and precloacal pores (versus absent in female). Ground color on upper surface of head, body, and tail is also different among individuals, varying from whitish grey to brownish grey with yellowish marks. Comparisons: We compared the new species from northern Vietnam with all other members of the genus Hemiphyllodactylus from Vietnam, Laos, and China based on examination of specimens (see Appendix) and data obtained from the literature (Boulenger 1903; Barbour 1924; Smith 1935; Taylor 1963; Zhou et al. 1981 with English translation of Ota 1996; Bourret 2009; Zug 2010; Grismer et al. 2013, 2014a,b, 2015, 2018a,b, 2020; Nguyen et al. 2013, 2014, 2020; Ngo et al. 2014; Guo et al. 2015; Cobos et al. 2016; Yan et al. 2016; Sukprasert et al. 2018; Sung et al. 2018; Eliades et al. 2019; Agarwal et al. 2019, 2020). For comparisons with other species of Hemiphyllodactylus see Table 3. Hemiphyllodactylus nahangensis sp. nov. differs from H. banaensis Ngo, Grismer, Pham & Wood by having a smaller size (maximum SVL 43.6 mm versus 51 mm in H. banaensis), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1FingLm) and 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 5 and 5, respectively, in H. banaensis), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (22–24 versus 18–21 in H. banaensis); from H. bonkowskii by having more chin scales (8–9 versus 5–7 in H. bonkowskii), fewer dorsal scale rows (18–23 versus 24–27 in H. bonkowskii), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1FingLm) and 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 5 and 4–5, respectively, in H. bonkowskii), digital lamellae formula 3-4-5-4 (forefoot) and 4-5-55 (hindfoot) (versus 3-4-4-4 and 4-5-5-4, respectively, in H. bonkowskii), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (22–24 versus 19 in H. bonkowskii); from H. dushanensis by having a smaller size (maximum SVL 43.6 mm versus 50.6 mm in H. dushanensis), more dorsal scale rows (18–23 versus 11–15 in H. dushanensis), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1FingLm) and 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 4–5 and 5–6, respectively, in H. dushanensis), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (versus absent in H. dushanensis); from H. hongkongensis by having more chin scales (8–9 versus 5–6 in H. hongkongensis), more dorsal scale rows (18–23 versus 12–15 in H. hongkongensis), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 5 in H. hongkongensis), digital lamellae formula 3-4-5-4 (forefoot) and 4-5-5-5 (hindfoot) (versus 3-4-4-4/3-3-4-4 and 3-4-4-4/4-4-5-4/4-4-5-5, respectively, in H. hongkongensis); from H. huishuiensis Yan, Lin, Guo, Li & Zhou by having more scales between supranasals (4–6 versus 2–3 in H. huishuiensis), more dorsal scale rows (18–23 versus 13–15 in H. huishuiensis), more ventral scale rows (9–13 versus 7–9 in H. huishuiensis), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (22–24 versus 18–20 in H. huishuiensis); from H. indosobrinus Eliades, Phimmachak, Sivongxay, Siler & Stuart by having more scales between supranasals (4–6 versus 3 in H. indosobrinus), fewer supralabials (10–12 versus 15 in H. indosobrinus), fewer dorsal scale rows (18–23 versus 30 in H. indosobrinus), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1FingLm) and 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 4 and 5, respectively, in H. indosobrinus), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (22–24 versus 18 in H. indosobrinus); from H. kiziriani by having more scales between supranasals (4–6 versus 2–3 in H. kiziriani), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1FingLm) and 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 5 and 5, respectively, in H. kiziriani), digital lamellae formula 3454 (forefoot) and 4-5-5-5 (hindfoot) (versus 3-4-4-4 and 4-4(5)-4(5)-4, respectively, in H. kiziriani), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (22–24 versus 10–13 in H. kiziriani); from H. ngocsonensis by having more scales between supranasals (4–6 versus 3 in H. ngocsonensis), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1FingLm) and 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 4–5 and 5–6, respectively, in H. ngocsonensis), digital lamellae formula 3454 (forefoot) and 4555 (hindfoot) (versus 3-4-4-4 and 4-5-5-4, respectively, in H. ngocsonensis), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (22–24 versus 20 in H. ngocsonensis); from H. serpispecus by having more scales between supranasals (4–6 versus 2 in H. serpispecus), fewer dorsal scale rows (18–23 versus 26 in H. serpispecus), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1FingLm) and 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 4 and 4, respectively, in H. serpispecus), digital lamellae formula 3-4-5-4 (forefoot) and 4-5-5-5 (hindfoot) (versus 3-4-4-4 and 3-4-4-5, respectively, in H. serpispecus), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (22–24 versus 11 in H. serpispecus); from H. zugi Nguyen, Lehmann, Le, Duong, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having fewer ventral scales (9–13 versus 14–16 in H. zugi), fewer subdigital lamellae 3 (1FingLm) and 3 (1ToeLm) (versus 4–5 and 4–5, respectively, in H. zugi), digital lamellae formula 3-4-5-4 (forefoot) (versus 3-4-4-4 in H. zugi), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (22–24 versus 18–21 in H. zugi). |
| Comment | |
| Etymology | Specific epithet nahangensis is a toponym in reference to the type locality of the species. |
| References |
|
| External links |