Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis NGUYEN, DO, NGO, PHAM, PHAM, LE & ZIEGLER, 2020
Can you confirm these amateur observations of Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis?
Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis
Find more photos by Google images search: 
| Higher Taxa | Gekkonidae, Gekkota, Sauria, Squamata (lizards: geckos) |
| Subspecies | |
| Common Names | E:Ngocson Slender Gecko Vietnamese: Thạch sùng dẹp ngọc son |
| Synonym | Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis NGUYEN, DO, NGO, PHAM, PHAM, LE & ZIEGLER 2020 |
| Distribution | Vietnam Type locality: entrance of a cave (20°27.863’N, 105°18.450’E, at an elevation of 652 m a.s.l.), Ngoc Son Commune, within Ngoc Son—Ngo Luong NR, Lac Son District, Hoa Binh Province, northwestern Vietnam. |
| Reproduction | |
| Types | Holotype. IEBR 4694 (Field number HB 2014.98), adult male, collected on 19 April 2014 by C.T. Pham, H.N. Ngo, H.T. Paratypes. Three adult specimens from karst forest near Ngoc Son Commune, Lac Son District, Hoa Binh Province, northwestern Vietnam: IEBR 4695 (Field number HB 2014.52), adult male, collected on 17 April 2014 by T.Q. Nguyen, C.T. Pham, H.N. Ngo on a limestone cliff (20°26.728’N, 105°20.087’E, at an elevation of 544 m a.s.l.); IEBR 4696 (Field number HB 2014.114), adult female, collected on 21 April 2014 by C.T. Pham, H.N. Ngo, H.T. An on a limestone boulder (20°25.766’N, 105°21.877’E, at an elevation of 415 m a.s.l.); IEBR 4697 (Field number HB 2014.131), adult female, collected on 03 October 2014 by C.T. Pham, H.N. Ngo on leaves near the entrance of a cave (20°27.812’N, 105°18.401’E, at an elevation of 649 m a.s.l.). |
| Diagnosis | Diagnosis. A bisexual taxon; SVL of adult 45.50–46.90 mm; dorsal scale rows 19–21; ventral scale rows 13– 15; postmentals bordering mental and first infralabial, distinctly enlarged; digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) and 4554 (hindfoot); 20 pore bearing femoral and precloacal scales, in a continuous row, absent in females; cloacal spurs present in both sexes; dorsal trunk and limbs pattern brown grey; upper and lower lips with dark bars. Sexual dimorphism and variation. The females differ from male specimens in the absence of hemipenial swellings at the tail base. The scale counts vary among the type series: infralabials 9 or 10; chin scales 6–8; dorsal scale rows 19–21; ventral scale rows 13–15; precloacal pores 20 in males and absent in females; dorsal bands more distinct in one male IEBR 4695 (HB 2014.52) (Tables 2, 3, Fig. 7). Comparisons. We compare the new species from Hoa Binh Province with other members of the Hemiphyllodactylus yunnanensis species group. For comparisons with other species of Hemiphyllodactylus see Table 4. Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis sp. nov. differs from H. banaensis by having fewer circumnasal scales (3 vs. 4–11 in H. banaensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 9–12 in H. banaensis), and digital lamellae formula 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 4555 in H. banaensis); from H. changningensis Guo, Zhou, Yan & Li by having more dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 11–15 in H. changningensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 6–8 in H. changningensis), and digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) and 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 33(4)3(4)3 and 33(4)3(4)3(4), respectively, in H. changningensis); from H. dushanensis by having fewer chin scales (6–8 vs. 8–10 in H. dushanensis), more dorsal scales (19–21 vs. 14–15 in H. dushanensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 8–9 in H. dushanensis), fewer precloacal and femoral pores in males (20 vs. 24–26 in H. dushanensis), digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) and 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 3454/4554 and 4555/5665, respectively, in H. dushanensis), fewer precloacal and femoral pores (20 vs. 24–26 in H. dushanensis), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (vs. absence in H. dushanensis); from H. hongkongensis Sung, Lee, Ng, Zhang & Yang by having more dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 12–15 in H. hongkongensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 9–10 in H. hongkongensis), and fewer precloacal and femoral pores (20 vs. 24–25 in H. hongkongensis); from H. huishuiensis Yan, Lin, Guo, Li & Zhou by having fewer chin scales (6–8 vs. 8–10 in H. huishuiensis), more dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 13–15 in H. huishuiensis), and more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 7–9 in H. huishuiensis); from H. indosobrinus Eliades, Phimmachak, Sivongxay, Siler & Stuart by having a larger size (maximum SVL 46.90 mm vs. 39.80 mm in H. indosobrinus), fewer supralabials (10 vs. 15 in H. indosobrinus), fewer infralabials (9–10 vs. 12 H. indosobrinus), fewer dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 30 in H. indosobrinus), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 11 in H. indosobrinus), digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) and 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 4554 and 4555, respectively, in H. indosobrinus), and more precloacal and femoral pores (20 vs. 18 in H. indosobrinus); from H. jinpingensis by having a larger size (maximum SVL 46.90 mm vs. 39.60 mm in H. jinpingensis), more dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 11–12 in H. jinpingensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 5–7 in H. jinpingensis), fewer precloacal and femoral pores in males (19 vs. 20–24 in H. jinpingensis), digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) and 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 3444/4444/3343 and 4444 lamellae formula, respectively, in H. jinpingensis), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (vs. absence in H. jinpingensis); from H. kiziriani Nguyen, Botov, Le, Nophaseud, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having fewer circumnasal scales (3 vs. 4 in H. kiziriani), more precloacal and femoral pores in males (20 vs. 10–13 in H. kiziriani), and the absence of pitted scales in females (vs. 8–10 in H. kiziriani); from H. longlingensis by having fewer circumnasal scales (3 vs. 4–5 in H. longlingensis), more dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 10–14 in H. longlingensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 6–7 in H. longlingensis), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (vs. absence in H. longlingensis); from H. serpispecus Eliades, Phimmachak, Sivongxay, Siler & Stuart by having fewer dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 26 in H. serpispecus), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 10 in H. serpispecus), digital lamellae formula 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 3445 in H. serpispecus), and more precloacal and femoral pores in males (20 vs. 11 in H. serpispecus); from H. typus by having fewer chin scale (6–8 vs. 9–14 in H. typus), more dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 12–19 in H. typus), and digital lamellae formula 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 4454 in H. typus); from H. yunnanensis by having more dorsal scale rows (19–21 vs. 9–18 in H. yunnanensis), more ventral scale rows (13–15 vs. 6–12 in H. yunnanensis), digital lamellae formula 3444 (forefoot) and 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 3333 and 3444, respectively, in H. yunnanensis), and the presence of anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral (vs. absence in H. yunnanensis); from H. zugi by having fewer chin scales (6–8 vs. 9–12 in H. zugi), fewer infralabials (9–10 vs.10–12 in H. zugi), and digital lamellae formula 4554 (hindfoot) (vs. 4455 in H. zugi). Hemiphyllodactylus bonkowskii sp. nov. differs from Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis sp. nov. by having more dorsal scale rows (24–27 vs. 19–21 in Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis sp. nov.), fewer precloacal and femoral pores in males (19 vs. 20 in Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis sp. nov.), and ratio SnW/HeadL (0.18−0.20 vs. 0.17 in Hemiphyllodactylus ngocsonensis sp. nov.). |
| Comment | Habitat: disturbed evergreen karst forest of medium hardwood and shrub. |
| Etymology | Specific epithet ngocsonensis is a toponym in reference to the type locality of the species. |
| References |
|
| External links |