Search

We describe a new species of Lepidodactylus from Umboi Island, just to the west of New Britain. It is a member of the Lepidodactylus guppyi Group and can be distinguished from all other Melanesian Lepidodactylus by aspects of digital scalation, digital webbing, enlarged femoral/precloacal scales, and color pattern. It is genetically distinct from its closest congeners, and genetic and morphological data indicate that the new species is most similar among named species to Lepidodactylus guppyi from the Solomon Islands, but it diverged from this species and other close relatives approximately 8 MYA or longer at a time prior to the existence of the island that it now occupies. The new species is known from only three individuals collected on a single tree, and efforts to find more animals in what seemed good habitat nearby were unsuccessful. This duplicates the pattern of apparent rarity seen for many Lepidodactylus species. Sufficient habitat exists on Umboi Island for arboreal geckos, suggesting that the species is not actually endangered but is ecologically cryptic. However, lack of needed information leads us to assess this species’ conservation status as Data Deficient.

We present a comprehensive catalogue of the reptiles of Equatorial Guinea, consisting of 118 species belonging to 67 genera and 22 families. There are two species of Crocodylia, ten of Testudines and 106 of Squamata; this last taxon is represented by 62 species of snakes, two amphisbaenians and 42 lizards. Of these 118 species, seven are present only in Annobon, seven only in Bioko, 47 only in Río Muni, 53 occur both in Bioko and Río Muni (or Bioko, Río Muni and other islands), and four are sea turtles. Despite its high diversity, the level of endemism of Bioko is relatively low, with only four endemic species out of the 60 species reported for the island. In contrast, despite its low diversity, Annobon has the highest endemicity level, with five endemic species (and two introduced). No endemic species are known for the rest of the regions of Equatorial Guinea, which contain 100 species. We reveal several new country and species records, and point to some pending taxonomic questions to be addressed. Among the new species records, we highlight the presence of Cyclanorbis elegans, which represents the most meridional known population of the genus. Additional species are expected to be found in Equatorial Guinea as further field and taxonomic work is developed.

Cyrtopodion aravallense (Gill, 1997) is a poorly known species, known only from the holotype and original description. I re-examined the holotype housed in the museum of Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai and find some discrepancies between the original description and the holotype. Here, I redescribe the holotype of C. aravallense in greater detail and provide a revised diagnosis of the species. It is distinguished from all its congeners in having enlarged, regularly arranged transverse rows of 15 trihedral tubercles; 25–26 midbody scale rows across belly; 102 midventral scales; males with 6 precloacal pores, 7–8 femoral pores on each side separated by 3–5 poreless scales between precloacal and femoral pores.

4.3. Lygodactylus verticillatus Lygodactylus verticillatus from Madagascar and from Europa Island do not differ in scalation (Boettger 1913; Pasteur 1965). The slight difference in the number of precloacal pores mentioned by Pasteur (1965) was not supported by this study. Both populations show a very similar variation in coloration and in patterning. Thus, L. verticillatus from Madagascar and Europa cannot be distinguished by their external appearance or by the number of precloacal pores. The most basal node within L. verticillatus separates specimens from the southern Malagasy localities Sakaraha and Isalo from all other samples. Sakaraha lies approximately 135 km from Toliara on the main road to the Isalo National Park. The remaining sister subgroup consists of specimens exclusively from the coastal regions of Madagascar, approximately from Morondava southwards to Toliara, and the insular population. We cannot exclude an inland origin of the L. verticillatus from Europa Island. However, based on our morphological and genetic dataset, it seems more likely that the nearest relatives of the insular L. verticillatus are conspecifics from populations in the coastal regions of south-western Madagascar. We found no relevant morphological differences, and only weak genetic differences between the Malagasy and the insular population, and only weak genetic variation within the monophyletic lineage of Europa Island. This agrees with the hypothesis of a relatively recent colonization as suggested by Pasteur (1965). Europa Island is 355 km west-northwest from Toliara or 300 km southwest from Cap Saint-Vincent close to Morombe, 529 km east-northeast from Inhambane (Mozambique) and approximately 600 km south of Juan de Nova (Caceres 2003; Fricke et al. 2013). It is nearly circular (6 × 7 km) with a total area of 30 km 2 (Caceres 2003) and represents the largest island of the Îles Éparses. Europa Island belongs to the group of ‘modern’ isolated seamounts in the Channel, possibly developed during Oligocene to Miocene times (Courgeon et al. 2016). Lygodactylus verticillatus could have reached Europa Island recently by natural transoceanic dispersal or by human-mediated dispersal. While a natural dispersal would be supported by flows westward from Madagascar to mainland Africa (Ali & Huber 2010), a much simpler and thus more parsimonious alternative explanation is ship-borne dispersal. Lygodactylus verticillatus could have arrived at Europa Island e.g., with ships of Malagasy fishermen seasonally searching for nesting chelonians, or with ships of European (French) settlers who started their settlement from Toliara and lived on the island from approximately 1860 to the 1920s (Fricke et al. 2013). The amount of genetic variation found within Europa (three haplotypes differing by up to two mutations in 16S) would be in agreement with either (i) ship-borne dispersal or (ii) natural dispersal of multiple individuals, or (iii) natural dispersal of a single individual at a somewhat deeper point in time, with subsequent in-situ genetic diversification. Support for either of these hypotheses could come from a denser sampling of Malagasy populations: the presence of haplotypes identical to those on Europa in Malagasy populations would allow to reject the third hypothesis, and given that simultaneous or repeated natural dispersal to such a small islet is rather unlikely, ship-borne introduction would in this case remain as the most probable hypothesis. Only if the presence of the Europa haplotypes in Madagascar could be reasonably excluded, the third hypothesis would be supported. Lygodactylus verticillatus is adapted to dry climatic conditions. In south-western Madagascar, the species inhabits shrubs and trees in semi-arid areas as well as fences and walls in human settlements (Puente et al. 2009). On Europa Island, it is widely distributed and occurs in most natural habitats on rocks, shrubs, trees and in a dry euphorbia forest as well as in human settlements (Brygoo 1966; Sanchez et al. 2015, 2019). The conditions for L. verticillatus in the coastal regions of south-western Madagascar and on Europa are very similar, facilitating the survival on the island., Published as part of Röll, Beate, Sanchez, Mickaël, Gippner, Sven, Bauer, Aaron M., Travers, Scott L., Glaw, Frank, Hawlitschek, Oliver & Vences, Miguel, 2023, Phylogeny of dwarf geckos of the genus Lygodactylus (Gekkonidae) in the Western Indian Ocean, pp. 232-250 in Zootaxa 5311 (2) on pages 245-246, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5311.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/8094276, {"references":["Boettger, O. (1913) Reptilien und Amphibien von Madagascar, den Inseln und dem Festland Ostfarikas. In: Voeltzkow, A. (Ed.), Reise in Ostafrika in den Jahren 1903 - 1905. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse. Vol. 3. Systematische Arbeiten. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Nagele und Sprosser, Stuttgart, pp. 269 - 375.","Pasteur, G. (1965) Recherches sur l'evolution des lygodactyles, lezards afromalgaches actuels. Travaux de l'Institut Scientifique Cherifien, Serie Zoologie, 29, 1 - 132.","Caceres, S. (2003) Etude prealable pour le classement en Reserve Naturelle des Iles Eparses. Memoire de DESS Sciences et Gestion de l'Environnement Tropical. Univ. Reunion (Laboratoire ECOMAR) & DIREN Reunion, 136 pp. Available from: http: // poupin. joseph. free. fr / pdf / caceres- 2003 - iles-eparses-classement. pdf (accessed 13 June 2023)","Fricke, R., Durville, P., Bernardi, G., Borsa, P., Mou-Tham, G. & Chabanet, P. (2013) Checklist of the shore fishes of Europa Island, Mozambique Channel, southwestern Indian Ocean, including 302 new records. Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde, A, Neue Serie, 6, 247 - 276.","Courgeon, S., Jorry, S. J., Camoin, G. F., BouDagher-Fadel, M. K., Jouet, G., Revillon, S., Bachelery, P., Pelleter, E., Borgomano, J., Poli, E. & Droxler, A. W., (2016) Growth and demise of Cenozoic isolated carbonate platforms: New insights from the Mozambique Channel seamounts (SW Indian Ocean). Marine Geology, 380, 90 - 105. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. margeo. 2016.07.006","Ali, J. R. & Huber, M. (2010) Mammalian biodiversity on Madagascar controlled by ocean currents. Nature, 463, 653 - 656. https: // doi. org / 10.1038 / nature 08706","Puente, M., Glaw, F., Vieites, D. R. & Vences, M. (2009) Review of the systematics, morphology and distribution of Malagasy dwarf geckos, genera Lygodactylus and Microscalabotes (Squamata: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa, 2103, 1 - 76. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 2103.1.1","Brygoo, E. R. (1966) Note sur les reptiles terrestres recoltes a Europa en avril 1964. Memoires du Museum national d'histoire naturelle, Serie A, 41, 29 - 32.","Sanchez, M. & Probst, J. - M. (2015) L'herpetofaune terrestre de l'ile d'Europa (Ocean Indien, Canal du Mozambique): synthese des connaissances et nouvelles donnees sur la repartition de l'ecologie des especes en vue de leur conservation. Bulletin de la Societe Herpetologique de France, 145, 63 - 76."]}

4.1. Lygodactylus pakenhami At present, the taxon ‘ pakenhami’ is considered a subspecies of L. grotei in most publications. In our study, L. grotei and L. g. pakenhami are genetically distinct lineages, confirming previous results (Gippner et al. 2021). Lygodactylus g. pakenhami from Pemba Island differs greatly in 16S and ND2 pairwise distances from mainland individuals considered as L. grotei. While L. grotei and L. g. pakenhami as far as known cannot be distinguished in scalation, they clearly differ in coloration. Furthermore, hatchlings of L. grotei and L. g. pakenhami are easily identifiable and distinguishable by the coloration of their trunks and especially of their tails. The reciprocal monophyly suggested by mitochondrial DNA, conspicuously different coloration—both in adults and hatchlings—and the high genetic distance suggest that these taxa most likely represent two distinct species. This is also in agreement with differences in the RAG1 sequences (although these data are not fully conclusive due to low sample sizes: one sequence available each for grotei and pakenhami). Therefore, we elevate L. g. pakenhami to full species status, as Lygodactylus pakenhami Loveridge, 1941, being aware that this taxonomic hypothesis requires further testing, especially from nuclear-encoded DNA data sets, ideally at the phylogenomic level. Lygodactylus pakenhami is endemic on Pemba Island, the northernmost and second largest island of the Zanzibar Archipelago. Pemba lies off the continental shelf and is surrounded by water 500 to 850 m deep (Moreau & Pakenham 1941). Geological evidence indicates that Pemba Island was separated from the African mainland by faulting that produced the Pemba Channel, possibly during the late Miocene or early Pliocene, 6 million years ago (Stockley 1942; Clarke & Burgess 2000). Corresponding to its long period of isolation, Pemba is characterized by a remarkable number of endemic species, including plants, mammals and reptiles (R̂dder et al. 2010). The simplest explanation for the existence of L. pakenhami on Pemba is vicariance. Its nearest extant relative, L. grotei, is widely distributed in south-eastern Tanzania and northern Mozambique, including the coastal regions. Presumably, a population of an ancestor of L. grotei and L. pakenhami already existed on Pemba Island before its separation from the mainland. Thereafter, there was no further genetic exchange between the continental and the insular population, so that the latter evolved isolated from its continental congener. While a natural dispersal from Tanzania after the separation of Pemba Island cannot be excluded, it is considered as unlikely because the geographic position of Pemba suggests that the East African Coastal Current or a similar paleocurrent conveyed any drifting material into the open ocean very rapidly (Moreau & Pakenham 1940; Hawlitschek et al. 2016a). A recent, human-mediated transportation is unlikely, as after such a short period of isolation we would expect the sharing of mitochondrial haplotypes between mainland and island populations, which we did not detect. Although only two samples yielding DNA sequences of L. grotei have precise georeferenced information, one of these was collected on the mainland directly opposite Pemba Island. However, as is always the case with inferences of allopatric occurrence, we cannot fully exclude that undiscovered populations of L. pakenhami may occur on the African mainland, which would invalidate our biogeographic hypotheses but not our taxonomic conclusions. In contrast to Pemba Island, Zanzibar and Mafia islands lie on the continental shelf and are separated from the mainland only by shallow waters with an average depth of 30 to 35 m, rarely 50 m (Moreau & Pakenham 1941). Geological data of coastal eastern Africa point to a land connection of Zanzibar and Mafia islands with the African mainland up to the end of the Pleistocene, probably only 10,000 –18,000 years ago (Stockley 1942; Clarke & Burgess 2000). Zanzibar and Mafia are inhabited by L. grotei, L. picturatus and L. viscatus, all conspecific with continental populations. Presumably, the distribution of these three species on the islands is probably best explained by recent vicariant events. In contrast to L. pakenhami on Pemba Island, the species on Zanzibar and Mafia have been isolated on the islands for a relatively short time, about 10,000 years. Additionally, both natural dispersal over water after the separation of Zanzibar and Mafia from the mainland and/or a human-mediated transportation due to long-standing trading in the recent past cannot be excluded., Published as part of Röll, Beate, Sanchez, Mickaël, Gippner, Sven, Bauer, Aaron M., Travers, Scott L., Glaw, Frank, Hawlitschek, Oliver & Vences, Miguel, 2023, Phylogeny of dwarf geckos of the genus Lygodactylus (Gekkonidae) in the Western Indian Ocean, pp. 232-250 in Zootaxa 5311 (2) on page 244, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5311.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/8094276, {"references":["Gippner, S., Travers, S. L., Scherz, M. D., Colston, T. J., Lyra, M. L., Ashwini, V. M., Multzsch, M., Nielson, S. V., Rancilhac, L., Glaw, F., Bauer, A. M. & Vences, M. (2021) A comprehensive phylogeny of dwarf geckos of the genus Lygodactylus, with insights into their systematics and morphological variation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 165, 107311. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2021.107311","Loveridge, A. (1941) New geckos (Phelsuma and Lygodactylus), snake (Lepotyphlops) and frog (Phrynobarachits) from Pemba Island, East Africa. Proceedings of the Biological Society, Washington, 54 (8), 175 - 178.","Stockley, G. M. (1942) The geology of the Zanzibar Protectorate and its relation to the East African mainland. Geological Magazine, 79 (4), 233 - 240. https: // doi. org / 10.1017 / S 0016756800073921","Clarke, G. P. & Burgess, N. D. (2000) Geology and geomorphology. In: Burgess, N. D. & Clarke, G. P. (Eds.), Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa. IUCN, Gland, pp. 29 - 40.","Moreau, R. E. & Pakenham, R. H. W. (1940) The land vertebrates of Pemba, Zanzibar, and Mafia: a zoogeographical study. Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London, 110 (A), 97 - 128. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1469 - 7998.1941. tb 08463. x","Hawlitschek, O., Garrido, S. R. & Glaw, G. (2016 a). How marine currents influenced the widespread natural overseas dispersal of reptiles in the Western Indian Ocean. Journal of Biogeography, 44, 1426 - 1440. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / jbi. 12940"]}

4.2. Lygodactylus insularis Lygodactylus insularis is an endemic species on Juan de Nova, a very small island with a total area of approximately 5 km 2, 280 km from mainland Africa (East Mozambique) and 120 km to the nearest point on the Malagasy coast (Caceres 2003; Lambs et al. 2016). Pasteur (1965) already included L. insularis in the L. capensis group and assumed that L. insularis originated from either L. c. capensis or L. c. grotei. Lygodactylus capensis and L. insularis share the same number of precloacal pores and a superficially similar coloration of the adults. However, they strongly differ in the status of the subcaudals and in the appearance of their hatchlings. It is thus impossible to discern the relationships of L. insularis, L. capensis and L. grotei by means of scalation or coloration alone. Our molecular phylogenetic analyses reveal that L. insularis is embedded within the L. capensis group, clearly indicating its African origin and, in so far, supporting Pasteur (1965). While the single gene as well as the multigene analyses fully support closer relationships between L. insularis and L. capensis than between L. insularis and L. grotei, the position of L. insularis within the clade formed by L. insularis, L. nyaneka, L. capensis sensu stricto and six L. aff. capensis lineages (provisionally named as “groups”; here, the last two of these are referred to as L. capensis sensu lato) is not clearly resolved. For a taxonomic revision of the L. capensis complex—one is stated to be in progress by Travers et al. unpublished (in Marques et al. 2020)—we strongly recommend a broader incorporation of genetic markers to resolve the conflicting topologies since our multigene dataset consists of only few markers especially for L. nyaneka and for the numerous groups forming L. capensis sensu lato. The clade including L. grotei and L. pakenhami is defined as the sister clade of L. insularis, L. nyaneka and L. capensis sensu lato. Lygodactylus insularis is recovered as a monophyletic group based on mtDNA, probably resulting from a single dispersal event. Furthermore, the species based on the sampling herein exhibits little intraspecific genetic variability, possibly due to the tiny size of the island resulting in a panmictic population. Members of the genus Lygodactylus successfully crossed the Mozambique Channel from mainland Africa back to Madagascar one or perhaps two times (R̂ll et al. 2010; Mezzasalma et al. 2017; Gippner et al. 2021). The ancestor of L. insularis probably began at least one further traverse in eastward direction ending on Juan de Nova, an island in the middle of the channel. Juan de Nova developed as the uplifted top of a seamount that probably was formed during the Cretaceous along the Davie Fracture (Riaux-Gobin & Witkowski 2012). Ali & Hedges (2022) suggest that it may have remained emerged as a low elevation atoll since the Early Palaeocene. In such a scenario, the dispersal of the ancestors of L. insularis may have taken place as early as 22.3 (confidence interval 15.6–30.2) mya, the stem age of the L. capensis group estimated in the Lygodactylus timetree of Gippner et al. (2021). Results of palaeogeographic reconstructions and palaeo-oceanographic modelling suggest strong surface currents in the Mozambique Channel flowing from northeast Mozambique and Tanzania eastward towards Madagascar during the Palaeogene (66 to 23 mya), which would support this scenario (Ali & Huber 2010). While the main contemporary direction of oceanic surface currents is westward, the situation in the Mozambique Channel is very complex with numerous eddies and possible countercurrents (Hawlitschek et al. 2016a). This also suggests that dispersal could have occurred during a more recent period of mainly westward marine currents. An alternative hypothesis, dispersal via short-lived Cenozoic land-bridges between mainland Africa and Madagascar (e.g., Mazza et al. 2019; Masters et al. 2020), is disputed and has been ruled out based on current geological reconstructions (e.g., Ali & Huber 2010; Ali & Hedges 2022). It also must be emphasized that despite a reasonable sampling of Eastern Africa, especially Mozambique (with L. capensis group sequences from 14 localities available so far), it is possible that a still undiscovered species representing the sister lineage of L. insularis may exist in this region. A somewhat similar situation was uncovered in the frogs of the Ptychadena mascariensis complex in which the sister lineage of the Malagasy species has only been recorded from a small area of Malawi and could have easily been overlooked without intensive sampling efforts (Zimkus et al. 2017). If a closer relative of L. insularis was found on the African mainland, it would lead to younger age estimates of the colonization event of Juan de Nova by these geckos., Published as part of Röll, Beate, Sanchez, Mickaël, Gippner, Sven, Bauer, Aaron M., Travers, Scott L., Glaw, Frank, Hawlitschek, Oliver & Vences, Miguel, 2023, Phylogeny of dwarf geckos of the genus Lygodactylus (Gekkonidae) in the Western Indian Ocean, pp. 232-250 in Zootaxa 5311 (2) on pages 244-245, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5311.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/8094276, {"references":["Caceres, S. (2003) Etude prealable pour le classement en Reserve Naturelle des Iles Eparses. Memoire de DESS Sciences et Gestion de l'Environnement Tropical. Univ. Reunion (Laboratoire ECOMAR) & DIREN Reunion, 136 pp. Available from: http: // poupin. joseph. free. fr / pdf / caceres- 2003 - iles-eparses-classement. pdf (accessed 13 June 2023)","Lambs, L., Mangion, P., Mougin, E. & Fromard, F. (2016) Water cycle and salinity dynamics in the mangrove forests of Europa and Juan de Nova Islands, southwest Indian Ocean. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 30, 311 - 320. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / rcm. 7435","Pasteur, G. (1965) Recherches sur l'evolution des lygodactyles, lezards afromalgaches actuels. Travaux de l'Institut Scientifique Cherifien, Serie Zoologie, 29, 1 - 132.","Marques, M. P., Ceriaco, L. M. P., Buehler, M. D., Bandeira, S. A., Janota, J. M. & Bauer, A. M. (2020) A revision of the dwarf geckos, genus Lygodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae), from Angola, with description of three new species. Zootaxa, 4853 (3), 301 - 352. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4853.3.1","Mezzasalma, M., Andreone, F., Aprea, G., Glaw, F., Odierna, G. & Guarino, F. M. (2017) Molecular phylogeny, biogeography and chromosome evolution of Malagasy geckos of the genus Lygodactylus (Squamata, Gekkonidae). Zoological Scripta, 46, 42 - 54. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / zsc. 12188","Gippner, S., Travers, S. L., Scherz, M. D., Colston, T. J., Lyra, M. L., Ashwini, V. M., Multzsch, M., Nielson, S. V., Rancilhac, L., Glaw, F., Bauer, A. M. & Vences, M. (2021) A comprehensive phylogeny of dwarf geckos of the genus Lygodactylus, with insights into their systematics and morphological variation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 165, 107311. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2021.107311","Riaux-Gobin, C. & Witkowski, A. (2012) Small-sized and discoid species of the genus Cocconeiopsis (Bacillariophyta) on Holothuria atra (Juan de Nova, Mozambique Channel). Phytotaxa, 54, 43 - 58. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / phytotaxa. 54.1.5","Ali, J. R. & Hedges, S. B. (2022) A review of geological evidence bearing on proposed Cenozoic land connections between Madagascar and Africa and its relevance to biogeography. Earth-Science Reviews, 232, 104103. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. earscirev. 2022.104103","Ali, J. R. & Huber, M. (2010) Mammalian biodiversity on Madagascar controlled by ocean currents. Nature, 463, 653 - 656. https: // doi. org / 10.1038 / nature 08706","Hawlitschek, O., Garrido, S. R. & Glaw, G. (2016 a). How marine currents influenced the widespread natural overseas dispersal of reptiles in the Western Indian Ocean. Journal of Biogeography, 44, 1426 - 1440. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / jbi. 12940","Mazza, P. P. A., Buccianti, A. & Savorelli, A. (2019) Grasping at straws: a re-evaluation of sweepstakes colonisation of islands by mammals. Biological Reviews, 94, 1364 - 1380. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / brv. 12506","Masters, J. C., Genin, F., Zhang, Y., Pellen, R., Huck, T., Mazza, P. P. A., Rabineau, M., Doucoure & M., Aslanian, D. (2020) Biogeographic mechanisms involved in the colonization of Madagascar by African vertebrates: Rifting, rafting and runways. Journal of Biogeography, 48, 492 - 510. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / jbi. 14032","Zimkus, B. M., Lawson, L. P., Barej, M. F., Barratt, C. D., Channing, A., Dash, K. M., Dehling, J. M., Du Preez, L., Gehring, P. - S., Greenbaum, E., Gvozdik, V., Harvey, J., Kielgast, J., Kusamba, C., Nagy, Z. T., Pabijan, M., Penner, J., R ˆ del, M. - O., Vences, M. & L ˆ tters, S. (2017) Leapfrogging into new territory: How Mascarene ridged frogs diversified across Africa and Madagascar to maintain their ecological niche. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 106, 254 - 269. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2016.09.018"]}

Yushchenko, Platon V., Grismer, L. Lee, Bragin, Andrey M., Dac, Le Xuan, Poyarkov, Nikolay A. (2023): A new species of the genus Hemiphyllodactylus Bleeker, 1860 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from a lowland monsoon forest in Southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 5306 (5): 537-550, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5306.5.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5306.5.2

Hemiphyllodactylus cattien sp. nov. Cat Tien Slender Gecko Figs. 3 & 4, Table 2 ZooBank registration: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 4B7A2B89-BB4C-4F22-B0CC-F4E07B354327 Holotype. Adult female (VRTC NAP-10586; formerly ZMMU Re-17039) collected along the trail to Lake Bau Sau, Nam Cat Tien sector, Cat Tien National Park, Dong Nai Province, southern Vietnam (GPS data 11.4458° N, 107.3864° E WGS; 140 m a.s.l.) on 14 February 2021 at 18:00 h by P.V. Yushchenko and N.A. Poyarkov. Diagnosis. Hemiphyllodactylus cattien sp. nov. can putatively be distinguished from all other congeners by possessing the unique combination of having a maximum SVL of 35.1 mm; trunk slightly elongate and gracile (AG/ SVL 0.52); seven chin scales; enlarged postmentals; five circumnasal scales; three intersupranasals (= postrostrals); nine supralabials; nine infralabials; 20 longitudinal rows of dorsal scales and 11 longitudinal rows of ventral scales at midbody contained within one eye diameter; 4444 digital formulas on hands and 5555 formulas on feet; five subdigital lamellae on the first finger; six subdigital lamellae on the first toe; 19 perforated precloacal scales that extend part-way onto the proximal femoral region; one cloacal spur on each side; no platelike subcaudal scales; a weak dark-colored postorbital stripe extending to at base of neck; no dorsolateral light-colored spots or dark-clored dorsolateral stripe on trunk; no dark-colored ventrolateral stripe on trunk; no dark-clored paravertebral markings on trunk; no light-colored postsacral marking bearing anteriorly projecting arms; and caecum and gonads darkly pigmented. Description of holotype (Table 2). Adult female SVL 35.1 mm (Fig. 4a); head moderate, (HL/SVL 0.24, HW/ SVL 0.16) triangular in dorsal profile (Fig. 4c), depressed, distinct from neck; lores flat to slightly convex; rostrum moderate in length (NE/HL 0.32); prefrontal region weakly concave; canthus rostralis smoothly rounded, barely discernable; snout moderate (NE/HL 0.32), rounded in dorsal profile; eye large (ED/HL 0.26); ear opening elliptical, small (Fig. 4b); eye-ear distance greater than diameter of eye; rostral wider than high, bordered posteriorly by large supranasals (Fig. 4c); three equally sized intersupranasals (= postnasals); external nares bordered anteriorly by rostral, dorsally by supranasal, posteriorly by two postnasals, ventrally by first supralabial (= circumnasals); nine (R,L) rectangular supralabials tapering to below posterior margin of eye; nine (R,L) rectangular infralabials not tapering to below posterior margin of eye; scales of rostrum, lores, top of head, and occiput small, raised, those of rostrum largest; dorsal superciliaries flat, mostly square, subimbricate, largest anteriorly; mental triangular, bordered laterally by first infralabials and posteriorly by two postmentals (Fig. 4d); postmentals in contact with first infralabial and bordered laterally by a slightly smaller chin shield; five lateral chin shields; gular scales small, subimbricate, grading posteriorly into slightly larger, subimbricate throat and even larger pectoral scales which grade into slightly larger, subimbricate ventrals. Body moderate in stature, trunk not noticeably elongate (AG/SVL 0.52), dorsoventrally compressed; ventrolateral folds absent; dorsal scales small, granular, 20 dorsal scales at midbody contained within one eye diameter; ventral scales flat, subimbricate, larger than dorsal scales, 11 ventral scales contained within one eye diameter; precloacal scales larger than abdominal scales; 19 perforated, slightly enlarged femoroprecloacal scales in an angular series, scale at apex has a pit; single enlarged tubercle (spur) on lateral margin of tail base (Fig. 4e); forelimbs short, robust in stature, covered with flat, subimbricate scales dorsally and ventrally; palmar scales slightly raised, subimbricate; all digits except digit I well developed; digit I vestigial, clawless; distal subdigital lamellae of digits II–V divided, angular and U-shaped, lamellae proximal to these transversely expanded; distal lamellar formula of digits II–V 4444 (R,L); five transversely expanded lamellae on digit I; claws on digits II—V well-developed, unsheathed; distal portions of digits strongly curved, terminal joint free, arising from central portion of lamellar pad; hind limbs short, more robust than forelimbs, covered with slightly raised, juxtaposed scales dorsally and by larger, flat subimbricate scales anteriorly and ventrally; plantar scales slightly raised, subimbricate; all digits except digit I well developed; digit I vestigial, clawless; distal subdigital lamellae of digits II–V divided, angular and U-shaped, lamellae proximal to these transversely expanded; distal lamellar formula of digits II–V 5555 (R,L); six transversely expanded lamellae on digit I; claws on digits II–V well developed, unsheathed; distal portions of digits strongly curved, terminal joint free, arising from central portion of lamellar pad; tail regenerated, 13.7 mm in length. Raw morphometric data (in mm) are TL 13.7 (regenerated), AG 18.4 HL 8.3, HW 5.9, SN 4.0, NE 2.7, ED 2.2, and SW 1.3. Coloration in life. Dorsal ground color of head and body nearly unicolor wheat-gray with dark-brown and white stippling (Fig. 3); dark-colored, diffuse stripe, bordered dorsally by a white band, extends from rostral scale to forelimb insertion (Fig. 3); another dark-colored U-shaped stripe can be distinguished below the eye; dark-colored, diffuse markings on the head, limbs and trunk are almost indistinguishable in color; sacral region with two pairs of more or less distinct light-colored spots; gular, pectoral and abdominal regions beige with dark stippling; stippling dense on underside of limbs; the regenerated tail is totally dark-gray bearing scattered black and white scales (Fig. 3). Coloration after six months in preservative is much the same but not nearly as distinct and the overall coloration has become dark-grey (Fig. 4). Distribution and Natural history. Hemiphyllodactylus cattien sp. nov. is known only from the type locality in Cat Tien National Park (NP), Dong Nai Province, southern Vietnam (Fig. 1). The holotype was collected at sundown (18:00 h) ca. 1.5 m above the ground on the trunk of a tree, in primary dipterocarp forest along the trail to Bau Sau Lake (Fig. 5). Two specimens were recorded sitting close to one another (ca. 10 cm) on the tree trunk; they tried to escape our presence by ascending the tree and only a single specimen was collected. Despite numerous subsequent attempts to collect additional specimens of the new species and intensive surveys along the Bau Sau Lake trail by P.V. Yushchenko and A.M. Bragin from 2021–2023, no other individuals were recorded. The occurrence of Hemiphyllodactylus cattien sp. nov. in other parts of the Cat Tien NP is expected, including the Cat Loc and Tay Cat Tien sectors covering the lowland and hilly areas of the adjacent parts of Lam Dong and Binh Phuoc provinces of southern Vietnam. Etymology. The name of the new species is a noun in apposition and is therefore invariable; the species name is given in reference to its type locality, the Cat Tien National Park in Dong Nai Province of southern Vietnam. We recommend the names “Cat Tien Slender Gecko” and “Thạch sùng dẹp Cát Tiên” as common names of the new species in English and Vietnamese, respectively. nov cattien sp. dalatensis arakuensis banaensis bonkowskii aurantiacus flaviventris maximum SVL35.145.93937.9514839.2Chin scales77–108–11 10–14 6–75–77–10Postmentals distinctly enlarged (1) or not (0);11 0 0 11/Circumnasal scales5,5 3 /2–4 3 3 5Intersupranasals32–32–33–6 4–11 2–43Supralabials910–119–1210–139–128–109–12Infralabials99–109–128–129–118–118–11Dorsals20 16 13–16 11–17 17–20 24–27 16–18 Ventrals11 8–9 7–9 8–129–12 13–15 8–101st finger lamellae5 3–4 4 or 53,45551st toe lamellae6 3–4 5 or 64,554–55Digits 2–5 finger lamellae44444555/4565 2222 2222 3(4)4(5)4(5)434444444Digits 2–5 toe lamellae55555666/5665 2(3)333 2232(3) 455545544555Continuous femoral/precloacal pores19 (perf)23–2512//1416–2518–2119Precloacal and femoral pore series separate (1) or continuous (0);00 1 1 00/Cloacals on each side1/1 2–3 2–3 1–3111 or 2Subcaudals enlarged, plate–like (1) or not (0)0000000Dark postorbital stripe present (1) or absent (0)1111111Light postocular or trunk spots (1) or absent (0)0 1 0 1 1 1 1 Dark dorsolateral stripe present (1) or not (000 1 0 1 0/Dark dorsal transverse blotches (1) or not (0)00/ 1 1 0/Longitudinal series of white (1) or yellow or red (0) dorsal spots000 1 0 1 0Postsacral mark lacking anteriorly projecting arms (1) or arms present (0)1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Gonads and cecum pigmented (1) or not (0)/01100/ ......continued on the next page Comparisons. Morphologically, Hemiphyllodactylus cattien sp. nov. differs from its close relative H. indosobrinus by having fewer dorsal scales (20 versus 30), supralabials (nine versus 15), infralabials (nine versus 13), and a narrower head (HW/SVL = 0.16 versus 0.18). It differs from its close relative H. flaviventris by having more dorsal scales (20 versus 16—18), 19 perforated femoroprecloacal scales in the female versus nine precloacal pores in male, and more elongate trunk (AG/SVL = 0.52 versus 0.47—0.50) and a narrower (HW/SVL = 0.15 versus 0.17—0.18) and shorter head (HL/SVL = 0.24 versus 0.26—0.27). See Table 2 for potential diagnostic characters separating H. cattien sp. nov. from all other species from Vietnam and South Asian species within clade 5. We are well-aware that additional samples of the new species coupled with statistical analyses of the characters may indicate that some of these putatively diagnostic differences may prove not to be diagnostic but that the same probability exists that other diagnostic differences may be revealed.

Cyrtodactylus arndti sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 83F60753-8E51-49D9-97E7-BD870AC772F3 Figs 6–9; Table 3 Diagnosis The new species of Cyrtodactylus is distinguished from remaining congeners of the C. irregularis species group by a combination of the following characters: SVL: 73.4–80.9 mm; dorsal pattern with 6 or 7 irregularly shaped bands; moderately broad nuchal band; original tail with irregular transverse bands; subcaudals transversely enlarged; 5–11 enlarged femoral scales; males with 0–2 pitted femoral pores, those absence in females; males with 6 precloacal pores, females with 6 pitted precloacal pores, pore-bearing scales arranged in a single ˄-shaped series; ventral scales 26–38; dorsal tubercles in 17–20 irregular longitudinal rows; precloacal groove absent; supralabials 8–13; infralabials 8–12; number of subdigital lamellae on fourth finger 15–20 and on fourth toe 17–22. Etymology We name this species in honor of our colleague, Prof. Dr. Hartmut Arndt, Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Germany, in recognition of his support for biodiversity research in Vietnam. As common names, we suggest Arndt’s Bent-toed Gecko (English) and Thằn lằn ngón arndt (Vietnamese). Type material (Figs 6–9) Holotype VIETNAM • ♂; Binh Dinh Province, Van Canh District, near Hiep Ha Village; 13°39.858′ N, 108°53.355′ E; 270 m a.s.l.; 13 Aug. 2016; D.T. Do and T.V. Nguyen; Field No. BD.2016.141; IEBR R.4930. Paratypes VIETNAM • 1 ♂; Binh Dinh Province, Quy Nhon District, Quy Nhon City; 13°41.718′ N, 109°10.277′ E; 140 m a.s.l; 8 Aug. 2016; D.T. Do and T.V. Nguyen; Field No. BD.2016.1; IEBR R.5219 • 2 ♂♂, 1 ♀; Binh Dinh Province, Van Canh District, near Dak Dum Village; 13°38.365′ N, 108°57.863′ E; 150 m a.s.l.; 11 Aug. 2016; D.T. Do and T.V. Nguyen; Field No. BD.2016.86, BD2016.87, BD.2016.88; IEBR R.4931 to IEBR.4933 • 1 ♀; Binh Dinh Province, Van Canh District, near Hiep Ha Village; 13°39.858′ N, 108°53.355′ E; 270 m a.s.l.; D.T. Do and T.V. Nguyen; Field No. BD.2016.86; IEBR R.5077 • 2 ♂♂; same collection data as for preceding; Field No. BD.2016.142, BD.2016.143; ZFMK 103910, ZFMK 103911. Description of holotype Adult male; snout-vent length 74.4 mm; tail regenerated, 98.15 mm in length; body slender, elongate (AG/SVL ratio 0.39); head distinct from neck, elongate, depressed (HL/SVL 0.29, HW/HL 0.67, HH/ HL 0.37); loreal region concave; snout long, blunt in dorsal profile (SE/HL 0.37), longer than diameter of orbit (OD/SE 0.61); scales on snout small, round or oval, granular, lager than scales on occiput; orbit large (OD/HL 0.22); pupils vertical; ear opening small, oval (ED/HL 0.06); rostral almost twice as wide as high with an inverse Y-shapted structure, surrounded by first supralabial, naris, nasorostral on each side, and internasal; nostril opening small and oval, surrounding by rostral, nasorostral, 2 supranasals and one postnasal; mental scale triangular, wider than high (ML/MW 0.74); two enlarged, triangular postmentals; supralabials 12/12; infralabials 11/13. Dorsal scales granular, dorsal tubercles round, keeled, conical, in 20 irregular rows at midbody; tubercles on occiput small; each tubercle surrounded by 9 or 10 granular scales; ventral scales smooth, round, midventral scales approximately 3–4 times as large as dorsal scales, slightly imbricate laterally, in 37 longitudinal rows at midbody between ventrolateral folds; precloacal groove absent; enlarged femoral scales 7 or 8 on each thigh, about twice the size of surrounding scales; enlarged precloacal scales 17, arranged in a rhombus; femoral pores absent; precloacal pores 6, arranged in ˄-shaped series. Fore and hindlimbs moderately slender (ForeaL/SVL 0.15 mm, CrusL/SVL 0.16); forelimbs dorsally covered by several slightly enlarged tubercles; dorsal surface of hindlimbs bearing well-developed tubercles; two postcloacal tubercles on each side on the hemipenal swellings; phalanges without webbing; each claw sheathed by two scales, the ventral sheath larger than the upper scale; number of subdigital lamellae on first finger 12/13, on first toe 13/13, on fourth finger 18/18, on fourth toe 22/22. Coloration in preservative Dorsal surface of head, body and limbs light-brown with some dark-brown pattern, without light bordering; occiput marbled with small, irregular dark-brown banded; rostral, mental, first three supralabials and first infralabials greyish brown, remaining infralabials light beige, some with greyish brown speckles or frames; nuchal band discontinuous, consisting of two stripes extending from the orbits to the neck, ending by a dark blotch on each side and a third blotch medially; dorsum with 7 irregular bands, the first two interrupted; dorsolateral region covered with round or elongate dark-brown blotches; tail with 6 dark-brown bands, fade ventrally, some small dark-brown spots arranged in a line along the lateral side of tail, tail tip dark-brown; dorsal surface of limbs with 6 or 7 irregular dark-brown bands; phalanges brown with beige knuckles; dorsal tubercles white or dark-brown depending on position; tubercles on dorsal surface of limbs and tail light-brown; venter greyish brown. Sexual dimorphism and variation The female (IEBR R.4933) differs from the males by the absence of hemipenal swellings. All male specimens have 6 precloacal pores but the females has 6 pitted scales only. Three males (IEBR R.4930, ZFMK 103910, ZFMK 103911) and the female lack femoral pores (IEBR R.5077, IEBR R.4933). For further morphological characters see Table 3. Comparisons The new species can be distinguished from all other member of Cyrtodactylus irregularis group from Vietnam by morphological characteristics (see Table 4). Cyrtodactylus arndti sp. nov. differs from C. badenensis by having the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs absent in C. badenensis), the presence of precloacal pores in males (6 vs absent in C. badenensis), the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. badenensis), and different dorsal pattern (irregular bands vs banded in C. badenensis); differs from C. bidoupimontis by having the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. bidoupimontis), having moderately broad nuchal band, continuous or discontinuous band (vs well developed, widened posteriorly in C. bidoupimontis), different dorsal pattern (6 or 7 irregular transverse bands, colouration dark-brown on light-brown background vs 4–5 dark irregular transverse dorsal bands, usually with light borders), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals vs absent in C. bidoupimontis; differs from C. bugiamapensis by having fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 7–11 in C. bugiamapensis), different dorsal color pattern (irregular, dark-brown transverse bands vs unclear transversal bands formed by irregular roundish to oblong, dark brown spots in C. bugiamapensis), moderately broad nuchal band, continuous or discontinuous bands (vs dark nuchal band, which can be medially divided, narrow, U-shape in C. bugiamapensis), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals vs absent in C. bugiamapensis; differs from C. buchardi by having a lagger size (SVL of 73.4–80.9 vs 60–65 in C. buchardi), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs absent in C. buchardi), more subdigital lamellae on first finger (15–20 vs 14 in C. buchardi), more subdigital lamellae on first toe (17–22 vs 12 in C. buchardi) and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals vs absent in C. buchardi); differs from C. caovansungi by having a smaller size (SVL of 73.4–80.9 vs 90.4–94.0 mm), fewer femoral pores (0–2 vs 6 in C. caovansungi), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 9 in C. caovansungi), the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. caovansungi), and fewer subdigital lamellae under the fourth toe (17–22 vs 23–25 in C. caovansungi); differs from C. cattienensis by having a larger size (73.4–80.9 mm vs 43.5–69.0 mm in C. cattienensis), the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. cattienensis), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. cattienensis); differs from C. chungi by having a larger size (73.4–80.9 mm vs 66.6– 68.5 mm in C. chungi), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 7 in C. chungi), fewer enlarged precloacal scales (17–23 vs 41–45 in C. chungi), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. chungi); differs from C. cryptus by having fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 47–50 in C. cryptus), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs absent in C. cryptus), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 9–11 in C. cryptus), the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. cryptus), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. cryptus); differs from C. cucdongensis by having a larger size (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs 55.8–65.9 mm in C. cucdongensis), fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 41–44 in C. cucdongensis), more subdigital lamellae under the first toe (11–14 vs 8–11 in C. cucdongensis), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. cucdongensis); differs from C. culaochamensis by having fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 45– 50 in C. culaochamensis), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs absent in C. culaochamensis), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 7–8 in C. culaochamensis), and the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. culaochamensis); differs from C. dati by having fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 42–48 in C. dati), fewer femoral pores (0–2 vs 3–4 on each side in C. dati), different dorsal color pattern (irregular bands vs blotches in C. dati), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. dati); differs from C. gialaiensis by having a larger size (73.4–80.9 mm vs 50.1–62.8mm in C. gialaiensis), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs absent in C. gialaiensis), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 9–10 in C. gialaiensis), and more subdigital lamellae under the fourth finger (15–20 vs 14–15 in C. gialaiensis); differs from C. huynhi by having fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 43–46 in C. huynhi), more enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs 3–5 in C. huynhi), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 7–9 in C. huynhi), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. huynhi); differs from C. irregularis by having the presence of precloacal pores in males (1–2 vs absent in C. irregularis), different dorsal color pattern (irregular bands vs blotched in C. irregularis), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. irregularis); differs from C. kingsadai by having a smaller size (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs 83.0–94.0 mm in C. kingsadai), fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 39–46 in C. kingsadai), and fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 7–9 in C. kingsadai); differs from C. orlovi by having a larger size in males (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs 61.0– 68.2 mm in C. orlovi), the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. orlovi), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals(vs absent in C. orlovi); differs from C.phnomchiensis by having fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 45–54 in C. phnomchiensis), more precloacal pores in males (6 vs 4–5 in C. phnomchiensis), fewer AG/SVL ratio (0.34–0.43 vs 0.45–0.48 in C. phnomchiensis), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. phnomchiensis); differs from C. phumyensis by having a larger size (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs 63.6–66.8 mm in C. phumyensis), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. phumyensis); differs from C. phuocbinhensis by having a larger size (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs 46.0– 60.4 mm in C. phuocbinhensis), fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 43–47 in C. phuocbinhensis), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 7 in C. phuocbinhensis), the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. phuocbinhensis); differs from C. pseudoquadrivirgatus by having fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 41–57 in C.pseudoquadrivirgatus), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs absent in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus), different dorsal color pattern (irregular bands vs blotched in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus); differs from C. raglai by having a smaller size (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs 95–111.7 mm in C. raglai), more precloacal pores in males (6 vs 5 in C. raglai) and the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. raglai); differs from C. sangi by having a larger size (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs 49.9–56.3 mm in C. sangi), more enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs 4 in C. sangi), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 vs 7 in C. sangi), and more pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs 4 in C. sangi); differs from C. takouensis by having more enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs 3–5 in C. takouensis), more precloacal pores in males (6 vs 3–4), the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. takouensis), and the different dorsal color pattern (irregular bands vs banded in C. takouensis); differs from C. taynguyenensis by having more ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 42–49 in C. taynguyenensis), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5–11 vs absent in C. taynguyenensis), the different dorsal color pattern (irregular bands vs blotched in C. taynguyenensis), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. taynguyenensis); differs from C. yangbayensis by having the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (6 vs absent in C. yangbayensis), more subdigital lamellae under the fourth toe (17–22 vs 15–17), and fewer subdigital lamellae on first toe (11–14 vs 18–20 in C. yangbayensis); differs from C. ziegleri by having a smaller size (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs 84.6–93.0 mm in C. ziegleri), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. ziegleri), and dark-brown transverse bands of the tail narrower than the light-brown interspaces (vs dark transverse bands wider than the light interspaces in C. ziegleri). Differs from C. chumuensis sp. nov. by having a larger size (SVL 73.4–80.9 mm vs maximum 67.5 mm in C. chumuensis), fewer ventral scale rows (26–38 vs 43–45 in C. chumuensis), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs absent in C. chumuensis). Distribution Cyrtodactylus arndti sp. nov. is currently known only from the Van Canh District, Binh Dinh Province, Vietnam (Fig. 1). Natural history Specimens were found at night between 19:00 and 22:00, on trees or on granite rock, along rocky streams, about 0.6–1.5 m above the ground, at elevations between 150 and 300 m a.s.l. The surrounding habitat was evergreen forest of medium and small hardwoods mixed with shrubs and vines (Fig. 9). The humidity was approximately 40–62% and the air temperature ranged from 28.9 to 33.1 ° C. Other reptiles species found at the sites included Acanthosaura coronata (Günther, 1861) Dixonius vietnamensis Das, 2004, Gekko gecko (Linnaeus, 1758), Gekko sp., Eutropis multifasciata (Kuhl, 1820), Boiga jaspidea (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854), Psammodynastes pulverulentus (Boie, 1827), and Trimeresurus sp., Published as part of Ngo, Hanh Thi, Hormann, Helene, Pham, Cuong The, Phung, Trung My, Ostrowski, Sabrina, Nguyen, Truong Quang & Ziegler, Thomas, 2023, The discovery of two new species in the Cyrtodactylus irregularis group highlights that hidden diversity remains in the largest clade of the mega-diverse genus Cyrtodactylus, pp. 70-100 in European Journal of Taxonomy 875 (1) on pages 84-94, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2023.875.2141, http://zenodo.org/record/8064396, {"references":["Ziegler T., Rosler H., Herrmann H. - W. & Vu T. N. 2002. Cyrtodactylus phongnhakebangensis sp. n., ein neuer Bogenfingergecko aus dem annamitischen Karstwaldmassiv, Vietnam. Herpetofauna 24 (141): 11 - 25.","Nguyen S. N., Orlov N. L. & Darevsky I. S. 2006. Descriptions of two new species of the genus Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827 (Squamata: Sauria: Gekkonidae) from southern Vietnam. Russian Journal of Herpetology 13 (3): 215 - 226. https: // doi. org / 10.30906 / 1026 - 2296 - 2006 - 13 - 3 - 215 - 226","Nguyen S. N., Yang J-X., Le T-N. T., Nguyen L. T., Orlov N., Hoang C. V., Nguyen T. Q., Jin J-Q., Rao D-Q., Hoang T. N., Che J., Murphy R. W. & Zhang Y-P. 2014. DNA barcoding of Vietnamese bent-toed geckos (Squamata: Gekkonidae: Cyrtodactylus) and the description of a new species. Zootaxa 3784 (1): 48 - 66. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3784.1.2","Nguyen S. N., Zhou W-W., Le T-N. T., Tran A-D. T., Jin J-Q., Vo B. D., Nguyen L. T., Nguyen T. T., Nguyen T. Q., Hoang D. D., Orlov N. L., Che J., Murphy R. W. & Zhang Y-P. 2017 a. Cytonuclear discordance, cryptic diversity, complex histories, and conservation needs in Vietnamese bent-toed geckos of the Cyrtodactylus irregularis species complex. Russian Journal of Herpetology 24 (2): 133 - 154.","Nguyen S. N., Nguyen L. T., Nguyen V. D. H. & Murphy R. W. 2017 b. Genetic diversity, phylogeny, and altitudinal distribution of geckos genus Cyrtodactylus on Hon Ba Mountain, Khanh Hoa Province, with note on the subcaudals of C. yangbayensis. Journal of Biotechnology 15 (3 A): 55 - 62.","Heidrich A., Rosler H., Vu N. T., Bohme W. & Ziegler T. 2007. Another new Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park, central Truong Son, Vietnam. Zootaxa 1445: 35 - 48. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1445.1.3","Orlov N. L., Nguyen T. Q., Nazarov A. R., Ananjeva B. N. & Nguyen S. N. 2007. A new species of the genus Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827 and redescription of Cyrtodactylus paradoxus (Darevsky et Szczerbak, 1997) [Squamata: Sauria: Gekkonidae] from South Vietnam. Russian Journal of Herpetology 14: 145 - 152.","Nazarov R. A., Orlov N. L., Nguyen N. S. & Ho T. C. 2008. Taxonomy of naked-toe geckos Cyrtodactylus irregularis complex of South Vietnam and description of a new species from Chu Yang Sin Natural Park (Krong Bong District, Dac Lac Province), Vietnam. Russian Journal of Herpetology 15: 141 - 156.","Nazarov R., Poyarkov N. A., Orlov N. L., Phung T. M., Nguyen T. T., Hoang D. M. & Ziegler T. 2012. Two new cryptic species of the Cyrtodactylus irregularis complex (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 3302 (1): 1 - 24. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3302.1.1","Ngo T. V. & Bauer A. M. 2008. Descriptions of two new species of Cyrtodactylus Gray 1827 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) endemic to southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 1715: 27 - 42. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1715.1.2","Ngo T. V., Grismer L. L. & Grismer J. L. 2010. A new species of Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) in Phu Quoc National Park, Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve, Southwestern Vietnam. Zootaxa 2604 (1): 37 - 51. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 2604.1.3","Rosler H., Vu T. N., Nguyen T. Q., Ngo V. T. & Ziegler T. 2008. A new Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from central Vietnam. Hamadryad 32: 125 - 140 -","Ngo T. V. & Chan K. O. 2010. A new species of Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1826 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Khanh Hoa province, southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 2504 (1): 47 - 60. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 2504.1.4","Ngo T. V. & Chan O. K. 2011. A new krastic cave-dwelling Cyrtodactylus Gray (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Northern Vietnam. Zootaxa 3125 (1): 51 - 63. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 1909.1.4","Ngo T. V. & Grismer L. L. 2012. A new species of Cyrtodactylus Gray (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Tho Chu Island, southwestern Vietnam. Zootaxa 3228 (1): 48 - 60. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3228.1.2","Ziegler T., Nazarov R., Orlov N., Nguyen T. Q., Vu T. N., Dang K. N., Dinh T. H. & Schmitz, A. 2010. A third new Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park, Truong Son Range, Vietnam. Zootaxa 2413 (1): 20 - 36. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 2413.1.2","Ziegler T., Phung T. M., Le M. D. & Nguyen T. Q. 2013. A new Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Phu Yen Province, southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 3686 (4): 432 - 446. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3686.4.2","Luu V. Q., Nguyen T. Q., Do Q. H. & Ziegler T. 2011. A new Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Huong Son limestone forest, Hanoi, northern Vietnam. Zootaxa 3129: 39 - 50. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3129.1.3","Luu V. Q., Dung T. V., Nguyen T. Q., Le M. D. & Ziegler T. 2017. A new species of the Cyrtodactylus irregularis complex (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Gia Lai Province, Central Highlands of Vietnam. Zootaxa 4362 (3): 385 - 404. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4362.3.4","Phung T. M., van Schingen M., Ziegler T. & Nguyen T. Q. 2014. A third new Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Ba Den Mountain, Tay Ninh Province, southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 3764 (3): 347 - 363. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3764.3.5","Le D. T., Nguyen T. Q., Le M. D. & Ziegler T. 2016. A new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Ninh Binh Province, Vietnam. Zootaxa 4162 (2): 268 - 282. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4162.2.4","Ostrowski S., Le M. D., Ngo H. T., Pham C. T., Nguyen T. Q. & Ziegler T. 2020. A new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 4789 (1): 171 - 203. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4789.1.5","Ostrowski S., Le M. D., Ngo H. T., Pham C. T., Phung T. M., Nguyen T. Q. & Ziegler T. 2021. A new Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Binh Thuan Province, southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 731 (1): 47 - 70. https: // doi. org / 10.5852. ejt. 2021.731.1023","Do Q. H., Phung T. M., Ngo H. T., Le M. D., Ziegler T., Pham C. T. & Nguyen T. 2021. A new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Ninh Thuan Province, southern Vietnam. Zootaxa 4999 (1): 58 - 76. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4999.1.4"]}

Cyrtodactylus chumuensis sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: F6A019B5-B1ED-4976-8C1D-803CC0D91DD9 Figs 3–5; Table 2 Diagnosis The new species can be distinguished from remaining congeners of the irregularis species group by a combination of the following characters: maximum SVL 67.5 mm; dorsal pattern with 6 irregularly shaped and short longitudinal stripes on the neck; nuchal band thin, interrupted, reaching the posterior margin of the orbits; the absence of transversely enlarged median subcaudal scales; 4 or 5 enlarged femoral scales on each thigh, 17–19 distinctly enlarged precloacal scales; males with 0 or 1 femoral pore on each thigh, 6 or 7 precloacal pores in a continuous series, ˄-shaped; ventral scales 43–45; dorsal tubercles in 20 irregular longitudinal rows; precloacal groove absent; internasal scales 2; supralabials 8–14; infralabials 9–11; number of subdigital lamellae on fourth finger 16–19 and on fourth toe 19–21. Etymology The new species is named after its type locality, Chu Mu Mountain in Dak Lak Province. We propose the following common names: Chu Mu Bent-toed Gecko (English), Thạch sùng ngón chư mư (Vietnamese). Type material (Figs 3–5) Holotype VIETNAM • ♂; Dak Lak Province, M'Drak District, Ea M’Doal Commune, Chu Mu Mountain; 12°41.330′ N, 108°55.450′ E; 500 m a.s.l.; 20 Jun. 2014; T.M. Phung leg.; Field No. PMT01; IEBR R.4928. Paratypes VIETNAM • 1 ♂ (subadult); Dak Lak Province, M'Drak District, Ea M’Doal Commune, Chu Mu Mountain; 12°41.321′ N, 108°55.382′ E; 400 m a.s.l.; 20 Jun. 2014; T.M. Phung leg.; Field No. PMT02; IEBR R.4929. Description of holotype Adult male; snout-vent length SVL 67.5 mm; tail regenerated 51.4 mm in length (regenerated portion 43.7 mm); body slender, elongate (AG/SVL 0.4); head distinct from neck, elongate (HL/SVL 0.26), relatively wide (HW/HL 0.71) and depressed (HH/HL 0.36); loreal region concave; snout long, blunt in dorsal profile (SE/HL 0.44), longer than diameter of orbit (OD/SE 0.56); scales on snout small, round or oval, granular, larger than scales on occiput; orbit large (OD/HL 0.24), pupils vertical; ear opening small, oval (ED/HL 0.06); rostral wider than high, indented medially the top, in contact with first supralabial, naris and nasorostral on each side, two internasal scales; nostril opening small, oval, surrounded by rostral, nasorostral, two supranasals and one or two postnasals; mental scale triangular, wider than high (ML/MW 0.74); two enlarged, triangular postmentals; supralabials 8/9; infralabials 9/9. Dorsal scales granular, dorsal tubercles round, keeled, conical, in 20 irregular rows at midbody; tubercles on occiput small; tubercles surrounded by 10–12 granular scales; ventral scales smooth, round, midventral scales three times as large as dorsal granular scales, in 45 longitudinal rows at midbody between ventrolateral folds; precloacal groove absent; enlarged femoral scales 4 or 5 on each thigh, the third bearing a femoral pore (Fig. 4C); enlarged precloacal scales 17, arranged in a rhombus; precloacal pores 6, arranged in a ˄-shaped series. Fore and hindlimbs moderately slender (ForeaL/SVL 0.14 mm, CrusL/SVL 0.17); forelimbs dorsally covered by several slightly enlarged tubercles; dorsal hindlimbs with well-developed tubercles; two postcloacal tubercles on each side on the hemipenal swellings; phalanges without webbing; each claw sheathed by two scales, the ventral sheath larger than the upper; number of subdigital lamellae on first finger 11/11, on first toe 10/11, on fourth finger 17/17, on fourth toe 19/19. Coloration in preservative Dorsal surface of head, body and limbs light-brown with some dark-brown bands, pattern without light bordering; occiput marbled with small, irregular dark-brown blotches; rostral, mental and infralabials creamy white, supralabials dark-beige with short greyish brown vertical stripes; neck bands dark-brown, extending in two thin stripes along lateral sides of the snout to the orbits, broader on the neck, interrupted on the left side; two dark-brown longitudinal stripes, disconnected from the neck band extending to shoulders, one dark-brown blotch next to each stripe; dorsal pattern consisting of 6 irregular bands, each formed by two triangularly shaped blotches, shifted medially along the body axis; dorsolateral region covered with small, irregular dark-brown blotches arranged in a longitudinal row from neck to groin; a blurry dark-brown transverse band on dorsal surface of original part of the tail, regenerated part greyish beige and speckled with very small light-greyish brown blotches; dorsal surface of limbs with 3 or 4 dark-brown, blurry bands; phalanges brown with creamy white knuckles; tubercles white or dark-brown depending on position on pattern or background; venter creamy white; ventral tail greyish beige without bands. For coloration of the paratype in life that closely resembles the holotype in life see Fig. 3. Variation The paratype is a subadult and therefore differs greatly in size. Its original tail showed some dark-brown irregular bands, although broken at the base. The number of precloacal pores is 7 and it lacks femoral pores. For more morphological characters see Table 2. Comparisons The new species can be distinguished from all other member of Cyrtodactylus irregularis group from Vietnam by morphological characteristics (see Table 2). Cyrtodactylus chumuensis sp. nov. differs from C. badenensis by having more ventral scale rows (43– 45 vs 25–29 in C. badenensis), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (4–5 vs absent in C. badenensis), the presence of precloacal pores in males (6–7 vs absent in C. badenensis), and the absence of transversely enlarged subcaudals (vs present in C. badenensis); differs from C. bidoupimontis by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 74.0– 86.3 mm in C. bidoupimontis), fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 8–10 in C. bidoupimontis), a different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded with longitudinal stripes on the neck vs transversal bands with light borders in C. bidoupimontis), and a thin discontinuous nuchal band (vs well developed, widened posteriorly in C. bidoupimontis); differs from C. bugiamapensis by having fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 6–10 in C. bugiamapensis) and the different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded with longitudinal stripes on the neck vs unclear transversal bands formed by irregular round to oblong, dark-brown spots in C. bugiamapensis); differs from C. buchardi by having more ventral scale rows (30 vs 43–45 in C. buchardi), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (4–5 vs absent in C. buchardi), more subdigital lamellae under the fourth finger (16–19 vs 14 in C. buchardi), more subdigital lamellae under the fourth toe (17–21 vs 12 in C. buchardi); differs from C. cattienensis by having more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 28–42 in C. cattienensis), more subdigital lamellae under the fourth finger (16–19 vs 12–16 in C. cattienensis), and different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded with longitudinal stripes on the neck vs irregular dark-brown banded, first band on the shoulder x-shaped C. cattienensis); differs from C. caovansungi by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 90.4–94 mm in C. caovansungi), fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 8 in C. caovansungi), fewer femoral pores on each thigh in males (0–1 vs 6 in C. caovansungi), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs 9 in C. caovansungi), fewer lamellae under the fourth finger (16–19 vs 22 in C. caovansungi), fewer lamellae under the fourth toe (17–21 vs 23–25 in C. caovansungi), and the absence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates (vs present in C. caovansungi); differs from C. chungi by having more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 30 or 31 in C. chungi), more dorsal tubercle rows (20 vs 18 in C. chungi), different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded with longitudinal stripes on the neck vs irregular transversal bands with a closed nuchal band), and a thin, discontinuous nuchal band (vs continuous nuchal band in C. chungi); differs from C. cryptus by having fewer ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 47–50 in C. cryptus), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs absent in C. cryptus), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs 9–11 in C. cryptus), a thin, discontinuous nuchal band (vs well developed, widened posteriorly in C. cryptus), and different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded with short, longitudinal stripes on the neck vs irregular transverse bands in C. cryptus); differs from C. cucdongensis by having more dorsal tubercle rows (20 vs 16–19 in C. cucdongensis), fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 5–9 in C. cucdongensis), more enlarged precloacal scales (20–21 vs 6–13), and a different dorsal colour pattern (irregularly banded with short, longitudinal stripes on the neck vs irregular dark brown transverse bands); differs from C. culaochamensis by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 69.8–79.8 mm in C. culaochamensis), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs absent in C. culaochamensis), fewer lamellae under the first finger (11 vs 13 or 14 in C. culaochamensis), and fewer lamellae under the first toe (10 or 11 vs 13–15 in C. culaochamensis); differs from C. dati by having fewer femoral pores in males (0–2 vs 3 or 4 each side in C. dati), fewer lamellae under the first toe (10 or 11 vs 12 or 13 in C. dati), the presence of blotches on head (vs absent in C. dati), and different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded with longitudinal stripes on the neck vs irregular dark blotches); differs from C. gialaiensis by the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs absent in C. gialaiensis), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs 9 or 10 in C. gialaiensis), and more subdigital lamellae under the fourth finger (16–19 vs 14 or 15 in C. gialaiensis) as well as under the fourth toe (17–21 vs 15–17 in C. gialaiensis); differs from C. huynhi by having more dorsal tubercle rows in males (20 vs 16–18 in C. huynhi), fewer lamellae under first finger (11 vs 12–15 in C. huynhi), fewer lamellae under first toe (10 or 11 vs 13–17 in C. huynhi), and a thin discontinuous nuchal band (vs well developed, widened posteriorly in C. huynhi); differs from C. irregularis by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 72.0–86.0 mm in C. irregularis), more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 37–42 in C. irregularis), fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 7 or 8 in C. irregularis), and different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded with short longitudinal stripes on the neck vs blotched in C. irregularis); differs from C. kingsadai by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 83.0–94.0 in C. kingsadai), fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 9–12 in C. kingsadai), the absence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates (vs present in C. kingsadai), and more internasals (2 vs 1 in C. kingsadai); differs from C. orlovi by having more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 36–39 in C. orlovi); a thin, discontinuous nuchal band (vs continuous nuchal band in C. orlovi), and different banded pattern ranges (6 vs 3–5 in C. orlovi); differs from C. phnomchiensis by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 vs 76.1–80.7 mm in C. phnomchiensis), more precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs 5 in C. phnomchiensis), and different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded vs banded in C. phnomchiensis); differs from C. phuocbinhensis by having a larger size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 46.0– 60.4 mm in C. phuocbinhensis), different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded vs stripes or blotches in C. phuocbinhensis), and dark-brown transverse banded of the tail than light-brown interspaces (vs dark transverse banded wider than light interspaces in C. phuocbinhensis); differs from C. phumyensis by having more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 33–41 in C. phumyensis), fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 5–7 in C. phumyensis), more dorsal tubercle row (20 vs 18 or 19 in C. phumyensis), fewer enlarged precloacal scales (17–19 vs 21–41 in C. phumyensis), and different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded with short longitudinal stripes on the neck vs anteriorly irregularly spotted and posteriorly banded in C. phumyensis); differs C. pseudoquadrivirgatus by the presence of enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (vs absent in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus), the presence of precloacal pores in males (0–2 vs absent in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus), and more enlarged precloacal scales (17–19 vs 1–12 in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus); differs C. raglai by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 87.5–111.7 mm in C. raglai), more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 36–39 in C. raglai), fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 9 or 10 in C. raglai), fewer precloacal pores in males (0–2 vs 5 in C. raglai), and the absence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates (vs present in C. raglai); differs from C. sangi by having a larger size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 49.9–56.3 mm in C. sangi) and more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 37 in C. sangi); differs from C. takouensis by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 mm vs 74.7–81.1 mm in C. takouensis), more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 39–40 in C. takouensis), more precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs 3 or 4 in C. takouensis), the absence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates (vs present in C. takouensis), a thin discontinuous nuchal band (vs well developed, widened posteriorly in C. takouensis), and different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded vs banded in C. takouensis); differs from C. taynguyenensis by the presence of enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (vs absent in C. taynguyenensis); irregularly banded of the tail (vs banded in C. taynguyenensis), and different dorsal color pattern (irregularly banded vs blotched in C. taynguyensis); differs from C. yangbayensis by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 vs 78.5–92.3 mm in C. yangbayensis), more subdigital lamellae under the fourth toe (17–21 vs 15–17 in C. yangbayensis), fewer subdigital lamellae under the first toe (10–11 vs 18–20 in C. yangbayensis), and the absence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates (vs present in C. yangbayensis); differs from C. ziegleri by having a smaller size (SVL 67.5 vs 84.6–93.0 mm in C. ziegleri), more ventral scale rows (43–45 vs 33–39 in C. ziegleri), and fewer enlarged femoral scales (4 or 5 vs 8–10 C. ziegleri). Distribution Cyrtodactylus chumuensis sp. nov. is currently known only from the Chu Mu Mountain, M'Drak District, Dak Lak Province, Vietnam (Fig. 1). Natural history Specimens were found at night between 19:00 and 22:00, on granite rock, along a rocky stream, approximately 0.5–1.0 m above the ground, at elevations between 400 and 500 m a.s.l. The surrounding habitat was evergreen forest of medium and small hardwoods mixed with shrubs and vines (Fig. 5). The humidity was approximately 50–71% and the air temperature ranged from 27.5 to 32.1°C. Other reptile species found at the sites included Gekko gecko (Linnaeus, 1758), Hemidactylus platyurus (Schneider, 1792), Ahaetulla prasina (Boie, 1827), Lycodon sp., and Oligodon sp., Published as part of Ngo, Hanh Thi, Hormann, Helene, Pham, Cuong The, Phung, Trung My, Ostrowski, Sabrina, Nguyen, Truong Quang & Ziegler, Thomas, 2023, The discovery of two new species in the Cyrtodactylus irregularis group highlights that hidden diversity remains in the largest clade of the mega-diverse genus Cyrtodactylus, pp. 70-100 in European Journal of Taxonomy 875 (1) on pages 78-84, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2023.875.2141, http://zenodo.org/record/8064396

Ngo, Hanh Thi, Hormann, Helene, Pham, Cuong The, Phung, Trung My, Ostrowski, Sabrina, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2023): The discovery of two new species in the Cyrtodactylus irregularis group highlights that hidden diversity remains in the largest clade of the mega-diverse genus Cyrtodactylus. European Journal of Taxonomy 875 (1): 70-100, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.875.2141, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.875.2141

Khandekar, Akshay, Gaikwad, Sunil M., Pal, Saunak, Thackeray, Tejas, Agarwal, Ishan (2023): An expanded description of Cnemaspis gracilis (Beddome 1870) (Squamata: Gekkonidae) based on recent material. Zootaxa 5301 (5): 540-560, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5301.5.2, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5301.5.2

Cnemaspis gracilis (Beddome, 1870) Gymnodactylus gracilis Beddome, 1870 (Figures 2–6; Table 2–5) Lectotype. BMNH 74.4.29.393, adult male, (designated by Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2007), from “Palghat Hills” (Palakkad district, Kerala, India), collected by Colonel R. H. Beddome. Paralectotypes. BMNH 74.4.29.394, adult female, BMNH 74.4.29.395 adult female, BMNH 74.4.29.396 subadult female, BMNH 74.4.29.397 adult male, BMNH 74.4.29.398 subadult male, (designated by Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2007) from “Palghat hills”, Kerala, India, collected by Colonel R. H. Beddome. Referred material. BNHS 3128 (CESL 606), adult male and BNHS 3129 (CESL 607), adult female, from Chennathanair RF (10.86823° N, 76.62161° E; ca. 330, m asl.), Palakkad district, Kerala, India; collected by Saunak Pal on 3 rd July 2012; NRC-AA-1248 (AK 133), NRC-AA-1249 (AK 134), NRC-AA-1250 (AK 135), NRC-AA-1252 (AK 138), NRC-AA-1253, (AK 139), NRC-AA-1254 (AK 141), adult males, NRC-AA-1255 (AK 144), subadult male, NRC-AA-1251 (AK 137), adult female, from Valparai town (10.3321°N, 76.9595°E; ca. 1100 m asl.), Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu, India, collected by Akshay Khandekar, Ishan Agarwal, and Swapnil Pawar on 12 th November 2017; CES G 385, adult female (tissue + photograph only), from Chittur College campus (10.68730°N, 76.72260° E; ca. ~ 100 m asl.), Chittur, Palakkad district, Kerala, India; collected by Ishan Agarwal on 28 th May 2012. NRC-AA-1277 (AK 862), adult male, NRC-AA-1278 (AK 863), adult female, NRC-AA-1279 (AK 864), juvenile, from Timber market, Sambhaji Nagar, Kolhapur city (16.68558°N, 74.22174° E; ca. ~ 600 m asl.), Kolhapur district, Maharashtra, India; collected by Akshay Khandekar and Vivek Kuber on 6 th March 2023. Diagnosis. A small-sized Cnemaspis, snout to vent length up to 33 mm (n =19). Dorsal pholidosis heterogeneous; weakly keeled granular scales intermixed with a fairly regularly arranged rows of enlarged, strongly keeled, conical tubercles; last one or two rows of enlarged, weakly keeled, spine-like tubercles on flank; 10–12 rows of dorsal tubercles at mid-body, 10–14 tubercles in paravertebral rows; ventral scales smooth, subcircular, subimbricate, subequal from chest to vent, 24–29 (rarely 30, n =1/13) scales across belly at mid-body, 100–121 longitudinal scales from mental to cloaca; subdigital scansors smooth, mostly unpaired, unnotched; 10–12 lamellae under digit I of manus and pes; 15–18 lamellae under digit IV of manus and 18–24 lamellae under digit IV of pes; males with 3–5 femoral pores on each thigh separated by 6–13 poreless scales from series of two (rarely 4 n =1/8) precloacal pores, precloacal pores separated medially by 2–4 poreless scales; tail with enlarged, strongly keeled, pointed, and spine-like tubercles forming whorls; median row of subcaudals smooth, roughly oval, and distinctly enlarged. Dorsum brown to red or orange, mottled with numerous small light grey spots and fine black spots, light grey vertebral blotches forming a chain from occiput to tail base; a single central black dorsal ocellus on neck and smaller one on occiput separated by a light blotch, two or three indistinct pairs of streaks on throat; original tail in males with about 8–10 alternating dark and light grey bands, regenerated tail yellow to orange. Comparison with members of C. gracilis clade. Cnemaspis gracilis can be easily distinguished from all members of the clade by a combination of the following differing or non-overlapping characters: small-sized Cnemaspis with maximum SVL 32.9 mm (versus medium-sized Cnemaspis, SVL up to 41 mm in C. salimalii and C. thackerayi); 10–14 tubercles in paravertebral rows (versus 14–18 tubercles in paravertebral rows in C. agayagangai, 15–17 tubercles in paravertebral rows in C. fantastica, only a few irregularly arranged tubercles in paravertebral region in C. mundanthuraiensis, 16–18 tubercles in paravertebral rows in C. salimalii); 10–12 rows of dorsal tubercles at mid-body (versus eight or nine rows of dorsal tubercles at mid-body in C. jackieii, 6–8 rows of dorsal tubercles at mid-body in C. mundanthuraiensis); spine-like tubercles present on flanks (versus spine-like tubercles absent on flanks in C. agarwali, C. jackieii, C. shevaroyensis, and C. thackerayi); 24–29 (rarely 30) ventral scales across belly at mid-body (versus 30–32 in C. rudhira, 30–33 ventral scales across belly at mid-body in C. salimalii, 21–24 in C. shevaroyensis, and 22–25 in C. thackerayi); males with femoral pores, single (rarely 2) precloacal pore on each side which are separated medially by 2–4 poreless scales (versus males with femoral pores, two precloacal pores on each side which are separated medially by a single poreless scale in C. agarwali, males with femoral pores, continuous series of precloacal pores in C. pachaimalaiensis, males with femoral pores, two (rarely 3) precloacal pore on each side which are separated medially by single (rarely 2) poreless scales in C. rudhira), femoral pores separated by 6–13 poreless scales from precloacal pores on either side in males (versus femoral pores separated by 1–6 poreless scales from precloacal pores on either side in males in C. thackerayi); single central dorsal ocellus each on occiput and between forelimb insertions (versus a single dorsal ocellus present on occiput and neck, two pairs on either side just anterior and sometimes posterior to forelimb insertions in C. agarwali; a single central dorsal ocellus each on occiput and neck, ocellus on neck flanked anteriorly on each side by a slightly larger ocellus in C. agayagangai; a single central ocellus on neck, flanked posteriorly by a pair of much larger squarish blotches and anteriorly by a pair of subequal squarish blotches, indistinct spot on occiput in C. fantastica; a large central black dorsal ocellus on neck flanked anteriorly and posteriorly on each side by elongate dark ocelli, smaller ocellus on occiput flanked on each side by a smaller ocellus in C. pachaimalaiensis; a single dorsal ocellus present on occiput and neck, two pairs on either side just anterior and posterior to forelimb insertions in C. shevaroyensis). Description of topotype (based on male BNHS 3128 (CESL 606)). Adult male in good state of preservation except extreme tail tip missing, a 7.2 mm longitudinal cut on lower right pectoral region for tissue collection (Fig. 2A–E). SVL 31.0 mm, head short (HL/SVL 0.26), wide (HW/HL 0.66), not strongly depressed (HD/HL 0.43), distinct from neck. Loreal region marginally inflated, canthus rostralis not distinct. Snout half of head length (ES/HL 0.49), marginally more than 2.5 times eye diameter (ES/ED 2.56); scales on snout and canthus rostralis subcircular, subequal, and mostly smooth; much larger than those on forehead and interorbital region; scales on forehead slightly smaller, weakly keeled, elongated, and weakly conical; scales on interorbital region even smaller, granular and weakly keeled; scales on occipital and temporal region heterogeneous, slightly enlarged, weakly keeled, conical tubercles intermixed with smaller, weakly keeled and weakly conical granules (Fig. 3A). Eye small (ED/HL 0.19) with round pupil; supraciliaries short, larger anteriorly; seven interorbital scale rows across narrowest point of frontal bone; 30–32 scale rows between left and right supraciliaries at mid-orbit (Fig. 3A, C). Ear-opening deep, oval, small (EL/HL 0.07); eye to ear distance greater than diameter of eye (EE/ED 1.56; Fig. 3C). Rostral more than two times wider (1.43 mm) than high (0.6 mm), incompletely divided dorsally by a strongly developed rostral groove and internasal scale for more than half of its height; a single enlarged supranasal on each side, slightly larger than postnasals, separated from each other by a slightly smaller, elongated internasal scale; two postnasals, upper postnasal slightly larger than lower; rostral in contact with supralabial I, nostril, internasal, supranasal, and lower postnasal on either side; nostrils oval, surrounded by two postnasals, supranasal, and rostral on either side; two rows of scales separate orbit from supralabials (Fig. 3C). Mental enlarged, subtriangular, slightly wider (1.72 mm) than high (1.20 mm); two pairs of postmentals, inner pair roughly rectangular, much shorter (0.74 mm) than mental, in strong contact with each other below mental; inner pair bordered by mental, infralabial I, outer postmental, and a single enlarged chin shield on left and two on right side; outer postmentals roughly rectangular, smaller (0.50 mm) than inner pair, bordered by inner postmentals, infralabial I and II, and four enlarged chin shields on either side and; two enlarged gular scales between left and right outer postmentals; all chin scales bordering postmentals flat, subcircular, smooth, and smaller than outermost postmentals; scales on rest of throat, even smaller, flattened, subequal, and smooth (Fig. 3B). Infralabials bordered below by a row or two of slightly enlarged, much elongated scales, decreasing in size posteriorly. Nine supralabials up to angle of jaw, and six at midorbital position on either side; supralabial I largest, rest gradually decreasing in size posteriorly; eight infralabials up to angle of jaw, and five at midorbital position on either side; infralabial I largest, rest gradually decreasing in size posteriorly (Fig. 3C). Body relatively slender (BW/AGL 0.46), trunk less than half of SVL (AGL/SVL 0.36) without ventrolateral folds; spine-like scales on flank present (Fig. 4A–C). Dorsal pholidosis heterogeneous; weakly keeled granular scales intermixed with a fairly regularly arranged row of enlarged, strongly keeled, conical tubercles; tubercles in approximately 11 longitudinal rows at mid-body including spine-like scales at lower flank; 10 tubercles in paravertebral row from above forelimb insertion to the hind limb insertion (Fig. 4A, C). Ventral scales much larger than granular scales on dorsum smooth, subcircular, subimbricate, subequal from chest to vent; mid-body scale rows across belly 26; 113 scales from mental to anterior border of cloaca (Fig. 4B). Scales on base of neck similar to those on belly, marginally smaller; gular region with still smaller, subequal, smooth, flattened scales, those bordering postmentals enlarged, smooth, subcircular, and flattened (Fig. 4B). Five femoral pores on either thigh, separated by 11 poreless scales on left and 13 on right side from two precloacal pores, precloacal pores separated medially by a three poreless scales (Fig. 3D). Scales on palms and soles granular, smooth, subcircular, subimbricate and flattened at base; scales on dorsal aspects of limbs heterogeneous in shape and size; mixture of small granular, weakly keeled, imbricate scales which are twice the size of granules on the body dorsum, largest on anterolateral aspect of the hands and feet; posterolateral aspect of limbs with small weakly keeled to smooth granular scales; scales on lower arm and shank small, subimbricate, and keeled; ventral aspect of forelimbs with small, smooth, subimbricate scales, larger on lower arm than upper arm; ventral aspect of hindlimb with enlarged, smooth, flattened, subimbricate scales, scales on shank slightly larger than body ventrals (Fig. 2A, B). Forelimbs and hindlimbs moderately long, slender (LAL/SVL 0.14; CL/SVL 0.18); digits long, with strong, recurved claw, distinctly inflected, distal portions laterally compressed conspicuously. Digits with unpaired lamellae except basal one or two paired on some digits, separated into a basal and narrower distal series by single enlarged lamella at inflection; basal lamellae series: (1-3-3-5-5 right manus, 1-5-6-6-6 right pes), (2-3-3-5-4 left manus, Fig. 3E; 2-5-7-6-6 left pes, Fig. 3F); distal lamellae series: (10-11-13- 12-11 right manus, 10-11-13-14-13 right pes), (10-11-12-13-12 left manus, Fig. 3E; 9-11-14-14-13 left pes, Fig. 3F). Relative length of digits (measurements in mm in parentheses): IV (2.8)> III (2.7)> V (2.5) II> (2.4)> I (1.9) (left manus); IV (4.0)> V (3.6)> III (3.4)> II (3.2)> I (1.8) (left pes). Tail original, almost entire, subcylindrical, slender, marginally longer than snout-vent length (TL/SVL 1.10; Fig. 2C–E). Dorsal scales on tail base weakly keeled, granular, similar in size and shape to granular scales on mid-body dorsum, gradually becoming larger, flattened, imbricate posteriorly, intermixed with enlarged, strongly keeled, distinctly pointed, conical tubercles; enlarged tubercles on the tail forming whorls; six tubercles each on first five whorls, four in 6–11th whorls, only paravertebral tubercles on 12–15 th whorl, rest of the tail tip lacking enlarged tubercles (Fig. 2C, E). Scales on ventral aspect of tail much larger than those on dorsal aspect, subimbricate, smooth; median series distinctly larger than rest, roughly oval; scales on tail base marginally larger than those on mid-body ventrals, smooth, imbricate; a single enlarged, smooth and conical postcloacal spur on each side (Fig. 2D). Colouration in life (Fig. 5A). Dorsum of head, body, limbs and tail base reddish. Head mottled with grey and black, yellow and dark bands on labials, two dark postorbital streaks. A single central ocellus on neck, much smaller spot on occiput. Dorsum mottled with numerous grey spots and fine black spots with a vertebral chain light elongate blotches. Dorsum of limbs mottled with yellow bands, digits with alternating dark and light bands. Tail with eight black and eight light grey bands. Venter off-white with black speckles, three indistinct pairs of black streaks on throat. Variation and additional information. Mensural, meristic and additional character state data for the topotypes and specimens from additional localities are given in Tables 3–5 respectively. There are seven adult males, single subadult male, and three adult females and a juvenile ranging in size from 19.6–32.4 mm (Fig. 6B). All other specimens resemble described male topotype except as follows: Upper postmentals separated from each other below mental by enlarged median chin shield in NRC-AA-1254; upper postmentals bordered by mental, infralabial I, outer postmental in all topotypes, and additionally by single enlarged chin scale on each side and median chin scale in NRC-AA-1248, NRC-AA- 1253, NRC-AA-1254, NRC-AA-1278 and NRC-AA-1279, one chin scale on left and three on right side in NRC-AA-1251, single median scale on either side in BNHS 3129. Outer postmental bordered by inner postmental, infralabials I & II in all topotypes, and additionally, five chin scales on left and four on right side in NRC-AA- 1250, NRC-AA-1251, NRC-AA-1277, three chin scales on left and four on right side in NRC-AA-1253, NRC-AA-1254; four chin scales on left and three on right side in NRC-AA-1278, NRC-AA-1279, outer postmental separated from each other medially by three enlarged chin scales in NRC-AA-1248, NRC-AA-1251, NRC-AA-1253, NRC-AA-1254, NRC-AA-1278, NRC-AA-1279, and by single enlarged median chin scale in BNHS 3129. Snout region completely damaged in NRC-AA-1255. five specimens — NRC-AA-1249, NRC-AA-1253, and NRC-AA-1255, NRC-AA-1277, NRC-AA-1278 with original and complete tails, slightly longer than body (TL/SVL 1.18, 1.14, 1.31, 127, and 120 respectively); NRC-AA-1254 with complete but only tail tip regenerated, almost equal to the body (TL/SVL 1.04); rest of the topotypes with original but incomplete tails. Dorsal colouration varies from tan or light grey to red and orange; females, subadult and juvenile overall duller than adult males, original tail distinctly banded in males and faintly in females; regenerated portion of the tail orangish in NRC-AA-1254; only a single female topotype BNHS 3129 with multiple ocelli on body and neck (Figs. 5A–F, 6). ......Continued on the next page TABLE 5. (Continued) Distribution and Natural history. Cnemaspis gracilis is now known with surety from around its type locality (Palghat Hills) in Palakkad district, Kerala and Valparai town in Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu (Fig. 1), besides the presumably introduced population from the Timber Market, Sambhaji Nagar, Kolhapur, Kolhapur District, Maharashtra. At Palakkad, CESG385 was spotted resting on a low shrub (Cnemaspis gracilis was observed to be common and recorded along the ghat road from Monkey falls, Pollachi to Valparai town covering the elevation gradient of 400–1100 m asl. Individuals were seen active during the day time on building walls, on rocks, road side rock cuttings and under cement culvert. In Valparai town, individuals were also seen resting on mossy walls at night. At Kolhapur, Cnemaspis gracilis was only observed in the vicinity of Timber Market. The species was seen active in high abundance (>25 individuals/hr) on trees, building walls, and timber piles during the daytime., Published as part of Khandekar, Akshay, Gaikwad, Sunil M., Pal, Saunak, Thackeray, Tejas & Agarwal, Ishan, 2023, An expanded description of Cnemaspis gracilis (Beddome 1870) (Squamata: Gekkonidae) based on recent material, pp. 540-560 in Zootaxa 5301 (5) on pages 544-556, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5301.5.2, http://zenodo.org/record/8036203, {"references":["Beddome, R. H. (1870) Descriptions of some new lizards from the Madras Presidency. Madras Monthly Journal of Medical Science, 1, 30 - 35.","Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Batuwita, S. & Pethiagoda, R. (2007) A taxonomic revision of the Sri Lankan day-geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae: Cnemaspis), with description of new species from Sri Lanka and southern India. Zeylanica, 7, 9 - 122."]}

Hemidactylus paucifasciatus sp. nov. (Figures 2–6; Table 3) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 967860CD-F420-432A-ABAF-4D8B4A3E6952 Hemidactylus sp., Dutta et al. (2009); Debata, 2017 Holotype. ZSI-R-28357, adult male, from Gadachandi Temple, Anandapur, (21.2273° N, 86.2549° E; ca. 115 m asl.), Keonjhar District, Odisha State, India, collected by Pratyush P. Mohapatra & Rakesh Kumar Mohalik on 18 April 2019. Paratypes. NCBS-BH668, adult male, from Bamanghati, Bangiriposi (22.1714° N, 86.4925° E; ca. 341 m asl.), Mayurbhanj District, Odisha State, India, collected by Pratyush P. Mohapatra & Sushil Kumar Dutta on 29 November 2014; NCBS-BH669, adult female, same locality as holotype except collected by Rakesh Kumar Mohalik on 24 February 2019; ZSI-CZRC-7117, sub-adult female, same locality and collection data as holotype. Referred specimen. ZSI-R-28526, sub-adult male, from Chakratirtha, Kathakata, Anandapur (21.2569° N, 86.2500° E; ca. 197 m asl), Keonjhar District, Odisha State, India, collected by Rakesh Kumar Mohalik on 22 June 2022. Etymology. The species epithet is derived from a combination of the Latin adjectives pauci (English: few) and fasciatus (English: banded), referring to the lesser number of dorsal bands in this species. Suggested Common Name. Few-banded termite hill gecko Diagnosis. A large-sized Hemidactylus, SVL up to 118 mm (n =4). Dorsal pholidosis heterogeneous, composed of subcircular granular scales intermixed with enlarged, fairly regularly arranged, strongly keeled, conical tubercles in 16–18 longitudinal rows, extending from occiput to tail base, that are heterogeneous in shape and size; enlarged tubercles on the two most medial parasagittal rows smaller, 21–24 tubercles in paravertebral rows; those on dorsolateral aspect of flank largest, gradually decreasing in size downwards, last two rows on flank marginally larger or equal to medial parasagittal rows, weakly keeled. Ventrolateral folds indistinct; about 29–31 scale rows across belly. Digits with enlarged scansors, lamellae in straight transverse series, all divided except the apical and 1–3 basal lamellae, nine or ten lamellae beneath first digit and 11–13 beneath fourth digit of manus and pes. Males with 12 or 13 femoral pores on each side separated by three or four poreless scales. Tail with 6–9 much enlarged, strongly keeled, conical tubercles forming whorls; median row of subcaudal plates large, covering almost entire portion of the tail; single postcloacal spur of unequal size on each side that are smooth and much smaller than dorsal tubercles at mid-body. Dorsal coloration rusty-brown with three (rarely four) transversely arranged light bands, edged with black or dark brown, between the occiput and sacrum; head lighter than body in life, with a narrow lighted collar edged by dark brown that is continuous with the post-ocular marking. Comparison with members of the prashadi group. The new species was phylogenetically recovered as part of the prashadi group and can be morphologically assigned to the group based on its large size and prominent dorsal tuberculation.We therefore restrict comparisons to other members of the prashadi group. Hemidactylus paucifasciatus sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from other members of the prashadi group by having heterogeneous dorsal scales, composed of subcircular granular scales intermixed with enlarged, fairly regularly arranged, strongly keeled, conical tubercles, 16–18 DTR (versus homogenous dorsal pholidosis of imbricate scales, lacking enlarged tubercles in H. scabriceps (Annandale); dorsal pholidosis heterogenous, composed of granular scales intermixed with enlarged, rounded, weakly-keeled tubercles, 18–20 DTR in H. aaronbaueri; dorsal pholidosis heterogenous, composed of granular scales intermixed with enlarged, fairly regularly arranged, strongly keeled, conical tubercles — 18–20 DTR in H. acanthopholis Mirza & Sanap; 18–20 DTR in H. kangerensis; 12–14 DTR in H. kimbulae; 20–24 DTR in H. maculatus; 22–24 DTR in H. paaragowli Srikanthan, Swamy, Mohan & Pal; 14–16 DTR in H. prashadi; 19 or 20 DTR in H. triedrus); males with 12 or 13 FP and three or four SBFP (versus 19 FP and six SBFP in H. aaronbaueri; 19–21 FP and 13 or 14 SBFP in H. acanthopholis; 15–19 FP and 2–4 SBFP in H. depressus Gray; 24–30 FP and 2–4 SBFP in H. easai Das, Pal, Siddarth, Palot, Deepak & Narayanan; 23–28 FP and 1–3 SBFP in H. graniticolus Agarwal, Giri & Bauer; 14 or 15 FP and 11 SBPP in H. hegdei Pal & Mirza; 22–24 FP and 3–6 SBFP in H. hunae; 18–21 FP and four SBFP in H. kangerensis; 21–24 FP and 5–7 SBFP in H. kimbulae; 21–25 FP and two or three SBFP in H. kolliensis Agarwal, Bauer, Giri & Khandekar; 16–19 FP and 5–9 SBFP in H. maculatus; 10–12 FP and 16–18 SBFP in H. paaragowli; 17–20 FP and 1–3 SBFP in H. pieresii Kelaart; 17–20 FP and three SBFP in H. prashadi; 16–18 FP and 13–15 SBFP in H. sirumalaiensis Khandekar, Thackeray, Pawar & Agarwal; 17 or 18 FP and five SBFP in H. siva; 20–23 FP and 3–6 SBFP in H. sushilduttai; 17 or 18 FP and seven SBFP in H. tamhiniensis; 7–9 FP and 1–3 SBFP in H. triedrus; 17–22 FP and ten or 11 SBFP in H. vanam Chaitanya, Lajmi & Giri; seven or eight FP and three SBFP in H. whitakeri; FP absent, only precloacal pores present in H. scabriceps); 29–31 MVSR (versus 41–43 MVSR in H. aaronbaueri; 35–40 MVSR in H. acanthopholis; 28–36 MVSR in H. depressus; 41 or 42 MVSR in H. easai; 40–46 MVSR in H. graniticolus; 32–34 MVSR in H. hegdei and H. kolliensis; 36–39 MVSR in H. kimbulae; 28–34 MVSR in H. maculatus; 33–39 MVSR in H. paaragowli; 32–39 MVSR in H. pieresii; 36–38 MVSR in H. sirumalaiensis; 54–59 MVSR in H. tamhiniensis; and 34–40 MVSR in H. vanam). Additionally, Hemidactylus paucifasciatus sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from all three described members of the H. triedrus clade by its large SVL, up to 118 mm (versus, medium SVL H. sahgali, H. triedrus, and H. whitakeri). Description of holotype. The holotype (ZSI-R-28357) is in good condition except for an 8.7 mm long incision in the sternal region for tissue collection, a minor fold of skin (not the ventrolateral fold) from axilla to groin on left side, and the tail is bent towards the right (Fig. 2). Adult male, SVL 117.7 mm; head short (HL/SVL 0.23), slightly elongate (HW/HL 0.88), not strongly depressed (HD/HL 0.55), distinct from neck. Loreal region slightly inflated, canthus rostralis indistinct (Fig. 2C). Snout short (ES/HL 0.45); much longer than eye diameter (ED/ES 0.52); scales on snout, canthus rostralis, forehead and inter-orbital region heterogenous, mostly granular and conical; scales on the snout and canthus rostralis much larger than those on occiput, forehead and inter-orbital regions, roughly oval (Fig. 2A). Eye small (ED/HL 0.23); pupil vertical with crenulated margins; supraciliaries small, pointed, gradually increasing in size towards front of the orbit (Fig. 2C). Ear opening oval (greatest diameter 2.5 mm); eye to ear distance slightly greater than diameter of eye (EE/ED 0.59). Rostral wider than deep (RW/RL 1.80), partially divided dorsally by a weakly developed rostral groove; single enlarged internasal between two slightly larger supranasals, three postnasals on each side, marginally smaller than supranasal; rostral in contact with nasal, supralabial I, internasal and supranasals on either side; nostrils small (1.1 mm), oval; nasal scale surrounded by rostral, supranasal, three postnasals, and supralabial I on either side; two rows of scales separate orbit from supralabials on each side. Mental subtriangular; two pairs of well-developed postmentals, the inner pair slightly shorter (3.4 mm) than the mental (4.1 mm), and in strong contact with each other (1.2 mm) below mental, outer pair slightly shorter (2.3 mm) than the inner pair and separated from each other by inner pair (Fig. 2B). Inner postmentals bordered by mental, infralabial I, outer postmental and five small gular scales on either side; outer postmentals bordered by infralabial I & II, inner postmental, and six gular scales increasing in size laterally, two outer-most of which are much enlarged and continues as two rows of enlarged scales below the infralabials, decreasing in size posteriorly (Fig. 2B). Labials large, decreasing in size posteriorly; supralabials (on both sides) to mid-orbital position eight, and 11 up to angle of jaw; seven infralabials (on both sides) to mid-orbital position and nine up to angle of jaw; (Fig. 2C). Body relatively stout (BW/SVL 0.23), not elongate (AGL/SVL 0.44), ventrolateral folds indistinct (Fig. 4). Dorsal pholidosis heterogeneous, composed of subcircular granular scales intermixed with enlarged, fairly regularly arranged, strongly keeled, conical tubercles in 16 longitudinal rows, extending from occiput to tail, that are heterogeneous in shape and size; enlarged tubercles on the two most medial parasagittal rows smaller, those on dorsolateral aspect of flank largest, gradually decreasing in size downwards, last two rows on flank marginally larger or equal to medial parasagittal rows, weakly keeled (Fig. 4); each enlarged tubercle surrounded by a rosette of 14–16 small granules with 1–3 granules between two longitudinally adjacent enlarged tubercles (6–8 between parasagittal rows at mid-body); enlarged tubercles on nape and shoulder marginally smaller than parasagittal rows, those on occiput still smaller, weakly keeled, conical; tubercles on temporal region slightly pronounced than those on occiput, strongly conical (Figs. 2A & 4A). Ventral scales much larger than dorsal granular scales, smooth, imbricate, subequal, slightly larger on precloacal and femoral region than on chest and abdominal region (Fig. 2B); 30 mid-body scale rows across belly; 88 scales from posterior margin of ear-opening to the lowest enlarged scale row above cloaca; gular region with small, flattened, granular scales, becoming slightly larger and imbricate on lateral aspect (Fig. 2B). Scales on palm and sole smooth, imbricate, subcircular; enlarged tubercles on dorsal aspect of upper arm much smaller than those on mid-body dorsum, weakly keeled, slightly conical, subimbricate; dorsal aspect of forearm with smaller, granular scales, intermixed with a few enlarged, keeled, conical tubercles, those on anterior aspect smooth, flat, imbricate; scales on dorsal part of thigh and shank granular, intermixed with enlarged, keeled, conical tubercles, which are larger on thigh compared to shank; anterior aspect of thigh with flatter scales, posterior aspect with granular scales (Fig. 2). Precloacal-femoral pores in slightly enlarged row of scales, separated medially by a diastema of three poreless scales, 13 (right) and 12 (left) (Fig. 3D). Fore and hind limbs relatively short, stout; forearm short (FL/SVL 0.12); tibia short (CL/SVL 0.14); digits moderately short, strongly clawed; all digits of manus and digits I–IV of pes indistinctly webbed; terminal phalanx of all digits curved, arising angularly from distal portion of expanded lamellar pad, half or more than half the length of the associated toepad; scansors beneath each toe in a straight transverse series, divided except for a single distal and three basal scansors on digit I and one in other digits: 11-12-12-13-12 (left manus), 11-12-12-13-13 (right manus; Fig. 3E), 10-13-14-13-13 (left pes), 10-13-14-13-13 (right pes; Fig. 3F). Relative length of digits (measurements in mm in parentheses): I (5.1) Tail depressed, ~ 2/3 rd of its length regenerated, flat beneath, verticillate, with well-defined median furrow; tail slightly shorter than snout-vent length (TL/SVL ratio 0.80) (Fig. 2). Dorsal scales at tail base granular, similar in size and shape to those on mid-body dorsum, gradually becoming larger, flatter, pointed, weakly keeled, subimbricate posteriorly and smooth laterally, intermixed with series of 6–9 much enlarged, strongly keeled, conical tubercles; nine enlarged tubercles in first segment, eight in second, six in third and fourth segments. Regenerated portion of tail covered above with much larger, flattened, smooth, subimbricate scales, decreasing in size posteriorly (Fig. 2A). Ventral scales at tail base smooth, imbricate, slightly larger than ventrals at mid-body; rest (including regenerated portion) of the tail with large plate like subcaudal scales (median row) covering almost entire portion of the tail, first three subcaudal scales divided, rest entire, roughly rectangular; median row bordered laterally by one or two rows of large, smooth, imbricate scales (Fig. 2B). A single, smooth postcloacal spur on either side, much smaller than dorsal tubercles at mid-body (Fig. 2B). Colouration in life. (Fig. 5A) Dorsum rusty brown, head and limbs lighter than body; a thick, dark-brown postocular stripe speckled with orange behind the eye that extends till the lateral sides of occiput and joins a thinner dark brown collar; postocular streak flanked by narrow white bands and dark brown collar is anteriorly edged with a white band. Iris dark brown with golden mottling towards the upper and posterior sides. Labials cream-white, speckled with dark-brown spots below orbit, loreal and prefrontal region speckled with light orange; rostrum dark brown. Dorsum with a series of broad (covering 3–5 tubercle rows), off-white transverse bands bordered with fine dark-brown edges; one across the shoulder with dark shades at the centre, a thinner wavy band at mid-body, an incomplete band originating from the right flank is directed upwards on the left side approaching the previous band, one over the anterior sacral region, and one on the original portion of the tail. The lateral sides of head, axilla, flanks, groin and base of the tail whitish, which is continuous with the venter. The tubercles of the body are darker at the tip. Limbs and phalanges light gray-brown. The regenerated portion of the tail is the same rusty-brown as the body without any bands. Colour in preservative. (Fig. 2) Overall colour faded in preservative to light beige; orbital and frontal region on head even lighter. The dark-brown margins of the transverse bands have faded to brown and the band on the tail base has only retained the anterior brown margins. The darker markings on the enlarged tubercles on the body are faded and appear indistinct after preservation. Crown of head similar in colour with that of dorsum, except slightly darker pigmentation on snout. Variation and additional information from paratype series. Mensural and meristic data for the type series is given in Table 3. There are three specimens (an adult male, female and a sub-adult female) ranging in SVL from 67.6 mm to 108.3 mm. All paratypes resemble the holotype except as follows: supranasals separated by two much smaller internasals in ZSI-CZRC-7117 and NCBS-BH669, supranasals are in strong contact with each other and a much smaller internasal scale above rostral in NCBS-BH668; six gular scales bordering inner postmental on each side in NCBS-BH668, five gular scales on left and six on right bordering inner postmental in ZSI-CZRC-7117 and NCBS-BH669; inner postmental is in contact with infralabial I & II on left and infralabial I on right side in ZSI-CZRC-7117. Seven gular scales bordering outer postmental on each side in ZSI-CZRC-7117, six gular scales on left and five on right side bordering outer postmental in NCBS-BH669; outer postmental divided on left side and in contact with infralabial II on each side in ZSI-CZRC-7117. Paratype NCBS-BH668 with entire but partly regenerated tail, marginally shorter than body (TL / SVL 0.89); ZSI-CZRC-7117 with incomplete tail and NCBS-BH669 is without tail. All paratypes closely agree with the holotype in colouration except the subadult specimen ZSI-CZRC-7117 which is much darker with prominent bands on body and tail. A faint mid-dorsal line may be visible. Variations are also marked in the mid-body banding in the holotype and paratypes; in contrast to the holotype which has a thinner off-white band followed by an incomplete band at the mid body, in ZSI-CZRC-7117 and NCBS-BH668 the mid body band is single, whereas in NCBS-BH669 the band is laterally dilated forming an incomplete “X” shape; the colouration of the regenerated tail in life is light brown, without any enlarged tubercles (Figs. 5B, C & 6). Distribution. (Fig. 1A) The type locality of Hemidactylus paucifasciatus sp. nov. is adjacent to the Hadagarh Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS), and based on our present understanding, the species occurs in three Protected Areas, namely Hadagarh WLS, Kuldiha WLS and Similipal Tiger Reserve, across the Keonjhar, Balasore and Mayurbhanj districts of Odisha. As per the Wildlife Management Plan of Hadagarh WLS (Anonymous, 2021), the landscape with miscellaneous vegetation falls within the Boula-Nuasahi hilly region in Garhjat Hills. This region exhibits extensive occurrence of quartzite and quartz schists on both sides of the Salandi River. The granite outcrops are commonly seen to the North of Sajanapal in the valleys and low-lying hills, which are the preferred microhabitat of the species. The area is also characterized by chromite deposits in association with ultrabasic rocks (peridolite and serpentinties), which are subjected to rapid habitat destruction due to mining activities. Natural history. (Fig. 7) Hemidactylus paucifasciatus sp. nov. was observed on rocks (rupicolous) and on trees (arboreal) and juveniles were more often found on the ground than adults. This species was observed on Mangifera indica L and Terminalia alata Heyne ex Roth trees in several instances inside Hadagarh Wildlife sanctuary. On 16 April 2020 two juveniles were observed near Pitanau beat house of Hadagarh WLS. A common krait scavenging on a road-killed Hemidactylus sp. reported from Kuldiha WLS (Debata 2017) corresponds to a sub-adult H. paucifasciatus sp. nov. This species also enters human habitation in the forest fringe villages and is seen in forest rest houses that are infrequently used by visitors. They slough loose skin easily when handled, especially on the head, a typical defensive behaviour related to regional integumentary loss observed in numerous geckos that has been reported in two members of the acanthopholis group within the H. prashadi clade (Bauer et al. 1989, 2006; Bauer & Russell 1992; Chaitanya et al. 2018; Khandekar et al. 2020). Prey comprises mostly of insects; individuals were seen feeding on moths, crickets, cockroaches, termites and beetles. The other sympa

Mohapatra, Pratyush P., Agarwal, Ishan, Mohalik, Rakesh Kumar, Dutta, Sushil K., Khandekar, Akshay (2023): Hemidactylus paucifasciatus (Squamata: Gekkonidae), a new species of large-bodied, tuberculate gecko from Northern Odisha, India. Zootaxa 5301 (3): 365-382, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5301.3.3, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5301.3.3

Lepidodactylus laticinctus sp. nov. Figs. 2, 3 Holotype.— UMMZ 249264 (field tag FK 18122), mature female, collected by V. Weijola at Lablab, 5.7207°S, 148.0668°E, sea level, Umboi Island, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea, 2 April 2018. Paratypes.—Same data as holotype (UMMZ 249263), and same data as holotype except collected 19 April 2018 (UMMZ 249265). Diagnosis.—A fairly large (adult female SVL 49–49.5 mm) species of Lepidodactylus having a subcylindrical tail without a lateral fringe of enlarged scales, 38–41 enlarged scales of pore-bearing series extending to distal ends of thighs, 2 divided subterminal lamellae on T4, 9–12 T4 lamellae, 8–9 T1 lamellae, rather short toes (T4 L/ SVL = 0.086 –0.088), lamellae occupying slightly more than half of toes (T4 lamellaeL/ T4 L = 0.53–0.60), fairly wide toes (T4 W/ T4 L = 0.36–0.40) with moderate webbing (T3 T4 webL/ T4 L = 0.16–0.21), dorsum in life pale gray with five wide darker gray-brown bands between axilla and tail base, and tail banded with yellow and brown or pale and darker brown. Comparisons with other species.—The subcylindrical tail without a lateral fringe of enlarged scales and the two divided subterminal scansors under the toes place Lepidodactylus laticinctus sp. nov. in Brown and Parker’s (1977) phenetic Group II. Hence, it is distinguished from Papuan species belonging to Group I (L. aignanus, L. magnus, L. mutahi, L. pumilis, L. sacrolineatus, and L. zweifeli) by having two divided subterminal lamellae (vs. none in members of Group I); and it is distinguished from Papuan species belonging to Group III (L. lugubris, L. pantai, and L. woodfordi) in having a subcylindrical (vs. flattened) tail lacking (vs. having) a lateral fringe of scales and in having the terminal scansors entire on all toes (vs. divided on T2–T5). From other Papuan members of Group II, L. laticinctus sp. nov. differs as follows: from L. dialeukos, L. kwasnickae, L. mitchelli, L. novaeguineae, L. orientalis, and L. pulcher in having 38–41 enlarged scales of the pore-bearing series (vs. 14 in L. dialeukos, 12–15 in L. kwasnickae, 12–14 in L. mitchelli, 12–17 in L. novaeguineae, 19–33 in L. orientalis, and 18–20 in L. pulcher) that extend to the knee (vs. being limited to the precloacal region in the other six species); and from L. pollostos and L. shebae in its larger size (SVL 49–49.5 mm vs. 35.5 mm in the sole specimen [adult male] of L. pollostos and 36 mm in the sole specimen [adult male] of L. shebae) and greater number of enlarged scales of the pore-bearing series (38–41 vs. 17 in L. pollostos and ~ 34 in L. shebae), and dorsal ground color pale gray (vs. reddish brown in L. pollostos and L. shebae). Among Papuan Group II species, L. laticinctus sp. nov. is most similar to L. guppyi, from which it differs in having a lower number of divided T4 lamellae (uniformly 2 vs. 2–4, mean 2.8, mode 3 in L. guppyi), fewer average number of T1 and T4 lamellae, fewer enlarged femoral/precloacal scales, shorter toes, smaller eye, shorter snout, and shorter temporal region (Table 1). Lepidodactylus laticinctus sp. nov. is most distinctive from L. guppyi in its color pattern, differing in its dorsal pattern of five wide gray-brown bands between the axilla and tail base on a palegray ground color (vs. typically with six or more narrow and poorly defined brown bands on a brown ground color, or with no bands at all, in L. guppyi, Fig. 2) and in having a distinct, pale postocular stripe (vs. stripe absent or only vaguely developed in L. guppyi). It is also quite different genetically from L. guppyi (see below). Description of holotype.—A mature female of medium size (SVL = 49.5 mm, TrL = 24.0 mm); cut anterolaterally on right trunk, liver removed. Head relatively long (HL/SVL = 0.21) and wide (HW/HL = 0.81), distinct from neck. Loreal region slightly inflated; no distinct canthus rostralis. Top of snout, area between nares, and area posterior to nares shallowly concave. Snout tapered and rounded at tip, relatively long (SN/HL = 0.43), significantly longer than eye diameter (SN/EY = 1.8). Eye of modest size (EY/HL = 0.24, EY/EN = 0.74); pupil vertical, constricted into series of four lobes; anterior supraciliaries slightly larger than adjacent granules, posterior ones subequal to adjacent granules. Ear opening small (Ear/HL = 0.078), compressed, oriented vertically; distance between ear and eye larger than eye diameter (EE/EY = 1.6). Rostral twice as wide (2.0 mm) as high (1.0 mm), highest just medial to nares, lower between these points; length 0.35 mm. Supranasals separated by three internasals. Rostral in contact with first supralabials, two supranasals, and three internasals. External nares circular; each bordered by rostral, two supranasals, first supralabial, and one (L) or two (R) postnasals. Mental virtually an equilateral triangle, 0.9 mm wide. Mental bordered posteriorly by two enlarged postmentals and in point contact with one genial; enlarged postmentals bordered posteriorly by subequal scales that progressively decrease in size posteriorly to join granular chin scales. First five infralabials bordered below by somewhat enlarged scales, subequal in size to postmentals; remaining scales below infralabials of approximately same size as throat scales, which decrease in size medially. Supralabials to mid-orbital position eight on each side, to angle of jaw 11 (R) and 12 (L). Infralabials 11 on each side. Body of rather narrow habitus (TrL/SVL = 0.48), slightly depressed dorsoventrally. Dorsal scales on head, body, limbs, and throat tiny, juxtaposed granules, larger on sides and snout; tubercles absent. Ventral scales larger, flat and smooth, subimbricate, gradually decreasing in size laterally to become granular. Enlarged precloacal/femoral scales in single series of 41 scales extending almost to knees; thigh scales anterior to this row larger than those posterior. Enlarged scales form a pubic patch between the precloacal series and vent; no tiny scales between the precloacal series and the pubic patch; eight scales in a row between apex of enlarged precloacal series and vent. Scales on palms and soles rounded, flattened, smooth, subimbricate. Fore- and hindlimbs relatively small but well-developed (FA/SVL = 0.09, CS/SVL = 0.11). Digits well-developed (Fig. 3A, B), widely dilated throughout their length (T4W/T4L = 0.42), all but first fingers and toes with recurved claws; clawed phalanges laterally compressed, free above and extending slightly beyond terminal lamellae. Subdigital lamellae narrow and smooth, all undivided except penultimate and antepenultimate lamellae divided on F2–F5 and T2–T5 (Fig. 3A, B), all lamellae undivided on F1 and T1; lamellae extend for only slightly more than half length of each toe (T4 scansor L/T4L = 0.56). Lamellae of manus 7–9–10–10–9 on right, 8–9–10– 9–8 on left; of pes 9–9–9–9–9 on right, 8–9–9–9–8 on left. Relative lengths of digits on manus and pes I Color in preservative: Dorsal ground color brown with five wide, dark-brown bands between axilla and tail base (Fig. 3C), these darker laterally than medially, imparting impression of lateral dark-brown blotches; one more vaguely outlined dark-brown band on neck, and vague dark-brown mottling on nape; tail with pale-brown ground and eight dark-brown bands, the last covering tail tip. Head medium brown, darker on snout; labials stippled with brown on a dirty-white ground. Venter dirty white; chin and throat speckled with brown scales; chest, abdomen, and undersides of limbs with few brown scales joining to form flecks laterally (Fig. 3D). Palmar and plantar surfaces dirty white with few pale-brown scales forming scattered flecks. Iris chocolate brown. Measurements (in mm).—SVL = 49.5, TrL = 24.0, TL = 47.0, TW = 3.9, FA = 4.4, CS = 5.5, HL = 10.3, HW = 8.3, Ear = 0.8, EE = 4.1, EY = 2.5, SN = 4.4, EN = 3.4, IN = 2.1, T4L = 4.3, T4W = 1.8, T4 scansor L = 2.4, T3T4webL = 0.9, T4T5webL = 0.6, mass = 1.85 g. Variation.—The two paratypes are very similar to the holotype in most respects. UMMZ 249263 has two small, calcified endolymphatic sacs, six dark-brown tail bands, and a hint of a pale postocular stripe; UMMZ 249265 has two large, calcified endolymphatic sacs, eight dark-brown tail bands, and a hint of a pale postocular stripe. It further differs in having the central dark-brown band closer to, and not evenly spaced from, its neighboring dark-brown bands; the head and neck are darker than in the holotype; and the chin and throat are only finely and sparsely stippled with brown. Measurements of paratypes (in mm).—(UMMZ 249263): SVL = 49.0, TrL = 24.0, TL = 41.0, TW = 3.7, FA = 5.1, CS = 5.6, HL = 10.8, HW = 8.5, Ear = 0.6, EE = 4.1, EY = 2.5, SN = 4.5, EN = 3.1, IN = 2.0, T4L = 4.3, T4W = 1.7, T4 scansor L = 2.3, T3T4webL = 0.7, T4T5webL = 0.6, mass = 1.80 g. (UMMZ 249265): SVL = 49.0, TrL = 24.5, TL = 39.0, TW = 3.5, FA = 4.7, CS = 5.7, HL = 10.6, HW = 8.3, Ear = 0.6, EE = 4.0, EY = 2.4, SN = 4.5, EN = 3.5, IN = 2.2, T4L = 4.2, T4W = 1.5, T4 scansor L = 2.5, T3T4webL = 0.9, T4T5webL = 0.7, mass = 2.05 g. Color in life.—Field notes for UMMZ 249263 (Fig. 2A) state “Dorsum brown gray with brown bands; venter pale yellow; tail pale yellow with brown bands. Iris coppery brown.” The holotype was very similar (Fig. 2B) except that the venter was pale gray. UMMZ 249265 (Fig. 2C) differed somewhat more: “Pale brown with darker-brown mottling, vaguely arrayed in bands, which are clearer on the tail. Venter very pale yellow, almost white, unflecked. Iris brown.” Photos of all specimens clearly show a pale postocular stripe. Genetics.—Pairwise distances (Table 2) between the samples of Lepidodactylus laticinctus sp. nov. and the Lepidodactylus sp. specimen from New Britain (SAMA R64666) are 16.2–16.4% for ND2 (Table 2) and 1% for PDC (Table 3); differences between the new species and the L. guppyi / L. vanuatuensis samples are 13.9–16.2% for ND2 and 0.8% for PDC. TNT analysis resulted in 573 MP trees of length 2265 steps. In the majority consensus tree (Fig. 4), the sole specimen of Lepidodactylus sp. from New Britain is resolved as sister to L. laticinctus sp. nov. but with no branch support.Together they form the sister clade (JF = 94) to a polytomy including all L. guppyi and L. vanuatuensis specimens (JF = 86). Likelihood analysis (Fig. 5) and Bayesian analysis (not shown) produced a result largely congruent to that of parsimony with the difference that the New Britain specimen was resolved as sister (BS = 51, pp= 1) to all remaining representatives of the L. guppyi clade, being followed first by L. laticinctus sp. nov. (BS= 99, pp= 1) and then by the L. guppyi / L. vanuatuensis clade (BS = 97). Etymology.—The name is a masculine Latin combinatorial adjective from latus, meaning “broad”, and cinctum, meaning “band”, in recognition of the distinctive dorsal pattern of this species. Range.—Known only from the type locality (Fig. 1), but likely to occur across the coastal areas of Umboi Island and possibly more widely throughout the lowlands of that island. We did not find this species on surveys of coastal and lowland forests of nearby Sakar and Tolokiwa islands. Ecology.—All three animals were found active at night ~ 50–200 cm above ground on a single large, isolated Casuarina tree on a sandy beach only a few meters from the ocean in a village area of moderately high human use (walking trails, boat launch, nearby residences). There is considerable coastal and secondary forest all along the eastern shore of Umboi Island. We searched extensively throughout these forests for one week and failed to find additional individuals, so the ecology of this species needs to be better delimited. All specimens have red mites lodged between the digital lamellae, with UMMZ 249265 being especially heavily infested in these regions. Diagnosis.—A fairly large (adult female SVL 49–49.5 mm) species of Lepidodactylus having a subcylindrical tail without a lateral fringe of enlarged scales, 38–41 enlarged scales of pore-bearing series extending to distal ends of thighs, 2 divided subterminal lamellae on T4, 9–12 T4 lamellae, 8–9 T1 lamellae, rather short toes (T4 L/ SVL = 0.086 –0.088), lamellae occupying slightly more than half of toes (T4 lamellaeL/ T4 L = 0.53–0.60), fairly wide toes (T4 W/ T4 L = 0.36–0.40) with moderate webbing (T3 T4 webL/ T4 L = 0.16–0.21), dorsum in life pale gray with five wide darker gray-brown bands between axilla and tail base, and tail banded with yellow and brown or pale and darker brown. Comparisons with other species.—The subcylindrical tail without a lateral fringe of enlarged scales and the two divided subterminal scansors under the toes place Lepidodactylus laticinctus sp. nov. in Brown and Parker’s (1977) phenetic Group II. Hence, it is distinguished from Papuan species belonging to Group I (L. aignanus, L. magnus, L. mutahi, L. pumilis, L. sacrolineatus, and L. zweifeli) by having two divided subterminal lamellae (vs. none in members of Group I); and it is distinguished from Papuan species belonging to Group III (L. lugubris, L. pantai, and L. woodfordi) in having a subcylindrical (vs. flattened) tail lacking (vs. having) a lateral fringe of scales and in having the terminal scansors entire on all toes (vs. divided on T2–T5). From other Papuan members of Group II, L. laticinctus sp. nov. differs as follows: from L. dialeukos, L. kwasnickae, L. mitchelli, L. novaeguineae, L. orientalis, and L. pulcher in having 38–41 enlarged scales of the pore-bearing series (vs. 14 in L. dialeukos, 12–15 in L. kwasnickae, 12–14 in L. mitchelli, 12–17 in L. novaeguineae, 19–33 in L. orientalis, and 18–20 in L. pulcher) that extend to the knee (vs. being limited to the precloacal region in the other six species); and from L. pollostos and L. shebae in its larger size (SVL 49–49.5 mm vs. 35.5 mm in the sole specimen [adult male] of L. pollostos and 36 mm in the sole specimen [adult male] of L. shebae) and greater number of enlarged scales of the pore-bearing series (38–41 vs. 17 in L. pollostos and ~ 34 in L. shebae), and dorsal ground color pale gray (vs. reddish brown in L. pollostos and L. shebae). Among Papuan Group II species, L. laticinctus sp. nov. is most similar to L. guppyi, from which it differs in having a lower number of divided T4 lamellae (uniformly 2 vs. 2–4, mean 2.8, mode 3 in L. guppyi), fewer average number of T1 and T4 lamellae, fewer enlarged femoral/precloacal scales, shorter toes, smaller eye, shorter snout, and shorter temporal region (Table 1). Lepidodactylus laticinctus sp. nov. is most distinctive from L. guppyi in its color pattern, differing in its dorsal pattern of five wide gray-brown bands between the axilla and tail base on a palegray ground color (vs. typically with six or more narrow and poorly defined brown bands on a brown ground color, or with no bands at all, in L. guppyi, Fig. 2) and in having a distinct, pale postocular stripe (vs. stripe absent or only vaguely developed in L. guppyi). It is also quite different genetically from L. guppyi (see below). Description of holotype.—A mature female of medium size (SVL = 49.5 mm, TrL = 24.0 mm); cut anterolaterally on right trunk, liver removed. Head relatively long (HL/SVL = 0.21) and wide (HW/HL = 0.81), distinct from neck. Loreal region slightly inflated; no distinct canthus rostralis. Top of snout, area between nares, and area posterior to nares shallowly concave. Snout tapered and rounded at tip, relatively long (SN/HL = 0.43), significantly longer than eye diameter (SN/EY = 1.8). Eye of modest size (EY/HL = 0.24, EY/EN = 0.74); pupil vertical, constricted into series of four lobes; anterior supraciliaries slightly larger than adjacent granules, posterior ones subequal to adjacent granules. Ear opening small (Ear/HL = 0.078), compressed, oriented vertically; distance between ear and eye larger than eye diameter (EE/EY = 1.6). Rostral twice as wide (2.0 mm) as high (1.0 mm), highest just medial to nares, lower between these points; length 0.35 mm. Supranasals separated by three internasals. Rostral in contact with first supralabials, two supranasals, and three internasals. External nares circular; each bordered by rostral, two supranasals, first supralabial, and one (L) or two (R) postnasals. Mental virtually an equilateral triangle, 0.9 mm wide. Mental bordered posteriorly by two enlarged postmentals and in point contact with one genial; enlarged postmentals bordered posteriorly by subequal scales that progressively decrease in size posteriorly to join granular chin scales. First five infralabials bordered below by somewhat enlarged scales, subequal in size to postmentals; remaining scales below infralabials of approximately same size as throat scales, which decrease in size medially. Supralabials to mid-orbital position eight on each side, to angle of jaw 11 (R) and 12 (L). Infralabials 11 on each side. Body of rather narrow habitus (TrL/SVL = 0.48), slightly depressed dorsoventrally. Dorsal scales on head, body, limbs, and throat tiny, juxtaposed granules, larger on sides and snout; tubercles absent. Ventral scales larger, flat and smooth, subimbricate, gradually decreasing in size laterally to become granular. Enlarged precloacal/femoral scales in single series of 41 scales extending almost to knees; thigh scales anterior to this row larger than those posterior. Enlarged scales form a pubic patch between the precloacal series and vent; no tiny scales between the precloacal series and the pubic patch; eight scales in a row between apex of enlarged precloacal series and vent. Scales on palms and soles rounded, flattened, smooth, subimbricate. Fore- and hindlimbs relatively small but, Published as part of Kraus, Fred, Vahtera, Varpu & Weijola, Valter, 2023, A new species of Lepidodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Umboi Island, Papua New Guinea, pp. 525-539 in Zootaxa 5296 (4) on pages 530-533, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5296.4.2, http://zenodo.org/record/7984351, {"references":["Brown, W. C. & Parker, F. (1977) Lizards of the genus Lepidodactylus (Gekkonidae) from the Indo-Australian Archipelago and the islands of the Pacific, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 41, 253 - 265."]}

Adhikari, Omkar Dilip, Srikanthan, Achyuthan N., Ganesh, S.R. (2023): A new species of Dravidogecko (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from the under-surveyed Periyar Plateau of the Southern Western Ghats in Peninsular India. European Journal of Taxonomy 870 (1): 146-166, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2023.870.2125, URL: http://zoobank.org/d559e15c-48f9-4cfa-b896-1df48964b5f2

Dravidogecko beddomei sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 25C54DA6-4089-4FBA-9EF9-D7266E0A2B5A Figs 1, 3–6 Summarized description and diagnosis A species of Dravidogecko endemic to the Periyar Plateau, characterized by the following combination of characters: snout-vent length up to 50.8 mm; two pairs of well-developed postmentals, inner pair longer than mental and outer postmentals, anteriorly in strong contact with mental; bordered by 1 st infralabial scale, mental, outer postmentals and two or three gular scales; ventral scale rows, 31‒33; precloacal-femoral pores 46‒52 (n = 3); subdigital lamellae beneath of digit I: six, and digit IV: eight or nine (manus); subdigital lamellae beneath of digit I: five or six and digit IV: 10 or 11 (pes); supralabials 9–11 and infralabials eight or nine on each side. Differential diagnosis Dravidogecko beddomei sp. nov. can be distinguished from all other (allopatric) congeners based on the following characters: number of precloacal-femoral pores 46‒52 (vs 52‒56 in D. septentrionalis, 40‒43 in D. douglasadamsi, 38‒40 in D. tholpalli, 35‒36 in D. janakiae, 36‒38 in D. meghamalaiensis); ventral scales rows across belly 31‒33 (vs 29‒31 in D. smithi, 25‒31 in D. tholpalli, 24‒30 in D. janakiae, 25‒28 in D. anamallensis); lamellae on digit IV of pes 10–11 (vs 12 in D. anamallensis); mental scale is shorter in length than postmental shield, mental scale length / primary postmental shield length 0.8–0.9 (vs 1.0– 1.3 in D. meghamalaiensis; 1.0– 1.1 in D. douglasadamsi; 1.1–1.2 in D. smithi; and 1.0– 1.6 in D. janakiae). Genetic divergence (p-distance) Dravidogecko beddomei sp. nov. is 13.0–22.5% divergent from all other (allopatric) congeners, and 16.2–16.4% divergent from its closest congeners D. meghamalaiensis, 15.2–15.3% divergent from D. smithi and 19.5% divergent from D. douglasadamsi (Table 2). Etymology The specific epithet is a patronym coined in genitive singular case, honouring Col. Richard Henry Beddome (1830–1911), the pioneering herpetologist who first surveyed this part of the Western Ghats, the Devar Malai Hills (see Ganesh 2010). Material examined Holotype INDIA • adult ♂; “ Suttivezhi Vayal or Vairavankulam hills in the northern edge of Devar Malai, Tenkasi district, Tamil Nadu, India ”; 9°10′32.88″ N, 77°16′17.4″ E; alt. 970 m a.s.l.; Dec. 2011; S. Pal and M. Prabhu leg.; BNHS 2648 (Fig. 3A–I). Paratypes (n = 3) INDIA • 1 adult ♂; “ Kakki Dam, Periyar Forest, Pathanamthitta district, Kerala, India ”; 9°19′31.08″ N, 77°8′40.56″ E; alt. 1030 m a.s.l.; Dec. 2011; S. Pal and M. Prabhu leg.; BNHS 2645 (Fig. 4A–B) • 1 adult ♂; same collection data as for preceding; BNHS 2646 (Fig. 4C–D) • 1 adult ♀; same collection data as for preceding; BNHS 2647 (Fig. 4E–F). Other referred specimens (n = 2) India, 2 adults ♀, sighted in Sivagiri hills (9° 20´59.27˝ N, 77° 19´55.89˝ E; 1100 m a.s.l.), north of Suttivezhi Vayal (type locality) and east of Kakki Dam (paratype locality); April 2008, uncollected (Figs 5–6). Description of holotype Holotype is in generally good condition (Fig. 3), well fixed, moderately flat beneath, without ventrolateral folds on both sides of trunk. An adult male; snout-vent length 45.7 mm. HEAD. Head short in length (28.0% of snout-vent length); relatively broad in width (77.3% of maximum head length); slightly depressed (44.5% of maximum head length), distinct from neck. Loreal region inflated, interorbital region concave, forehead not concave, canthus rostralis indistinct; snout relatively long (55.6% of maximum head width), slightly longer than horizontal diameter of the eye orbit (54.6% of eye orbit to snout tip distance). Scales on snout, forehead, and canthus rostralis rounded and granular; scales on snout larger than those on occipital region and interorbital region; scales on occipital region and interorbital small, rounded, mostly granular. Eyes rounded, small (23.4% of maximum head length); pupil vertically elliptical with crenulated margins; supraciliaries small, gradually decreasing in size posteriorly. Ear opening deep, roughly oval (16.7% of eye orbit to nostril distance); lacking enlarged lobules. Supralabial scale count, 11/10 (left/right), 9 th supralabial on left side and 8 th supralabial on right side are in mid-orbital position, 10 th and 11 th supralabial on left side and 10 th supralabial on right side to the angle of jaw, supralabials are roughly rectangular in shape with slightly convex above. Rostral rectangular with wide convex, fairly visible when viewed dorsally, without a distinct rostral groove. Nostril oval shaped, oriented laterally, touches 1 st supralabial on either sides, single supranasal; two large internasals, separated by single small scale, all in broad contact with rostral; two postnasals on either side, smaller than the internasals, the lower in contact with 1 st supralabial; anteriorly rostral contacting with nasal; nostrils about the size of the lower postnasal, roughly circular; nasal surrounded by internasal, rostral, 1 st supralabial and two postnasals on either side; 1 or 2 rows of scales separate orbit from supralabials at mid-orbital position. Infralabial scale count, 9/9 (left/right); 1 st ‒4 th infralabials slightly larger in size, rectangular in shape; 5 th –9 th infralabials decreases in size posteriorly; the lower edges of 3 rd ‒9 th infralabials are bordered with two rows of enlarged elongated scales. Mental scale triangular; two pairs of well-developed postmentals; primary postmental pair comparatively larger in size to secondary postmental pair, contacting each other, and 1 st infralabial on both sides; secondary pair, not contacting each other, touches 1 st and 2 nd infralabials; both primary and secondary pair bordered by smooth, granular, rounded scales. BODY. Moderately elongated, axilla to groin distance (43.3% of snout-vent length), dorsally compressed, without ventrolateral folds. Dorsal pholidosis composed of small, flat, granular and rounded scales that are juxtaposed in arrangement, homogeneous in shape. Ventral scales sub-imbricate, smooth, granular, homogeneous in shape and size, larger than dorsal granular scales, ventral scales across belly 32; gular region covered in small granular scales about equal in size to dorsal granules, gradually increasing in size posteriorly, anterior gular scales visibly larger and flatter; scales on femoral region larger than those on sacrum and chest with some precloacal scales being largest; scales on dorsal aspect of upper arm larger than granules on dorsum, flat, smooth, and sub-imbricate; dorsal aspect of forearm with smaller, sub-imbricate scales intermixed with a few rounded granules around the elbow; scales on dorsal aspect of hand and digits larger than those on forearm, flat, imbricate; scales on dorsal part of thigh and shank heterogeneous in size, flat, weakly pointed and sub-imbricate; largest on anterior aspect of thigh. Scales on dorsal aspect of foot larger than those on shank, flat, rounded and imbricate; non-lamellar scales in the palmar and plantar regions flat and smooth; ones on palm juxtaposed while those on sole sub-imbricate and weakly pointed. Pre-anal groove absent; pre-anal depression absents; an incessant series of 49 precloacal-femoral pores that are indistinct towards the knee. LIMBS. Fore and hind limbs relatively short, slender, ventral surfaces of limbs covered with uniform, flattened, sub-imbricate scales; forearm short (humoral length is 13.8% of snout-vent length; radius ulnar length is 13.4% of snout-vent length); tibia short (thigh length 16.8% of snout-vent length; crus length is 16.6 snout-vent length); digits moderately short, flattened, with relatively long terminal phalanges, strongly clawed; all digits of manus and digits II–V of pes indistinctly webbed; terminal phalanx of all digits curved, angular from distal portion of expanded lamellar pad, more than half as long as associated toepad; scansors beneath each digit are undivided, in a straight transverse series; lamellae count of left manus – digit I (6), digit II (7), digit III (8), digit IV (9), and digit V (7); lamellae count of left pes – digit I (6), digit II (7), digit III (8), digit IV (10), and digit V (7); toe lengths of left manus – digit IV (2.8)> digit III (2.5)> digit V (2.2)> digit II (2.1)> digit I (1.6); toe lengths of left pes – digit IV (3.4)> digit III (3.2)> digit II (2.7)> digit V (2.3)> digit I (1.6). TAIL. Original, complete; oval in cross section; long (tail length/snout-vent length: 1.1) with fairly pointed tail tip in dorsal aspect, flat beneath, tapering posteriorly, tail dorsum covered with smooth, flat, somewhat rounded, sub-imbricate scales, larger than those on dorsum, becoming slightly enlarged laterally; subcaudal scales larger, with an undivided median series of enlarged scales. Variation Type series of Dravidogecko beddomei sp. nov. is comprised of three adult males (BNHS 2648: holotype; BNHS 2645, BNHS 2646: paratypes), and one adult female (BNHS 2647). In general, agreeing well with the holotype, the intraspecific meristic, morphometric and basic pholidosis variations in paratypes (Fig. 4), are summarized in Table 3. Coloration in preservation After preservation in alcohol for 11 years, overall dorsum uniformly brown, mottled with dark chocolate brown discontinuous longitudinal streaks from the snout to the base of tail. Similar mottling faintly visible on dorsal aspect of limbs. Neck pale brown, with discontinuous longitudinal streaks same as dorsum; single continuous, roughly rectangular, pale brown streak bordered with the dark chocolate brown streaks originates from the narial region, following the contour of the cranium posteriorly and prolonging almost the neck region. Frontal and interorbital region with scattering of smaller dark blotches which are faintly visible. A distinct dark blotch bordering the supraciliary region on either side. Labials slightly paler than the head dorsum with scattering of dark brown splotches. Tail same as like dorsum with brown colour with alternating pale-dark brown longitudinal bands, the first of which is roughly saddle-shaped. Ventral surface of tail is cream colored, with scattered faintly visible mid-brown blotches in the hemipenal region followed by alternating pale-dark bands. Coloration in life (based on live uncollected specimens) Dorsum creamy brown with dark brown mottling and longitudinal streaks throughout; dorsal markings distinct in life. Head dorsum brown or ground colour, with three distinctly paler patches bordered with chocolate brown streaks, anterior and posterior to the eye and just above the ear opening, extending till neck. Labials with the dark brown blotches with alternating off-white blotches. Snout mottled with brown spots. A brown discontinuous streak originating at ear opening, delimited with two dark streaks that continue beyond forelimb insertion. Limbs creamy brown, irregularly scattered with dark blotches. Tail original, with distinctly banded pale and dark portions. Iris marbled, golden, suffused with darkbrown venation; pupil vertical, black with crenulated margins. Suggested common name Beddome’s Dravidogecko. Ecology and distribution Dravidogecko beddomei sp. nov. is a poorly known species that is currently known only from in and around the type localities – Devar Malai, Kakki Dam and Sivagiri Hills. The first two sites are situated ca 20 airline km apart across the Ranni Rivulets of Periyar river, Suttivezhi Vayal (holotype locality) being to the east and Kakki Dam (paratype locality) being to the west of it. The live sightings of the referred material originate from Sivagiri Hills, situated in Tenkasi district, Tamil Nadu, just 20 airline km north of the holotype locality. It is to be noted that all these localities are well within a geographically proximate and ecologically homogenous area and are also comparable in their elevations: 970 m, 1030 m and 1100 m a.s.l. It is likely that D. beddomei also occurs in other nearby areas of Periyar Plateau (in Kerala and Tamil Nadu States). Like other congeners, D. beddomei is nocturnal and rupicolous. The geographically closest species to D. beddomei is D. meghamalaiensis that is distributed ca 50 airline km northeast off this range in the geographically disparate and detached Meghamalai Mountains (Chaitanya et al. 2019). The new species D. beddomei occurs within a Protected Area – the Periyar Tiger Reserve. But yet the presence of a seasonal pilgrim spot (Sabarimalai) and a Damming site (Kakki) should be causes for its conservation concern.

Cnemaspis kumpoli Taylor, 1963 — Erroneous. Kumpol’s Rock Gecko Singapore records. Cnemaspis kumpoli —Chan-ard et al., 2015: 62. Remarks. Chan-ard et al. (2015) listed Singapore as part of the distribution for C. kumpoli, likely confusing it with C. peninsularis. Cnemaspis kumpoli is only found in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia (Grismer et al. 2014c). LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. No specimens. Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 283, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Grismer, L. L., Wood Jr., P. L., Shahrul, A., Riyanto, A., Norhayati, A., Muin, M. A., Sumontha, M., Grismer, J. L., Chan, K. O., Quah, E. S. H. & Pauwels, O. S. A. (2014 c) Systematics and natural history of Southeast Asian rock geckos (genus Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887) with descriptions of eight new species from Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Zootaxa, 3880 (1), 1 - 147. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3880.1.1"]}

Cyrtodactylus semenanjungensis (Grismer & Leong, 2005) — Native; Indeterminate. Cyrtodactylus semenanjungensis L.L. Grismer & T.M. Leong, 2005: 585. Holotype: ZRC 2.5627, by original designation; paratypes (3): ZRC. 2.5603, 2.5077–78, by original designation. Type locality: “ Panti Bunker Trail, Kota Tinggi, Johor, West Malaysia ”. Peninsular Bent-toed Gecko (Figure 12D) Singapore records. Cyrtodactylus semenanjungensis —N. Baker, 2014f: 331 (“forest at the end of Rifle Range Road” [RRF]).— I.S. Law, I.T. Law & Serin, 2016: 117.—Figueroa & I.S. Law, 2021: 1, 4.— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 157. Remarks. On 25 October 2007, Baker (2014f) photographed an individual of C. semenanjungensis walking over leaf litter at SRF (Fig. 12D). As presently known, C. semenanjungensis ranges from Jemaluang south to Gunung Panti Forest Reserve in southeastern Peninsular Malaysia (Grismer 2011b). Given its southern distribution in Peninsular Malaysia, it inhabiting lowland forest below 150 m adjacent to freshwater swamp forest (Grismer & Leong 2005; Grismer 2011b), and the recent discoveries of C. pantiensis and C. quadrivirgatus in Singapore (Lim et al. 2016; Figueroa & Law 2021), we believe C. semenanjungensis occurs naturally in Singapore. As expressed in Figueroa & Law (2020), more work is needed to understand the distribution of Cyrtodactylus spp. in Singapore. Occurrence. Only known from one specimen at RRF. Rare. Singapore conservation status. Critically Endangered. Conservation priority. Highest. IUCN conservation status. Near-Threatened [2018]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. No specimens. Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Rifle Range Forest. Genus Gehyra Gray, 1834 (1 species), Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 103, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Grismer, L. L. & Leong, T. M. (2005) New species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from southern Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Herpetology, 39 (4), 584 - 591. https: // doi. org / 10.1670 / 43 - 05 A. 1","Baker, N. (2014 f) New record of peninsular bent-toed gecko in Singapore. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2014, 331 - 332.","Law, I. S., Law, I. T. & Serin, S. (2016) Marbled bent-toed gecko at Upper Seletar. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2016, 117 - 118.","Law, I. S., Tan, R., Sim, R. S. I. & Toh, W. Y. (2021) Biodiversity Record: Jasper cat snake at Upper Seletar. Nature in Singapore, 14 (e 2021066), 1 - 2.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Figueroa, A. & Law, I. S. (2021) Establishing the presence of marbled bent-toed gecko, Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae), in Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 14, e 2021030, 1 - 5."]}

Hemiphyllodactylus typus Bleeker, 1860 — Native. Hemiphyllodactylus typus Bleeker, 1860: 327–328. Holotype: BMNH 1946.8.30.83, by original designation. Type locality: “Agam”, Sumatra, Indonesia. Lowland Dwarf Gecko (Figure 14A; Dairy Farm Nature Park) Singapore records. Lepidodactylus ceylonensis — Flower, 1896: 867 (Headquarter House [= Fort Canning]).— Flower, 1899: 631 (Government House [= Fort Canning]).—Ridley, 1899:206.— Boulenger, 1912:49.—Sworder, 1925a: 64. Hemiphyllodactylus typus — K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 121 (Upper Peirce Forest [UPWF]).— K.K. P. Lim, 1993a: I, 4 (Mandai Mangroves; Sime Road Forest; Upper Peirce Reservoir).—R. Subaraj, 1994: 13 (Sime Road Forest; Upper Peirce East).—R. Subaraj et al., 1995: 4 (Lornie Track; Lower Peirce Reservoir).—K.K.P. Lim, 1996: 51 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 239.—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 25.—P.K.L. Ng & Sivasothi, 1999: 146.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 82, 160 (Western Catchment).—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 265.— Das, 2010: 223.— Zug, 2010: 35, 60.—L.L. Grismer, 2011a: 133.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 507, 510.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 82, 160.—Thomas, 2013: 70 (Bidadari Park).— Tay & Wind, 2013: 101 (Pasir Ris Park Mangroves).—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 71.—R. Subaraj, 2015: 52 (Project Western Boundary [= MBP]).—S. Subaraj, 2015: 4 (Project Western Boundary [= MBP]).—E.K. Chua, 2015: 116.—M.F.C. Ng, 2017a: 135 (Singapore Botanic Gardens).— R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 147, 158, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve; Pulau Ubin; Western Catchment).— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 98, 162. Hemiphyllodactylus typus typus — Smith, 1935: 108.— Biswas & Sanyal, 1977: 111.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 315.—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 391 (MacRitchie North Forest; Nee Soon South [NSSF]; Sime Road Forest). “ Hemiphyllodactylus ” —P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323. Remarks. Flower (1896, 1899b) first recorded H. typus from Singapore from two individuals he collected at Fort Canning. Hemiphyllodactylus typus then went unrecorded in Singapore for 94 years (Table 2) until a photograph of ZRC.2.3282 collected on 24 October 1991 at UPR was illustrated in Lim & Lim (1992). Then, a couple of years later one was found at SRF on 7 May 1993, and two others were found at MM and UPR (Lim 1993a). These records indicated that H. typus was wide-ranging throughout Singapore, but Baker & Lim (2012) classified its distribution as restricted to known localities (CNR, MM, and WC). Subsequently, H. typus was found at Bidadari Park (Thomas 2013), PRPM (Tay & Wind 2013), Mandai (R. Subaraj 2015), SBG (Ng 2017a), PU (Teo & Thomas 2019), and DFNP (Fig. 14A), KM, Tengah Forest, and Woodlands North Coast (A. Figueroa pers. obs.). Occurrence. Wide-ranging. Uncommon. Singapore conservation status. Near-Threatened. Conservation priority. Moderate. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH 1896.6.25.11 (no date); Bukit Timah Nature Reserve: ZRC.2.5622 (31-Dec-2002); Hillview: ZRC.2.6596 (07-Nov-2007); Kent Ridge Campus [NUS]: ZRC.2.3469 (11-Jan-1996); Lower Peirce Forest: ZRC.2.5415 (04-May-2002); Mandai Mangroves: ZRC.2.2291 (15-Apr-1983); Poyan: ZRC.2.6021– ZRC.2.6022 (17-Jan-2004); Sime Road Forest: ZRC.2.3378 (07-May-1993); ZRC.2.5385– ZRC.2.5387 (19-Jan-2002), ZRC.2.5416 (04-May- 2002); Upper Peirce Reservoir: ZRC.2.3282 (24-Oct-1991). Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Bidadari Park—Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Dairy Farm Nature Park—Fort Canning— Hillview—Kranji Marshes—Lower Peirce Reservoir Park—MacRitchie—Mandai Bird Park—Mandai Mangroves—National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus—Nee Soon Swamp Forest—Pasir Ris Park Mangroves—Poyan—Pulau Ubin—Sime Road Forest— Singapore Botanic Gardens—Tengah Forest—Upper Peirce Reservoir—Upper Peirce West Forest—Woodlands North Coast. Genus Lepidodactylus Fitzinger, 1843 (1 species) Lepidodactylus Fitzinger, 1843: 19, 98 (type species: Platydactylus lugubris Duméril & Bibron, 1836, by original designation; gender masculine)., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 115-116, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. (1993 a) Amphibians & Reptiles. The Pangolin, 6 (1 - 2), 2 - 4.","Lim, K. K. P. (1996) Hop, slither and glide. In: Lum, S. & Sharp, I. (Eds.), A View from the Summit: The Story of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Nanyang Technological University, National University of Singapore and National Parks Board, Singapore, pp. 50 - 51.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 a) Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Seribuat Archipelago (Peninsular Malaysia). Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 239 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Biswas, S. & Sanyal, D. P. (1977) Notes on the Reptilia collection from the Great Nicobar Island during the Great Nicobar Expedition in 1966. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, 72 (1 - 4), 107 - 124. https: // doi. org / 10.26515 / rzsi / v 72 / i 1 - 4 / 1977 / 161927","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Baker, N. & Lim, K. P. (2012) Wild Animals of Singapore: A Photographic Guide to Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes. Updated Edition. Draco Publishing and Distribution Pte Ltd and Nature Society, Singapore, 180 pp."]}

Hemidactylus platyurus (Schneider, 1792) — Native. Stellio platyurus Schneider, 1792: 30. Type material: None designated; type material apparently lost, according to Amarasinghe et al. (2009: 92). Type locality: None stated/traced. Flat-tailed Gecko (Figure 13H) Singapore records. Hemidactylus platyurus — Hanitsch, 1898: 19.— Flower, 1899: 629.—Ridley, 1899: 206.—Weitlaner, 1902: 483 (“Hotel de la Paix” [= Peninsula Excelsior Hotel], Coleman Street).— Boulenger, 1912: 45.— Hanitsch, 1912b: 14.—Sworder, 1925a: 64.— Cox et al., 1998: 80.— Das, 2010: 221.— L.L. Grismer, 2011a: 131.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 493, 496.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 79, 159.—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 67.— Kroner & Davis, 2015: 483.—R. Subaraj, 2015: 52 (Night Safari; Singapore Zoo).—S. Subaraj, 2015: 6, 7 (Night Safari; Singapore Zoo).— D’Rozario, 2016: 83 (Kew Drive).—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 177 (Pulau Tekong).—H.C. Ho et al., 2019: 125 (Alexandra Woodlands).—H.T.W. Tan et al., 2019: 133 (Kent Ridge Park; National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus).—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 158, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, after R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997).— Cross, 2020n: 5, 7 (Changi).—K.K.P. Lim, 2020: 6 (Changi).—Siddall et al., 2021: 9.— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 96, 161. Hemidactylus garnoti (non Duméril & Bibron, 1836)— Chuang, 1973: 4. Platyurus platyurus —L.M. Chou, 1975: 136. Cosymbotes [sic] platyurus —K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 314.— K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 119, 150.—R. Subaraj, 1994: 13 (Ulu Sembawang; Upper Peirce Reservoir Park).—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—K. Lim, 1995: 18 (Pulau Ubin; Sentosa; Sungei Buloh Nature Park [= SBWR]; Ulu Sembawang).—R. Subaraj, 1995: 35 (Pulau Ubin).—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 390, 391.— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 217.—P.K.L. Ng & Sivasothi, 1999: 146.— Anonymous, 2003: 92 (Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve). Cosymbotus platyurus —N. Koh, 1986: 1–2.—L.M. et al., Chou 1988: 349.—L.M. Chou, 1995: 146 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 23.—B.P.L. Goh et al., 2002: 60.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 79, 159.— Ang et al., 2012: 51 (Hort Park). Remarks. As mentioned above in the H. frenatus account, H. platyurus is so common in Singapore that Teo & Rajathurai (1997) declared that along with H. frenatus, it is virtually “found in every housing block in Singapore ”. Indeed, Flower (1899b) found H. platyurus extremely common around houses in Singapore and was surprised that it was not reported from Singapore earlier. Yet, Sworder (1925) described H. platyurus as more of a forest species than H. frenatus. Hemidactylus platyurus was first documented in Singapore from specimens at the Raffles Museum (Hanitsch 1898). Unlike H. frenatus, H. platyurus went unreported from Singapore for 48 years (Table 2). Also unlike H. frenatus, H. platyurus was reported in The Pangolin journal (Subaraj 1994, 1995; Lim 1995). Occurrence. Ubiquitous. Common. Singapore conservation status. Least Concern. Conservation priority. Lowest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH 1897.12.28.10–12 (no date), ZRC.2.1247 (Apr-1898), ZRC.2.1243– ZRC.2.1246 (27-Apr-1898); Greenbank Park : ZRC.2.6251 (25- Oct-2003); Jurong Campus [NTU] : ZRC.2.1968– ZRC.2.1974 (16-Apr-1980), ZRC.2.2003– ZRC.2.2013 (Mar-1981); Stamford Road : ZRC.2.1249 (Jun-1898), ZRC.2.1248 (15-Jun-1898), ZRC.2.1250– ZRC.2.1251 (Jul-1898). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): CAS, MCZ, NMW, SAMA, UMZC, ZMUC; Havelock Road: UF; Nanyang University: WAM. Singapore localities. Alexandra Woodlands—Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Changi—Coleman Street— Greenbank Park—Havelock Road—Hort Park—Kent Ridge Park—Kew Drive—Nanyang Technological University Jurong Campus—National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus—Night Safari—Pulau Tekong—Pulau Ubin—Sentosa—Singapore Zoo—Stamford Road—Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve—Ulu Sembawang Forest—Upper Peirce Reservoir Park. Genus Hemiphyllodactylus Bleeker, 1860 (1 species) Hemiphyllodactylus Bleeker, 1860: 327 (type species: Hemiphyllodactylus typus Bleeker, 1860, by monotypy; gender masculine)., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 114-115, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Amarasinghe, A. A. T., Bauer, A. M., Ineich, I., Rudge, J., Bahir, M. M. & Gabadage, D. E. (2009) The original descriptions and figures of Sri Lankan gekkonid lizards (Squamata: Gekkonidae) of the 18 th, 19 th and 20 th centuries. Taprobanica, 1 (2), 83 - 106.","Hanitsch, R. (1898) Annual report of the curator and librarian on the Raffles Library and Museum, for the Year Ending 31 st December, 1897. In: Straits Settlements, Annual Reports for the Year 1898. Published by Authority, Singapore, pp. 11 - 22.","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Hanitsch, R. (1912 b) List of the Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians in the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Raffles Library and Museum, Singapore, 19 pp.","Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J. & Thirakhupt, K. (1998) A Photographic Guide toSnakes and other Reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland Publishers, London, 144 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 a) Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Seribuat Archipelago (Peninsular Malaysia). Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 239 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Kroner, E. & Davis, C. S. (2015) A study of the adhesive foot of the gecko: translation of a publication by Franz Weitlaner. Journal of Adhesion, 91 (6), 481 - 487. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00218464.2014.922418","D'Rozario, V. (2016) House wolf snake preying on flat-tailed gecko. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2016, 83 - 84.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Cross, A. (2020 n) Compilation of Ophidia and Lacertilia recorded in Singapore from 1942 to 1945. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. No. 14), 1 - 8.","Lim K. K. P. (2020) Snakes and lizards recorded by Alexander Cross in Singapore from 1942 to 1945. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. No.), 1 - 6.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Chuang, S. H. (1973) Introduction. In: Chuang, S. H. (Ed.), Animal Life and Nature in Singapore. Singapore University Press, Singapore, pp. 1 - 6.","Chou, L. M. (1975) Systematic account of the Singapore house geckos. Journal of the Singapore National Academy of Science, 4 (3), 130 - 138.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Anonymous (2003) Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve - A Decade of Wetland Conservation. National Parks Board, Singapore, 98 pp.","Koh, N. (1986) Leaping lizards! Know your house guests. The cicak is really ' a nice guy'. From gecko to commodore dragon. The Straits Times, 17 February 1986, Section 2, 1 - 2.","Chou, L. M. (1995) Amphibians and reptiles. In: Chin, S. C., Corlett, R. T., Wee, Y. C. & Geh, S. Y. (Eds.), Rain Forest in the City: Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Singapore. Gardens' Bulletin, Singapore, Supplement 3, pp. 145 - 150.","Goh, B. P. L., Sodhi, N. S., Li, D., Ho, S. H. & Ng, P. K. L. (2002) A Guide to Urban Creatures. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Ang, W. F., Lim, N. T. - L., Lok, A. F. S. L. & Ng, D. J. J. (2012) Herptiles: amphibians and reptiles. In: Lok, A. F. S. L., Ang, W. F., Tan, H. T. W., Corlett, R. T. & Tan, P. Y. (Eds.), The Native Fauna of the Native Garden @ HortPark: Birds, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Butterflies, Moths, Damselflies, and Dragonflies. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore, and Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology, National Parks Board, Singapore, pp. 44 - 63."]}

Cyrtodactylus pantiensis (Grismer, Chan, Grismer, Wood & Belabut, 2008) — Native. Cyrtodactylus pantiensis L.L. Grismer, Chan, J.L. Grismer, Wood & Belabut, 2008: 14. Holotype: ZRC 2.6750, by original designation; paratypes (3): LSUHC 8904 and ZRC 2.6751 – 52, by original designation. Type locality: “Bunker Trail (1°51.759 N, 103°53.186 E; 20 m asl.), Gunung Panti Bird Sanctuary in the Gunung Panti Forest Reserve, Johor, Peninsular Malaysia ”. Panti Mountain Bent-toed Gecko (Figure 12B) Singapore records. Cyrtodactylus pantiensis — Lim et al., 2016: 176 (Pulau Tekong).—Figueroa & I.S. Law, 2021: 1. Remarks. Cyrtodactylus pantiensis was first recorded in Singapore in 2006 as C. quadrivirgatus from a roadkill specimen at PT (Lim et al. 2016). Several years later in 2011 and 2012, at least five more individuals were recorded in the northern and central part of the island (Lim et al. 2016). A photograph of one of these individuals is shown in Figure 12B. After examining photos of these individuals, L.L. Grismer identified them as C. pantiensis constituting a southward range extension (Grismer 2011b) and a new species for Singapore (Lim et al. 2016). Occurrence. Restricted to PT. Rare. Singapore conservation status. Critically Endangered. Conservation priority. Highest. IUCN conservation status. Vulnerable [2019]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Pulau Tekong: ZRC.2.6488 (12-Aug-2006), ZRC.2.6947 (27-Dec-2011). Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Pulau Tekong., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Law, I. S., Tan, R., Sim, R. S. I. & Toh, W. Y. (2021) Biodiversity Record: Jasper cat snake at Upper Seletar. Nature in Singapore, 14 (e 2021066), 1 - 2.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp."]}

Hemidactylus frenatus Duméril & Bibron, 1836 — Native. Hemidactylus frenatus A.M.C. Duméril & Bibron, 1836: 366–368. Syntypes (10): MNHN-RA 0023, 2300, 2312, 2312A–C, 2313, 2313A, 2314, 5135 and 5135A, according to Brygoo (1991: 63). Type locality: “l’Afrique austral … l’archipel des grandes Indes … du Cap … Madagascar … l’île-de-France … de Ceylan … d’Amboine … de Java et de Timor … îles Mariannes … du Bengale” [= Southern Africa... the Greater Indies archipelago... Cape Town, South Africa... Madagascar... the north-central France... Sri Lanka... Kota Ambon, Molucca, Indonesia... Java and Timor, Indonesia... Mariana Islands... Bengladesh]; later restricted to “ Java ”, Indonesia by Loveridge (1947: 127). Spiny-tailed House Gecko (Figure 13G; Sentosa) Singapore records. Hemidactylus frenatus — Cantor, 1847a: 630.— Cantor, 1847c: 1068, 1075.— Ģnther, 1864: 108.— Flower, 1896: 865.— Flower, 1899: 628.—Ridley, 1899: 206.—Hanitsch, 1908: 41.—Sworder, 1924a: 20 (Pulau Ayer Merbau; Pulau Senang).—Sworder, 1925a: 64.—D.S. Johnson, 1964: 25.— Chuang, 1973: 4.—L.M. Chou, 1975: 135.—F.L.K. Lim, 1984: 18.—N. Koh, 1986: 1–2.—L.M. et al., Chou 1988: 349.—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 315.—D.S. Johnson, 1992: 35.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 117, 150.—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—R. Subaraj, 1995: 35 (Pulau Ubin).—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 391.— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 235.—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 25, 127.— Gill et al., 2001: 354.—B.P.L. Goh et al., 2002: 59.— Karns et al., 2002: 488 (Pasir Ris Park Mangroves).—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.— Anonymous, 2003: 92 (Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve).—K.K.P. Lim & N.T.-L. Lim, 2006: 107 (Batu Koyok [Pulau Tekong]).—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 81, 160.—T.M. Leong & Foo, 2009: 315, 316.— M.F.C. Ng, 2009: 59, 109 (Semakau Landfill [PS]).— Das, 2010: 221.—M.A.H. Chua, 2011: 281 (Semakau Landfill [PS]).—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 485, 488.—P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 81, 160.— Ang et al., 2012: 54 (Hort Park).—M.F.C. Ng, 2012: 146 (Semakau Landfill [PS]).—H.H. Tan & K.K.P. Lim, 2012: 360 (Gardens by the Bay).—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 66.—R. Subaraj, 2015: 25, 32, 38, 52, 54, 56 (Mandai Range Forest; Night Safari; Singapore Zoo; Stephen Lee Woods [= RPN]; Ulu Sembawang Forest; Upper Seletar Peninsula [= USNF]).—S. Subaraj, 2015: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (Mandai Range Forest; Night Safari; Project Western Boundary [= MBP]; Singapore Zoo; Stephen Lee Woods [= RPN]; Upper Seletar Peninsula [= USNF]).—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 177 (Pulau Tekong).— Morgany, 2018b: 136 (Labrador Park).—Will, 2018a: 9 (Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve).—H.C. Ho et al., 2019: 124, 125 (Alexandra Woodlands; Clementi Forest).—H.T.W. Tan et al., 2019: 133 (Kent Ridge Park; National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus).—S.H. Tan & Chapman, 2019: 67 (Margaret Drive).—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 158, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—Allain & Goodman, 2020: 217, 218 (Singapore Botanic Gardens [Rain Forest]).— Cross, 2020a: 2, 4 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Cross, 2020b: 2 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Cross, 2020c: 1 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Cross, 2020d: 2 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Cross, 2020e: 1, 2 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Cross, 2020h: 5.— Cross, 2020n: 5, 7 (Changi; Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).—K.K.P. Lim, 2020: 6 (Changi; Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 95, 160. Remarks. Undoubtedly the most common gecko and lizard in Singapore, H. frenatus was first reported in Singapore by Cantor (1847a). Flower (1899b) wrote of not having seen H. frenatus in Singapore, but observed it as being as plentiful in Singapore as it was in the Malay Peninsula. Contrarily, Hanitsch (1908) and Sworder (1925a) deemed H. frenatus the most common gecko inhabiting homes. Flower (1899b) also told of seeing numerous individuals on a boat in Thailand and on a steamship between Hong Kong, Bangkok, Singapore, and west Australia, going on to say how easily it is introduced to other countries. After Sworder (1925a), H. frenatus was not reported from Singapore for 39 years (Table 2) when Johnson (1964) also described it as the most common gecko in Singapore. Recently published records by Cross (2020n) adds records from Changi and Sime Road Internment Camp dating back to 1944 and 1945 (Lim 2020). Because H. frenatus is so common, it was not reported in The Pangolin journal, except for records from PU (Subaraj 1995). In fact, H. frenatus is so common in Singapore that Teo & Rajathurai (1997) declared that along with H. platyurus, it is “found in every housing block in Singapore ”. Occurrence. Ubiquitous. Common. Singapore conservation status. Least Concern. Conservation priority. Lowest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH1956.1.11.31 (no date), ZRC.2.2262– ZRC.2.2290 (Mar-1979); Fort Canning : ZRC.2.1199 (29-Jun-1904); Jurong : ZRC.2.1946– ZRC.2.1947 (07-Apr-1980), ZRC.2.1975 (16-Apr-1980), ZRC.2.1960– ZRC. 2.1967 (17-Apr-1980), Jurong Campus [NTU] : ZRC.2.1996– ZRC.2.1998 (09-Apr-1980), ZRC.2.1976– ZRC.2.1984 (23-Apr-1980), ZRC.2.2000– ZRC. 2.2002 (Mar-1981); Kent Ridge Campus [NUS] : ZRC. 2.5636 (Feb-2003); Nantah Campus [NTU] : ZRC.2.1948– ZRC.2.1953 (07-Apr-1980), ZRC.2.6262– ZRC.2.6263 (09-Apr-1980); Park Road : BMNH 1962.806 – 807 (no date); Pulau Ubin : ZRC.2.5187 (24-Jul-2001); RAF Tengah [= Tengah Air base] : BMNH 1983.948 – 949 (no date); Stamford Road : ZRC.2.1198 (no date), ZRC.2.1196 (4-Feb-1898), ZRC.2.1197 (10-Jun-1898). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BYU, CAS, FMNH, KU, MCZ, NMW, SAMA, UMZC, ZMB, ZMUC; Botanic Gardens: BPBM; Havelock Road: UF; Nanyang University: WAM. Singapore localities. Alexandra Woodlands—Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Changi—Clementi Forest—Fort Canning—Gardens by the Bay—Havelock Road—Hort Park—Jurong—Kent Ridge Park—Labrador Park— Mandai Range Forest—Margaret Drive—Nanyang Technological University Jurong Campus—National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus—Night Safari—Park Road—Pasir Ris Park Mangroves— Pulau Ayer Merbau—Pulau Semakau—Pulau Senang—Pulau Tekong—Pulau Ubin—Rainforest Park North—Sentosa—Singapore Botanic Gardens—Singapore Island Country Club—Singapore Zoo— Stamford Road—Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve—Tengah Air Base—Ulu Sembawang Forest—Upper Seletar North Forest.

Gekko horsfieldii (Gray, 1827) — Native; Indeterminate. Pteropleura Horsfieldii Gray, 1827: 56. Holotype: BMNH 1946.8.25.86, by original designation. Type locality: “ India … Java ” (= India and Java, Indonesia); later restricted to “ Singapore ” and “ Java ” by Gray (1845: 164); later restricted to “ Singapore ” by Stejneger (1907: 170). Horsefield’s Flying Gecko (Figures 12H & 13A) Singapore records. Pteropleura Horsfieldii — Hardwicke & Gray, 1827: 222. Ptychozoon homalocephala — Gray, 1845: 164. Ptychozoon homalocephalum (part)— Cantor, 1847a: 627.— Cantor, 1847c: 1068, 1074, 1075.— Ģnther, 1864: xiv, 105.— Boulenger, 1885 a: 190. Ptychozoon homalocephalum — Hanitsch, 1898: 8.— Hanitsch, 1912b: 14 (Botanic Gardens). Ptychozoon horsfieldii —F. M̧ller, 1895: 209.— Boulenger, 1912: 53.—Stejneger, 1907: 170.—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 315.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 151.—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 169.— Das, 2010: 224.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 520, 523.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 168.— Kurniawan et al., 2017b: 020002–5. Ptychozoon horsfieldi — Flower, 1896: 868.— Flower, 1899: 635.—Ridley, 1899: 206.— de Rooij, 1915: 61.—Sworder, 1925a: 65. Gekko horsfieldii — Janssen & Sy, 2022: 87, 160. Remarks. Just recently, the genus Ptychozoon was placed into Gekko based on molecular analysis using ultraconserved elements (Wood 2019). Very early on, G. kuhli and G. horsfieldii were confused with one another as Cantor (1847a), Ģnther (1864), and Boulenger (1885 a) mistook them for the same species. Boulenger (1885 a) listed three specimens of G. horsfieldii from Singapore, two collected by Cantor and one by Hardwicke. The Hardwicke specimen is the type-specimen for G. horsfieldii (see Gray 1827) and the Cantor specimens most likely are the two specimens of G. kuhli that he collected in Penang (Flower 1896). Boulenger later rectified the confusion by splitting the two species (Boulenger 1912). The occurrence of G. horsfieldii in Singapore is known from just two specimens, the original description of the type-specimen in Hardwicke’s collection (Gray 1827) and specimen ZRC.2.1464 (Fig. 12H) collected from SBG in 1894 (Hanitsch 1912b). Hence, at least 125 years has transpired since this last specimen was collected. Gekko horsfieldii was described as a new species twice by Gray (Gray 1827; Hardwicke & Gray 1827); however, the former publication was published first and takes priority and lists India instead of Singapore as the locality, which was corrected in the latter publication. Evidently, G. horsfieldii is a relatively rare species, only being known from less than five specimens in Peninsular Malaysia (Grismer 2011b). Occurrence. Only known from two specimens predating 1894. Likely extirpated. Singapore conservation status. Not Evaluated. Conservation priority. Immediate priority, if rediscovered. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2018]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH 1946.8.25.86 (no date) [holotype]; Botanic Gardens : ZRC.2.1464 (1-17-1894). Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Singapore Botanic Gardens*., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 106-107, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Gray, J. E. (1827) A synopsis of the genera of saurian reptiles, in which some new genera are indicated, and the others reviewed by actual examination. Philosophical Magazine, or Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Natural History, and General Science, 2, 54 - 58. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 14786442708675620","Gray, J. E. (1845) Catalogue of the Specimens of Lizards in the Collection of the British Museum. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxviii + 289 pp.","Hardwicke, T. & Gray, J. E. (1827) A synopsis of the species of saurian reptiles, collected in India by Hardwicke. Zoological Journal, 3 (10), 213 - 229.","Cantor, T. E. (1847 a) Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Malayan Peninsula and islands, collected or observed by Theodore Cantor, Esq., M. D. Bengal Medical Service. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 16 (Part 2, No. 180), 607 - 656, pl. 20. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5057","Cantor, T. E. (1847 c) Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Malayan Peninsula and islands, collected or observed by Theodore Cantor, Esq., M. D. Bengal Medical Service. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 16 (Part 2, No. 183), 1026 - 1078. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5057","Gnther, A. C. L. G. (1864) The Reptiles of British India. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxvii + 452 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5012","Boulenger, G. A. (1885) Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum (Natural History). 2 nd Edition. Vol. I. Geckonidae, Eublepharidae, Uroplatidae, Pygopodidae, Agamidae. Taylor and Francis, London, xii + 436 pp., 32 pls.","Hanitsch, R. (1898) Annual report of the curator and librarian on the Raffles Library and Museum, for the Year Ending 31 st December, 1897. In: Straits Settlements, Annual Reports for the Year 1898. Published by Authority, Singapore, pp. 11 - 22.","Hanitsch, R. (1912 b) List of the Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians in the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Raffles Library and Museum, Singapore, 19 pp.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Kurniawan, N., Roziah, N., Fauzi, M. A. & Kurnianto, A. S. (2017 b) From little known area to the extinction race: a survey of herpetofauna in Prevab, Kutai National Park (KNP), Indonesia. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1908, 020002. https: // doi. org / 10.1063 / 1.5012700","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","de Rooij, N. (1915) The Reptiles of the Indo-Australian Archipelago. I. Lacertilia, Chelonia, Emydosaura. E. J. Brill, Leiden, xiv + 384 pp.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp."]}

Gekko cf. kuhli (Stejneger, 1902) — Native. Lacerta homalocephala Creveld, 1809: 267–274, pl. 8; preoccupied by Lacerta homalocephala Suckow, 1798; Ptychozoon kuhli Stejneger, 1902, is a replacement name. Ptychozoon kuhli Stejneger, 1902: 37. Type material: None designated; type material apparently lost, according to de Lisle et al. (2021: 492). Type locality: None stated/traced. Kuhl’s Gliding Gecko (Figure 13B) Singapore records. Ptychozoon homalocephalum (part)— Ģnther, 1864: xiv, 105.— Boulenger, 1885 a: 190. Ptychozoon homalocephalum — Flower, 1899: 615.—Ridley, 1899: 206. Ptychozoon kuhli — Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 246.—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 25.—N. Lim, 2006: 4 (Pulau Tekong).—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 83, 160.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 171, 265.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 524, 530.—P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 83, 160.— L.K. Wang et al., 2012: 186.—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 77.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 177 (Pulau Tekong).—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2019: 288–289. Gekko kuhli —Roomaaker, 2021: 157.— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 88, 160. Remarks. Gekko cf. kuhli was thought to have been first discovered in Singapore on 18 October 2002 when it was found on PT (Lim 2006), but new evidence presented by Lim et al. (2019) pushed the date of discovery back to 1868 when Spooner collected specimen MNHN-RA-0.1692. Presumably, specimen MNHN-RA-1868.246 was also collected by Spooner as it is dated 9 December 1868 (Roomaaker 2021). The specific locality for both specimens are unknown; thus, it remains uncertain if G. cf. kuhli ever existed on mainland Singapore. Flower (1899b) alluded to G. cf. kuhli on mainland Singapore, possibly BTNR, when he compared the presence of several higher elevation species from Peninsular Malaysia also occurring in Singapore, but it is unknown whether he was referring to his own observations, Spooner’s specimen, or some other source. Lim et al. (2016) stated that the encounter rate for G. cf. kuhli on Pulau Tekong is 2.71 individuals per km-1. Molecular analyses revealed high genetic structuring suggesting G. cf. kuhli is a species complex comprising five to nine species with populations from Peninsular Malaysia split into three divergent clades (Brown et al. 2012). It is likely that Singapore’s population on PT will be associated with the southeastern Peninsular Malaysia and Seribuat Archipelago clade. Occurrence. Restricted to PT, also known from one specimen from Singapore Island predating 1868. Uncommon. Singapore conservation status. Critically Endangered. Conservation priority. Highest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH 1860.3.19.1005 (no date); Pulau Tekong : ZRC.2.5529 (18-Oct-2002), ZRC.2.6992 (17-Nov-2012). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): MNHN. Singapore localities. Pulau Tekong., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 108-109, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["de Lisle, H. F. Nazarov, R. A. & Raw, L. R. G. (2021) Gekkota: A catalog of recent species. 699 pp. Available from: https: // www. researchgate. net / profile / Harold-Delisle / publication / 267327500 _ Gekkota _ Catalog _ of _ recent _ species _ De _ Lisle _ Nazarow _ Raw _ Grathwohl / links / 634189689 cb 4 fe 44 f 311 a 54 d / Gekkota-Catalog-of-recent-species-De-Lisle-Nazarow- Raw-Grathwohl. pdf (accessed 30 November 2022)","Gnther, A. C. L. G. (1864) The Reptiles of British India. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxvii + 452 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5012","Boulenger, G. A. (1885) Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum (Natural History). 2 nd Edition. Vol. I. Geckonidae, Eublepharidae, Uroplatidae, Pygopodidae, Agamidae. Taylor and Francis, London, xii + 436 pp., 32 pls.","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2006) Geographic distribution: Luperosaurus browni. Herpetological Review, 37 (1), 107.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Lim, K. K. P., Pierre-Huyet, L. & Low, M. E. Y. (2019) Amphibia and Reptilia: snakes, two toads and a very lost lizard. In: Low, M. E. Y., Pocklington, K. & Jusoh, W. F. A. (Eds.), Voyageurs, Explorateurs et Scientifiques: The French and Natural History in Singapore. Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Singapore, pp. 278 - 295.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Brown, R. M., Siler, C. D., Grismer, L. L., Das, I. & McGuire, J. A. (2012) Phylogeny and cryptic diversification in Southeast Asian flying geckos. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 65 (2), 351 - 361. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2012.06.009"]}

Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril & Bibron, 1836 — Erroneous. Garnot’s House Gecko Singapore records. Hemidactylus garnoti — Chuang, 1973: 4. Hemidactylus garnotii —K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 150.— L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 169.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 168.—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 66. Remarks. Chuang (1973) wrote that “[o]f the house geckos previously recorded by Cantor from Singapore, Hemidactylus frenatus and H. garnoti are still the commonest”. However, we find no mention of H. garnotii from Singapore in any of Cantor’s publications. Furthermore, there are no subsequent records of H. garnotii from Singapore. Lim & Chou (1990) listed H. garnotii in their Singapore herpetofauna checklist based on Chuang (1973), and Baker & Lim (2008) included it as indeterminate in their checklist in regards to Lim & Chou’s (1990) record. Photographs of the specimen UF-48956 that was collected at Havelock Road by Telford on 14 June 1976 was examined by one of us and is H. frenatus (A. Figueroa pers. obs.). LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. No specimens. Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 284, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Chuang, S. H. (1973) Introduction. In: Chuang, S. H. (Ed.), Animal Life and Nature in Singapore. Singapore University Press, Singapore, pp. 1 - 6.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Lim, K. K. P. & Chou, L. M. (1990) The herpetofauna of Singapore. In: Chou, L. M. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), Essays in Zoology: Papers commemorating the 40 th Anniversary of the Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore. National University of Singapore, Singapore, pp. 49 - 59.","Baker, N. & Lim, K. P. (2008) Wild Animals of Singapore: A Photographic Guide to Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes. Draco Publishing and Distribution, Singapore, 180 pp."]}

Hemidactylus craspedotus Mocquard, 1890 — Native. Hemidactylus craspedotus Mocquard, 1890: 144. Holotype:MNHN-RA 1889.0297, by original designation. Type locality: “nord de Bornéo” Sabah, East Malaysia. Frilly Gecko (Figure 13F) Singapore records. Cosymbotes craspedotus —K.K.P. Lim, 1991c: 307–308 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 314.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 118.—P.K.L. Ng & K.K.P. Lim, 1992: 260.—K.K.P. Lim, 1994b: 222, 331.—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 389, 390 (Nee Soon Range [NSSF]; Tiup Tiup [BTNR]).— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 216.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 172, 265 (Pulau Tekong). Cosymbotes [sic] craspedotes [sic]—P.K.L. Ng et al., 1995: 120. Cosymbotus craspedotes —Chan-ard et al., 1999: 23.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 78, 159 (Pulau Tekong). Hemidactylus craspedotus — Das, 2010: 221.— Davison, 2011: 109.—L.L. Grismer, 2011a: 127.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 480, 481.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 78, 159.—M.A.H. Chua, 2014b: 58 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 68.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 177.— M.A.H. Chua, 2017: 69 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 157, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 95, 160. Remarks. First discovered in Singapore on 1 January 1991 at NSSF (Lim 1991c), H. craspedotus was not recorded again until one was found at NSSF (sometime prior to 1997), and when another was sighted at BTNR in 1998 (Teo & Rajathurai 1997). Afterwards, H. craspedotus has only been reported four additional times, all from BTNR. The first time was on 30 June 2012 (Chua 2014b), followed by the second observation five years later on 27 April 2017 (Chua 2017). The last two records were made during the BTNR comprehensive surveys (Teo & Thomas 2019). Three additional records (bringing the total to 10) comes from two specimens at LKCNHM that were collected in 2003 and 2004, and from the individual shown in Figure 13F which was photographed at BTNR on 6 November 2015 (H. Siow pers. comm.). Although reported from Pulau Tekong (Baker & Lim 2012; Lim 2008), Lim et al. (2016) treated these records as erroneous stating that they were not substantiated by any sightings or photographs. Hemidactylus craspedotus is an extremely cryptic and arboreal species, and thus, continues to be infrequently observed. Occurrence. Restricted to BTNR and NSSF. Rare. Singapore conservation status. Critically Endangered. Conservation priority. Highest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve: ZRC.2.5890 (02-Oct-2003); Nee Soon Swamp Forest: ZRC.2.3260 (01-Jan-1991), ZRC.2.6110 (09-Sep-2004). Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Nee Soon Swamp Forest., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 111-112, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Lim, K. K. P. (1991 c) First record of Cosymbotes craspedotus (Mocquard) (Reptilia: Sauria: Gekkonidae) from Singapore Island. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 307 - 308.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. (1994 b) Reptiles. In: Ng, P. K. L. & Wee, Y. C. (Eds.), The Singapore Red Data Book: Threatened Plants and Animals of Singapore. Nature Society, Singapore, pp. 213 - 227.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Davison, G. (2011) Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity. In: Ng, P. K. L., Corlett, R. T. & Tan, H. T. W. (Eds.), Singapore Biodiversity: An Encyclopedia of the Natural Environment and Sustainable Development. Editions Didier Millet and Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, Singapore, pp. 106 - 113.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 a) Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Seribuat Archipelago (Peninsular Malaysia). Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 239 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Chua, M. A. H. (2014 b) Frilly gecko at Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2014, 58.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Baker, N. & Lim, K. P. (2012) Wild Animals of Singapore: A Photographic Guide to Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes. Updated Edition. Draco Publishing and Distribution Pte Ltd and Nature Society, Singapore, 180 pp."]}

Cyrtodactylus cf. consobrinus (Peters, 1871) — Native. Gymnodactylus consubrinus W.C.H. Peters, 1871: 569. Holotype: MSNG 9377, by original designation. Type locality: “Sarawak”, East Malaysia. Peter’s Bent-toed Gecko (Figure 11H) Singapore records. Gonydactylus (formerly Cyrtodactylus) aff. consobrinus —K.K.P. Lim, 1993a: 4 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve). Cyrtodactylus cf. consobrinus —K.K.P. Lim, 1993b: 3 (Cave Path [BTNR]).—R. Subaraj, 1994: 11 (Cave Path [BTNR]).—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 390 (Taban & Lasia Valleys [BTNR]). Gonydactylus (formerly Cyrtodactylus) consobrinus —R. Subaraj et al., 1995: 5 (“cave at BTNR”). Gonydactylus consobrinus —K.K.P. Lim, 1996: 51. Cyrtodactylus pulchellus —R. Subaraj, 1996: 101. Cyrtodactylus consobrinus —K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 79, 159.— K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 170, 265.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 386, 390.—T.M. Leong & J.W.M. Gan, 2011: 29.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 79, 160.—L.K. Wang et al., 2012: 246 (picture shows Cyrtodactylus majulah).—N. Baker, 2014f: 332.—E.K. Chua, 2015: 69.—I.S. Law, I.T. Law & Serin, 2016: 117.—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 156, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve; Dairy Farm Nature Park).—Figueroa & I.S. Law, 2021: 1.—L.L. Grismer et al., 2021: 129.— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 66, 154. “ Cyrtodactylus ” —P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323. Remarks. Despite being somewhat easily detectable in BTNR (Teo & Rajathurai 1997; A. Figueroa pers. obs.), C. consobrinus was only first discovered in Singapore on 14 May 1993 (Lim 1993a) when the WWII Japanesemade tunnels were opened to the public (Teo & Rajathurai 1997). Teo & Rajathurai (1997) mentioned that C. consobrinus was seen at BTNR prior to this record, but that it could not be identified to species level. The latency in discovery is surprising given C. consobrinus large size and that it overlaps in habitat use with Cnemaspis peninsularis, which was known in Singapore since Flower (1896). After Teo & Rajathurai (1997), only one additional record of C. consobrinus was published (Teo & Thomas 2019). These authors found C. consobrinus less common than Teo & Rajathurai (1997) did and they also found four individuals at a new locality, at DFNP. Grismer (2021) indicated that C. consobrinus is a species complex that is split between a Malayan clade and a Philippine clade. Thus, it is likely the species designation of C. consobrinus in Singapore is likely to change. Occurrence. Restricted to BTNR and DFNP. Uncommon. Singapore conservation status. Critically Endangered. Conservation priority. Highest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve: ZRC.2.5380 (20-Jan-2002). Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve; Dairy Farm Nature Park., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 100, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Lim, K. K. P. (1993 a) Amphibians & Reptiles. The Pangolin, 6 (1 - 2), 2 - 4.","Lim, K. K. P. (1993 b) Reptiles & Amphibians. The Pangolin, 6 (3 - 4), 1 - 4.","Lim, K. K. P. (1996) Hop, slither and glide. In: Lum, S. & Sharp, I. (Eds.), A View from the Summit: The Story of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Nanyang Technological University, National University of Singapore and National Parks Board, Singapore, pp. 50 - 51.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Baker, N. (2014 f) New record of peninsular bent-toed gecko in Singapore. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2014, 331 - 332.","Law, I. S., Law, I. T. & Serin, S. (2016) Marbled bent-toed gecko at Upper Seletar. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2016, 117 - 118.","Law, I. S., Tan, R., Sim, R. S. I. & Toh, W. Y. (2021) Biodiversity Record: Jasper cat snake at Upper Seletar. Nature in Singapore, 14 (e 2021066), 1 - 2.","Grismer, L. L., Wood, P. L., Poyarkov, N. A., Le, M. D., Kraus, F., Agarwal, I., Oliver, P. M., Nguyen, S. N., Nguyen, T. Q., Karunarathna, S., Welton, L. J., Stuart, B. L., Luu, V. Q., Bauer, A. M., O'Connell, K. A., Quah, E. S. H., Chan, K. O., Ziegler, T., Ngo, H., Nazarov, R. A., Aowphol, A., Chomdej, S., Suwannapoom, C., Siler, C. D., Anuar, S., Tri, N. V. & Grismer, J. L. (2021) Phylogenetic partitioning of the third-largest vertebrate genus in the world, Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827 (Reptilia; Squamata; Gekkonidae) and its relevance to taxonomy and conservation. Vertebrate Zoology, 71, 101 - 154. https: // doi. org / 10.3897 / vertebrate-zoology. 71. e 59307","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46."]}

Family Gekkonidae (19 species) Geckotidae Gray, 1825: 198 (type genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768)., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319

Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E.Y., Lim, Kelvin K.P. (2023): Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution. Zootaxa 5287 (1): 1-378, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1

Hemidactylus brookii Gray, 1845 — Non-native; Established. Hemidactylus Brookii Gray, 1845: 153. Lectotype: BMNH 1947.3.6.47 (formerly BM RR1934.9.1.49[.21. a]), designated by Mahony (2011: 46); paralectotype: BMNH 1947.3.6.49 (formerly BM RR1934.9.1.51[.21.b]), designated by Mahony (2011: 46). Type locality:“Borneo” and “ Australia ”; later restricted to “ Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo”, East Malaysia via lectotype designation. Brooke’s House Gecko (Figure 13E; Neo Tiew Road) Singapore records. Hemidactylus maculatus — Ģnther, 1864: 108. Hemidactylus gleadovii — Flower, 1896: 865.—Ridley, 1899: 206. Hemidactylus brookii — Boulenger, 1912: 42.—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 56.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 150.—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 168.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 476, 478.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 168.— Groenewoud, D. & I.S. Law, 2016b: 60 (Admiralty Park). Hemidactylus brooki — de Rooij, 1917: 32.—Sworder, 1925a: 64.— Smith, 1935: 91. Hemidactylus brookii brookii — Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 315. Remarks. Considered a species complex with a global distribution, H. brookii sensu stricto has been delineated to only occur in Asia (Carranza & Arnold 2006), specifically in countries east of the Indus River Valley where it is regarded as uncommon (Zug et al. 2007). For a review of H. brookii’s complicated taxonomic history, consult Bauer et al. (2010), Mahony (2011), and Lajmi et al. (2016). Ģnther (1864) first documented the presence of H. brookii in Singapore from specimens at NHMUK, but curiously, Boulenger (1885) seemed not to have examined the specimens. Later, where he defined the range of H. brookii, Boulenger (1912) stated that it was “recorded from Singapore ”, perhaps acknowledging Ģnther’s (1864) record. Sworder (1925a) doubted the occurrence of H. brookii based on the absence of voucher specimens and no records aside from Ģnther (1864). In fact, H. brookii was not documented again in Singapore until 152 years later on 4 February 2016 (Table 2), when four individuals were observed at Admiralty Park (Groenewoud & Law 2016b). Groenewoud & Law (2016b) presumed the individuals were introduced given the absence in records and the presence of erosion-control coconut mats in the park. However, BMNH 1956.1.11.21 was collected in 1956 by Romer, and UF 91874 was collected by Cathcart prior to 1968. Considered indeterminate in Singapore (Baker & Lim 2012), we believe this is not the case based on the aforementioned records, and personal observations at East Coast Park, Katong, Keppel Club, Kranji Dam, Lavender, Neo Tiew Road (Fig. 13E), Pang Sua Park Connector in Choa Chu Kang, Sungei Kadut Drive, and Tengah Forest (A. Figueroa pers. obs.). We believe H. brookii may have gone unnoticed as observers may have confused it with other gecko species, specifically H. frenatus, since the two species superficially resemble one another. Occurrence. Ubiquitous outside of forested areas. Uncommon. Singapore conservation status. Not Applicable. Conservation priority. None, non-native species. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2019]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH 1956.1.11.21 (no date). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): UF. Singapore localities. Admiralty Park—East Coast Park—Katong—Keppel Club—Kranji Dam—Lavender—Neo Tiew Road—Pang Sua—Sungei Kadut Drive—Tengah Forest., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 110-111, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Gray, J. E. (1845) Catalogue of the Specimens of Lizards in the Collection of the British Museum. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxviii + 289 pp.","Mahony, S. (2011) Taxonomic revision of Hemidactylus brookii Gray: a re-examination of the type series and some Asian synonyms, and a discussion of the obscure species Hemidactylus subtriedrus Jerdon (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa, 3042 (1), 37 - 67. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3042.1.4","Gnther, A. C. L. G. (1864) The Reptiles of British India. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxvii + 452 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5012","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","de Rooij, N. (1917) The Reptiles of the Indo-Australian Archipelago. II. Ophidia. E. J. Brill, Leiden, xiv + 334 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10610","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Carranza, S. & Arnold, E. N. (2006) Systematics, biogeography, and evolution of Hemidactylus geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) elucidated using mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 38 (2), 531 - 545. https: // doi. org / 10.1016 / j. ympev. 2005.07.012","Bauer, A. M., Jackman, T. R., Greenbaum, E., de Silva, A., Giri, V. B. & Das, I. (2010) Molecular evidence for the taxonomic status of Hemidactylus brookii group taxa (Squamata: Gekkonidae). The Herpetological Journal, 20 (3), 129 - 138.","Lajmi, A., Giri, V. B. & Karanth, K. P. (2016) Molecular data in conjunction with morphology help resolve the Hemidactylus brookii complex (Squamata: Gekkonidae). Organisms Diversity and Evolution, 16 (3), 659 - 677. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / s 13127 - 016 - 0271 - 9","Boulenger, G. A. (1885) Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum (Natural History). 2 nd Edition. Vol. I. Geckonidae, Eublepharidae, Uroplatidae, Pygopodidae, Agamidae. Taylor and Francis, London, xii + 436 pp., 32 pls.","Groenewoud, D. & Law, I. S. (2016 b) Brook's house geckos at Admiralty Park. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2016, 60.","Baker, N. & Lim, K. P. (2012) Wild Animals of Singapore: A Photographic Guide to Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes. Updated Edition. Draco Publishing and Distribution Pte Ltd and Nature Society, Singapore, 180 pp."]}

Lepidodactylus lugubris (Duméril & Bibron, 1836) — Non-native; Established. Platydactylus Lugubris A.M.C. Duméril & Bibron, 1836: 304–305. Lectotype:MNHN-RA 5323, designated by Wells & Wellington (1985: 13). Type locality: “l’île d’Otaïti” (= Tahiti), Polynesia. Mourning Gecko (Figure 14B; Sime Road Forest) Singapore records. Lepidodactylus lugubris —Sworder, 1924a: 16, 20 (Pulau Hantu).—L.M. Chou et al., 1980: 71.—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 315.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 150.—K.K.P. Lim, 1993a: 4 (Newton [“boot of car”).—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—J.K.Y. Low et al., 1994: 158.—R. Subaraj, 1995: 33, 36 (Pulau Ubin).— Karns et al., 2002: 488 (Pasir Ris Park Mangroves).—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 82, 160.— P.K.L. Ng et al., 2008: 82.— Das, 2010: 223.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 512, 513.—P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 82, 160.— Ang et al., 2012: 56 (Hort Park). K.W. Chan, 2013c: 108, 109 (Clementi Central [Clementi Avenue 3]).—L.L. Grismer et al., 2013b: 852.—L.L. Grismer et al., 2014c: 9.—S. Subaraj, 2015: 7 (Night Safari).— Lapwong & Juthong, 2018, 144, 150.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 177 (Pulau Tekong).—H.T.W. Tan et al., 2019: 130, 133 (Kent Ridge Park; National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus).—Allain & Goodman, 2020: 217, 218 (Singapore Botanic Gardens [Rain Forest]).— Mohamad Azlin, 2020: 7 (Hort Park).— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 99, 162. Remarks. Lepidodactylus lugubris is a parthenogenetic species comprising several genetically distinct diploid and triploid clonal lineages that originated through hybridisation between two species likely at Arno Atoll in the Marshall Islands (Radtkey et al. 1995). Native to several of the Pacific Islands, L. lugubris now boasts a global distribution as it has been transported all over the world via human means, where it can easily establish itself by way of parthenogenesis (Lapwong & Juthong 2018). The first record of L. lugubris from Singapore was a specimen Sworder (1924a) found under loose bark on a tree at Pulau Hantu. The next record of L. lugubris from Singapore, and the first record for the mainland, came 56 years later (Table 2) when Chou et al. (1980) mentioned it was found in mangroves. Lepidodactylus lugubris again went unreported for another 13 years until one was found in the boot of a car in Newton of May 1993 (Lim 1993a). Museum records all post-date this specimen. This lead Lapwong & Juthong (2018) to believe that L. lugubris was introduced into Singapore around the early 1990s. Using photographs from iNaturalist, Lapwong & Juthong (2018) identified the variant occurring in Singapore as “clone A” from Ineich (1988). They also mentioned that clone C also occurs in Singapore referencing Fig. 4.11 in Ang et al. (2012), but suggested that it is not as common as “clone A” since it appears less tolerant of rural areas. A preliminary inspection of assorted photographs shows that both clones occur in Singapore, and that there appears to be no partitioning between the clones in habitat use. Clearly, a detailed studied is required to identify all the clones occurring in Singapore and to assess their relative population sizes. Lepidodactylus lugubris has only been reported eight more times in the literature, leading Baker & Lim (2012) to classify it as rare. As L. lugubris occupies the same niches as Singapore’s other “house” geckos, its perceived uncommonness may be due to it being outcompeted given its smaller size. Nonetheless, we do not find L. lugubris to be rare in Singapore. Occurrence. Ubiquitous. Common. Singapore conservation status. Least Concern. Conservation priority. Lowest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Changi: ZRC.2.5072 (Mar-2001); Greenbank Park: ZRC.2.3470 (Oct-1995), ZRC.2.4621 (1997), ZRC.2.4645– ZRC.2.4646 (Dec-1999), ZRC.2.5259 (29-Sep-2001), ZRC.2.5634 (10-Feb-2003); Kent Ridge [NUS]: ZRC.2.4772 (16-Dec-1997), ZRC.2.4771 (Apr-2000), ZRC.2.5635 (Feb-2003); Kranji Marshes: ZRC.2.5724 (15-Jul-2003); Newton: ZRC.2.3379 (May-1993); Pasir Ris Park Mangroves: ZRC.2.4846– ZRC.2.4847 (27-Dec-2000); Pulau Tekong: ZRC.2.6141 (05- Aug-2005); St. John’s Island: ZRC.2.6489 (15-Nov-2006). Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Changi—Clementi Avenue 3—Greenbank Park—Hort Park—Kent Ridge Park—Kranji Marshes—Lower Peirce Forest—National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus—Newton—Night Safari—Pasir Ris Park Mangroves—Pulau Hantu—Pulau Tekong—Pulau Ubin—Saint John’s Island— Sime Road Forest—Singapore Botanic Gardens. Family Iguanidae Bell, 1826 (1 species) Iguanidae Bell, 1826: 204–206 (type genus Iguana Laurenti, 1768). Genus Iguana Laurenti, 1768 (1 species) Iguana Laurenti, 1768: 47 (type species: Iguana tuberculata Laurenti, 1768, by subsequent designation by Burt & Burt, 1933: 26; gender feminine)., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 116-117, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Chou L. M., Ho, S. H., Khoo, H. W., Lam, T. J., Murphy, D. H. & Tan, W. H. (1980) The Present State of Mangrove Ecosystems in Southeast Asia and the Impact of Pollution - Singapore. South China Sea Fisheries Development and Coordinating Programme, Manila. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and United Nations Environment Programme, SCS / 80 / WP / 94 d (Rev.), pp. i - vi + 1 - 76.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. (1993 a) Amphibians & Reptiles. The Pangolin, 6 (1 - 2), 2 - 4.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Low, J. K. Y., Arshad, A. & Lim, K. H. (1994) Mangroves as a habitat for endangered species and biodiversity conservation. In: Wilkinson, C., Sudara, S. & Ming, C. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third ASEAN-Australia Symposium on Living Coastal Resources: Status Reviews. Vol. 1. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand, 16 - 20 May 1994. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, pp. 157 - 169.","Karns, D. R., Voris, H. K. & Goodwin, T. G. (2002) Ecology of Oriental-Australian rear-fanged water snakes (Colubridae: Homalopsinae) in the Pasir Ris Park mangrove forest, Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 50 (2), 487 - 498.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Ang, W. F., Lim, N. T. - L., Lok, A. F. S. L. & Ng, D. J. J. (2012) Herptiles: amphibians and reptiles. In: Lok, A. F. S. L., Ang, W. F., Tan, H. T. W., Corlett, R. T. & Tan, P. Y. (Eds.), The Native Fauna of the Native Garden @ HortPark: Birds, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Butterflies, Moths, Damselflies, and Dragonflies. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore, and Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology, National Parks Board, Singapore, pp. 44 - 63.","Chan, K. W. (2013 c) Cave fruit bat and mourning gecko on golden penda tree. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2013, 108 - 109.","Grismer, L. L., Wood Jr., P. L., Anuar, S. Muin, M. A., Quah, E. S. H., McGuire, J. A., Brown, R. M., Tri, N. V. & Thai, P. H. (2013 b) Integrative taxonomy uncovers high levels of cryptic species diversity in Hemiphyllodactylus Bleeker, 1860 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) and the description of a new species from Peninsular Malaysia. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 169 (4), 849 - 880. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / zoj. 12064","Grismer, L. L., Wood Jr., P. L., Shahrul, A., Riyanto, A., Norhayati, A., Muin, M. A., Sumontha, M., Grismer, J. L., Chan, K. O., Quah, E. S. H. & Pauwels, O. S. A. (2014 c) Systematics and natural history of Southeast Asian rock geckos (genus Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887) with descriptions of eight new species from Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Zootaxa, 3880 (1), 1 - 147. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3880.1.1","Lapwong, Y. & Juthong, W. (2018) New records of Lepidodactylus lugubris (Dumeril and Bibron, 1836) (Squamata, Gekkonidae) from Thailand and a brief revision of its clonal composition in southeast Asia. Current Herpetology, 37 (2), 143 - 150. https: // doi. org / 10.5358 / hsj. 37.143","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Mohamad Azlin, S. (2020) Mourning gecko licking flower buds of Leea indica. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020, 7.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Ineich, I. (1988) Mise en evidence d'un complexe unisexue-bisexue chez le gecko Lepidodactylus lugubris (Sauria, Lacertilia) en Polynesie francaise. Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences, Paris, Serie 3, 307, 271 - 277.","Baker, N. & Lim, K. P. (2012) Wild Animals of Singapore: A Photographic Guide to Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes. Updated Edition. Draco Publishing and Distribution Pte Ltd and Nature Society, Singapore, 180 pp."]}

Gehyra mutilata Wiegmann, 1834 — Native. Hemidactylus (Peropus) mutilatus Wiegmann, 1834: 236, 238–239. Lectotype: ZMB 370 A, designated by Bauer & Ģnther (1991: 289); paralectotype: ZMB 370 B, designated by Bauer & Ģnther (1991: 289). Type locality: “ Manila ”, Philippines. Four-clawed Gecko (Figure 12E) Singapore records. Peripia mutilata —Strauch, 1887: 28. Gehyra mutilata — Flower, 1896: 866.— Hanitsch, 1898: 19.— Flower, 1899: 630.—Ridley, 1899: 206.— Hanitsch,1908: 41.— Boulenger, 1912:47.— Hanitsch,1912b:14.—Sworder, 1925a:64.— Chuang, 1973: 4.—L.M. Chou, 1975: 133.—N. Koh, 1986: 1–2.—K. Lim, 1990a: 10 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Anonymous, 1991b: 12.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 314.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 120, 150.—R. Subaraj, 1994: 13 (MacRitchie North Forest; Mandai Track 15).—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—L.M. Chou, 1995: 146.—K. Lim, 1995: 18 (Mount Serapong [Sentosa]; Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 390, 391 (Nee Soon [NSSF]).—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 24.— Gill et al., 2001: 354.—E.K. Chua, 2002: 107 (Pulau Ubin).—B.P.L. Goh et al., 2002: 61.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 80, 160.— Das, 2010: 218.—L.L. Grismer, 2011a: 123.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 452, 455.—P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 80, 160.— Ang et al., 2012: 54 (Hort Park).—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 70.—R. Subaraj, 2015: 32, 52 (Night Safari; Singapore Zoo).—S. Subaraj, 2015: 6, 7 (Night Safari; Singapore Zoo).—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 177 (Pulau Tekong).—H.C. Ho et al., 2019: 125 (Alexandra Woodlands).—H.T.W. Tan et al., 2019: 133 (Kent Ridge Park; National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus).—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 157, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).— Cross, 2020f: 3 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Cross, 2020g: 1 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Cross, 2020k: 2 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Cross, 2020n: 6, 7 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).—K.K.P. Lim, 2020: 5 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 159.— Kurniawan et al., 2022: 109. Gehira [sic] mutilata —D.H. Murphy, 1973: 58, 65 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve). Remarks. Gehyra mutilata was first reported from Singapore by Strauch (1887) who examined a specimen stored at ZIN acquired by Deyrolle in 1879. Flower (1896) found G. mutilata very common in homes and buildings and described it as the most common gecko in Singapore (Flower 1899). However, Sworder (1925a) declared that G. mutilata was not as common as Hemidactylus frenatus, and Chuang (1973) attested that G. mutilata only occasionally enters homes as it prefers residing on trees and hunting on tree trunks (Murphy 1973). If what all these authors say is true, then it would appear there was a shift in habitat use, with H. frenatus displacing G. mutilata from homes and buildings. Nowadays, G. mutilata does frequent artificial landscapes, but seems more relegated to forested areas than H. frenatus or H. platyurus (see Teo & Rajathurai 1997). Yet, Teo & Rajathurai (1997) only recorded one during their CCNR surveys and Teo & Thomas (2019) only recorded two during their BTNR surveys. Occurrence. Ubiquitous. Common. Singapore conservation status. Least Concern. Conservation priority. Lowest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Bukit Timah: ZRC.2.1450 (Feb-1898), ZRC.2.1108 (4-Sep-1898), ZRC.2.1107 (May-1894); Depot Road : ZRC.2.2507 (30-Apr-1989); Headquarter House [= Fort Canning] : BMNH 1896.6.25.12 (no date); Kent Ridge Campus [NUS] : ZRC.2.3265 (Mar-1991); Jurong Campus [NTU] : ZRC.2.1999 (Mar-1981); Napier Road : ZRC.2.2534– ZRC.2.2535 (13-Feb-1990); Nee Soon Swamp Forest : ZRC.2.3189 (14-Nov-1990); Pulau Bukom : ZRC.2.5945 (27-May-1931). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): CAS, MCZ, NMW, UMZC; Bukit Timah: USNM; Havelock Road: UF. Singapore localities. Alexandra Woodlands—Bukit Timah (not specified)—Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Depot Road—Fort Canning—Havelock Road—Hort Park—Kent Ridge Park—MacRitchie North Forest—Mandai Track 15—Napier Road—Nanyang Technological University Jurong Campus—National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus—Nee Soon Swamp Forest—Night Safari—Pulau Bukom—Pulau Tekong— Pulau Ubin—Sentosa—Singapore Island Country Club—Singapore Zoo. Genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 (6 species) Gekko Laurenti, 1768: “34”, 44 (type species: Gekko verticillatus Laurenti, 1768 [= Lacerta gecko Linnaeus, 1758 (see Stejneger, 1936: 135; Taylor, 1963: 790)], by subsequent designation by Stejneger, 1936: 135; gender masculine)., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 103-104, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Bauer, A. M. & Gnther, R. (1991) An annotated type catalogue of the geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) in the Zoological Museum, Berlin. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum f ¸ r Naturkunde in Berlin. Zoologisches Museum und Institut fur Spezielle Zoologie Berlin, 67 (2), 279 - 310. https: // doi. org / 10.1002 / mmnz. 19910670204","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Hanitsch, R. (1898) Annual report of the curator and librarian on the Raffles Library and Museum, for the Year Ending 31 st December, 1897. In: Straits Settlements, Annual Reports for the Year 1898. Published by Authority, Singapore, pp. 11 - 22.","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Hanitsch, R. (1912 b) List of the Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians in the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Raffles Library and Museum, Singapore, 19 pp.","Chuang, S. H. (1973) Introduction. In: Chuang, S. H. (Ed.), Animal Life and Nature in Singapore. Singapore University Press, Singapore, pp. 1 - 6.","Chou, L. M. (1975) Systematic account of the Singapore house geckos. Journal of the Singapore National Academy of Science, 4 (3), 130 - 138.","Koh, N. (1986) Leaping lizards! Know your house guests. The cicak is really ' a nice guy'. From gecko to commodore dragon. The Straits Times, 17 February 1986, Section 2, 1 - 2.","Lim, K. (1990 a) Reptiles. The Pangolin, 3 (1 - 4), 6 - 12.","Anonymous (1991 b) Nature in Our Reservoir Parks. Public Relations Division, Public Utilities Board, Singapore, 20 pp.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Chou, L. M. (1995) Amphibians and reptiles. In: Chin, S. C., Corlett, R. T., Wee, Y. C. & Geh, S. Y. (Eds.), Rain Forest in the City: Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Singapore. Gardens' Bulletin, Singapore, Supplement 3, pp. 145 - 150.","Gill, B. J., Bejakovtch, D. & Whitaker, A. H. (2001) Records of foreign reptiles and amphibians accidentally imported to New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 28 (3), 351 - 359. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 03014223.2001.9518274","Chua, E. K. (2002) Chek Jawa: Discovering Singapore's Biodiversity. Simply Green, Singapore, 116 pp.","Goh, B. P. L., Sodhi, N. S., Li, D., Ho, S. H. & Ng, P. K. L. (2002) A Guide to Urban Creatures. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 a) Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Seribuat Archipelago (Peninsular Malaysia). Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 239 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Ang, W. F., Lim, N. T. - L., Lok, A. F. S. L. & Ng, D. J. J. (2012) Herptiles: amphibians and reptiles. In: Lok, A. F. S. L., Ang, W. F., Tan, H. T. W., Corlett, R. T. & Tan, P. Y. (Eds.), The Native Fauna of the Native Garden @ HortPark: Birds, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Butterflies, Moths, Damselflies, and Dragonflies. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore, and Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology, National Parks Board, Singapore, pp. 44 - 63.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Cross, A. (2020 f) Notes on the species of Ophidia and Lacertilia obtained at Sime Road Internment Camp, Singapore, during November 1944. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. No. 6), 1 - 4.","Cross, A. (2020 g) Notes on the species of Ophidia and Lacertilia obtained at Sime Road Internment Camp, Singapore, during December 1944. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. No. 7), 1 - 3.","Cross, A. (2020 k) Notes on the species of Ophidia and Lacertilia obtained in Sime Road Internment Camp, Singapore, during April 1945. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. 11), 1 - 2.","Cross, A. (2020 n) Compilation of Ophidia and Lacertilia recorded in Singapore from 1942 to 1945. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. No. 14), 1 - 8.","Lim K. K. P. (2020) Snakes and lizards recorded by Alexander Cross in Singapore from 1942 to 1945. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. No.), 1 - 6.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Kurniawan, N., Septiadi, L., Fathoni, M., Kadafi, A. M. & Marhendra, A. P. W. (2022) A checklist of the herpetofauna of Nusa Kambangan Island, Central Java, Indonesia. Tropical Life Sciences Research, 33 (2), 91 - 131. https: // doi. org / 10.21315 / tlsr 2022.33.2.6"]}

Gekko hulk Grismer, Pinto, Quah, Anuar, Cota, Mcguire, Iskandar, Wood & Grismer, 2022 — Native; Indeterminate. Gekko hulk Grismer, Pinto, Quah, Anuar, Cota, Mcguire, Iskandar, Wood & Grismer, 2022: 68. Holotype: LSUHC 6284, by original designation; paratypes (12): LSUHC 1197, 5062, 5152, 5399, 6283, 7026, 7648–49, 7651, 7694, 9959, and ZRC 2.6014, by original designation. Type locality: “Tekek-Juara trail on Pulau Tioman, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia (2.821021°N 104.179596°E; 462 m)”. Hulk Forest Gecko (Figure 13D) Singapore records. Gekko stentor —K. Lim & F. Lim, 1988a: 27 (Nee Soon [NSSF]).— Lim, 1988c: 51 (Bukit Timah Summit [BTNR]; Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—K. Lim & F. Lim, 1988c: 75 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).— L.M. Chou, 1995: 146. Gekko smithi (non Gray, 1842)—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.— K.K.P. Lim, 1994b: 331.—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 391 (Bukit Timah [BTNR]; Lower Peirce [LPF]; Nee Soon [NSSF]).—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 75.—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 174 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve). Gekko smithii (non Gray, 1842)— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 311.—K.K.P. Lim & Subharaj, 1992: 8 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve; Lower Peirce Forest; Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—R. Subaraj et al., 1995: 4 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—K. Lim, 1995: 18 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve; Catchment Path [BTNR]; Jalan Kutu [BTNR]).— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 234.— Cox et al., 1998: 82.— Chan-ard et al., 1999: 25.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 160.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 171, 265.— Das, 2010: 220.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 469, 473.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 160.—Shahrudin, 2013: 83.— Khew & Yokohari, 2017: 12.—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 157, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—Riyanto & Rahmadi, 2021: 2936.— L.L. Grismer et al., 2022: 48. Gekko hulk L.L. Grismer et al., 2022: 53, 70.— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 93, 160. Remarks. Gekko smithii populations from southeastern Thailand to Singapore, east of the Banjaran Titiwangsa in Peninsular Malaysia have been redescribed as G. hulk based on molecular and morphometric differences (Grismer et al. 2022). The earliest published record of G. hulk in Singapore is of an individual heard at NSSF on 9 April 1988 (Lim & Lim 1988a). Subsequent published records also featured detection via auditory calls (Lim 1988c; Lim & Lim 1988c; Lim & Subharaj 1992; Subaraj et al. 1995; Teo & Rajathurai 1997). The earliest published record of an individual that was seen is a photograph of one taken at Singapore Zoo in the early 1980s (F.L.K. Lim pers. comm.) and displayed in Lim & Lim (1992; reproduced here as Fig. 13D). Two additional confirmed sightings of individuals seen at BTNR on 26 August 1995 were reported in Lim (1995), but it appears no photos were taken. Thus, the photograph in Figure 13D may be the only photograph of a specimen from Singapore. Only two voucher specimens exist, the earliest (CAS 7554) collected by Herre on 14 May 1937 at Mandai Road, and ZRC.2.1487 collected at BTNR in October 1975. As no records of G. hulk exist after 1997, we designate the status of G. hulk in Singapore as indeterminate, and it is highly probable that it has been extirpated from Singapore. Occurrence. Known from two specimens from 1937 and 1975, three visual observations from the early 1980s and from 1995, and acoustic detections between 1988 and 1997. Likely extirpated. Singapore conservation status. Critically Endangered. Conservation priority. Immediate priority, if rediscovered. IUCN conservation status. Not Evaluated. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve: ZRC.2.1487 (Oct-1975). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Mandai Road: CAS. Singapore localities. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Lower Peirce Forest—Mandai Road—Nee Soon Swamp Forest—Singapore Zoo., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 107-108, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Grismer, L. L., del Pinto, L., Quah, E. S., Anuar, S., Cota, M., McGuire, J. A., Iskandar, D. T., Wood Jr., P. L. & Grismer, J. L. (2022) Phylogenetic and multivariate analyses of Gekko smithii Gray, 1842 recover a new species from Peninsular Malaysia and support the resurrection of G. albomaculatus (Giebel, 1861) from Sumatra. Vertebrate Zoology, 72, 47 - 80. https: // doi. org / 10.3897 / vz. 72. e 77702","Lim, K. & Lim, F. (1988 a) Reptiles. The Pangolin, 1 (2), 27 - 28.","Lim, K. & Lim, F. (1988 c) Reptiles. The Pangolin, 1 (4), 74 - 77.","Chou, L. M. (1995) Amphibians and reptiles. In: Chin, S. C., Corlett, R. T., Wee, Y. C. & Geh, S. Y. (Eds.), Rain Forest in the City: Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Singapore. Gardens' Bulletin, Singapore, Supplement 3, pp. 145 - 150.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Lim, K. K. P. (1994 b) Reptiles. In: Ng, P. K. L. & Wee, Y. C. (Eds.), The Singapore Red Data Book: Threatened Plants and Animals of Singapore. Nature Society, Singapore, pp. 213 - 227.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Subharaj, R. (1992) Reptiles & Amphibians. The Pangolin, 5 (1 - 4), 5 - 9.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J. & Thirakhupt, K. (1998) A Photographic Guide toSnakes and other Reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland Publishers, London, 144 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Khew, Y. T. J. & Yokohari, M. (2017) Recommendations for urban biodiversity conservation in the context of landscape preference in Singapore. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 10 (1), 1 - 21.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp."]}

Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus (Taylor, 1962) — Native. Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus Taylor, 1962: 210. Holotype: FMNH 178214, by original designation; paratypes (3): FMNH 177197–98, 178212 by original designation. Type locality: “ Khao Chong Forest Experiment Station, Trang Province, Thailand ”. Marbled Bent-toed Gecko (Figure 12C) Singapore records. Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus —I.S. Law, I.T. Law & Serin, 2016: 117 (Upper Seletar Reservoir Park).— Figueroa & I.S. Law, 2021: 1 (Admiralty Park; CCNR; Mandai Track 15; Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—L.L. Grismer et al., 2021: 133.— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 75, 157. Remarks. As mentioned in the earlier account for C. majulah, before being described as a new species C. majulah was known as C. quadrivirgatus (see Grismer et al. 2012). Then, on 17 July 2016, a live specimen of C. quadrivirgatus was photographed by Law et al. (2016) at a stream in the NSSF section of USRP. Since then, seven additional observations have been recorded with two predating the initial discovery (Figueroa & Law 2021). These additional observations reveal that C. quadrivirgatus may likely share a similar distribution to C. majulah, but more surveys are needed to determine its distribution in Singapore. Thus far, C. quadrivirgatus is identified solely based on colour pattern (Figueroa & Law 2021). Hence, explicit research is required comparing the Singapore populations to populations elsewhere to confirm its specific status. Occurrence. Admiralty Park, Mandai Track 15, NSSF, and UPSR. Rare. Singapore conservation status. Critically Endangered. Conservation priority. Highest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2018]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. No specimens. Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Admiralty Park—Mandai Track 15—Nee Soon Swamp Forest—Upper Seletar Reservoir Park., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 102-103, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Law, I. S., Law, I. T. & Serin, S. (2016) Marbled bent-toed gecko at Upper Seletar. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2016, 117 - 118.","Law, I. S., Tan, R., Sim, R. S. I. & Toh, W. Y. (2021) Biodiversity Record: Jasper cat snake at Upper Seletar. Nature in Singapore, 14 (e 2021066), 1 - 2.","Grismer, L. L., Wood, P. L., Poyarkov, N. A., Le, M. D., Kraus, F., Agarwal, I., Oliver, P. M., Nguyen, S. N., Nguyen, T. Q., Karunarathna, S., Welton, L. J., Stuart, B. L., Luu, V. Q., Bauer, A. M., O'Connell, K. A., Quah, E. S. H., Chan, K. O., Ziegler, T., Ngo, H., Nazarov, R. A., Aowphol, A., Chomdej, S., Suwannapoom, C., Siler, C. D., Anuar, S., Tri, N. V. & Grismer, J. L. (2021) Phylogenetic partitioning of the third-largest vertebrate genus in the world, Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827 (Reptilia; Squamata; Gekkonidae) and its relevance to taxonomy and conservation. Vertebrate Zoology, 71, 101 - 154. https: // doi. org / 10.3897 / vertebrate-zoology. 71. e 59307","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Grismer, L. L., Wood Jr., P. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (2012) Cyrtodactylus majulah, a new species of bent-toed gecko (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Singapore and the Riau Archipelago. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 60 (2), 487 - 499.","Figueroa, A. & Law, I. S. (2021) Establishing the presence of marbled bent-toed gecko, Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae), in Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 14, e 2021030, 1 - 5."]}

Cyrtodactylus majulah Grismer, Wood & Lim, 2012 — Native. Cyrtodactylus majulah L.L. Grismer, Wood & K.K.P. Lim, 2012: 490. Holotype: ZRC 2.6950, by original designation; paratypes (4): ZRC 2.6951 – 53, LSUHC 10458, by original designation. Type locality: “ Singapore: Central Catchment Nature Reserve, Nee Soon Swamp-forest (1°22’48.99”N, 103°49’05.39”E)”. Singapore Bent-toed Gecko (Figure 12A; Dairy Farm Nature Park) Singapore records. Gymnodactylus marmoratus —Sworder, 1925a: 63 (Botanic Gardens).—Smith, 1930: 12. Cyrtodactylus marmoratus —K. Lim, 1989h: 64 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest; Sime Road Forest). Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus (non Taylor, 1962)— Dring, 1979: 228.—K. Lim, 1990a: 10 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 314.—K.K.P. Lim, 1991a: 4 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 121, 150.—P.K.L. Ng & K.K.P. Lim, 1992: 260.—R. Subaraj, 1994: 13 (Mandai Range Forest; Seletar North Forest [USNF]; Sime Road Forest; Upper Peirce West Forest).—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—K.K.P. Lim, 1994b: 331.—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 390 (Bukit Timah [BTNR]; Nee Soon [NSSF]; Upper Seletar).— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 227.— Cox et al., 1998: 89.—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 24.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—L.L. Grismer & T.M. Leong, 2005: 590 (Nee Soon Swamp [NSSF]).—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 80, 159.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 265.— Das, 2010: 214.—L.L. Grismer, 2011a: 118.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 426, 431.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 80, 160.—C.B. Johnson et al., 2012: 39, 40.—L.K. Wang et al., 2012: 246.—I.S. Law, I.T. Law & Serin, 2016: 117–118 (Upper Seletar Reservoir Park).— Fauzi et al., 2022: 2. Gonyodactylus (formerly Cyrtodactylus) quadrivirgatus —R. Subaraj et al., 1995: 4 (Sime Forest [SRF]). Gonyodactylus (formerly Cyrtodactylus) quadrivirgatus —K.P. Lim, 1995c: 18 (Cave Path [BTNR]; Lower Peirce Forest; Mandai Forest Track [NSSF]; Nee Soon Swamp Forest; Upper Peirce Reservoir Service Road [NSSF]; Upper Seletar Reservoir Park). Cyrtodactylus majulah L.L. Grismer, Wood & K.K.P. Lim, 2012: 487–499 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—N. Baker, 2014f: 331–332.—L.L. Grismer et al., 2014a: 437.—L.L. Grismer et al., 2014b: 384.—E.K. Chua, 2015c: 148.—M.A.H. Chua, 2015: 60.— Groenewoud, 2015b: 42 (Upper Seletar Forest [USNF]).—Riyanto et al., 2015: 117.—I.S. Law, I.T. Law & Serin, 2016: 117.—I.S. Law et al., 2017: 77 (Admiralty Park).—L.L. Grismer & Davis, 2018: 367, 372.—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 147, 156, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).— Leo et al., 2020: 257.—Figueroa & I.S. Law, 2021: 1, 2, 4.—E. Goh & I.T. Law, 2021: 1 (Upper Seletar Reservoir Park).— Kaatz et al., 2021: 380.— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 70, 156. “ Cyrtodactylus ” —P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323. Remarks. Prior to being described as a new species, C. majulah was known in Singapore as C. quadrivirgatus (see Grismer et al. 2012). However, more recent findings revealed that C. quadrivirgatus does occur sympatrically with C. majulah in Singapore (Law et al. 2016; Figueroa & Law 2021). Cyrtodactylus majulah was first reported from Singapore by Sworder (1925) who told of a specimen caught by Chasen’s cat at SBG. However, the earliest specimen from Singapore is NMW-16535 which was collected by an unknown collector prior to 1870. Cyrtodactylus majulah was not reported again for 64 years when one was detected at SRF on 12 December 1989 and two were observed at NSSF on 31 December 1989 (Lim 1989h), despite there being one specimen from 1956 at BPBM and two from 1959 at FMNH. Following this rediscovery, C. majulah was frequently reported in the literature, primarily from around CCNR except for one record from BTNR (Teo & Rajathurai 1997). Strangely, the BTNR record was actually a species from southern Johor Bahru, Malaysia (whose identity is unknown) that was declared to have hitch-hiked into Singapore (Teo & Rajathurai 1997). This led Grismer et al. (2012) to believe that C. majulah was restricted to CCNR, and that this unidentified BTNR individual and that ‘ C. quadrivirgatus ’ recorded from Pulau Tekong in 2006 (Lim et al. 2016) were different species. The Pulau Tekong population has since been ascribed to C. pantiensis (Lim et al. 2016), and C. majulah has since been found at BTNR (Lim 1995c; Teo & Thomas 2019) and DFNP (Fig. 12A). Moreover, a disjunct population was discovered at Admiralty Park when three individuals were found on 3 May 2017 (Law 2017). Subsequently, another individual was found there on 13 August 2018 (A. Figueroa pers. obs.), and C. majulah appears to share this area with C. quadrivirgatus which was found at Admiralty Park on 14 August 2020 (Figueroa & Law 2021). Occurrence. Restricted to CNR, surrounding Nature Parks and forests, and Admiralty Park. Uncommon. Singapore conservation status. Vulnerable. Conservation priority. Highest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Botanic Gardens: ZRC.2.1133 (1926); Nee Soon Swamp Forest : BMNH 1974.3802 (no date); ZRC.2.2552 (31-Dec-1989), ZRC.2.3190 (14-Nov-1990), ZRC.2.3205 (23-Nov-1990), ZRC.2.3261 (01-Jan-1991), ZRC.2.4576 (27-Feb-1999), ZRC.2.6796 (02-Jan-2009), ZRC.2.6950– ZRC.2.6953 (22-Jun-2011); Upper Peirce Reservoir: ZRC.2.3283– ZRC.2.3284 (24-Oct-1991); Upper Seletar Reservoir [USRP]: ZRC.2.4862 (05-Jan-2001), ZRC.2.5643 (15-Mar-2003). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): FMNH, NMW; Nee Soon Rifle Range [= NSSF]: BPBM. Singapore localities. Admiralty Park—Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Dairy Farm Nature Park—Lower Peirce Forest—Mandai Range Forest—Nee Soon Swamp Forest—Sime Road Forest—Singapore Botanic Gardens*—Upper Peirce West Forest—Upper Seletar (not specified)—Upper Seletar North Forest—Upper Seletar Reservoir Park., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 100-102, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Grismer, L. L., Wood Jr., P. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (2012) Cyrtodactylus majulah, a new species of bent-toed gecko (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Singapore and the Riau Archipelago. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 60 (2), 487 - 499.","Lim, K. (1989 h) Reptiles, Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes. The Pangolin, 2 (4), 63 - 66.","Dring, J. C. M. (1979) Amphibians and reptiles from northern Trengganu, Malaysia, with descriptions of two new geckos: Cnemaspis and Cyrtodactylus. Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, Zoology, 34 (5), 181 - 241.","Lim, K. (1990 a) Reptiles. The Pangolin, 3 (1 - 4), 6 - 12.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. (1991 a) Reptiles & Amphibians. The Pangolin, 4 (1), 3 - 4.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Lim, K. K. P. (1994 b) Reptiles. In: Ng, P. K. L. & Wee, Y. C. (Eds.), The Singapore Red Data Book: Threatened Plants and Animals of Singapore. Nature Society, Singapore, pp. 213 - 227.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J. & Thirakhupt, K. (1998) A Photographic Guide toSnakes and other Reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland Publishers, London, 144 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 a) Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Seribuat Archipelago (Peninsular Malaysia). Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 239 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Johnson, C. B., Quah, E. S. H., Anuar, S., Muin, M. A., Wood Jr., P. L., Grismer, J. L., Greer, L. F., Chan, K. O., Norhayati, A., Bauer, A. M. & Grismer, L. L. (2012) Phylogeography, geographic variation, and taxonomy of the Bent-toed Gecko Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus Taylor, 1962 from Peninsular Malaysia with the description of a new swamp dwelling species. Zootaxa, 3406 (1), 39 - 58. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3406.1.3","Law, I. S., Law, I. T. & Serin, S. (2016) Marbled bent-toed gecko at Upper Seletar. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2016, 117 - 118.","Fauzi, M. A., Riyanto, A. & Kurniawan, N. (2022) Morphometric analysis of Sumatran, Kalimantan, and Javan Cyrtodactylus, which were labelled as Cyrtodactylus marmoratus, revealed undescribed species. Journal of Tropical Biodiversity and Biotechnology, 7 (3), 1 - 17. https: // doi. org / 10.22146 / jtbb. 66688","Baker, N. (2014 f) New record of peninsular bent-toed gecko in Singapore. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2014, 331 - 332.","Grismer, L. L., Belabut, D. M., Quah, E. S. H., Onn, C. K. & Wood Jr., P. L. (2014 a) A new species of karst forest-adapted Bent-toed Gecko (genus Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827) belonging to the C. sworderi complex from a threatened karst forest in Perak, Peninsular Malaysia. Zootaxa, 3755 (5), 434 - 446. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3755.5.3","Grismer, L. L., Wood Jr., P. L., Onn, C. K., Anuar, S. & Muin, M. A. (2014 b) Cyrts in the city: A new Bent-toed Gecko (Genus Cyrtodactylus) is the only endemic species of vertebrate from Batu Caves, Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia. Zootaxa, 3774 (4), 381 - 394. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3774.4.6","Chua, M. A. H. (2015 c) Temasekia: 50 Plants and Animals Native to Singapore. Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, Singapore, 87 pp.","Groenewoud, D. (2015 b) Singapore bent-toed gecko swimming underwater. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2015, 42.","Law, I. S. (2017) Singapore bent-toed gecko at Admiralty Park. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2017, 77.","Grismer, L. L. & Davis, H. R. (2018) Phylogeny and biogeography of Bent-toed Geckos (Cyrtodactylus Gray) of the Sundaic swamp clade. Zootaxa, 4472 (2), 365 - 374. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4472.2.9","Leo, S., Suherman, M., Permatasari, A., Suganda, D. & Zulamri, W. N. (2020) Herpetofauna diversity in Zamrud National Park, Indonesia: baseline checklist for a Sumatra peat swamp forest ecosystem. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation, 14 (2), 250 - 263.","Law, I. S., Tan, R., Sim, R. S. I. & Toh, W. Y. (2021) Biodiversity Record: Jasper cat snake at Upper Seletar. Nature in Singapore, 14 (e 2021066), 1 - 2.","Kaatz, A., Grismer, J. L. & Grismer, L. L. (2021) Convergent evolution of karst habitat preference and its ecomorphological correlation in three species of Bent-toed Geckos (Cyrtodactylus) from Peninsular Malaysia. Vertebrate Zoology, 71, 367 - 386. https: // doi. org / 10.3897 / vz. 71. e 66871","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Figueroa, A. & Law, I. S. (2021) Establishing the presence of marbled bent-toed gecko, Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae), in Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 14, e 2021030, 1 - 5.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198."]}

Hemidactylus bowringii (Gray, 1845) — Erroneous. Bowring’s Gecko Singapore records. Hemidactylus bowringi —N. Koh, 1986: 1–2. Remarks. Hemidactylus bowringii was erroneously reported from a newspaper article on Singapore’s lizards that stated it is among the most common lizards in Singapore (Koh 1986). Hemidactylus bowringii is a species complex that ranges from Nepal, northern India, and Bangladesh east through northern Myanmar and Vietnam to southern China, Taiwan, and the Ryukyu Islands (McMahan & Zug 2007). No other reports of H. bowringii from Singapore exist. It is possible that there was some confusion of specimens of H. frenatus with regenerated tails that lacked spines. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. No specimens. Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 283, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Gray, J. E. (1845) Catalogue of the Specimens of Lizards in the Collection of the British Museum. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxviii + 289 pp.","Koh, N. (1986) Leaping lizards! Know your house guests. The cicak is really ' a nice guy'. From gecko to commodore dragon. The Straits Times, 17 February 1986, Section 2, 1 - 2.","McMahan, C. D. & Zug, G. R. (2007) Burmese Hemidactylus (Reptilia, Squamata, Gekkonidae): geographic variation in the morphology of Hemidactylus bowringii in Myanmar and Yunnan. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 58 (24), 485 - 509."]}

Hemidactylus depressus Gray, 1842 — Non-native; Introduced. Kandyan Gecko Singapore records. Nubilia Argentii — Gray, 1845: 273.— Hoffmann, 1890a: 1196. Hemidactylus depressus — Boulenger, 1885: 135.— Flower, 1896: 865.—Ridley, 1899: 206.— Boulenger, 1912: 43.—Sworder, 1925a: 64.— Chasen, 1925: 100.—Smedley, 1932: 11. Remarks. Endemic to Sri Lanka (Somaweera & Somaweera 2009a), a specimen of H. depressus was attained by Argent and is preserved at NHMUK with the locality Singapore (Gray 1845; Boulenger 1885). Boulenger (1912) stated that H. depressus inhabits Sri Lanka, but did not mention whether he found the Singapore specimen dubious. Sworder (1925) did doubt the locality of the specimen and stated that the individual likely reached Singapore as a stowaway. Smedley (1932) also agreed that the locality was incorrect and removed it from Peninsular Malaysia’s checklist. Subsequently, Taylor (1953) corrected and restricted the type locality for N. argentii to “ Ceylon ”, and Batuwita & Pethiyagoda (2012) agreed that the type locality is “ Sri Lanka ”. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. No specimens. Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 253, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Gray, J. E. (1845) Catalogue of the Specimens of Lizards in the Collection of the British Museum. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxviii + 289 pp.","Hoffmann, C. K. (1890 a) H. G. Bronn's Klassen und Ordnungen des their- - Reichs, wissenschaftlich dargestellt in Wort und Bild. Sechster Band. III. Abtheilung. Reptilien. II. Eidechsen und Wassrechsen. C. F. Winter, Leipzig, pp. 443 - 1399, pls. 49 - 107.","Boulenger, G. A. (1885) Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum (Natural History). 2 nd Edition. Vol. I. Geckonidae, Eublepharidae, Uroplatidae, Pygopodidae, Agamidae. Taylor and Francis, London, xii + 436 pp., 32 pls.","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Chasen, F. N. (1925) On the introduction of an Australian skink into Singapore Island. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 3 (1), 99 - 101.","Batuwita, S. & Pethiyagoda, R. (2012) Rediscovery of the Sri Lankan ' house gecko' Hemidactylus pieresii Kelaart (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) with a redescription of Hemidactylus depressus Gray. Zootaxa, 3359 (1), 17 - 30. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3359.1.2"]}

Gekko browni (Russell, 1979) — Native; Indeterminate. Luperosaurus browni Russell, 1979: 282–285, fig. 1. Holotype: FMNH 185106, by original designation. Type locality: “ Ulu Gombak forest reserve 35.4 km north of Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, West Malaysia ”. Brown’s Flap-legged Gecko (Figure 12F) Singapore records. Luperosaurus browni —K.K.P. Lim & N.T.-L. Lim, 2006: 107 (Batu Koyok [PT]).—N. Lim, 2006: 5.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 83, 160.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 172, 265.— Das, 2010: 223.—H.T.W. Tan et al., 2010: 67.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 516, 517.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 83, 160.— L.K. Wang et al., 2012: 250.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 177. “ Luperosaurus ” —P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323. Remarks. Gekko browni previously belonged to the genus Luperosaurus until a recent paper transferred the entire genus to Gekko (Wood 2019). Eleven of the 12 species that once made up Luperosaurus are considered extremely rare, each being known from less than four specimens (Grismer 2011b). The occurrence of G. browni in Singapore is known only from one specimen collected on 4 August 2005 at Batu Koyok, Pulau Tekong (Fig. 12F) (Lim & Lim 2006). The individual was an adult male that was found clinging to the stem of a plant ca. 1 m off the ground, and represented the second record for the Malay Peninsula (Lim & Lim 2006). The first specimen was the holotype described by Russell (1979), which was collected by Inger at Ulu Gombak, Selangor on 8 May 1970. Since then, one more record of G. browni was made for the Malay Peninsula at Tapah, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia (Grismer 2011b). Gekko browni possesses interdigital webbing that may serve as an adaptation for a highly arboreal lifestyle (Russell 1979). Occurrence. Only known from one specimen from PT. rare. Singapore conservation status. Critically Endangered. Conservation priority. Highest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2019]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Pulau Tekong: ZRC.2.6140 (04-Aug-2005). Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens. Singapore localities. Pulau Tekong., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 104-105, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2006) Geographic distribution: Luperosaurus browni. Herpetological Review, 37 (1), 107.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198."]}

Gekko gecko (Linnaeus, 1758) — Non-native; Established. Lacerta Gecko Linnaeus, 1758: 205. Syntypes (2): UUZM 17 and 35, according to de Lisle et al. (2021: 249); type material previously considered lost, according to Andersson (1900: 13). Type locality: “[h]abitat in Indiis, frequens etiam in domibus”, in error; later designated as “ Java ”, Indonesia by Mertens (1955). Tokay Gecko (Figure 12G; Mandai Resort) Singapore records: Gecko [sic] guttatus —F. M̧ller, 1878: 638. Gecko [sic] verticillatus — Flower, 1896: 867.— Hanitsch, 1898: 19.— Flower, 1899: 631.—Ridley, 1899: 193, 206.— Hanitsch, 1910b: 7.— Boulenger, 1912: 50.— Hanitsch, 1912b: 14.—Sworder, 1925a: 64.— Chasen, 1925: 101.— Chasen & Smedley, 1927: 352. Gekko gecko —L.M. Chou, 1975: 134.—F.L.K. Lim, 1984: 18.—N. Koh, 1986: 1–2.—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Anonymous, 1991b: 12 (“fringe of the central water catchment area”).—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 115, 150.—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—K.K.P. Lim, 1994b: 331.—R. Subaraj, 1995: 33, 35.— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 231.—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 24.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 160.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 265.— Das, 2010: 218.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 458, 462.—Ooi et al., 2011: 163.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 165.—K.K.P. Lim, 2014c: 224 (Singapore Zoo).—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 73.—R. Subaraj, 2015: 32, 38, 47, 52 (Night Safari; Singapore Zoo).—S. Subaraj, 2015: 6, 7 (Night Safari; Singapore Zoo).— Khew & Yokohari, 2017: 12.— Fauzan et al., 2022: 212.— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 160. Gekko gekko [sic]—D.S. Johnson, 1964: 25.—D.S. Johnson, 1992: 35.—R. Subaraj et al., 1995: 18 (Pulau Senang). Gekko gecko gecko — Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 314. Remarks. M̧ller (1878) first reported G. gecko from Singapore from a specimen at NMB. Flower (1896) incorrectly stated that Blanford (1881) listed Singapore as a locality for specimens he received from Dennys, but Blanford (1881) does not specify any locality in his account. In the Raffles Museum (now LKCNHM) annual report, Hanitsch (1898) listed Singapore, Myanmar, and Bangkok as localities of G. gecko specimens in the collection. The Singapore locality likely refers to the specimen(s) in Blanford (1881), and not newly collected material as Ridley (1899) opines that the Singapore locality “must be very dubious”. However, a few years after, Hanitsch (1910) reported receiving three specimens from three different people, but did not provide any locality data, and Chasen & Smedley (1927) examined one at the Raffles Museum collected by Lister in 1923, also from an unknown locality. The only early locality data for G. gecko comes from ZRC.2.1001 which was collected around Bukit Timah on 14 October 1908. The next reported record after Chasen & Smedley (1927) came 64 years later (Table 2) when one was photographed on the Singapore Zoo grounds (Anonymous 1991b). Presently, G. gecko is found only within Singapore Zoo and Night Safari, with some heard in the surrounding forest (A. Figueroa pers. obs.). This population is believed to be descendants of escaped captive animals from Singapore Zoo (Lim 2014c). Given how widespread and prolific G. gecko is throughout its native range, it’s surprising that it has not dispersed outside the Mandai Wildlife Reserve peninsula. However, G. gecko is currently expanding its range with the continued expansion of Mandai Wildlife Reserve. A population of G. gecko also inhabits Pulau Senang (Subaraj et al. 1995), and given that it does not occur on any of the surrounding islands, the Pulau Senang population is likely also introduced. Specimen ZRC.2.6803 was collected in December 2008 from army personnel who say it was found at Nee Soon Firing Range. Clearly, this record requires confirmation. Boulenger (1912), not Flower (1899) as cited in Grismer (2011), expressed G. gecko’s presence in Singapore is likely due to human introduction, and Sworder (1925a) stated that it is a well-known fact that G. gecko was introduced in Singapore, as it was not known in Peninsular Malaysia, except for in Penang and Province Wellesley (= Seberang Perai) (Boulenger 1912). Chasen (1925) described G. gecko as not uncommon in Singapore and localised in its distribution being mainly confined to homes in “one of the native quarters”. Chasen (1925) also wrote that an unspecified early account of G. gecko’s introduction into Singapore stated that individuals were brought in from Java around 1898. Given, that G. gecko is presently only found at the parks of Mandai Wildlife Reserve, it is apparently the only introduction of this species to establish a viable population. Occurrence. Restricted to Singapore Zoo, Night Safari, and a few adjacent areas. Common. Singapore conservation status. Not Applicable. Conservation priority. None, non-native species. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2019]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): ZRC.2.1002 (20-Dec-1909), ZRC.2.1003 (1923), ZRC.2.1485 (1940); Bukit Timah : ZRC.2.1001 (14-Oct-1908); Pulau Senang: ZRC.2.3194 (12- Oct-1969), ZRC.2.3193 (23-Oct-1969); Upper Seletar [NSSF]: ZRC.2.6803 (Dec-2008). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): MPM, MVZ. Singapore localities. Bukit Timah (not specified) *—Mandai Resort—Nee Soon Swamp Forest*—Night Safari— Pulau Senang—Singapore Zoo., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 105-106, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["de Lisle, H. F. Nazarov, R. A. & Raw, L. R. G. (2021) Gekkota: A catalog of recent species. 699 pp. Available from: https: // www. researchgate. net / profile / Harold-Delisle / publication / 267327500 _ Gekkota _ Catalog _ of _ recent _ species _ De _ Lisle _ Nazarow _ Raw _ Grathwohl / links / 634189689 cb 4 fe 44 f 311 a 54 d / Gekkota-Catalog-of-recent-species-De-Lisle-Nazarow- Raw-Grathwohl. pdf (accessed 30 November 2022)","Andersson, L. G. (1900) Catalogue of Linnean type-specimens of Linnaeus's reptilia in the Royal Museum in Stockholm. Bihang till Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapliga Akademins Handlingar, 26 (4), 1 - 29.","Mertens, R. (1955) Uber eine eigenartige Rasse des Tokehs (Gekko gecko) aus Ost-Pakistan. Senckenbergiana Biologica, 36, 21 - 24.","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Hanitsch, R. (1898) Annual report of the curator and librarian on the Raffles Library and Museum, for the Year Ending 31 st December, 1897. In: Straits Settlements, Annual Reports for the Year 1898. Published by Authority, Singapore, pp. 11 - 22.","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","Hanitsch, R. (1910 b) Annual report on the Raffles Museum and Library. In: Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements for the Year 1909. Published by Authority, Singapore, pp. 1 - 11.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Hanitsch, R. (1912 b) List of the Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians in the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Raffles Library and Museum, Singapore, 19 pp.","Chasen, F. N. (1925) On the introduction of an Australian skink into Singapore Island. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 3 (1), 99 - 101.","Chasen, F. N. & Smedley, N. (1927) A list of reptiles from Pulau Galang and other islands of the Rhio Archipelago. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 5 (2), 351 - 355.","Chou, L. M. (1975) Systematic account of the Singapore house geckos. Journal of the Singapore National Academy of Science, 4 (3), 130 - 138.","Lim, F. L. K. (1984) Reptile and amphibian encounters. In: Wee, Y. - C. (Ed.), Nature in an Urban Singapore. Proceedings of the Seminar on Nature in an Urban Singapore. Singapore Branch of the Malayan Nature Society, Singapore, pp. 17 - 19.","Koh, N. (1986) Leaping lizards! Know your house guests. The cicak is really ' a nice guy'. From gecko to commodore dragon. The Straits Times, 17 February 1986, Section 2, 1 - 2.","Anonymous (1991 b) Nature in Our Reservoir Parks. Public Relations Division, Public Utilities Board, Singapore, 20 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Lim, K. K. P. (1994 b) Reptiles. In: Ng, P. K. L. & Wee, Y. C. (Eds.), The Singapore Red Data Book: Threatened Plants and Animals of Singapore. Nature Society, Singapore, pp. 213 - 227.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. (2014 c) Tokay at Mandai. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2014, 224.","Khew, Y. T. J. & Yokohari, M. (2017) Recommendations for urban biodiversity conservation in the context of landscape preference in Singapore. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 10 (1), 1 - 21.","Fauzan, M. F., Zakky, Q., Hartono, I. H., Riyanto, A. & Hamidy, A. (2022) Habitat preference and population study of house gecko (Gekko gecko) in Seribu Islands, special capital region of Jakarta. Jurnal Biologi Indonesia, 18 (2), 211 - 218. https: // doi. org / 10.47349 / jbi / 18022022 / 205","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Johnson, D. S. (1964) An Introduction to the Natural History of Singapore. Rayirath (Raybooks) Publications, Singapore, x + 106 pp.","Johnson, D. S. (1992) Natural History of Singapore. Revised Edition. Tynron Press, Leicestershire, ix + 142 pp.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Blanford, W. T. (1881) On a collection of reptiles and frogs chiefly from Singapore. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1881 (1), 215 - 226, pls. 20 - 21. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 101596"]}

Cyrtodactylus pulchellus Gray, 1827 — Erroneous. Penang Island Bent-toed Gecko Singapore records. Gymnodactylus pulchellus — Cantor, 1847a: 632.— Cantor, 1847c: 1068, 1074, 1075.— Ģnther, 1864: xiv, 113.—Theobald, 1868b: 31.—Theobald, 1876: 228.— Boulenger, 1885: 47.— Flower, 1896: 863.— Flower, 1899: 614, 626.— Boulenger, 1912: 37.—Sworder, 1925a: 63. Cyrtodactylus pulchellus — Gray, 1845: xi, 173.—Taylor, 1963: 714, 718.—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 314.—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 150.—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 226.— Cox et al., 1998: 86.—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 24.—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 168.— Das, 2010: 213.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 168.—N. Baker, 2014f: 332.—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 54. Remarks. Gray (1827) first described this genus and species from specimens obtained by Hardwicke, and appointed it the type locality “ India ”. In providing a more detailed description of the genus and species, Gray assigned the locality as Penang (Hardwicke & Gray 1827), but at a later date changed the type locality again to Singapore (Gray 1845) (Table 1). Boulenger (1885) presented four specimens of C. pulchellus from Singapore at NHMUK, two syntypes from Hardwicke, and two specimens collected by Cantor. In their examination of the C. pulchellus complex, Grismer et al. (2012) showed that C. pulchellus is restricted and endemic to Penang Island. Grismer et al. (2012) also examined photos of one of the syntypes, BM XXII.91. a, and concluded that it matches C. pulchellus. Thus, they reverted the type locality back to Penang (Grismer et al. 2012). No specimens of the C. pulchellus complex were ever found from Singapore, and subsequent papers either refer to Gray (1845) or to the specimens at the NHMUK when including Singapore as part of the distribution for C. pulchellus. Lim & Chou (1990) first considered the presence of C. pulchellus in Singapore doubtful. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH (no #) (no date), BMNH XXII.91. a (no date) [syntype], BMNH XXii.91.b (no date) [syntype], BMNH 1860.3.19.1030 (no date). Additional Singapore museum specimens. No specimens., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 262, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Gray, J. E. (1827) A synopsis of the genera of saurian reptiles, in which some new genera are indicated, and the others reviewed by actual examination. Philosophical Magazine, or Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Natural History, and General Science, 2, 54 - 58. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 14786442708675620","Cantor, T. E. (1847 a) Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Malayan Peninsula and islands, collected or observed by Theodore Cantor, Esq., M. D. Bengal Medical Service. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 16 (Part 2, No. 180), 607 - 656, pl. 20. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5057","Cantor, T. E. (1847 c) Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Malayan Peninsula and islands, collected or observed by Theodore Cantor, Esq., M. D. Bengal Medical Service. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 16 (Part 2, No. 183), 1026 - 1078. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5057","Gnther, A. C. L. G. (1864) The Reptiles of British India. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxvii + 452 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5012","Boulenger, G. A. (1885) Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum (Natural History). 2 nd Edition. Vol. I. Geckonidae, Eublepharidae, Uroplatidae, Pygopodidae, Agamidae. Taylor and Francis, London, xii + 436 pp., 32 pls.","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Gray, J. E. (1845) Catalogue of the Specimens of Lizards in the Collection of the British Museum. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxviii + 289 pp.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J. & Thirakhupt, K. (1998) A Photographic Guide toSnakes and other Reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland Publishers, London, 144 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Baker, N. (2014 f) New record of peninsular bent-toed gecko in Singapore. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2014, 331 - 332.","Hardwicke, T. & Gray, J. E. (1827) A synopsis of the species of saurian reptiles, collected in India by Hardwicke. Zoological Journal, 3 (10), 213 - 229.","Grismer, L. L., Wood Jr., P. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (2012) Cyrtodactylus majulah, a new species of bent-toed gecko (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Singapore and the Riau Archipelago. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 60 (2), 487 - 499.","Lim, K. K. P. & Chou, L. M. (1990) The herpetofauna of Singapore. In: Chou, L. M. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), Essays in Zoology: Papers commemorating the 40 th Anniversary of the Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore. National University of Singapore, Singapore, pp. 49 - 59."]}

Gekko monarchus (Schlegel, 1836) — Native. Platydactylus Monarchus Schlegel in A.M.C. Duméril & Bibron, 1836: 335–336. Holotype: MNHN-RA 2286, by original designation. Type locality: “originaire d’Amboine” (= Kota Ambon), Molucca, Indonesia. Spotted House Gecko (Figure 13C; Bukit Batok Nature Park) Singapore records. Platydactylus monarchus — Cantor, 1847a: 626.— Cantor, 1847c: 1068, 1075. Gekko monarchus — Girard, 1858b: 293.—Taylor, 1963: 796.—L.M. Chou, 1975: 135.—N. Koh, 1986: 1–2.—K. Lim, 1989b: 19 (King Albert Park).—K. Lim, 1990a: 10 (Hindhede Drive).—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 314.—K.K.P. Lim & Subharaj, 1992: 8 (Kent Ridge [NUS]: Lower Peirce Forest).—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 117, 150.—E.K. Chua, 1993: 95.—K.K.P. Lim & Subaraj, 1994: 5 (MacPherson Industrial Estate).—K.K.P. Lim & Subaraj, 1994: 7 (Botanic Gardens; Bukit Timah Nature Centre Visitor Centre [BTNR]; King Albert Park; Sungei Buloh Nature Park [= SBWR]).—R. Subaraj, 1994: 11 (Bukit Timah Nature Centre Visitor Centre [BTNR]).—R. Subaraj, 1994: 13 (Lorong Gambas; MacRitchie Golf Course Substation [MR]; Seletar North Forest [USNF]; Sime Road Pipeline Trail [SRF]).—L.M. Chou et al., 1994:105.—L.M. Chou, 1995: 147.—K. Lim, 1995: 18 (Lower Peirce East [LPF]; Lower Peirce Forest; Nee Soon Swamp Forest; Upper Seletar Reservoir Park; Sentosa; Yishun Ring Road).— R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 389, 391 (Bukit Timah [BTNR]; Nee Soon [NSSF]).— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 233.— Cox et al., 1998: 83.—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 25.— Gill et al., 2001: 354.—E.K. Chua, 2002: 107 (Pulau Ubin).—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.— Anonymous, 2003: 92 (Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve).—K.K.P. Lim & N.T.-L. Lim, 2006: 107 (Batu Koyok [Pulau Tekong]).—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 81, 160.—T.M. Leong & Foo, 2009: 311–315 (Bukit Kallang [SRF]).—M.F.C. Ng, 2009: 59, 109 (Semakau Landfill [PS]).— Das, 2010: 219.— M.A.H. Chua, 2011: 281 (Semakau Landfill [PS]).—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 464, 467.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 73, 81, 160.— Ang et al., 2012: 54 (Hort Park).—M.F.C. Ng, 2012: 14.—S.K. Tan & K.K.P. Lim, 2013: 124 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—S.K. Tan, 2014: 70 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—S.K. Tan & K.K.P. Lim, 2014c: 72 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—Chan-ard et al., 2015: 74.—E.K. Chua, 2015: 32.—R. Subaraj, 2015: 25, 32, 52, 54, 56 (Mandai Range Forest; Night Safari; Project Western Boundary [= MBP]; Singapore Zoo; Stephen Lee Woods [= RPN]).—S. Subaraj, 2015: 4, 5, 6, 7 (Mandai Range Forest; Night Safari; Project Western Boundary [= MBP]; Singapore Zoo; Stephen Lee Woods [= RPN]).—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 177 (Pulau Tekong).— H.C. Ho et al., 2019: 124, 125 (Alexandra Woodlands; Clementi Forest).—H.T.W. Tan et al., 2019: 133 (Kent Ridge Park; National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus).—R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 147, 157, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—Toh, 2019: 52 (Lower Peirce Trail [LPF]).—Allain & Goodman, 2020: 217, 218 (Singapore Botanic Gardens [Rain Forest]).—K.K.P. Lim, 2020: 6 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]).— Agius et al., 2021: 2.—Figueroa & J. Tan, 2021: 1 (Prunus Boardwalk, Thomson Ridge Forest).—B.C. Ng, 2021: 132 (Pang Sua Woodland).— Seow-En, 2021: 1 (Pasir Ris Park).—H.B. Thio, 2021: 1 (Mount Faber Road).— Aman et al., 2022: 1 (“north-western edge of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve”).— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 89, 160.—Figueroa, 2022: 2. Gecko [sic] monarchus —F. M̧ller, 1878: 638.— Boulenger, 1885 a: 187–188.— Flower, 1896: 868.— Hanitsch, 1898: 19.— Bedford, 1899: 8.— Flower, 1899: 635.—Ridley, 1899: 206.— Boulenger, 1912: 51.— Hanitsch, 1912b: 14.— Moulton, 1922: 567.—Sworder, 1924a: 20 (Pulau Sudong; Pulau Ubin).—Sworder, 1925a: 65.—Ridley, 1934: 59.— Cross, 2020f: 3.— Cross, 2020k: 2 (Sime Road Camp [= SICC]). Remarks. Singapore as a locality for G. monarchus was first reported by Cantor (1847a) without any specific details. Following, specimens were reported from different museum collections (Girard 1858b; M̧ller 1878; Boulenger 1885 a) before Flower (1896) expressed that he found it quite common at SBG, and within homes (Flower 1899). Sworder (1925a) also described G. monarchus as common, and also found it at Pulau Sudong and Pulau Ubin (Sworder 1924a). Between Ridley (1934) and Chou (1975), G. monarchus went unreported for 41 years (Table 2), but Cross (2020f) recorded one in 1944 that was just recently published. Chou (1975) indicated that the numbers of G. monarchus decreased since Sworder (1925a) due to rapid urbanisation, a position shared by Koh (1986) who asserted that G. monarchus was rarely found in Singapore due to a loss of natural habitat. If G. monarchus numbers did decline over the years, then certainly the species has rebounded as it is extremely common and ubiquitous today (Baker & Lim 2012). The possibility exists that Chou (1975) and Koh (1986) were basing their assessments on urban areas, despite G. monarchus being more of a forest species. Occurrence. Ubiquitous. Common. Singapore conservation status. Least Concern. Conservation priority. Lowest. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2021]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH 1883.1.22.1 (no date), BMNH 1896.4.17.6–7 (no date), ZRC.2.1043 (1897), ZRC.2.1055 (May-1897), ZRC.2.1046 (1-Jun-1898), ZRC.2.1047 (12-Jun-1898), ZRC.2.1045 (Jul-1898), ZRC.2.1048 (Mar-1951), ZRC.2.1049 (11-1951), ZRC.2.1945 (1952), ZRC.2.1050 (11-1952); Barkers Estate : ZRC.2.1051– ZRC.2.1052 (21-Aug-1921); Botanic Gardens: ZRC.2.1042 (Jul-1897), ZRC.2.1044 (Feb-1898), ZRC.2.1486 (16-Feb-1962); Bras Basah Road: ZRC.2.6299 (27-Dec-1963); Bukit Kalang [SRF]: ZRC.2.6832 (no date); Bukit Timah Nature Reserve : ZRC.2.3480 (13-Sep-1994); Chun Tin Road: ZRC.2.4756 (15-Dec-1996); Greenbank Park: ZRC.2.4568 (11-1998); Hindhede Drive : ZRC.2.3479 (01-Oct-1989), ZRC.2.2533 (20-Feb-1990); Holland Woods [= CF]: ZRC.2.7153– ZRC.2.7154 (01-Nov-2006); Kent Ridge Campus [NUS]: ZRC.2.3368 (03-Aug-1992), ZRC.2.5005 (1999), ZRC.2.4829 (17-Aug-2000); Lower Peirce Forest: ZRC.2.3297 (30-Jan-1992); Pulau Ubin: ZRC.2.1053 (26-Feb-1921), ZRC.2.1054 (27-Feb-1921); RAF Tengah [= Tengah Air Base]: BMNH 1983.947 (no date); St. John’s Island : ZRC.2.7083 (23-Jun-2014); Tan Tock Seng Hospital: ZRC.2.3481 (16-Jun-1990); Yishun Ring Road: ZRC.2.3399 (11-Feb-1995). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): CAS, FMNH, NMW, ROM, SMNS, USNM, UWBM, ZMB, ZMUC; Botanic Gardens: UMZC. Singapore localities. Alexandra Woodlands—Barkers Estate—Bras Basah Road—Bukit Batok Nature Park— Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Chun tin Road—Clementi Forest—Greenbank Park—Hindhede Drive— Hort Park—Kent Ridge Park—King Albert Park—Lorong Gambas—Lower Peirce Forest—MacPherson Industrial Estate—MacRitchie Reservoir—Mandai Bird Park—Mandai Range Forest—Mount Faber Road—National University of Singapore Kent Ridge Campus—Nee Soon Swamp Forest—Night Safari—Pang Sua Woodland—Pasir Ris Park—Pulau Semakau—Pulau Sudong—Pulau Tekong—Pulau Ubin—Rainforest Park North—Saint John’s Island—Sentosa—Sime Road Forest—Singapore Botanic Gardens—Singapore Island Country Club—Singapore Zoo—Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve—Tan Tock Seng Hospital—Tengah Air Base—Upper Seletar North Forest—Upper Seletar Reservoir Park—Yishun Ring Road. Genus Hemidactylus Oken, 1817 (4 species) Hemidactylus Oken, 1817: 1183 (type species: Gecko tuberculosus Daudin, 1803, by monotypy; gender masculine)., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 109-110, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Cantor, T. E. (1847 a) Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Malayan Peninsula and islands, collected or observed by Theodore Cantor, Esq., M. D. Bengal Medical Service. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 16 (Part 2, No. 180), 607 - 656, pl. 20. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5057","Cantor, T. E. (1847 c) Catalogue of reptiles inhabiting the Malayan Peninsula and islands, collected or observed by Theodore Cantor, Esq., M. D. Bengal Medical Service. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 16 (Part 2, No. 183), 1026 - 1078. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 5057","Girard, C. (1858 b) United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, under the command of Charles Wilkes, U. S. N. Vol. XX. Herpetology. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott and Company, xvii + 496 pp., 32 pls.","Chou, L. M. (1975) Systematic account of the Singapore house geckos. Journal of the Singapore National Academy of Science, 4 (3), 130 - 138.","Koh, N. (1986) Leaping lizards! Know your house guests. The cicak is really ' a nice guy'. From gecko to commodore dragon. The Straits Times, 17 February 1986, Section 2, 1 - 2.","Lim, K. (1990 a) Reptiles. The Pangolin, 3 (1 - 4), 6 - 12.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Subharaj, R. (1992) Reptiles & Amphibians. The Pangolin, 5 (1 - 4), 5 - 9.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Chua, E. K. (1993) Nature in Singapore, Ours to Protect. The Nature Society, Singapore, 132 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. & Subaraj, R. (1994) Recent records (1994) - herptiles. The Pangolin, 7 (1 - 4), 5.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Chou, L. M. (1995) Amphibians and reptiles. In: Chin, S. C., Corlett, R. T., Wee, Y. C. & Geh, S. Y. (Eds.), Rain Forest in the City: Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Singapore. Gardens' Bulletin, Singapore, Supplement 3, pp. 145 - 150.","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J. & Thirakhupt, K. (1998) A Photographic Guide toSnakes and other Reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland Publishers, London, 144 pp.","Gill, B. J., Bejakovtch, D. & Whitaker, A. H. (2001) Records of foreign reptiles and amphibians accidentally imported to New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 28 (3), 351 - 359. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 03014223.2001.9518274","Chua, E. K. (2002) Chek Jawa: Discovering Singapore's Biodiversity. Simply Green, Singapore, 116 pp.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Anonymous (2003) Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve - A Decade of Wetland Conservation. National Parks Board, Singapore, 98 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2006) Geographic distribution: Luperosaurus browni. Herpetological Review, 37 (1), 107.","Leong, T. M. & Foo, S. K. (2009) Attempted predation on a large gecko by a twin-barred tree snake, Chrysopelea pelias (Reptilia: Squamata: Colubridae). Nature in Singapore, 2, 311 - 316.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Chua, M. A. (2011) The herpetofauna and mammals of Semakau Landfill: A Project Semakau checklist. Nature in Singapore, 4, 277 - 287.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Ang, W. F., Lim, N. T. - L., Lok, A. F. S. L. & Ng, D. J. J. (2012) Herptiles: amphibians and reptiles. In: Lok, A. F. S. L., Ang, W. F., Tan, H. T. W., Corlett, R. T. & Tan, P. Y. (Eds.), The Native Fauna of the Native Garden @ HortPark: Birds, Fishes, Amphibians, Reptiles, Butterflies, Moths, Damselflies, and Dragonflies. Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore, and Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology, National Parks Board, Singapore, pp. 44 - 63.","Lim, K. K. P. (2014 c) Tokay at Mandai. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2014, 224.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Lim K. K. P. (2020) Snakes and lizards recorded by Alexander Cross in Singapore from 1942 to 1945. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. No.), 1 - 6.","Agius, J. E., Rose, K., Emery, J. - P. & Phalen, D. N. (2021) Experimental infection of Asian house geckos with Enterococcus lacertideformus demonstrates multiple disease transmission routes and the in-vivo efficacy of antibiotics. Scientific Reports, 11 (13858), 1 - 15. https: // doi. org / 10.1038 / s 41598 - 021 - 92999 - y","Aman, J., Koh, K. H., Dubey, K. & Yap, C. J. G. (2022) Biodiversity Record: Prey of Wagler's pit-vipers in Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 15, e 2022115.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Boulenger, G. A. (1885) Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum (Natural History). 2 nd Edition. Vol. I. Geckonidae, Eublepharidae, Uroplatidae, Pygopodidae, Agamidae. Taylor and Francis, London, xii + 436 pp., 32 pls.","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Hanitsch, R. (1898) Annual report of the curator and librarian on the Raffles Library and Museum, for the Year Ending 31 st December, 1897. In: Straits Settlements, Annual Reports for the Year 1898. Published by Authority, Singapore, pp. 11 - 22.","Bedford, F. P. (1899) Gecko cannibalism. Nature, 60 (1540), 8. https: // doi. org / 10.1038 / 060008 d 0","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Hanitsch, R. (1912 b) List of the Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians in the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Raffles Library and Museum, Singapore, 19 pp.","Moulton, J. C. (1922) Raffles Museum and Library, for the year 1920. Annual Departmental Reports of the Straits Settlements for the Year 1921. Published by Authority, Singapore, pp. 557 - 577.","Cross, A. (2020 f) Notes on the species of Ophidia and Lacertilia obtained at Sime Road Internment Camp, Singapore, during November 1944. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. No. 6), 1 - 4.","Cross, A. (2020 k) Notes on the species of Ophidia and Lacertilia obtained in Sime Road Internment Camp, Singapore, during April 1945. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2020 (Spec. 11), 1 - 2.","Baker, N. & Lim, K. P. (2012) Wild Animals of Singapore: A Photographic Guide to Mammals, Reptiles, Amphibians and Freshwater Fishes. Updated Edition. Draco Publishing and Distribution Pte Ltd and Nature Society, Singapore, 180 pp."]}

Cnemaspis peninsularis L.L. Grismer, Wood, Anuar, Riyanto, Ahmad, Muin, Sumontha, J.L. Grismer, Onn, Quah & Pauwels, 2014 — Native. Cnemaspis peninsularis L.L. Grismer, Wood,Anuar, Riyanto,Ahmad, Muin, Sumontha, W.L. Grismer, Onn, Quah & Pauwels, 2014: 118–124, figs. 60, 61. Holotype: LSUHC 8965, by original designation; paratypes (11): LSUHC 8966, 4756, 5731, 6213, 8210, 8126, 9376, 10710–11, 10454, by original designation. Type locality: “base of Gunung Ledang Johor, Peninsular Malaysia (02°20.25’N, 102°37.11’E)”. Peninsular Rock Gecko (Figure 11G; Dairy Farm Nature Park) Singapore records. Gonatodes kendalli (non Gray, 1845)— Flower, 1896: 863 (Bukit Timah [BTNR]).— Hanitsch, 1898: 19.— Flower, 1899: 627 (Bukit Timah [BTNR]).—Ridley, 1899: 193, 205 (Bukit Timah [BTNR]). Boulenger, 1912: 38.— Hanitsch, 1912b: 14.—Sworder, 1925a: 63.—M.A. Smith, 1930: 16.— L.M. Chou, 1995: 147. Gonatodes kendallii (non Gray, 1845)— M.A. Smith, 1925: 23. Cnemaspis kendallii (non Gray, 1845)— Grandison, 1972: 80.— Manthey & Grossmann, 1997: 212.— Cox et al., 1998: 90.—Chan-ard et al., 1999: 23.—Y.L. Werner & L.M. Chou, 2002: 185–196 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2008: 78, 159.—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2008: 173, 265.— Das, 2010: 202.—L.L. Grismer, 2011a: 112.—L.L. Grismer, 2011b: 330, 334.—N. Baker & K.P. Lim, 2012: 78, 159.—E.K. Chua, 2015: 69. Cnemaspis kendalli (non Gray, 1845)—K. Lim, 1990a: 10 (Jungle Fall Valley [BTNR]).—K.K.P. Lim & L.M. Chou, 1990: 55.— Denzer & Manthey, 1991: 313.—K.K.P. Lim & Subharaj, 1991: 5 (Rock Path [BTNR]).—K.K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 1992: 122, 151.—K.K.P. Lim, 1993a: 4 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—R. Subaraj, 1994: 11 (Rock Path [BTNR]).—L.M. Chou et al., 1994: 105.—K.K.P. Lim, 1994: 223, 331.—R. Subaraj et al., 1995: 5 (“cave at BTNR”).—K. Lim, 1995: 18 (Cave Path [BTNR]; Nee Soon Swamp Forest; Seletar Track [TSHF]).—K.K.P. Lim, 1996: 51.—R. Subaraj, 1996: 101.—R.C.H. Teo & Rajathurai, 1997: 389, 390 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, MacRitchie, Mandai, Nee Soon [NSSF], Pulau Tekong Besar; Upper Seletar).—K.P. Lim & F.L.K. Lim, 2002: 150.—P.K.L. Ng et al., 2011: 323.— Groenewoud, 2014c: 239 (Thomson Ridge [TRF]).—H.C. Ho et al., 2015: 29 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 58, 152. Cnemaspis sp. —E.K. Chua, 1993: 29. Cnemaspis peninsularis L.L. Grismer Wood, Anuar, Riyanto, Ahmad, Muin, Sumontha, J.L. Grismer, Onn, Quah & Pauwels, 2014, 1–147 (Nee Soon Swamp Forest).—M.F.C. Ng, 2014c: 293 (Venus Drive [WNP]).—K.K.P. Lim et al., 2016: 176 (Pulau Tekong).—L.L. Grismer & Quah, 2019: 237.— R.C.H. Teo & Thomas, 2019: 147, 156, 180 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve).—I.S. Law, 2020: 47 (Bukit Timah Nature Reserve [main road]).— Janssen & Sy, 2022: 61, 153.—Figueroa, 2022: 2. Remarks. In 2014, Grismer et al. (2014) split C. kendalli into seven species with the Singapore populations falling under C. peninsularis (Grismer et al. 2014c). Specimen LSUHC 10454 collected on 2 June 2011 by Evan S.H. Quah from NSSF is one of the paratypes used in the species description (Grismer et al. 2014c). Flower (1896) first reported C. peninsularis from Singapore from specimens in NHMUK collected by Ridley and from specimens acquired by himself and Ridley at BTNR. After Flower (1896) described how to find specimens of C. peninsularis, it is surprising that Sworder (1925a) did not make his own observations being that it is rather easy to find at appropriate locations. Notwithstanding, C. peninsularis was not reported again from Singapore for 94 years (Table 2) until one was seen on a brick wall at BTNR on 28 August 1990 (Lim 1990a). Accordingly, C. peninsularis was only known from BTNR until one was detected at Seletar Track on 11 June 1995 and two were seen at NSSF on 7 July 1995 (Lim 1995). Later, it was stated that a record of C. peninsularis at Pulau Tekong Besar required verification (Teo & Rajathurai 1997), which was indeed substantiated on November 2005 when one individual was photographed there (Lim et al. 2016). Clearly, BTNR is C. peninsularis’ stronghold given the number of records documented in Teo & Thomas (2019). Occurrence. Restricted to CNR and surrounding Nature Parks and forests, and PT. Uncommon. Singapore conservation status. Vulnerable. Conservation priority. Moderate. IUCN conservation status. Least Concern [2018]. LKCNHM & NHMUK Museum specimens. Singapore (no locality): BMNH 1895.1.8.1–3 (no date); Bukit Timah Nature Reserve : BMNH 1896.6.25.9 (no date), ZRC.2.3014 (28-Aug-1990), ZRC.2.3520 (09-Jul-1996), ZRC.2.4647– ZRC.2.4648 (10-Dec-1999), ZRC.2.4992 (28-Apr-2001), ZRC.2.5891 (02-Oct-2003); Nee Soon Swamp Forest: ZRC.2.3544 (28-Apr-1997); Sime Road Forest: ZRC.2.5644 (21-Mar-2003). Additional Singapore museum specimens. Bukit Timah: UMZC. Singapore localities. Bukit Timah (not specified)—Bukit Timah Nature Reserve—Dairy Farm Nature Park— MacRitchie—Mandai (not specified)—Nee Soon Swamp Forest—Pulau Tekong—Sime Road Forest— Three-stone Hill Forest—Thomson Ridge Forest—Upper Seletar (not specified)—Windsor Nature Park. Genus Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827 (5 species), Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on pages 98-99, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319, {"references":["Grismer, L. L., Belabut, D. M., Quah, E. S. H., Onn, C. K. & Wood Jr., P. L. (2014 a) A new species of karst forest-adapted Bent-toed Gecko (genus Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827) belonging to the C. sworderi complex from a threatened karst forest in Perak, Peninsular Malaysia. Zootaxa, 3755 (5), 434 - 446. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3755.5.3","Gray, J. E. (1845) Catalogue of the Specimens of Lizards in the Collection of the British Museum. Trustees [of the British Museum], London, xxviii + 289 pp.","Flower, S. S. (1896) Notes on a collection of reptiles and batrachians made in the Malay Peninsula in 1895 - 96; with a list of the species recorded from that region. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896 (4), 856 - 914, pls. 44 - 46.","Hanitsch, R. (1898) Annual report of the curator and librarian on the Raffles Library and Museum, for the Year Ending 31 st December, 1897. In: Straits Settlements, Annual Reports for the Year 1898. Published by Authority, Singapore, pp. 11 - 22.","Flower, S. S. (1899 b) Notes on a second collection of reptiles made in the Malay Peninsula and Siam, from November 1896 - September 1898, with a list of the species recorded from those countries. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899 (4), 600 - 696, pls. 36 - 37.","Boulenger, G. A. (1912) A Vertebrate Fauna of the Malay Peninsula from the Isthmus of Kra to Singapore, Including the Adjacent Islands. Reptilia and Batrachia, Taylor and Francis, London, xiii + 294 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / bhl. title. 10813","Hanitsch, R. (1912 b) List of the Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians in the Raffles Museum, Singapore. Raffles Library and Museum, Singapore, 19 pp.","Chou, L. M. (1995) Amphibians and reptiles. In: Chin, S. C., Corlett, R. T., Wee, Y. C. & Geh, S. Y. (Eds.), Rain Forest in the City: Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Singapore. Gardens' Bulletin, Singapore, Supplement 3, pp. 145 - 150.","Grandison, A. G. C. (1972) The Gunung Benom Expedition 1967. 5. Reptiles and amphibians of Gunung Benom with a description of a new species of Macrocalamus. Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History, Zoology, 23 (4), 43 - 101. https: // doi. org / 10.5962 / p. 314200","Manthey, U. & Grossmann, W. (1997) Amphibien und Reptilian Sudostasien. Natur und Tier, M ¸ nster, 512 pp.","Cox, M. J., van Dijk, P. P., Nabhitabhata, J. & Thirakhupt, K. (1998) A Photographic Guide toSnakes and other Reptiles of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. New Holland Publishers, London, 144 pp.","Das, I. (2010) A Field Guide to the Reptiles of Thailand and South-East Asia. New Holland, London, 376 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 a) Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the Seribuat Archipelago (Peninsular Malaysia). Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 239 pp.","Grismer, L. L. (2011 b) Lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore and Their Adjacent Archipelagos. Edition Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main, 728 pp.","Lim, K. (1990 a) Reptiles. The Pangolin, 3 (1 - 4), 6 - 12.","Denzer, W. & Manthey, U. (1991) A nominal checklist of the lizards inhabiting peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 39 (2), 309 - 322.","Lim, K. K. P. & Subharaj, R. (1991) Reptiles & Amphibians. The Pangolin, 4 (2), 4 - 5.","Lim, K. K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (1992) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Lim, K. K. P. (1993 a) Amphibians & Reptiles. The Pangolin, 6 (1 - 2), 2 - 4.","Chou L. M., Ng, P. K. L. & Lim, K. K. P. (1994) Animalia. In: Wee, Y. C. & Ng, P. K. L. (Eds.), A First Look at Biodiversity in Singapore. National Council on the Environment, Singapore, pp. 70 - 106.","Lim, K. K. P. (1996) Hop, slither and glide. In: Lum, S. & Sharp, I. (Eds.), A View from the Summit: The Story of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Nanyang Technological University, National University of Singapore and National Parks Board, Singapore, pp. 50 - 51.","Lim, K. P. & Lim, F. L. K. (2002) A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore. Revised Edition. Singapore Science Centre, Singapore, 160 pp.","Groenewoud, D. (2014 c) Kendall's rock gecko at Thomson Ridge. Singapore Biodiversity Records, 2014, 239.","Ho, H. C., Lai, C. K. & Tham, W. H. (2015) Green Rail Corridor: A Guide to the Ecology and Heritage of the Former Railway Land. Nature Society and Singapore Heritage Society, Singapore, 18 + [40] pp.","Janssen, J. & Sy, E. (2022) A Naturalist's Guide to the Lizards of Southeast Asia. John Beaufoy Publishing Ltd, England, 176 pp.","Chua, E. K. (1993) Nature in Singapore, Ours to Protect. The Nature Society, Singapore, 132 pp.","Lim, K. K. P., Chua, M. A. H. & Lim, N. T. - L. (2016) Freshwater fishes, terrestrial herpetofauna and mammals of Pulau Tekong, Singapore. Nature in Singapore, 9, 165 - 198.","Grismer, L. L. & Quah, E. S. H. (2019) An updated and annotated checklist of the lizards of Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore, and their adjacent archipelagos. Zootaxa, 4545 (2), 230 - 248. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4545.2.4","Grismer, L. L., Wood Jr., P. L., Shahrul, A., Riyanto, A., Norhayati, A., Muin, M. A., Sumontha, M., Grismer, J. L., Chan, K. O., Quah, E. S. H. & Pauwels, O. S. A. (2014 c) Systematics and natural history of Southeast Asian rock geckos (genus Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887) with descriptions of eight new species from Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Zootaxa, 3880 (1), 1 - 147. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3880.1.1","Gray, J. E. (1827) A synopsis of the genera of saurian reptiles, in which some new genera are indicated, and the others reviewed by actual examination. Philosophical Magazine, or Annals of Chemistry, Mathematics, Astronomy, Natural History, and General Science, 2, 54 - 58. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 14786442708675620"]}

Genus Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887 (1 species) Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887: 16, 41 (type species: Cnemaspis boulengerii Strauch, 1887, by monotypy; gender masculine)., Published as part of Figueroa, Alex, Low, Martyn E. Y. & Lim, Kelvin K. P., 2023, Singapore's herpetofauna: updated and annotated checklist, history, conservation, and distribution, pp. 1-378 in Zootaxa 5287 (1) on page 98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5287.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7960319

Gekko mizoramensis sp. n. Figs 3–5, Tables 1–3 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:51325DE1-F3C0-47AB-9105-A96D-023D5B35 Ptychozoon lionotum PAWAR & BISWAS (2001): 101; BHUIYAN et al. (2020): 17161 Holotype. Adult female, NCBS NRC-AA-4514 (ex-MZMU-2879), collected from the partition wall inside the Circuit House (22.53502° N, 92.89177° E; 830 m a.s.l.), Electric veng, Lawngtlai town, Lawngtlai District, southern Mizoram, India, at around 09:30 h on 2 May 2022 by LAITHANG LIANI. Paratypes. Adult female, BNHS 1445, collected by SAMRAAT PAWAR on 21 April 1999, same collection locality as the holotype; another adult female (MZMU 2883) from the outside wall of a building at Chawnhu (22.50456° N, 92.89520° E; 1057 m a.s.l.), outskirts of Lawngtlai town, southern Mizoram, India, collected by RO TEA on 17 May 2022 at around 20:00 h; MZMU 3031, female, from N. Hlimen, Kolasib District, northern Mizoram (24.230092° N, 92.806047° E; 684 m a.s.l.) by ALFRED J. C. RALTE on 4 November 2022. Referred material. MZMU 2880, juvenile, collected by LAITHANG LIANI on 2 May 2022 at around 12:00 h with the same collection data as the holotype; adult female, NCBS NRC-AA-4515 (ex-MZMU-1609) collected from a partition wall of a residential house (22.53698° N, 92.89821° E; 894 m a.s.l.) near the Baptist Church of Mizoram (BCM), Vengpui, Lawngtlai town by LAL RUATTHARA at 21:30 h on 19 October 2019. Diagnosis. Gekko mizoramensis sp. n. differs from all other members of the genus Gekko (other than the subgenus Ptychozoon) in bearing patagia along the forelimbs, trunk and hind limbs. The new species differs from all members of the subgenus Ptychozoon by exhibiting the following unique combination of characters: maximum SVL 100 mm; supranasals not in contact; 11–13 supralabials of which the 9 th or 10 th is situated at mid-orbit; 9–10 infralabials; caudal tubercles present; 32 ventral scales; no enlarged femoral scales; 12 enlarged non-pored (at least in females) precloacal scales in a transverse row; 5 rows of enlarged post-precloacal scales; 14–17 subdigital lamellae under the fourth toe; enlarged dorsal caudal scales form whorls. Comparison. The new species differs from members of the subgenus Ptychozoon by exhibiting the following nonoverlapping set of characters: supranasals not in contact (vs. supranasals in contact in G. nicobarensis [DAS & VIJAYAKUMAR, 2009], G. trinotaterra [BROWN, 1999], G. kaengkrachanensis [SUMONTHA, PAUWELS, KUNYA, LIMLIKHITAKSORN, RUKSUE, TAOKRATOK, ANSERMET & CHANHOME, 2012]); infra-auricular cutaneous flap present (vs. absent in G. rhacophorus [BOULENGER, 1899]); prominent infra-auricular cutaneous lobe absent (vs. present in G. cicakterbang [GRISMER, WOOD, GRISMER, QUAH, THY, PHIMMACHAK, SIVONGXAY, SEATEUN, STUART, SILER, MULCAHY, ANAMZA & BROWN, 2019]); tubercles on dorsum absent (vs. present in G. intermedius [TAYLOR, 1915]), G. kuhli [STEJNEGER, 1902], G. rhacophorus, G. trinotaterra); fourth toe lamellae 14–17 (vs. 13 or 14 in G. popaensis [GRISMER, WOOD, THURA, M GRISMER, BROWN & STUART, 2018], 11–13 in G. horsfieldii [GRAY, 1827], 9–14 in G. intermedius, 12–16 in G. kuhli, 12–14 in G. linotus, 11–13 in G. rhacophorus, 12–14 in G. trinotaterra). The new species is most similar to G. popaensis from which it differs as follows: mid-dorsal caudal tubercles present (vs. absent in G. popaensis); 15–16 caudal lobes (vs. 25); distal caudal lobes fused into a long caudal flap (vs. caudal lobes fairly distinct and not forming a long caudal flap); fourth toe lamellae 14–17 (vs. 13 or 14); 12–13 supralabials (vs. 9–11); a thick dark postorbital stripe absent (vs. present); see Table 3 for a summary of the comparison with members of the G. lionotum clade. Etymology. The specific epithet refers to the state of Mizoram in which the new species was discovered. The suggested common English name is Mizoram Parachute Gecko. Description of the holotype (Figs 3–4, 5a). The specimen is in a good state of preservation except for a longitudinal incision on the venter and is more depressed than in the paratypes, likely an artefact of preservation. Morphometric and meristic details are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Adult female, SVL 100 mm; head long (HL/SVL 0.17), wide (HW/SVL 0.20), depressed (HD/HL 0.52), distinct from neck; snout rounded at the tip in dorsal view; interorbital region flat; lores rounded; rostral scale large, rectangular, with a dorsomedial groove visible in dorsal view, in contact posteriorly with two supranasals, the internasal, and laterally with nostrils and the first supralabials; supralabials (12R,13L), 10th supralabial in mid-orbital position; infralabials (9R,10L); nostrils round, each bordered anteriorly by the rostral, dorsally by the supranasal, posteriorly by two postnasals, and ventrally by the first supralabial; scales on rostrum granular, slightly larger than the granular scales on the top of the head and occiput; no ridges of tubercles along the mandibles; eyes large (ED/HL 0.27), but smaller than the snout length and EAO distance; pupil vertically elliptical, crenulated; supraciliaries elongate, posteriormost ones spinose; auricular opening rounded, lacking enlarged lobes; tympanum deeply sunk; infra-auricular flap broad, rounded, extending from the lower corner of the mouth to the base of the neck, measuring 3 mm at its widest point; dorsal scales of infra-auricular flap large, subimbricate proximally, small and juxtaposed distally, minute and granular ventrally; infra-auricular flap on the right side deeply notched; mental triangular, wider than deep, bordered laterally by the first infralabials and posteriorly by paired, rectangular postmentals, contacting medially for 100% of their lengths; posterior postmentals small, half the length of the anterior one; one row of enlarged sublabials bordering the infralabials, anteriormost ones largest; gular scales small, rounded, grading abruptly into larger imbricate scales on the throat and venter. Body dorsoventrally depressed, relatively stout (AG/ SVL 0.44); axilla-groin cutaneous expansion (flap) 6.6 mm at midpoint of body and bearing enlarged, juxtaposed, rectangular scales dorsally, and minute, juxtaposed, subrectangular scales ventrally; dorsal body scales minute, flat, rounded, juxtaposed, largest mid-dorsally; 32 transverse rows of large, smooth, flat, subimbricate ventrals, much larger than dorsals, decreasing in size laterally; 12 enlarged non-pored precloacal scales; five rows of enlarged, post-precloacal scales; scales immediately anterior to vent granular. Limbs short, robust (FL/SVL 0.11; TBL/SVL 0.15); dorsal scales of forelimbs flat, juxtaposed, slightly larger than dorsal body scales, and juxtaposed ventral forelimb scales; anterior and posterior margins of forelimbs, posterior margins of hind limbs, and anterior margins of forelegs bearing wide, cutaneous flaps extending to the bases of digits Iand V, bearing subimbricate, moderately larger scales dorsally and smaller, wide, imbricate scales ventrally; a wide predigital notch in the pre-antebrachial flap; palmar scales smooth, rounded; digits fully webbed, relatively short, dorsoventrally compressed; undivided transverse subdigital lamellae of left manus 11 (I), 15 (II), 15 (III), 16 (IV), 13 (V), distalmost lamellae V-shaped; claws II–V arise from within the dorsal surface of the digital pads; first digit lacks a claw; dorsal scales of hind limbs flat, juxtaposed, smaller than dorsal body scales, and flat, subimbricate scales on the thighs; posterior margins of thighs and forelegs, and anterior margins of forelegs have wide, cutaneous flaps bearing subimbricate, moderately large scales dorsally and much smaller, subimbricate scales ventrally; pretibial flap not contacting the base of digit V; post-tibial flap contacts base of digit I; plantar scales smooth, subimbricate; digits fully webbed; transverse subdigital lamellae of left pes 15 (I), 14 (II), 16 (III), 17 (IV), 15 (V), distalmost lamellae V-shaped; claws II–V arise from within the dorsal surface of digital pads; and first digit lacks a claw. Tail original, flattened, moderate in length (TaL/SVL 1.04); 5–7 medianrows of heterogeneous, transversely widened, smooth subcaudals; a single large postcloacal spur, domed, imbricate; dorsal caudals flat, juxtaposed, larger than dorsal body scales, arranged in whorls; 6–8 smaller scales between larger scales delimiting whorls; tail width and caudal lobes decrease slightly posteriorly; 17R/15L caudal lobes on each side, slightly angled posteriorly; lobes fused at their bases, prior to grading posteriorly into short, straight-edged appendages. Coloration in life (Fig. 5). Grey with darker grey blotches edged with black and black reticulations on the head, and paired black bands on the trunk and the tail. The nape exhibits a sub-ovate mark, and the temporal region an undefined reticulate pattern, which becomes obsolete posteriorly as both join the first band on the trunk. The first black band is at the level of the forelimbs, followed by two on the trunk and a fourth at the level of the hindlimbs. The bark bands are 2–3 scales wide, and the paler interspaces span more than 70 scales. The tail is alternately banded with five dark- and light-coloured bands and has a dark tip. The legs are patterned with diffuse reticulations. The ventral side is cream coloured, but the underside of the tail exhibits the same banded pattern as the dorsal side. Coloration in preservative (Figs 3 and 4): The coloration in preservation is more faded, with only the black markings evident. The overall background colour is grey to greyish brown. Natural history and distribution. The type specimens were collected only from the Lawngtlai town area, particularly during the monsoon season (April to October) in the state. However, this species is not only known from the type locality, but was also encountered in various other areas in Mizoram during the survey period (Fig. 6). All individuals were discovered and collected at heights of approximately 150 to 360 cm above the ground or floor. Being nocturnal, they were observed active from the onset of dusk and hunted or ambushed their prey of beetles, roaches, moths and other insects attracted by light sources. All collected individuals remained motionless if not disturbed; however, they then responded aggressively, attempting to bite when handled. The habitat lies within a largely anthropogenic settlement with small scattered patches of homestead gardens, surrounded by moderately disturbed secondary tropical evergreen forest. The vegetation around the microhabitats where the new species has been collected includes tree species like Crataegus monogyna, Ficus geniculata, Mangifera indica and Schima wallichi. Other common sympatric lizard species found during the survey were Calotes irawadi, Gekko gecko and Hemidactylus frenatus., Published as part of Lalremsanga, Hmar Tlawmte, Muansanga, Lal, Vabeiryureilai, Mathipi & Mirza, Zeeshan A., 2023, A new species of Parachute Gecko of the subgenus Ptychozoon (Sauria: Gekkonidae: Gekko) from the Indo-Burma region, pp. 1-11 in Salamandra 59 (2) on pages 4-8, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7967275, {"references":["PAWAR, S. S. & S. BISWAS (2001): First record of the Smoothbacked Parachute Gecko Ptychozoon lionotum Annandale 1905 from the Indian Mainland. - Asiatic Herpetological Research, 9: 101 - 106.","BHUIYAN, M. R. K., M. F. RABBE, M. F. JAMAN, A. K. DAS & S. MOHSANIN (2020): A new country record of Smooth-backed Gliding Gecko Gekko lionotum (Annandale, 1905) (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Bangladesh. - Journal of Threatened Taxa, 12 (15): 17161 - 17164.","GRISMER, L. L., P. J. WOOD, M. K. THURA, M. S. GRISMER, R. M. BROWN & B. L. STUART (2018): Geographically structured genetic variation in Ptychozoon lionotum (Squamata: Gekkonidae) and a new species from an isolated volcano in Myanmar. - Zootaxa, 4514 (2): 202 - 214.","GRISMER, L. L., J. L. GRISMER, E. S. QUAH, N. THY, S. PHIMMACHAK, N. SIVONGXAY, S. SEATEUN, B. L. STUART, C. B. SIL- ER, D. G. MULCAHY, & T. ANAMZA (2019): Geographic structure of genetic variation in the Parachute Gecko Ptychozoon lionotum Annandale, 1905 across Indochina and Sundaland with descriptions of three new species. - Zootaxa, 4638 (2): 151 - 198."]}

Lalremsanga, Hmar Tlawmte, Muansanga, Lal, Vabeiryureilai, Mathipi, Mirza, Zeeshan A. (2023): A new species of Parachute Gecko of the subgenus Ptychozoon (Sauria: Gekkonidae: Gekko) from the Indo-Burma region. Salamandra 59 (2): 1-11, DOI: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7967275, {"references":["ANNANDALE, N. (1905): Notes on some Oriental geckos in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, with descriptions of new forms. - Annal & Magazine of Natural History, 7(15): 26-32.","BHOSALE, H. S., G. G. GOWANDE & Z. A. MIRZA (2019): Anew species of fossorial natricid snakes of the genus Trachischium Gunther, 1858 (Serpentes: Natricidae) from the Himalayas of northeastern India. - Comptes Rendus Biologies, 342(9-10): 323-329.","BHOSALE, H., P. PHANSALKAR, M. SAWANT, G. GOWANDE, H. PATEL & Z. A. MIRZA (2020): Anew species of snail-eating snakes of the genus Pareas Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia: Serpentes) from eastern Himalayas, India. - European Journal of Taxonomy, 729: 54-73.","BHUIYAN, M. R. K., M. F. RABBE, M. F. JAMAN, A. K. DAS & S. MOHSANIN (2020): Anew country record of Smooth-backed Gliding Gecko Gekko lionotum (Annandale, 1905) (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Bangladesh. - Journal of Threatened Taxa, 12(15): 17161-17164.","BROWN, R. M., J. W. FERNER & A. C. DIESMOS (1997): Definition of the Philippine parachute gecko, Ptychozoon intermedium Taylor 1915 (Reptilia: Squamata: Gekkonidae): redescription, designation of a neotype, and comparisons with related species. - Herpetologica, 53(3): 357-373.","CHAMPION, H. G. & S. K. SETH (1968): Arevised survey of the forest types of India. - Manager of publications.","DUDLEY, R., G. BYRNES, S. P. YANOVIAK, B. BORRELL, R. M. BROWN & J. A. MCGUIRE (2007): Gliding and the functional origins of flight: biomechanical novelty or necessity? - Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 38: 179- 201.","GIRI, V., D. J. GOWER, A. DAS, H. T. LALREMSANGA, S. LALRONUNGA, A. CAPTAIN & V. DEEPAK (2019): Anew genus and species of natricine snake from northeast India. - Zootaxa, 4603(2): 241-264.","GRISMER, L. L., P. J. WOOD, M. K. THURA, M. S. GRISMER, R. M. BROWN & B. L. STUART (2018): Geographically structured genetic variation in Ptychozoon lionotum (Squamata: Gekkonidae) and a new species from an isolated volcano in Myanmar. - Zootaxa, 4514(2): 202-214.","GRISMER, L. L., J. L. GRISMER, E. S. QUAH, N. THY, S. PHIMMACHAK, N. SIVONGXAY, S. SEATEUN, B. L. STUART, C. B. SILER, D. G. MULCAHY, & T. ANAMZA (2019): Geographic structure of genetic variation in the Parachute Gecko Ptychozoon lionotum Annandale, 1905 across Indochina and Sundaland with descriptions of three new species. - Zootaxa, 4638(2): 151-198.","GUHATHAKURTA, P., A. BANDGAR, P. MENON, A. K. PRASAD, N. SANGWAN & S. C. ADVANI (2020): Observed Rainfall Variability and Changes Over Mizoram State. Met Monograph No. ESSO/IMD/HS/Rainfall Variability/18 (2020)/42. - India Meteorological Department. Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India.","HEINICKE, M. P., E. GREENBAUM, T. R. JACKMAN & A. M. BAUER (2012): Evolution of gliding in Southeast Asian geckos and other vertebrates is temporally congruent with dipterocarp forest development. - Biology Letters, 8(6): 994-997.","KAMEI, R. G. & S. MAHONY (2021): Anew species of Bent-toed gecko (Squamata: Gekkonidae:Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827) from the Garo Hills, Meghalaya State, north-east India, and discussion of morphological variation for C. urbanus. - Herpetological Journal, 31(3): 177-196.","KUMAR, S., G. STECHER, M. LI, C. KNYAZ & K. TAMURA (2018): MEGA X: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis across computing platforms. - Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35(6): 1547.","LALREMSANGA, H. T., A. K. BAL, G. VOGEL & L. BIAKZUALA (2022): Molecular phylogenetic analyses of lesser known colubrid snakes reveal a new species of Herpetoreas (Squamata: Colubridae: Natricinae), and new insights into the systematics of Gongylosoma scriptum and its allies from northeastern India. - Salamandra, 58(2): 101-115.","LALREMSANGA, H. T., H. CHINLIANSIAMA, S. C. BOHRA, L. BIAKZUALA, M. VABEIRYUREILAI, L. MUANSANGA, F. MALSAWMDAWNGLIANA, G. Z. HMAR, H. T. DECEMSON, V. SIAMMAWII & J. PURKAYASTHA (2022): Anew bent-toed gecko (Cyrtodactylus Gray: Squamata: Gekkonidae) from the state of Mizoram, India. - Zootaxa, 5093(4): 465-482.","MAHONY, S. & R. G. KAMEI (2022): Anew species of Cyrtodactylus Gray (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Manipur State, northeast India, with a critical review highlighting extensive errors in literature covering bent-toed geckos of the Indo-Burma region. - Journal of Natural History, 55(39-40): 2445-2480.","MACEY, J. R., A. LARSON, N. B. ANANJEVA & T. J. PAPENFUSS (1997): Evolutionary shifts in three major structural features of the mitochondrial genome among iguanian lizards. - Journal of Molecular Evolution, 44(6): 660-674.","MINH B. Q., H. A. SCHMIDT, O. CHERNOMO, D. SCHREMPF, M. D. WOODHAMS, A. VON HAESELER & R. LANFEAR (2020): IQTREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. - Molecular Biology and Evolution, 37(5): 1530-1534.","MIRZA, Z. A., H. BHOSALE, F. ANSARI, P. PHANSALKAR, M. SAWANT, G. GOWANDE & H. PATEL (2021): Anew species of geckos of the genus Cyrtodactylus Gray, 1827 from Arunachal Pradesh, India. - Evolutionary Systematics, 5: 13-23.","MIRZA, Z. A., H. BHOSALE, P. PHANSALKAR, M. SAWANT, G. GOWANDE & H. PATEL (2020): Anew species of green pit vipers of the genus Trimeresurus Lacepede, 1804 (Reptilia, Serpentes, Viperidae) from western Arunachal Pradesh, India. - Zoosystematics and Evolution, 96(1): 123-138.","MYERS, N., R. A. MITTERMEIER, C. G. MITTERMEIER, G. A. DA FONSECA & J. KENT (2000): Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. - Nature, 403(6772): 853-858.","PAWAR, S. S. & S. BISWAS (2001): First record of the Smoothbacked Parachute Gecko Ptychozoon lionotum Annandale 1905 from the Indian Mainland. - Asiatic Herpetological Research, 9: 101-106.","PURKAYASTHA, J., H. T. LALREMSANGA, S. C. BOHRA, L. BIAKZUALA, H. T. DECEMSON, L. MUANSANGA, M. VABEIRYUREILAI, S. CHAUHAN & Y. RATHEE (2021): Four new Bent-toed geckos (Cyrtodactylus Gray: Squamata: Gekkonidae) from northeast India. - Zootaxa, 4980(1): 451-489.","PURKAYASTHA, J., H. T. LALREMSANGA, B. LITHO, Y. RATHEE, S. BOHRA, V. MATHIPI, L. BIAKZUALA & L. MUANSANGA (2022): Two new Cyrtodactylus (Squamata, Gekkonidae) from Northeast India. - European Journal of Taxonomy, 794: 111-139.","RAMBAUT, A. (2012): FigTree v 1.3.1. [Online]. Available online at:http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/","RATHEE, Y. S., J. PURKAYASTHA, H. T. LALREMSANGA, S. DALAL, L. BIAKZUALA, L. MUANSANGA & Z. A. MIRZA (2022): Anew cryptic species of green pit viper of the genus Trimeresurus Lacepede, 1804 (Serpentes, Viperidae) from northeast India. - PLoS ONE, 17(5): p.e0268402.","SMITH, M. A. (1935): The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. - Taylor And Francis, London.","THOMPSON, J. D., T. J. GIBSON & D. G. HIGGINS (2002): Multiple sequence alignment using ClustalW and ClustalX. - Current Protocols in Bioinformatics, 1: 2-3.","UETZ, P., P. FREED & J. HOSEK (2022): The Reptile Database. Available from: http://www.reptile-database.org, accessed 12 August 2022.","UNDERWOOD, W. & R. ANTHONY (2020): AVMA guidelines for the euthanasia of animals: 2020 edition. - Retrieved on March, 2013(30), 2020-1.","WOOD, P. L. JR, X. GUO, S. L. TRAVERS, Y. SU, K. OLSON, A. M. BAUER, L. L. GRISMER, C. D. SILER, R. G. MOYLE, M. J. ANDERSEN & R. M. BROWN (2020): Parachute geckos free fall into synonymy: Gekko phylogeny, and a new subgeneric classification, inferred from thousands of ultraconserved elements. - Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 146: 106731.","WOOD, P. L. JR, X. GUO, S. L. TRAVERS, Y. SU, K. OLSON, A. M. BAUER, L. L. GRISMER, C. D. SILER, R. G. MOYLE, M. J. ANDERSEN & R. M. BROWN (2021): Corrigendum to \"Parachute geckos free fall into synonymy: Gekko phylogeny, and a new subgeneric classification, inferred from thousands of ultraconserved elements\" - [Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 146 (2020) 106731], Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 164: 107255."]}