Search

The Malagasy genus Gephyromantis contains 51 species of primarily terrestrial or scansorial frogs. Although many species are morphologically weakly divergent from each other, the combination of molecular and bioacoustic evidence has led to a continuous flow of species discoveries in the last years. Previous works have notably shown the existence of numerous additional deep mitochondrial lineages of uncertain status in the nominal subgenus Gephyromantis, some of these considered as confirmed or unconfirmed candidate species, some as deep conspecific lineages. Here we use DNA sequences of one mitochondrial and one nuclear marker, as well as morphological and bioacoustic data, to conduct an integrative revision of the subgenus Gephyromantis. The analyses reveal at least 12 distinct and independent evolutionary lineages belonging to the G. blanci and G. boulengeri species complexes. Evidence for the species status of these lineages included multiple cases of syntopic occurrence without genetic admixture, as well as differences in advertisement calls or morphological differentiation without intermediate forms, suggesting reproductive isolation. We discuss the relevance of these different lines of evidence and describe six new species of Gephyromantis., The work of AM was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant MI 2748/1-1) and the work of AC was supported by the Portuguese National Funds through FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, contract 2020.00823. CEECIND/CP1601/CT0003).

Based on sequences of three mitochondrial and two nuclear-encoded genes, we examine genetic variation in the leaf tailed geckos Uroplatus sameiti and U. sikorae, and morphological and chromatic characteristics of the genetic clusters identified. The mitochondrial phylogeny reveals a puzzling diversity of 16 deep lineages (4 in U. sameiti and 12 in U. sikorae) differing by 2.9–9.9% uncorrected pairwise distance in a fragment of the 16S rRNA gene. Populations from Analalava in the North and Zahamena in the Northern Central East form two mitochondrial lineages clustering with U. sameiti but being deeply divergent (>8% 16S distance); however, no information on their morphology is available. In U. sikorae, the mitochondrial lineages identified form several major geographic clades, two of which (from the northernmost and southernmost populations, respectively) received substantial support in the phylogenetic analysis. No instance of sympatry of two or more mitochondrial lineages was observed, precluding an unambiguous assessment of species status under the biological species criterion without experimental approaches or detailed hybrid zone analyses. In the fragment of the nuclear encoded gene SACS we observed haplotype sharing between species and mitochondrial lineages, while in the fragment of KIAA1239 no haplotype sharing was detected although neither species nor mitochondrial lineages formed coherent phylogroups in the respective network. A screening of colour patterns from live photos, partly of the genotyped individuals, confirmed a large variation within species and populations, with a possible sexual dichromatism where a longitudinally striped phenotype is restricted to males. All individuals from populations of the U. sikorae clade from the Southern Central East and South East had an unpigmented oral mucosa just like U. sameiti, while all other U. sikorae populations are characterized by a black oral mucosa pigmentation. The extremely strong phylogeographic structure in the U. sikorae complex without obvious species-level divergences is unprecedented for large-sized squamates in Madagascar and calls for further taxonomic scrutiny using phylogenomic approaches; and it exemplifies how the loss of any major block of the remaining rainforests in Madagascar will inevitably lead to a substantial loss of genetic diversity – even if often intraspecific – in rainforest-specialized species.

Lygodactylus guibei Pasteur, 1965 Lygodactylus (Domerguella) guibei Pasteur, 1965 Partial chresonymy Lygodactylus guibei: Kluge (1991); Glaw & Vences (1992, 1994, 2007); Puente et al. (2005, 2009); Röll et al. (2010); Gippner et al. (2021) Lygodactylus (Domerguella) guibei: Rösler (2000b). Name-bearing type: holotype MNHN 1993.60 from “Périnet (Est)” (=Andasibe), according to the original description.—Other types: According to the original description, there were two paratypes; we only were able to locate MNHN 1933.156.—Etymology: Eponym for Jean Guibé. Identity and Diagnosis. The holotype agrees well morphologically with most other individuals assigned to this species by relatively low longitudinal counts of dorsal scales (L. miops have higher counts (>200 />100). Despite some overlap in these variables, the differences between the two lineages seem to allow a distinction of most individuals. Furthermore, L. guibei does not reach the high INFL and NNS counts of some L. miops individuals, reaches larger body sizes, and males are characterized by more distinct lateral tubercles at the base of the tail, judging from the specimens morphologically examined herein. Specimens appear to have a rather indistinct dorsal pattern (Fig. 14). Two photographed individuals have a conspicuous stripe-like row of dark spots on the chest (Fig. 14C, E) but this pattern is absent in most other individuals examined. Distribution. L. guibei is known from several localities in the Northern Central East of Madagascar: (1) the type locality Andasibe, (2) Vohidrazana, (3) Moramanga, (4) Anjozorobe, (5) Mahasoa Forest (based on ND4 sequences of Gippner et al. 2021), and (6) Angozongahy on the west slope of the Makira Reserve., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 23-25, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Kluge, A. G. (1991) Checklist of Gekkonoid Lizards. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service 85, 36 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 23317515.85.1","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1992) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 331 pp. [First Edition.]","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1994) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 480 pp. [Second Edition.]","Puente, M., Thomas, M. & Vences, M. (2005) Phylogeny and biogeography of Malagasy dwarf geckos, Lygodactylus Gray, 1864: Preliminary data from mitochondrial DNA sequences (Squamata: Gekkonidae). In: Huber, B. A. & Lampe, K. H. (Eds.), African Biodiversity: Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems. Proc. 5 th Intern. Symp. Trop. Biol., Museum Koenig, Bonn. Springer, pp. 229 - 235. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / 0 - 387 - 24320 - 8 _ 21","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","Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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","Rosler, H. (2000 b) Kommentierte Liste der rezent, subrezent und fossil bekannten Geckotaxa (Reptilia: Gekkonomorpha). Gekkota, 2, 28 - 153."]}

Lygodactylus miops Günther, 1891 Lygodactylus miops Günther, 1891 Synonyms Microscalabotes spinulifer Boettger, 1913 Lygodactylus septemtuberculatus Angel, 1942 Chresonyms: Lygodactylus septemtuberculatus: Kluge (1991) Lygodactylus (Domerguella) miops: Pasteur (1965a) Lygodactylus (Lygodactylus) septemtuberculatus: Rösler (2000b) Lygodactylus miops: Kluge (1991); Glaw & Vences (1992, 1994, 2007); Puente et al. (2005, 2009); Röll et al. (2010); Gippner et al. (2021) Name-bearing type: holotype, BMNH 1946.8.22.55, female.—Type locality: “Senbendrana”, Madagascar according to the original description (probably referring to Sahembendrana; see Blommers-Schlösser & Blanc 1991).— Other types: none according to original description.— Etymology: From Latin (originally Greek) miops = short sighted and probably referring to the large eyes of the species highlighted in the original description. Identity and Diagnosis. Our data show the presence of five genetic lineages in the general area of the Northern Central East of Madagascar whence L. miops has been described. These include the lineages commonly named L. guibei and L. miops, as well as the candidate species L. sp. 11, L. sp. 19, and L. sp. 20, all belonging to subclade A5. Of these lineages, no material for morphological examination was available for L. sp. 19 and L. sp. 20. At the same time, there are four historical nomina described from this general region, all without genetic data for the name-bearing types: Lygodactylus miops Günther, 1891; Microscalabotes spinulifer Boettger, 1913; Lygodactylus septemtuberculatus Angel, 1942; Lygodactylus guibei Pasteur, 1965a. We here continue to define the relatively small-sized lineage that is widespread mostly in low elevations along much of Madagascar’s east coast as L. miops (as in Puente et al. 2009), based on the following rationale: (i) several of the specimens genetically assigned to this lineage share with the L. miops holotype a high count of infralabial scales (INFL = 8), which is not observed in specimens assigned to L. guibei (INFL = 6 or 7); (ii) the count of internasal scales (IN = 3) of the L. miops holotype is higher than in any specimen assigned to L. guibei (IN = 1 or 2) but is found in two other individuals of this genetic lineage; (iii) with an SVL of 29.9 mm (according to our own, new measurements) the holotype fits well the size range of other individuals usually assigned to L. miops (27.2–31.2 mm), while several specimens of L. guibei reach SVLs between 34.0– 39.5 mm; (iv) most importantly, the longitudinal counts of dorsal and ventral scales are larger than in all individuals assigned to L. guibei (LCDS 233 vs. 170–220; LCVS 113 vs. 87–109), and agree with those of other specimens usually assigned to L. miops (LCDS 205–242, LCVS 98–113); (v) the tail base tubercles are distinct and medium-sized as in other males usually assigned to L. miops; (vi) finally, the L. miops holotype has a distinct pattern with light dorsolateral bands (already mentioned in the original description), which is rarely found in subclade A5 but observed in genotyped individuals from Betampona (e.g. Fig. 13C). The L. miops holotype also differs from the sole voucher specimen of L. sp. 11 available for morphological examination by a higher number of dorsal tubercles, lower dorsal scale count, higher ventral scale count, and more distinct tubercles at tail base. We here consider L. sp. 11 as a distinct species, L. fritzi sp. nov., and provide additional comparisons and justifications (including a detailed discussion of the L. miops type locality) in the diagnosis of that species below. However, based on the available data we cannot fully exclude that the L. miops holotype is conspecific with L. sp. 19 or L. sp. 20 for which no morphological data are available. Synonyms. We consider two nomina to be synonyms of L. miops, in agreement with current taxonomy: Microscalabotes spinulifer Boettger, 1913 with the lectotype (designated by Mertens 1967) SMF 8931, collected by F. Sikora at Moramanga; and Lygodactylus septemtuberculatus Angel, 1942 with the holotype MNHN 1893.63 as well from Moramanga. Both these nomina agree with the lineage here considered to represent L. miops by their relatively high longitudinal counts of dorsal and ventral scales (LCDS 240 (spinulifer) and 225 (septemtuberculatus); LCVS 107 and 102, vs. LCDS 205–242 and LCVS 98–113 for specimens assigned to L. miops; Table 1), and relatively small body size (28.5 and 29.0 mm, vs. 27.2–31.2 mm for specimens assigned to L. miops; Table 1). The same morphological characters are also found in L. sp. 11, but this lineage is known from coastal localities and has not been found in or nearby Moramanga so far. Natural history. In Betampona this species is very common and can be found both in disturbed areas and in densely forested habitat. Here the species is often found in the leaflitter, on twigs or along the partially aerial roots of larger trees. This species generally roosts on the leaves of small bushes (including the invasive strawberry guava). Distribution. L. miops as understood here is one of the most widespread species of the L. madagascariensis group, occurring in multiple localities along the eastern coast of Madagascar, which encompass the regions South East, Southern Central East, Northern Central East, and North East. It is known from (1) the type locality Senbendrana (=Sahembendrana or Sahambendrana? For a detailed discussion of this locality, see the account of L. fritzi sp. nov. below), and the type locality of its two synonyms, (2) Moramanga. Furthermore, genetically verified records (in a south–north direction) originate from (3) Manantantely, (4) Andohahela, (5) a site north of Andohahela, (6) Sainte Luce, (7) Sampanandrano, (8) Tsitongambarika, (9) Ranomafana, (10) Ambohitsara, (11) Mahakajy, (12) Anosibe Anala, (13) Vohimana, (14) Sahafina, (15) Betampona, (16) Makira (Ambodivoahangy).., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 21-23, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Gunther, A. (1891) Eleventh Contribution to the knowledge of the Fauna of Madagascar. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 8, 287 - 288. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222939109460436","Boettger, O. (1913) Reptilien und Amphibien von Madagascar, den Inseln und dem Festland Ostafrikas. Voeltzkow, A., Reise in Ostafrika, 3 (4), 1 - 269.","Angel, F. (1942) Les lezards de Madagascar. Memoires de l'Academie Malgache, 36, 1 - 139.","Kluge, A. G. (1991) Checklist of Gekkonoid Lizards. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service 85, 36 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 23317515.85.1","Pasteur, G. (1965 a) Notes preliminaries sur les lygodactyles (Gekkonides). IV Diagnoses de quelques formes africaines et malgaches. Bulletin du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, 36, 311 - 314.","Rosler, H. (2000 b) Kommentierte Liste der rezent, subrezent und fossil bekannten Geckotaxa (Reptilia: Gekkonomorpha). Gekkota, 2, 28 - 153.","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1992) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 331 pp. [First Edition.]","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1994) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 480 pp. [Second Edition.]","Puente, M., Thomas, M. & Vences, M. (2005) Phylogeny and biogeography of Malagasy dwarf geckos, Lygodactylus Gray, 1864: Preliminary data from mitochondrial DNA sequences (Squamata: Gekkonidae). In: Huber, B. A. & Lampe, K. H. (Eds.), African Biodiversity: Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems. Proc. 5 th Intern. Symp. Trop. Biol., Museum Koenig, Bonn. Springer, pp. 229 - 235. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / 0 - 387 - 24320 - 8 _ 21","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","Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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","Blommers-Schlosser, R. M. A. & Blanc, C. P. (1991) Amphibiens (premiere partie). Faune de Madagascar, 75 (1), 1 - 379.","Mertens, R. (1967) Die herpetologische Sektion des Naturmuseums und Forschungsinstitutes Senckenberg in Frankfurt a. M. nebst einem Verzeichnis ihrer Typen. Senckenbergiana Biologica, 48, Sonderheft A, 1 - 106."]}

Lygodactylus roellae sp. nov. Lygodactylus sp. 17: Gippner et al. (2021). Holotype. ZSM 49 /2016 (MSZC 0072), adult female, collected by M.D. Scherz, J. Borrell, L. Ball, T. Starnes, E. Razafimandimby, D.H. Nomenjanahary, and J. Rabearivony at Ampotsidy mountains, 15.7 km NNW of Bealanana (8.7 km NNW of Beandrarezona), northern Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S14.41974, E48.71935, 1344 m a.s.l., on 22 December 2015 (Fig. 15). Paratypes. ZSM 556 /2014 (DRV 6289), adult male, collected by F.M. Ratsoavina, D. Vieites, M. Vences, R. D. Randrianiaina, S. Rasamison, A. Rakotoarison, E. Rajeriarison, and T. Rajoafiarison at Andrevorevo, a site south of the Tsaratanana Massif, northern Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S14.3464, E49.1028, 1717 m a.s.l., on 21 June 2010; UADBA-R 70855 (MSZC 0010), adult female, with the same collection data as the holotype but collected at S14.41878 E48.71896, 1354 m a.s.l. on 18 December 2015 at 20h20. Diagnosis. Lygodactylus roellae sp. nov. corresponds to a genetically highly distinct lineage from northern Madagascar that is the sister species of L. salvi described above, but differs by high genetic divergence and several scale counts. It belongs to subclade A3 within Domerguella as defined herein. It can also be assigned to the subgenus Domerguella by an undivided mental scale with two postmentals, absence of a claw on the first finger, and 5 preanal pores in males. Within Domerguella, the new species is only known from two localities in northern Madagascar and differs from the other nominal species of Domerguella occurring in this part of the island as follows: from L. expectatus by a different color pattern, without scapular semi-ocellus and with a striped pattern apparently in most individuals (vs. scapular semi-ocellus usually present, and striped pattern unknown); from L. rarus by lack of regular crossbands on tail (vs. presence) and different body shape without elongated limbs (relative hindlimb length 0.41–0.45 vs.>0.55); from L. madagascariensis, L. petteri, L. salvi, and L. tantsaha by smaller longitudinal dorsal scale count (159–169 vs.>188) and smaller longitudinal ventral scale count (83–92 vs.>96). Genetically, the new species is highly distinct from all species in subclade A5, and differs at least from L. guibei by a less distinctly expressed lateral spine at the tail base of males (vs. presence of a distinct, large spine). Furthermore, the longitudinal dorsal scale count is smaller than in all known individuals of subclade A5. The new species differs from its sister lineage, L. salvi (described above), by a lower longitudinal dorsal scale count (159–169 vs. 211–217) and a lower ventral scale count (83–92 vs. 107–112). The two sister species also differ by a high genetic divergence of 11.2–12.6% in the 16S gene, and do not share haplotypes in RAG1 despite occurring in geographical proximity. For a distinction from additional species newly named and described herein, see the respective diagnoses below. Etymology. We are pleased to dedicate this beautiful gecko species to Beate Röll, in recognition for her substantial contributions to Lygodactylus biology and phylogeny. The name is a matronym (i.e., a noun in the genitive case). Description of the holotype. Adult female, in a good state of preservation, the right hind limb is partly removed as a source of tissue for molecular analysis (Fig. 15). SVL 35.9 mm, TAL 39.6 mm; for other measurements see Table 1. Head and neck thick, body broader than head. The distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior border of the eye (3.8 mm) is less than the interorbital distance anteriorly (4.2 mm), and greater than the distance between the eye and ear opening. Snout covered with granular scales larger than those on the rest of the dorsum. Nostril surrounded by five scales: rostral, first supralabial, and three supranasals. Mental scale undivided; no contact between posterior projection of mental scale and first infralabial; two asymmetrical postmental scale with five postpostmental scales; seven infralabial scales; seven supralabial scales; two internasal scales; granular dorsal scales; dorsum with small, homogeneous, granular, and unkeeled scales of similar size to those on trunk, smaller than on head and tail, the scales on limbs can be slightly larger; 169 dorsal scales longitudinal along the body; 92 ventral scales between mental and cloaca; venter with large homogeneous smooth scales; first finger present but very small, not bearing a claw; three pairs of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; no dorsolateral tubercles; tail without whorls; small lateral spines at the base of the tail. Based on available photographs (Fig. 18A–B), the life coloration of the holotype exhibited a distinct pattern of dark brownish to yellowish stripes on the dorsum reaching from the eye to base of the tail. The stripes continue in an irregular pattern of more elongated dark and brighter spots on the caudal spine. The dark wide area on the back is slightly emarginated at the level of the hindlimbs before ending at the base of the tail. The flanks and limbs are gray to brownish (Fig. 18A). The ventral side is whitish with few small brown spots predominately on the throat and the tail (Fig. 18B). The specimen has darkened after 6 years of preservation in ethanol; however, the striped pattern is still distinctly visible. Variation. The coloration of the dorsum is characteristic with a distinct pattern of dark brownish to yellowish stripes on the dorsum with a variable strength of expression on the tail (Fig. 18A and 18E), which appears to weaken greatly or be lost upon regeneration (Fig. 18C). ......continued on the next page TABLE 1. (Continued) ......continued on the next page TABLE 1. (Continued) ......continued on the next page TABLE 1. (Continued) ......continued on the next page TABLE 1. (Continued) ......continued on the next page TABLE 1. (Continued) The examined male paratype specimen (ZSM 556/2014) is almost the same size as the holotype with a SVL of 36.0 mm and has a longer tail (45.3 mm) and hindlimbs (HIL/SVL 0.45). On the fourth toe it has four instead of three subdigital lamellae, which differs from all other examined specimens. Unlike the holotype it has tubercles between the limbs (6) that consist of one scale each. It has fewer dorsal (159) and ventral scales (83). These differences could be due to different sex or just random variation. Natural history. Specimens of this species were collected sleeping at night on roosts up to 1 m above the ground in Ampotsidy. UADBA-R 70855 was found sleeping on the tip of a Pandanus frond. It occurs in close sympatry with Lygodactylus winki sp. nov., described below. Distribution. L. roellae is known from (1) the type locality Ampotsidy and (2) Andrevorevo.

Lygodactylus ulli sp. nov. Lygodactylus sp. 21: Gippner et al. (2021) Holotype. ZSM 154 /2005 (FGZC 2811), adult male, collected by F. Glaw, M. Vences, and R. D. Randrianiaina at Marojejy National Park, at Camp 1 “Mantella”, North-East of Madagascar, geographical coordinates S14.4377, E49.7756, 481 m a.s.l., on 14 February 2005 (Fig. 15). Referred material. UADBA-R uncatalogued (MSZC 0272), female, collected by M.D. Scherz, J. Razafindraibe, and A. Razafimanantsoa at the same locality as the holotype, at night on 23 November 2016. Diagnosis. Lygodactylus ulli sp. nov. corresponds to a lineage forming part of subclade A5 of Domerguella, and is the second representative of this subclade reaching northern Madagascar. It is characterized by the presence of distinct lateral spine-like scales at the base of the tail in males, as is found in several representatives of A5 from eastern Madagascar but not in other Domerguella. The smallest genetic distances are 10.7% uncorrected 16S distance to specimens of L. guibei. It can also be assigned to the subgenus Domerguella by an undivided mental scale with two postmentals, absence of a claw on the first finger, and 7 preanal pores in males. Within Domerguella, the new species (together with L. winki) is one of only two species of subclade A5 known from northern Madagascar, and the only species of Domerguella so far known from the rainforests of the Marojejy Massif. It differs from the nominal species of Domerguella occurring in northern Madagascar and belonging to subclades A1–A4 as follows: from L. expectatus by non-enlarged dorsolateral scales (longitudinal count of dorsal scales>250 vs. L. rarus by lack of regular crossbands on tail (vs. presence) and different body shape with less elongated limbs (relative hindlimb length 0.47 vs.>0.55); from L. petteri, L. tantsaha, L. salvi, L. roellae, and L. hapei by a higher longitudinal count of dorsal scales (253 vs. L. madagascariensis as well as most of the previously mentioned species by a small but distinct spine-like tubercle at the base of the tail in males. From the other nominal species in subclade A5 (L. miops, and L. guibei and L. winki) the new species differs by higher longitudinal counts of dorsal scales (253 vs. 170–242) and ventral scales (110 vs. 87–109). We did not detect haplotype sharing in RAG1 or CMOS between L. ulli and the other nominal species in subclade A5 (L. miops, and L. guibei and L. winki). Haplotpe sharing was detected only at the CMOS marker with L. sp. 20. For a distinction from additional species newly named and described herein, see the respective diagnoses below. Etymology. We are pleased to dedicate this species to Ulrich “Ulli” Joger, director emeritus of the Braunschweig Natural History Museum, in recognition of his contribution to the taxonomy of reptiles, especially geckos. The species epithet name is defined as a noun in apposition (not a noun in the genitive case) to avoid ending with a non-euphonious double-i. Description of the holotype. Adult male, hemipenes everted, in moderate state of preservation, tail is broken and missing, right forelimb is removed as source of tissue for molecular analysis (Fig. 15). SVL 28.8 mm, TAL 2.6 mm; for other measurements see Table 1. Head broader than body. The distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior border of the eye (3.5 mm) is lesser than the interorbital distance anteriorly (3.9 mm), and greater than the distance between the eye and ear opening. Snout covered with granular scales larger than those on the rest of the dorsum. Nostril surrounded by five scales: rostral, first supralabial, and three supranasals. Mental scale undivided; no contact between posterior projection of mental scale and first infralabial; three asymmetrical postmental scales with five postpostmental scales; six infralabial scales; seven supralabial scales; two internasal scales; granular dorsal scales; dorsum with small, homogeneous, granular, and unkeeled scales of similar size to those on trunk, no distinct size difference to scales on limbs; 253 dorsal scales longitudinally along the body; 110 ventral scales between mental and cloaca; venter with large homogeneous smooth scales; first finger present but very small, not bearing a claw; three pairs of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; two not very distinct dorsolateral tubercles, each consisting of one scale; seven preanal pores; tail without whorls; small lateral spines at the base of the tail. Based on available photographs (Fig. 21), the live holotype displays a brownish to grayish pattern on the dorsum and the limbs. From the snout, a narrow black stripe runs irregularly to two elongated spots on the shoulder. At the forelimb level two symmetrical black spots are present on the spine (Fig. 21A). After 16 years in ethanol, the preserved specimen is more grayish. The ventral side is whitish. While there are only a few small brown spots on the venter, multiple larger brown spots are irregularly scattered on the throat. Variation. Comparing the two photographed specimens, dorsal coloration and patterns are less pronounced on the male (Fig. 21A), maybe because it appears to be close to skin shedding. The female has a blackish and grayish alternating dorsal pattern, surrounded by a yellowish base layer (Fig. 21B +C). The female is laterally darker than the male (Fig. 21A +B), has a white throat and yellow venter and ventral tail. Natural history. Specimens were collected in primary rainforest. Distribution. L. ulli is only known from its type locality, the Marojejy Massif in the North East region of Madagascar., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 44-46, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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"]}

Lygodactylus expectatus Pasteur & Blanc, 1967 Lygodactylus (Domerguella) expectatus Pasteur & Blanc, 1967 Chresonyms: Lygodactylus expectatus: Kluge (1991); Glaw & Vences (1992, 1994, 2007); Puente et al. (2009); Röll et al. (2010); Gippner et al. (2021) Lygodactylus (Domerguella) expectatus: Rösler (2000b) Name-bearing type: male holotype MNHN 1990.1 (original number BP 640).—Type locality: “Karst d’Ambilobe (Ankarana), à une douzaine de kilomètres au NNW de cette localité”, according to the original description.—Other types: according to the original description, five specimens were examined but explicitly only two of these were designated as paratypes, namely MNHN 1990.2 – 3 (BP 641, female, and BP 642, young female, according to original description).—Etymology: From Latin expectatus = expected. As explained in the original description, G. Pasteur and C.P. Blanc were expecting to find a new species in the karstic regions of the Ambilobe region. Identity and Diagnosis. According to the diagnosis given by Puente et al. (2009), the species differed from all species in the L. madagascariensis group known at the time by its dorsolateral scales, which are enlarged relative to the dorsal and lateral scales (not distinctly enlarged in the other species), and by the presence of two dark spots in the region of the neck (not distinct in the other species). The enlarged scales in the dorsolateral region, contrasting with the very small scales in the vertebral region, indeed represent a diagnostic character of this species that we could not observe in any other species of Domerguella (Fig. 6). This typical character state of L. expectatus is visible in all of the genetically characterized specimens collected, as well as the holotype (examined in June 2021, in relatively poor state of preservation). It is also reflected by a low longitudinal count of dorsal scales, of 130 scales or less if counting the enlarged scales (slightly more, with a maximum of 164, if counting the small vertebral scales, but also this value is still smaller than in all other nominal Domerguella, overlapping with only one candidate species, L. sp. 17). The dark spot in the region of the neck is located anterodorsal to the forelimb region, roughly in the scapular region, and we here name it the scapular semi-ocellus, considering that it is bordered by a whitish row of tubercles dorsally, giving the impression of an ocellus but lacking a ventral light lining. This semi-ocellus is typical for L. expectatus, but sometimes weakly expressed, and in such cases easy to confuse with dark lateral markings that can also be seen in other species of Domerguella, but often in slightly different positions (Figs. 7–8). Given these two diagnostic character states, which both have been verified in the holotype and in the genotyped specimens, along with the provenance of all these specimens from the Ankarana Massif, there is no doubt about the correct attribution of our specimens to L. expectatus. The species is rather small sized, with adult SVL 24.3–29.7 mm vs. a maximum size larger than 30 mm in several other species. There are no dorsolateral tubercles and no spiny tubercles at the tail base as they are characteristic for several other Domerguella, and no distinct, regular broad crossbands on the tail as in L. rarus (see below). According to the available counts, the species has 87–98 ventral scales longitudinally. Distribution. L. expectatus is only known from its type locality, the Ankarana Massif. According to the original description (Pasteur & Blanc 1967), additional specimens also came from “Ambilobé” and from “Region de DiégoSuarez”, but we have not verified the identity of the respective vouchers, and the localities are not precise enough for firmly concluding they are not in the Ankarana Massif (which is geographically located inbetween the towns of Ambilobe and Antsiranana (=Diego-Suarez).

Lygodactylus fritzi sp. nov. Lygodactylus sp. 11: Gippner et al. (2021). Justification. This new species from coastal areas in Madagascar’s Northern Central East has previously been called L. sp. 11 in Gippner et al. (2021). It corresponds to a lineage forming part of subclade A5 of Domerguella, and occurs in a general area where L. miops is also present. It is characterized by the presence of distinct lateral spinelike scales at the base of the tail in males, as are found in several representatives of subclade A5 but not in other Domerguella. The smallest genetic distance is 9.0% to specimens assigned to L. miops. However, it differs from this species by phylogenetic position and lack of haplotype sharing in nuclear-encoded genes. While species status of these two lineages is validated by the molecular evidence, the assignment of the holotype of L. miops, and of the types of the other earlier names septemtuberculatus and spinulifer, to either of them requires further justification (see also the account of L. miops). The following arguments support our decision to assign the holotype of miops, septemtuberculatus and spinulifer to what we will in this section call the “widespread lowland lineage” rather than to L. sp. 11: (1) The specimens of the widespread lowland lineage (including the three historical types) differ from L. sp. 11 by a 3–6 vs. 2 dorsolateral tubercles between limbs; dorsal scale count 207–242 vs. 247; ventral scale count 102–113 vs. 98; lateral tubercles at tail base recognizable (also in females) vs. barely recognizable. While each of these meristic differences by itself is rather weak, taken together they characterize L. sp. 11 as morphologically distinct, and the three type specimens of the earlier names as better fitting the widespread eastern lineage. (2) L. sp. 11 is only known from two low-elevation localities near sea level (0–20 m a.s.l.), and seems to be relatively localized; for instance, it has not been found at other nearby localities at slightly higher elevation such as Sahafina or Betampona, despite a substantial number of specimens sequenced from Betampona, which all belonged to the widespread lowland lineage. It is therefore less likely that historical specimens of L. sp. 11 were collected historically, and that its range extends into the type localities of the three historical nomina, especially up to Moramanga (the type locality of septemtuberculatus and spinulifer). (3) The type locality of L. miops, “Senbendrana” according to the original description (Günther 1891), cannot be located reliably at present. Senbendrana has been reported with the addition “near Tamatave” (= Toamasina) as a collecting locality of spiders (Pocock 1895); or as corresponding to Sahembendrana or Sahambendrana. This latter synonymy is supported by the fact that the type of L. miops was provided by “Majastre” (see Puente et al. 2009), probably corresponding to A. Majastre, a collector who provided specimens of many animals and plants from this area. Some of Majastre’s collections are labelled “Sahambendrana”, e.g., the type of the orchid Eulophia grandibracteata (see Schultz 2013). The locality apparently was often misspelled; for example, we assume that “Sen Bendrana” (Michaelsen 1891), “Senbendra” (Sharp & Ogilvie-Grant 1898), or “Schambendrama” (Bott 1963) refer to the same site as well. Blommers-Schlösser & Blanc (1991) located Sahembendrana close to Akkoraka (at higher elevations in eastern Madagascar), but it is likely that Majastre’s collecting site was situated closer to Toamasina. We could not locate current or historical maps mentioning a site with this or a similar name, but Ramananjara (2009) documents the sale of a property in 1931, in the “Canton d’Antetezambaro; sur la rivière Sahambendrana”, and more specifically “au sud d’Ambodisatrana”, which likely refers to a coastal village about 30 km north of Toamasina that can be located in historical maps from 1934 (Service Géographique de Madagascar, map “Fénérive”, 1/500,000). On the other hand, Rosa et al. (2012) report a campsite from Betampona Reserve (about 35 km north-east of Toamasina) locally known as Sahambendrana, at coordinates S17.8984, E49.2154, 458 m a.s.l. Other sources refer to a Sahambendrana river on the northern versant of Betampona (Randriatavy 2003; Randrianarimanana 2009). Whether any of these sites corresponds to Majastre’s collecting locality cannot be decided without further evidence, but these references demonstrate that the toponym has been and is in use for sites to the north and northeast in the vicinity of Toamasina. The available evidence, however, points to the original collecting site being not directly at sea level. According to Günther (1891), the same collection that included the L. miops holotype also contained “ Rhacophorus luteus ”, which almost certainly corresponds to a treefrog species of the Boophis luteus group, which is not known from coastal sites in Madagascar (but known to be present in Betampona), and for instance has not been collected at Vohibola or Ankanin’ny Nofy (Gehring et al. 2010) where L. sp. 11 occurs. Furthermore, Pellegrin (1933) reported fish specimens of the genus Sicyopterus from a “rivière Sahembendrana (région de Tamatave)”. These specimens were identified by Sparks & Nelson (2004) as S. franouxi, a species that according to these authors inhabits clear, swift-flowing waters and is frequently captured quite far inland, again in agreement that this site is within the range of the widespread eastern lineage but not a coastal locality within the range of L. sp. 11. The fact that Sahambendrana / Sahembendrana has on various occasions been used to refer to a river (e.g., Pellegrin 1993; Randriatavy 2003; Randrianarimanana 2009; Ramananjara 2009) allows for the possibility of an upstream collecting site of the L. miops holotype, at some distance from the coast, and thus at a moderate elevation as indicated by the accompanying fish and amphibian fauna; and probably in the area close to Betampona where our collections have only yielded individuals of the widespread lowland Domerguella lineage. In summary, the available evidence thus suggests that none of the earlier available names miops, septemtuberculatus, or spinulifer is likely to apply to L. sp. 11, which we therefore formally name as species new to science, L. fritzi sp. nov. Holotype. ZSM 651 /2009 (ZCMV 8902), female, collected by P.-S. Gehring, F. Ratsoavina, and E. Rajeriarison at Ankanin’ny Nofy, east coast of Madagascar, geographical coordinates - S18.6058, E49.2138, roughly at sea level, on 8 April 2009. Diagnosis. Lygodactylus fritzi sp. nov. is a species of the Lygodactylus subgenus Domerguella based on molecular phylogenetic relationships, and it can also be assigned to the subgenus Domerguella by an undivided mental scale with two postmentals, absence of a claw on the first finger, and 7 preanal pores in males. Within Domerguella, the new species is one of several species of subclade A5 known from the Northern Central East of Madagascar. It differs from the nominal species of Domerguella occurring in northern Madagascar and belonging to subclades A1–A4 as follows: from L. expectatus by non-enlarged dorsolateral scales (longitudinal count of dorsal scales>250 vs. L. rarus by lack of regular crossbands on tail (vs. presence) and different body shape with less elongated limbs (relative hindlimb length 0.47 vs.>0.55); from L. petteri, L. tantsaha, L. salvi, L. roellae, and L. hapei by a higher longitudinal count of dorsal scales (253 vs. L. madagascariensis as well as most of the previously mentioned species of clades A1‒A4 by a rudimentary spine-like tubercle at the base of the tail in the only known female (vs. absence). From other species of subclade A5, the new species differs as follows: from L. miops by fewer dorsolateral tubercles between limbs (2 vs. 3–6), higher longitudinal dorsal scale count (247 vs. 207–242), lower longitudinal ventral scale count (98 vs. 102–113), and weakly expressed lateral tubercles at tail base vs. clearly recognizable in males and females; from L. guibei by higher longitudinal dorsal scale count (247 vs. 170–220), and weakly expressed lateral tubercles at tail base vs. clearly recognizable, usually large in males and females; from L. winki by fewer dorsolateral tubercles between limbs (2 vs. 5–8), higher longitudinal dorsal scale count (247 vs. 187–222), and weakly expressed lateral tubercles at tail base vs. clearly recognizable usually large in males and females; from L. ulli possibly by more weakly expressed lateral tubercles at tail base and a lower longitudinal count of ventral scales (98 vs. 110). From all these species, it differs by phylogenetic position, at least 9% 16S distance, and absence of haplotype sharing in both nuclear-encoded genes studied. For a distinction from one other species newly named and described in the following, see the respective diagnosis below. Etymology. We are pleased to dedicate this species to Uwe Fritz, director of the Museum of Zoology, Dresden (part of the Senckenberg Natural History Collections), in recognition of his substantial contributions to the taxonomy of chelonians and squamates, and his tireless efforts to spearhead the fight for continued funding of basic taxonomic research. The name is a patronym (i.e., a noun in the genitive case). Description of the holotype. Female in a good state of preservation, tail partly detached. SVL 26.4 mm, TAL 26.5 mm; for other measurements see Table 1. Body broader than head. The distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior border of the eye (3.1 mm), is less than the interorbital distance anteriorly (3.5 mm), and greater than the distance between the eye and ear opening. Snout covered with granular scales larger than those on the rest of the dorsum. Nostril surrounded by four scales: rostral, first supralabial, and two supranasals. Mental scale undivided; no contact between posterior projection of mental scale and first infralabial; two asymmetrical postmental scales with four postpostmental scales; seven infralabial scales; eight supralabial scales; two internasal scales; granular dorsal scales; dorsum with small, homogeneous, granular, and unkeeled scales of similar size to those on trunk, no distinct size difference to scales on limbs; 247 dorsal scales longitudinally along the body; 98 ventral scales between mental and cloaca; venter with large homogeneous smooth scales; first finger present but very small, not bearing a claw; three pairs of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; two not very distinct dorsolateral tubercles, each consisting of one scale; tail without whorls; small lateral spines at the base of the tail. Coloration of the holotype is only described from the specimen that was preserved in ethanol for 12 years. The dorsum is fawn to brownish with scattered darker brown spots, the flanks are darker than the dorsum. A distinctive dark stripe is displayed on the shoulder. The parietal exhibits two darker areas. The tail is fawn with equispaced darker brown stripes on it. Venter and the snout are uniformly whitish with small irregular brown spots. Variation. Morphometric and meristic data are only known from a single voucher specimen. However, color patterns could be assessed from photographs of three additional individuals (Fig. 22), some of which were dorsally gray-beige with an irregular contrasted pattern of larger light and smaller dark spots (Fig. 22A), others more uniform with a more or less symmetrical pattern of dark spots (Fig. 22E), or dark brown with weakly contrasted light brown dorsolateral bands with a somewhat reddish tone (Fig. 22B–C). Ventrally irregularly dark spotted (Fig. 22D). Distribution. L. fritzi is only known from (1) the type locality Ankanin’ny Nofy and (2) Vohibola, two coastal lowland localities (0–20 m a.s.l.) in the Northern Central East of Madagascar. Littoral forest harbours a high species richness especially of plants, with several genera endemic to this habitat (de Gouvenain & Silander 2003; Bollen & Donati 2005). Fisher & Girman (2000) identified littoral forests as one of four major areas for ant endemism in Madagascar. Previous studies in south-eastern littoral forests found no vertebrate species strictly endemic to that forest type (Ganzhorn et al. 2000; Goodman & Ramanamanjato 2007) but recent taxonomic revisions have revealed numerous amphibians and reptiles restricted to small areas of forest directly adjacent to the Madagascar’s coast, such as for example species of the miniaturized frog genus Mini (Scherz et al. 2019) or Pandanus-dwelling frogs of Guibemantis (Lehtinen et al. 2011), or the chameleon Calumma vohibola (Gehring et al. 2011), Lygodactylus fritzi adds to this growing list of species specialized to these highly threatened coastal forests. Natural history. One adult specimen was photographed millimeters from the posterior end of a bug (Fig. 22), and was presumably consuming honeydew excreted by the insect, as is known from gecko species (Fölling et al. 2001).

Lygodactylus winki sp. nov. Lygodactylus sp. 18— Gippner et al. (2021). Holotype. ZSM 47 /2016 (MSZC 0075), adult male, collected by M.D. Scherz, J. Borrell, L. Ball, T. Starnes, E. Razafimandimby, D.H. Nomenjanahary, and J. Rabearivony, at Ampotsidy, 15.7 km NNW of Bealanana (8.7 km NNW of Beandrarezona), northern Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S14.41900, E48.71883, 1364 m a.s.l., on 22 December 2015 (Fig. 15). Paratypes. ZSM 48 /2016 (MSZC 0110), adult male, collected by same collectors and at same locality as holotype, at geographical coordinates S14.42843, E48.72285, 1315 m a.s.l., on 29 December 2015; UADBA-R 70856– 70859 (MSZC 0011, 0019, 0023, 0077), two males and two females, respectively, collected by same collectors and at same locality as holotype, between coordinates S14.41455 –14.42317, E48.71149 –48.71916, 1320–1404 m a.s.l., on 18–22 December 2015; ZSM 1763 /2010 (ZCMV 12502), by M. Vences, D. R. Vieites, R. D. Randrianiaina, F.M. Ratsoavina, S. Rasamison, A. Rakotoarison, E. Rajeriarison, and T. Rajoafiarison, at Bemanevika, Antsirakala campsite, geographical coordinates S14.43061, E48.60179, 1466 m a.s.l., on 27 June 2010; ZSM 555 /2014 (DRV 6288), collected by F.M. Ratsoavina, D. R. Vieites, M. Vences, R. D. Randrianiaina, S. Rasamison, A. Rakotoarison, E. Rajeriarison, and T. Rajoafiarison at Andrevorevo, geographical coordinates S14.3464, E49.1028, 1717 m a.s.l., on 21 June 2010. Diagnosis. Lygodactylus winki sp. nov. corresponds to a lineage forming part of the subclade A5 of Domerguella, and is one of only two representatives of this subclade known to reach northern Madagascar. The lowest genetic divergences of the lineages are 8.7% uncorrected 16S distance to L. guibei and 10.3% to L. miops. It is characterized by the presence of very distinct lateral spine-like scales at the base of the tail in males, as are found in several representatives of subclade A5 but not in other Domerguella. It can also be assigned to the subgenus Domerguella by an undivided mental scale with two postmentals, absence of a claw on the first finger, and 7 preanal pores in males. Within Domerguella, the new species is one of only two species of subclade A5 known from northern Madagascar. It differs from the other nominal species of Domerguella occurring in the same general area as follows: from L. expectatus by non-enlarged dorsolateral scales (longitudinal count of dorsal scales>185 vs. L. rarus by lack of regular crossbands on tail (vs. presence) and different body shape with less elongated limbs (relative hindlimb length 0.49–0.54 vs.>0.55); from L. madagascariensis, L. petteri, and L. salvi by a lower longitudinal count of ventral scales (83–98 vs.>100); from L. roellae and L. hapei, by a higher longitudinal count of dorsal scales (187–222 vs. 159–179); and from L. tantsaha by a lower longitudinal count of dorsal scales (187–222 vs. 239–240). Furthermore, the new species differs from all of these species of the subclades A1–A4 by the presence of a distinct lateral spine at the base of the tail, especially large in males but also clearly recognizable in females (vs. more weakly expressed or absent in the other species). From the other two nominal species in subclade A5 (L. guibei and L. miops, according to current taxonomy; see above) the new species differs as follows: from L. miops by a lower longitudinal count of ventral scales despite minimal overlap (83–98 vs. 98–113); and from L. guibei by apparently relatively longer hindlimbs (HIL/SVL 0.49–0.54 vs. 0.42–0.49). Further comparative examination of specimens also revealed a different head shape in L. winki compared to L. guibei, with apparently more expressed supraocular bulges (also visible in specimens in life; Fig. 14 vs. Fig. 20). Additional measurements taken on selected specimens in good, fully comparable state of preservation (Table 3) revealed that L. winki individuals have proportionally longer and higher heads than L. guibei, with non-overlapping values (relative snout tip to tympanum distance in percent, 24.7–28.8 vs. 23.0–24.6; relative head height in percent, 12.5–14.2 vs. 11.1–12.4; see Table 3). L. winki sp. nov. does not share haplotypes in CMOS or RAG1 with L. miops, and only one instance of haplotype sharing in RAG1 is detected with L. guibei. For a distinction from additional species newly named and described herein, see the respective diagnoses below. Etymology. This species is dedicated to Michael Wink, pharmacologist, herpetologist, ornithologist and professor emeritus of the University of Heidelberg, in recognition for his support of research in squamate systematics. The name is a patronym (i.e., a noun in the genitive case). Description of the holotype. Adult male, hemipenes everted, in good state of preservation, tail is broken and missing, second toe on the left forelimb is removed as source of tissue for molecular analysis (Fig. 15). SVL 29.5 mm, TAL 15.6 mm; for other measurements see Table 1. Head and neck short, head broader than body. The distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior border of the eye (3.9 mm) is less than the interorbital distance anteriorly (4.0 mm), and greater than the distance between the eye and ear opening. Snout covered with granular scales larger than those on the rest of the dorsum. Nostril surrounded by five scales: rostral, first supralabial, and three supranasals. Mental scale undivided; no contact between posterior projection of mental scale and first infralabial; two symmetrical postmental scales with four postpostmental scales; six infralabial scales; seven supralabial scales; two internasal scales; granular dorsal scales; dorsum with small, homogeneous, granular, and unkeeled scales of similar size to those on trunk, smaller than on head and tail, the scales on limbs can be slightly larger; 222 dorsal scales longitudinally along the body; 93 ventral scales between mental and cloaca; venter with large homogeneous smooth scales; first finger present but very small, not bearing a claw; three pairs of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; eight not very distinct dorsolateral tubercles, consisting of one scale; seven preanal pores; tail without whorls; large lateral spines at the base of the tail. Based on available photographs (Fig. 20), the holotype displayed a light marbled yellow grayish dorsal coloration with more brownish flanks before preservation. Distinct yellow spots are present on the head, the flank, the limbs, and the tail. Two black markings are present on the shoulder on either side of the body, reminiscent of double scapular semi-ocelli. Along the spine a narrow brown line reaches from the neck to the base of the tail. Adjacent to this line two pairs of symmetrical dark spots are present (forming two disrupted chevrons), one pair on forelimb level and one pair 10 mm posterior (Fig. 20D). After six years of preservation in ethanol, the preserved specimen is more uniformly brownish and most of the marbled pattern is faded. The ventral side is fawn with few small brown spots, most of them in the gular region. Variation. Males display a light marbled yellow grayish dorsal coloration with more brownish flanks and yellow spots. The dorsal and ventral coloration on females is darker without a pattern except for a few dark dorsal spots (Fig. 20E and 20I in comparison to Fig. 20A–G). Three additional specimens (two males [ZSM 555 /2014, ZSM 48 /2016], one female [ZSM 1763 /2010]) were examined. The SVL ranges between 29.8 and 33.4 mm with the female being the largest. The two males have a TAL of 37.8 and 45.0 mm. The relative hindlimb length is 0.49 to 0.53 with the female having the smallest. The female also has the smallest eyes relative to the size of the body and with a medium size smaller tubercles at the tail base than the males, which have large tubercles. The number of dorsal scales ranges between 187 and 208. The ventral scales range between 83 and 98. Natural history. The holotype was collected in primary rainforest, on the trunk of a big tree, 0.2 m above the ground. The paratypes from Ampotsidy were mostly collected at night sleeping on leaves, twigs, or vines. UADBA-R 70856 was collected in the afternoon, on the ground during heavy rain. Distribution. L. winki is known from three localities in the North and Sambirano regions in northern Madagascar: (1) the type locality, Ampotsidy, (2) Andrevorevo, and (3) Bemanevika.

Lygodactylus tantsaha sp. nov. Lygodactylus sp. 10: Gippner et al. (2021) Holotype. ZSM 196 /2018 (field number MSZC 0772), adult male, collected by M.D. Scherz, J.H. Razafindraibe, A. Razafimanantsoa, and S.M. Rasolonjavato at Montagne d’Ambre, west slope, northern Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S12.58503, E49.11596, 817 m. a.s.l., on 8 December 2017 at 22h20 (Fig. 15). Paratype. ZSM 197 /2018 (MSZC 0771), collected by M.D. Scherz, J.H. Razafindraibe, A. Razafimanantsoa, and S.M. Rasolonjavato at Montagne d’Ambre, west slope, Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S12.58548, E49.11697, 820 m a.s.l., on 8 December 2017 at 21h36. Diagnosis. Lygodactylus tantsaha sp. nov. corresponds to a genetically highly distinct lineage from northern Madagascar that is not closely related to any nominal species of Lygodactylus as defined in the previous sections. It belongs to subclade A2 within Domerguella as defined herein. It can also be assigned to the subgenus Domerguella by an undivided mental scale with two postmentals, absence of a claw on the first finger, and 7 preanal pores in males. Within Domerguella, the new species is only known from Montagne d’Ambre in northern Madagascar and differs from the other Domerguella occurring in this region as follows: from L. expectatus by non-enlarged dorsolateral scales (longitudinal count of dorsal scales>230 vs. L. rarus by lack of regular crossbands on tail (vs. presence) and different body shape without elongated limbs (relative hindlimb length 0.45–0.50 vs.>0.55); from L. madagascariensis by asymmetrical postmental scales (vs. symmetrical); from L. petteri by a larger longitudinal count of dorsal scales (239–240 vs. 189–222). Genetically, the new species is highly distinct from all species in subclade A5, and differs from almost all of them (potentially not L. fritzi sp. nov. described below) by an absent or only weakly expressed lateral spine at the tail base of males (vs. presence of a distinct spine). Tentatively, L. tantsaha sp. nov. differs in coloration from other Domerguella by the distinctly white upper lip (vs. brown in all other species) and white spots along the flank (vs. absent or at most light gray in L. madagascariensis and L. miops). The new species, on Montagne d’Ambre, occurs sympatrically with L. madagascariensis and L. petteri and is morphologically quite similar to these species, differing only in faint meristic characters as specified above. However, the fully concordant differentiation in mitochondrial genes (deep divergence in 16S:>13% to both L. madagascariensis and L. petteri) and in the unlinked loci CMOS and RAG-1, despite close syntopy, confirms this lineage represents a distinct species with restricted or absent gene flow to other co-occurring Domerguella. For a distinction from other species newly named and described herein, see the respective diagnoses below. Etymology. We are pleased to dedicate this species to Aaron M. Bauer in recognition of his extraordinary work fostering our knowledge about gecko diversity, biology, and evolution. The species name is derived from the Malagasy word tantsaha = farmer, in allusion to the original root of Aaron’s surname Bauer (German) = farmer. Coincidentally, individuals assignable to this species were found at the edge of an area of illegal farming within the park on the west slope, giving the name a second local meaning. Description of the holotype. Adult male, hemipenes everted, in moderately good state of preservation (Fig. 15), although the tail is detached, and the right forelimb is largely removed as a tissue sample for molecular analysis. SVL 31.9 mm, original tail (TAL 36.9 mm); for other measurements see Table 1. Head slightly broader than body. The distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior border of the eye (4.0 mm) is greater than the interorbital distance anteriorly (3.7 mm), and slightly greater than the distance between the eye and ear opening. Snout covered with enlarged granular scales, larger anteriorly on snout, becoming smaller laterally and anteriorly above the eye. Nostril surrounded by three scales: rostral, first supralabial and one supranasal. Mental scale undivided; only slight contact between posterior projection of mental scale and first infralabial; two asymmetrical postmental scales; four postpostmental scales; seven infralabial scales; seven supralabial scales; three internasal scales; granular dorsal scales; dorsum with small, homogeneous, granular and unkeeled scales of similar size to those on trunk, the scales on limbs are distinctly larger; 239 dorsal scales longitudinally along the body; 111 ventral scales between mental and cloaca; venter with large homogeneous smooth scales; no obvious lateral spines at the base of the tail; first finger present but very small, without bearing a claw; three pairs of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; one weakly expressed dorsolateral tubercle on either side, each composed of 1–2 scales; 7 preanal pores; tail without whorls. The holotype’s coloration in life based on available photographs was dorsally brown with a diffuse pattern consisting of dark and light spots, venter whitish. Flanks brighten towards venter with a diffuse ocelli-like pattern. Brown color on head with distinct border on supralabials to whitish venter. Six black stripes radially arranged around the eye. Tail slightly brighter than dorsum with pairs of black and white spots running posteriorly along the caudal spine (Fig. 16A). After four years of preservation in ethanol, the specimen darkened and patterns faded. Preserved specimen displays dark irregular spots on whitish gular region expanding to the anterior ventral torso. Variation. The coloration of this species appears tentatively to be characteristic, with a series of white spots always present along the flank in life (Fig. 16). The upper lip is also white. Natural history. All individuals were encountered and collected at night sleeping at the ends of very thin twigs, narrower than their bodies (Fig. 16D). Distribution. L. tantsaha is only known from the type locality, western Montagne d’Ambre., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 25-28, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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"]}

Lygodactylus hapei sp. nov. Lygodactylus sp. 26: Gippner et al. (2021). Holotype. ZSM 298 /2018, female, collected at Djangoa (Djohahely) in the Sambirano Region in north-western Madagascar, approximately at geographical coordinates S13.7993, E48.3361, 20 m a.s.l. (Fig. 15), by unspecified local collectors. Diagnosis. Lygodactylus hapei sp. nov. corresponds to a genetically highly distinct lineage from a poorly known site in north-western Madagascar, and forms a clade with L. tantsaha (described above) and L. sp. 24, both from Montagne d’Ambre in the North. Considering this lineage as a new species is justified by its very deep genetic divergence of over 14% to all other Domerguella (16.3–16.4% to L. tantsaha), differences in scale counts, and a distinct longitudinally striped pattern on the throat not known from any other Domerguella. The new species belongs to subclade A2 within Domerguella as defined herein. It can also be assigned to the subgenus Domerguella by an undivided mental scale with two postmentals, and absence of a claw on the first finger. Within Domerguella, the new species is only known from one locality in the Sambirano region in northern Madagascar, and differs from the other nominal species of Domerguella by the presence of a longitudinally striped pattern on the throat, and additionally from the species occurring in northern Madagascar as follows: from L. expectatus by non-enlarged dorsolateral scales (longitudinal count of dorsal scales>185 vs. L. rarus by lack of regular crossbands on tail (vs. presence) and different body shape without elongated limbs (relative hindlimb length 0.43 vs.>0.55); from L. madagascariensis, L. petteri, L. salvi, and L. tantsaha by smaller longitudinal dorsal scale count (179 vs.>188) and smaller longitudinal ventral scale count (87 vs.>96). The new species appears to be very similar to L. roellae, a species from subclade A3, in scale counts and color pattern, but it may differ by smaller body size (SVL 26.3 vs. 35.9–36.0). The new species is genetically highly distinct from all species in subclade A5, based on concordant differentiation in mitochondrial genes (with deep divergence in 16S to all other species:>14%) and the unlinked loci CMOS and RAG-1. In addition it appears to differ by the absence of a spine at the tail base, which is weakly recognizable also in the females of all subclade A5 species except L. fritzi. Furthermore, the longitudinal dorsal scale count is smaller than in all known individuals of this subclade. For a distinction from additional species newly named and described herein, see the respective diagnoses below. Etymology. We dedicate this species to Hans-Peter “HaPe” Berghof, in recognition of his contributions to the knowledge of Madagascar geckos, especially Phelsuma. The name is a patronym (i.e., a noun in the genitive case). Description of the holotype. Adult female, in good state of preservation, tail regenerated, fourth toe on the left hind limb is removed as source of tissue for molecular analysis (Fig. 15). SVL 26.3 mm, TAL 27.4 mm; for other measurements see Table 1. Head slender with long neck, body broader than head. The distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior border of the eye (3.5 mm) is greater than the interorbital distance anteriorly (3.2 mm), and greater than the distance between the eye and ear opening. Snout covered with granular scales equally sized compared to the rest of the dorsum. Nostril surrounded by three scales: rostral, first supralabial, and two supranasal. Mental scale undivided; no contact between posterior projection of mental scale and first infralabial; two symmetrical postmental scales with five postpostmental scales; seven infralabial scales; eight supralabial scales; three internasal scales; granular dorsal scales; dorsum with small, homogeneous, granular, and unkeeled scales of similar size to those on trunk, the scales on limbs are not distinctly larger; 179 dorsal scales longitudinally along the body; 87 ventral scales between mental and cloaca; venter with large homogeneous smooth scales; first finger present but very small, not bearing a claw; three pairs of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; no dorsolateral tubercle; tail without whorls; no obvious lateral spines at the base of the tail. ......continued on the next page TABLE 2. (Continued) Based on available photograph (Fig. 19), the holotype in life displayed a broad brown stripe on the back with a brighter center running along the spine reaching from the snout to the base of the tail. Along the brighter center, irregularly scattered black spots are present. Flanks are yellowish brown with irregular small dark spots. A distinct black stripe is running from the snout through the eye to the shoulder ending in a black marking somewhat reminiscent of a scapular semi-ocellus, but positioned more posteriorly. Above this, a second whitish and broader stripe is present, reaching from the eye to the shoulder. Dorsally brown with a diffuse pattern consisting of dark and light spots, venter whitish. Flanks brighten towards venter with a diffuse ocelli-like pattern. Brown color on head with distinct border on supralabials to whitish venter. Six black stripes radially arranged around the eye. Tail slightly brighter than dorsum with pairs of black and white spots running posteriorly along the caudal spine (Fig. 19). During preservation in ethanol, the specimen darkened and patterns faded. Preserved specimen displays dark irregular spots on whitish gular region expanding to the anterior ventral torso. Variation. Only a single individual of this species (the holotype) is known. Natural history. The only known specimen was photographed millimeters from the posterior end of a planthopper larva (Fig. 19), and was presumably consuming honeydew excreted by the insect, as is known from other gecko species (Fölling et al. 2001). Distribution. L. hapei is only known from its type locality, Djohahely., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 38-41, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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","Folling, M., Knogge, C. & Bohme, W. (2001) Geckos are milking honeydew-producing planthoppers in Madagascar. Journal of Natural History, 35, 279 - 284. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222930150215378"]}

Lygodactylus rarus Pasteur & Blanc, 1973 Lygodactylus (Domerguella) rarus Pasteur & Blanc, 1973 Chresonyms: Lygodactylus rarus: Kluge (1991); Glaw & Vences (1992, 1994, 2007); Puente et al. (2005, 2009); Röll et al. (2010); Gippner et al. (2021) Lygodactylus (Domerguella) rarus: Rösler (2000b) Name-bearing type: female holotype, MNHN 1990.6 —Type locality: “haute de la falaise orientale du karst d’Ambilobe (extrémité nord-est du Massif de l’Ankarana)”, according to the original description.—Other types: none according to original description.—Etymology: derived from Latin rarus (rare, unusual). Identity and Diagnosis. According to the diagnosis of Puente et al. (2009) this is a rather large-sized endemic of limestone karst areas of northern Madagascar, characterized by a long-legged, long-tailed and slender appearance. It differs from all species in the L. madagascariensis group by the presence of broad crossbands in the tail, of alternate light gray/brown color (Figs. 9–10). Although other Domerguella also can have tail crossbands, these are usually irregular, typically with alternating sections which start light brown or beige, gradually become darker to end in a somewhat posteriorly concave narrow dark line that then posteriorly borders sharply on the next light portion. In contrast, the crossbands of L. rarus typically consist of alternating brownish vs. gray portions which rather sharply border at each other, the brown portions typically being broader than the gray portions (Fig. 9). This typical pattern is also visible in the holotype which, upon examination in 2021, was in a quite poor state of preservation. The species also differs from all other Domerguella by the highest number of longitudinal ventral scales along the body (119–139, with 125 longitudinal ventral scales in the holotype; all other Domerguella have at most 110 ventral scales). In addition, this species is also characterized by a particularly slender body and long limbs (Fig. 10): relative hindlimb length (HIL/SVL) is 0.56–0.60 in L. rarus, vs. a maximum of 0.50 in all but one other Domerguella. The only other Domerguella species with long hindlimbs>0.5 is L. sp. 18, but also this species only reaches a ratio value of 0.54, thus shorter than in L. rarus. The three diagnostic character states (tail crossbands, large number of ventral scales, long hindlimbs) are all recognizable in the holotype, and in the genetically characterized specimens collected by us. All these specimens were collected in the Ankarana Massif. Therefore, there is no doubt about the identity of L. rarus, and the molecular data herein can confidently be assigned to this species. Furthermore, L. rarus is distinguished from L. miops and especially L. guibei by the absence (vs. presence) of dorsolateral tubercles and spiny tubercles at the tail base. It is further distinguished from the sympatric L. expectatus by its non-enlarged dorsolateral scales (vs. enlarged), absence of dark spots on the neck (vs. presence), and larger size (adult SVL 31.6–36.5 mm vs. 27.0– 29.7 mm). Distribution. L. rarus is reliably only known from its type locality, the Ankarana Massif. Pasteur & Blanc (1973) also report the species from Mangindrano (located at 1300 m a.s.l. on the Tsaratanana Massif), based on two juveniles that hatched from eggs collected in an abandoned bird nest. We here consider this record as in need of confirmation, given the uncertain attribution of these two hatchlings., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 16-17, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Pasteur, G. & Blanc, C. P. (1973) Nouvelles etudes sur les lygodactyles (Sauriens Gekkonides). I. Donnees recentes sur Domerguella et sur ses rapports avec la Phytogeographie malgache. Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 98, 165 - 174.","Kluge, A. G. (1991) Checklist of Gekkonoid Lizards. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service 85, 36 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 23317515.85.1","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1992) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 331 pp. [First Edition.]","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1994) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 480 pp. [Second Edition.]","Puente, M., Thomas, M. & Vences, M. (2005) Phylogeny and biogeography of Malagasy dwarf geckos, Lygodactylus Gray, 1864: Preliminary data from mitochondrial DNA sequences (Squamata: Gekkonidae). In: Huber, B. A. & Lampe, K. H. (Eds.), African Biodiversity: Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems. Proc. 5 th Intern. Symp. Trop. Biol., Museum Koenig, Bonn. Springer, pp. 229 - 235. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / 0 - 387 - 24320 - 8 _ 21","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","Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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","Rosler, H. (2000 b) Kommentierte Liste der rezent, subrezent und fossil bekannten Geckotaxa (Reptilia: Gekkonomorpha). Gekkota, 2, 28 - 153."]}

Lygodactylus madagascariensis (Boettger, 1881) Scalabotes madagascariensis Boettger, 1881 Chresonyms: Lygodactylus madagascariensis: Boulenger (1885), Puente et al. (2005) Lygodactylus madagascariensis (partim; including petteri as subspecies): Kluge (1991); Glaw & Vences (1992, 1994, 2007); Puente et al. (2009); Röll et al. (2010); Gippner et al. (2021); Lygodactylus (Domerguella) madagascariensis: Pasteur (1965a) Lygodactylus (Domerguella) madagascariensis (partim; including petteri as subspecies): Pasteur & Blanc (1967) Lygodactylus (Domerguella) madagascariensis madagascariensis: Rösler (2000b) Name-bearing type: male lectotype SMF 8937 (designated by Mertens 1967), collected by A. Stumpff. Krüger (2001) considered SMF 8937 as holotype.—Type locality: Nosy Be; “hab. in insula Nossi-Bé rarus”, according to the original description.—Other types: One paralectotype (the description was based on two specimens “(2 spec.)” according to the original description).—Etymology: name derived from its general provenance, Madagascar. Identity and Diagnosis. The lectotype of Lygodactylus madagascariensis was collected on the offshore island of Nosy Be. It is an adult male characterized by the absence of character states diagnostic for other species: it has no enlarged dorsolateral tubercles (as L. expectatus), no regular crossbands on the tail and not particularly long hindlimbs (as L. rarus), and no enlarged tubercles at the base of the tail. According to our molecular data, only one genetic lineage of Domerguella has been found on Nosy Be (two sequences available). This same lineage also occurs in several forests of relatively low elevation in the Sambirano region (to which Nosy Be also belongs): Tsaratanana (Andampy), Manongarivo, Maromiandra. These localities also host many other species of amphibians and reptiles occurring on Nosy Be (e.g. Penny et al. 2017), supporting the biogeographic assignment of the name L. madagascariensis to this lineage. The available material of this lineage also agrees in all studied morphological characters with the holotype, for instance in the number of longitudinal ventral scales (106 in the holotype vs. 106–138 in the other specimens) and dorsal scales (246 vs. 205–258). The species is comparatively small (SVL 28.5 –34.0 mm) and in many specimens shows a rather typical color pattern of irregular beige patches arranged in longitudinal rows on the brown dorsum, along with irregular dark brown pattern (Fig. 11). A genetically slightly divergent variant of L. madagascariensis is also present on Montagne d’Ambre, an isolated mountain in extreme northern Madagascar. This is of relevance because L. madagascariensis petteri has been described from this mountain as a subspecies. In the subsequent species account we will show that the name petteri does not apply to the L. madagascariensis specimens from Montagne d’Ambre but to another, sympatric lineage, thus justifying the elevation of petteri to species status. Distribution. L. madagascariensis is reliably known from (1) its type locality Nosy Be, (2) Manarikoba Forest on the western slope of the Tsaratanana Massif (Andampy Campsite), (3) Manongarivo, (4) Maromiandra, (5) Andrafainkona, and (6) Montagne d’Ambre. These localities are in the Sambirano region and the North regions of Madagascar., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 18-19, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Boettger, O. (1881) Diagnoses reptilium et batrachiorum novorum ab ill. Antonio Stumpff in insula Nossi-Be Madagascariensis lectorum. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 4, 358 - 362.","Boulenger, G. A. (1885) Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) I. Geckonidae, Eublepharidae, Uroplatidae, Pygopodidae, Agamidae. Printed by order of the Trustees London, 450 pp.","Puente, M., Thomas, M. & Vences, M. (2005) Phylogeny and biogeography of Malagasy dwarf geckos, Lygodactylus Gray, 1864: Preliminary data from mitochondrial DNA sequences (Squamata: Gekkonidae). In: Huber, B. A. & Lampe, K. H. (Eds.), African Biodiversity: Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems. Proc. 5 th Intern. Symp. Trop. Biol., Museum Koenig, Bonn. Springer, pp. 229 - 235. https: // doi. org / 10.1007 / 0 - 387 - 24320 - 8 _ 21","Kluge, A. G. (1991) Checklist of Gekkonoid Lizards. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service 85, 36 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 23317515.85.1","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1992) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 331 pp. [First Edition.]","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1994) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 480 pp. [Second Edition.]","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","Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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","Pasteur, G. (1965 a) Notes preliminaries sur les lygodactyles (Gekkonides). IV Diagnoses de quelques formes africaines et malgaches. Bulletin du Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, 36, 311 - 314.","Pasteur, G. & Blanc, C. P. (1967) Les lezards du sous-genre malgache de lygodactyles Domerguella (Gekkonides). Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 92, 583 - 597.","Rosler, H. (2000 b) Kommentierte Liste der rezent, subrezent und fossil bekannten Geckotaxa (Reptilia: Gekkonomorpha). Gekkota, 2, 28 - 153.","Mertens, R. (1967) Die herpetologische Sektion des Naturmuseums und Forschungsinstitutes Senckenberg in Frankfurt a. M. nebst einem Verzeichnis ihrer Typen. Senckenbergiana Biologica, 48, Sonderheft A, 1 - 106.","Kruger, J. (2001) Die madagassischen Gekkoniden. Teil II: Die Geckos der Gattung Lygodactylus GRAY 1864 (Reptilia: Sauria: Gekkonidae). Gekkota, 3, 3 - 28.","Penny, S. G., Crottini, A., Andreone, F., Bellati, A., Rakotozafy, L. M. S., Holderied, M. W., Schwitzer, C. & Rosa, G. M. (2017) Combining old and new evidence to increase the known biodiversity value of the Sahamalaza Peninsula, Northwest Madagascar. Contributions to Zoology, 86, 273 - 296. https: // doi. org / 10.1163 / 18759866 - 08604002"]}

Lygodactylus salvi sp. nov. Lygodactylus sp. 8: Gippner et al. (2021). Holotype. ZSM 783 /2001 (FGMV 2001.74), an adult male collected by F. Andreone, F. Mattioli, J. Randrianirina, and M. Vences on the western slope of the Tsaratanana massif (Manarikoba forest, Antsahamanara campsite), northern Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S14.0450, E48.7844, ca. 1000 m a.s.l., between 4–9 February 2001 (Fig. 15). Paratype. ZSM 557 /2014 (DRV 6327), a female collected by F.M. Ratsoavina, D. R. Vieites, M. Vences, R. D. Randrianiaina, S. Rasamison, A. Rakotoarison, E. Rajeriarison, and T. Rajoafiarison, from Ambodikakazo, a site south of the Tsaratanana Massif, northern Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S14.2098, E48.8981, 1411 m a.s.l., on 16 June 2010. Diagnosis. Lygodactylus salvi sp. nov. corresponds to a genetically highly distinct lineage from northern Madagascar that is not closely related to any nominal species of Lygodactylus as defined in the previous sections. It belongs to subclade A3 within Domerguella as defined herein. It can also be assigned to the subgenus Domerguella by an undivided mental scale with two postmentals, absence of a claw on the first finger, and 6 preanal pores in males. Within Domerguella, the new species is only known from two localities in northern Madagascar and differs from the other nominal species of Domerguella occurring in this part of the island as follows: from L. expectatus by non-enlarged dorsolateral scales (longitudinal count of dorsal scales>210 vs. L. rarus by lack of regular crossbands on tail (vs. presence) and different body shape without elongated limbs (relative hindlimb length 0.48–0.50 vs.>0.55); from L. madagascariensis by smaller longitudinal dorsal scale count (211–217 vs. 219–258); and from L. petteri by a larger longitudinal count of ventral scales (107–112 vs. 101–105 in all but one individual of L. petteri); and from L. tantsaha by a smaller longitudinal count of dorsal scales (211–217 vs. 239–240). Given the somewhat uncertain allocation of the nomina to the eastern species in subclade A5, a morphological diagnosis from these species is convoluted. However, genetically, the new species is highly distinct from all species in this subclade, and differs from L. guibei as well as from many specimens of L. miops by a less distinctly expressed lateral spine at the tail base of males (vs. presence of a distinct, large spine in L. guibei, and an at least slightly more distinct spine in L. miops). Furthermore, the new species can be distinguished from L. guibei and L. miops by smaller relative eye diameter (ED is 4.8–5.0% of SVL, vs. 5.3–7.7% in L. guibei and L. miops). Finally, this species shows concordant differentiation in mitochondrial genes (deep divergence in 16S to all other species:>11%) and the unlinked loci CMOS and RAG-1 (haplotype sharing with lineage L. sp. 17 only in some CMOS haplotypes). For a distinction from the sister lineage, described below as. L. roellae, see Diagnosis of that species. For a distinction from additional species newly named and described herein, see the respective diagnoses below. Etymology. The name is dedicated to Salvador “Salvi” Carranza, Institut de Biologia Evolutiva (CSIC-UPF), Barcelona, in recognition for his substantial contributions to gecko taxonomy, and conservation of herpetofauna. The species epithet name is defined as a noun in apposition (not a noun in the genitive case) to avoid ending with a non-euphonious double-i. Description of the holotype. Adult male, hemipenes everted, in moderate state of preservation, tail regenerated, right forelimb is removed as source of tissue for molecular analysis (Fig. 15). SVL 29.9 mm, TAL 24.9 mm; for other measurements see Table 1. Long head with distinct neck, body broader than head. The distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior border of the eye (4.2 mm) is greater than the interorbital distance anteriorly (3.6 mm), and greater than the distance between the eye and ear opening. Snout covered with enlarged granular scales compared to the rest of the dorsum. Nostril surrounded by four scales: rostral, first supralabial, and two supranasals. Mental scale undivided; no contact between posterior projection of mental scale and first infralabial; two symmetrical postmental scales with four postpostmental scales; seven infralabial scales; seven supralabial scales; three internasal scales; granular dorsal scales; dorsum with small, homogeneous, granular and unkeeled scales of similar size to those on trunk, the scales on limbs are slightly larger; 217 dorsal scales longitudinally along the body; 107 ventral scales between mental and cloaca; venter with large homogeneous smooth scales that are a bit smaller in the gular region; first finger present but very small, not bearing a claw; three pairs of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; six dorsolateral tubercles, each consisting of one scale; six preanal pores; tail without whorls; small lateral spines at the base of the tail. Life coloration of the holotype based on available photographs (Fig. 17) was grayish with a slightly distinct red-brownish lateral stripe running from the eye to the base of the tail. Both colors are also distinctly present on the limbs. Overall, the appearance is cryptic with no distinct black markings (Fig. 17). Color after 20 years in preservative ethanol is almost uniformly gray brownish, with a weak dorsal pattern. In the preserved specimen, the ventral side is uniformly whitish with a slight yellowness. Small brown spots are present on the throat and the rest of the venter. Variation. The female paratype (ZSM 557 /2014) is bigger than the holotype, with an SVL of 36.2 mm, but has relatively shorter hindlimbs (HIL / SVL 0.48). The relative size of tubercles at the tail base is a bit smaller, while the lateral tubercles between the legs contain a few more scales (1–3). The animal has bigger eyes in relation to its size. While the dorsal scale count is a bit lower (211), the ventral scale count is a bit higher (112). Coloration in preservative is uniformly grayish-brown, without lateral stripe, and with very small symmetrical dark dorsal markings anterior to hindlimb insertion; ventrally with dense dark mottling on throat, chest and belly. The differences between holotype and paratype could be due to different sex or just random variation. Distribution. L. salvi is known from (1) the type locality, Manarikoba forest on the west slope of the Tsaratanana Massif, and (2) Ambodikakazo south of Tsaratanana. Natural history. Practically nothing is known of the natural history of this enigmatic species., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 28-29, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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"]}

Lygodactylus petteri Pasteur & Blanc, 1967 Lygodactylus madagascariensis petteri Pasteur & Blanc, 1967 Chresonyms: Lygodactylus madagascariensis petteri: Kluge (1991); Glaw & Vences (1992, 1994, 2007); Puente et al. (2009); Gippner et al. (2021) Lygodactylus (Domerguella) madagascariensis petteri: Rösler (2000b) Name-bearing type: holotype MNHN 1990.4, female.—Type locality: “Montagne d’Ambre, forêt ancienne-Roussettes” according to the original description.—Other types: two paratypes; MNHN 1990.5, male; and MNHN 1893.194.—Etymology: eponym for Jean-Jacques Petter. Identity and Diagnosis. This nomen was coined for specimens from Montagne d’Ambre that were considered to be a subspecies of L. madagascariensis. According to the original description, this subspecies was purported to differ from typical L. madagascariensis by fewer scales in general (i.e., lower values in various scale counts), suggesting overall larger scales; a larger body size; a different coloration (beige vs. brown); and some other possible differences. Indeed, our measurements and scale counts of the name-bearing type (holotype) and one paratype confirmed these are relatively large-sized (SVL 33.2–35.0, thus at and slightly beyond the upper size limit of L. madagascariensis) and have lower longitudinal counts of dorsal scales (189 in the holotype; vs. 205–258 in L. madagascariensis) and ventral scales (102 in the holotype and 103 in one paratype; vs. 106–138 in L. madagascariensis). This suggests the name petteri should be applied to one of the Domerguella lineages occurring at Montagne d’Ambre. One of these (called L. sp. 10 by Gippner et al. 2021) appears to reach rather large-sizes (36.9 mm SVL in one specimen) but has relatively high longitudinal counts of dorsal scales (239–240 in two available specimens), thus differing from the types of L. petteri. This lineage (known only from the west slope of Montagne d’Ambre) represents a new species that will be formally named and described below. Another lineage from Montagne d’Ambre (L. sp. 24) is represented by only one genetic sample, the voucher of which was not available for examination. Unfortunately, no information at all on the coloration or morphology of this lineage is available. We can only hypothesize from its rarity (no further specimens found despite intensive surveys in Montagne d’Ambre) that it is unlikely to correspond to the types of petteri. The third lineage is the one that we have genetically assigned to L. madagascariensis above, and the one individual from Montagne d’Ambre examined (Table 1) agrees well with topotypical specimens of this species, but not with the petteri types. However, a fourth lineage from Montagne d’Ambre agrees in all morphological characters very well with the petteri types: it consists of relatively large specimens (SVL in our material 30.3–38.5 mm) with few ventral scales (101–113 vs. 102–103 in the types) and dorsal scales (209–222 vs. 189 in the holotype). We therefore are confident that the specimens belonging to this lineage are conspecific with the types of L. petteri. Since this lineage co-occurs on Montagne d’Ambre with L. madagascariensis with deep genetic differentiation in both mitochondrial and nuclear genes, we conclude that the nomen petteri applies to a full species, Lygodactylus petteri, and we therefore herewith formally elevate it to species level. It needs to be emphasized that due to a lack of comparative morphological data of the only specimen of L. sp. 24 we cannot fully exclude that this lineage also matches morphologically the holotype of L. petteri and may be conspecific with it. Collection of additional material of L. sp. 24, or alternatively, molecular “archival DNA” data from the holotype of L. petteri, is needed to fully ascertain the identity of these geckos from Montagne d’Ambre. However, independent from these remaining questions, it appears we can conclude with sufficient reliability that L. petteri is not conspecific with L. madagascariensis from which it differs morphologically, and we confirm it is distinct from L. sp. 10, which is described as a new species below. No clear and consistent differences in color or pattern were found between L. madagascariensis and L. petteri; both showed a considerable variation in dorsal pattern (near-uniform to heavily patterned in L. madagascariensis vs. asymmetrical series of rather small dorsolateral markings or striped phenotype in L. petteri). However, the two specimens of L. petteri for which life coloration is known (Fig. 12) do not show the longitudinal rows of large beige patches typical for many L. madagascariensis, and furthermore, the male specimen ZSM 195/2018 has yellow elements dorsally, which we have not seen in any L. madagascariensis. Ventrally the throat is yellowish and ranged from near unspotted to weakly and irregularly spotted in both species. According to the original description of L. petteri by Pasteur & Blanc (1967), it differs from L. madagascariensis by several characters, which we review here. First of all, L. petteri purportedly has fewer scales (and thus larger ones) in general (characters 9, 12, 13, 17, 31, 32, 33 of Pasteur & Blanc 1967). This agrees with our findings for longitudinal counts of dorsal and ventral scales, while for instance the number of supralabials (character 9 of Pasteur & Blanc 1967) does not clearly differ between the two species according to our data. The authors also reported a larger body size for L. petteri, which is in agreement with our data, as well as differences in coloration and in sexual dimorphism, and a possibly larger size of preanal pores in L. petteri. Once more extensive series of both species become available, it will be worth examining whether these characters may indeed constitute diagnostic differences. Natural history. A half-digested specimen of L. petteri was regurgitated by a young Compsophis sp. aff. laphystius (Hutter et al. 2018). Two specimens of L. petteri (ACZC 1407 and ACZC 1427) were found under the bark of Eucalyptus sp. trees at the Gîte d’Étape site on Montagne d’Ambre. Distribution. L. petteri is only known from its type locality, Montagne d’Ambre., Published as part of Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Miralles, Aurélien, Crottini, Angelica, Gehring, Philip-Sebastian, Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank & Scherz, Mark D., 2022, Integrative revision of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group reveals an unexpected diversity of little brown geckos in Madagascar's rainforest, pp. 1-61 in Zootaxa 5179 (1) on pages 19-20, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5179.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7040745, {"references":["Pasteur, G. & Blanc, C. P. (1967) Les lezards du sous-genre malgache de lygodactyles Domerguella (Gekkonides). Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France, 92, 583 - 597.","Kluge, A. G. (1991) Checklist of Gekkonoid Lizards. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service 85, 36 pp. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 23317515.85.1","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1992) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 331 pp. [First Edition.]","Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (1994) A Fieldguide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar. Vences & Glaw Verlags GbR, Cologne, Germany, 480 pp. [Second Edition.]","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","Gippner, S., Travers S. L., Scherz M. D., Colston T. J., Lyra M. L., Mohan A. V., Multzsch M., Nielsen 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","Rosler, H. (2000 b) Kommentierte Liste der rezent, subrezent und fossil bekannten Geckotaxa (Reptilia: Gekkonomorpha). Gekkota, 2, 28 - 153.","Hutter, C. R., Andriampenomanana, Z. F., Razafindraibe, J., Rakotoarison, A. & Scherz, M. D. (2018) New dietary data from Compsophis and Alluaudina species (Squamata: Lamprophiidae: Pseudoxyrhophiinae), and implications for their dietary complexity and evolution. Journal of Natural History, 52, 2497 - 2510. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222933.2018.1543732"]}

Uroplatus fivehy sp. nov. LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: AC24C7D3-1AB5-451F-9DE2-935DE7174FDD Figs 3, 4, 6���8 Remarks. This new species corresponds to the lineage previously named Uroplatus sp. A by Raxworthy et al. (2008), Uroplatus sp. 4 by Ratsoavina et al. (2011), and Uroplatus ebenaui [Ca4] by Ratsoavina et al. (2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019a,b). Holotype. ZSM 1721 /2012 (field number FGZC 3590), adult male, collected on 26 November 2012 by F. Glaw, O. Hawlitschek, T. Rajoafiarison, A. Rakotoarison, F. M. Ratsoavina and A. Razafimanantsoa on the Sorata Massif, Sava Region, northern Madagascar, in the vicinity of the campsite, near 13.6805��S, 49.4451��E, 1417 m a.s.l. Paratypes. A total of 12 specimens: ZSM 1722 /2012 (field number FGZC 3591), adult female, with same collection data as the holotype; UADBA-R 70851 (FGZC 3694), adult male, collected by same collectors as holotype on 29 November 2012 on the Sorata Massif at 13.6868��S, 49.4412��E, 1272 m a.s.l.; UADBA-R 70850 (FGZC 3715), adult male, collected by same collectors as holotype on 30 November 2012 on the Sorata Massif near a creek at 13.6829��S, 49.4403��E, 1325 a.s.l.; ZSM 634 /2009 (ZCMV 11308), adult male, and UADBA-R 70966 (ZCMV 11309), adult female, collected between 22���25 June 2009 by F. Ratsoavina, R. D. Randrianiaina, E. Rajeriarison, T. Rajoafiarison, D. R. Vieites and M. Vences near Angozongahy campsite on the western side of the Makira plateau in the Northern Central East of Madagascar, near 15.437��S, 49.1167��E, 1009 m a.s.l.; UADBA 29428 (APR 05955) and UADBA 29427 (APR 05921), two adult males collected on 22 November 2004 and UADBA 29426 (APR 05859), subadult, collected on 19 November 2004 by A.P. Raselimanana at Anjiabolo site (ca. 16.2800��S, 48.8017��E; respectively at 1100 m and 1000 m a.s.l) in Marotandrano Special Reserve, Sofia Region, Northern Central East Madagascar; UADBA 29430 (APR 05984), UADBA 29431 (APR 05985), two males and UADBA 29429 (APR 05983), adult female, collected on 25 November 2004; and UADBA 29432 (APR 06118), adult male, collected on 29 November 2004 by A.P. Raselimanana at Riamalandy site (16.2850��S, 48.8150��E, between 825���875 m a.s.l.) in Marotandrano Special Reserve. Etymology. The species epithet fivehy is a noun in apposition to the genus name, meaning ���paddle��� in local Malagasy dialect, and referring to the paddle-like shape of its tail. Diagnosis. Uroplatus fivehy sp. nov. is assigned to the Uroplatus ebenaui species group based on its relatively small size, leaf-like, laterally-compressed body shape, short tail, and triangular head with supraocular spines. The following unique combination of characters characterizes the new species: (1) short (TAL/SVL 0.21���0.41) and slender (TAW/SVL 0.06���0.13) tail, (2) oral mucosa without black pigment, and (3) relatively smooth (not spiny) appearance in males. Additionally, it is distinguished by high genetic pairwise-distances> 10% in DNA sequences of the mitochondrial 16S gene from all other nominal species of Uroplatus. By its overall leaf-like appearance, the species can easily be distinguished from all members of the U. fimbriatus species group, from U. lineatus, and from the phenetic U. alluaudi species group. Within the U. ebenaui species group, U. fivehy sp. nov. can be distinguished from U. finaritra and U. malama by smaller body size (SVL 60.8���72.4 mm versus 77.5���95.3 mm); from U. malama, U. phantasticus, U. finiavana and U. finaritra by shorter tail (TAL/SVL 0.21���0.41 versus 0.48���0.76); from U. fangorn, U. ebenaui, U. fetsy, and U. kelirambo by its unpigmented oral mucosa (pale pinkish all over versus black or deep red pigment present); from U. kelirambo by more expanded tail edges (versus strongly spear-shaped; TAW/SVL 0.06���0.13 versus 0.04���0.05 in U. kelirambo). U. fivehy sp. nov. is morphologically most similar to U. fiera and to U. fotsivava, which however concordantly differ in mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences and are not its immediate relatives based on molecular phylogenetic analysis; it differs from U. fotsivava by a generally longer and wider tail, although the values do overlap (TAL/SVL 0.21���0.41 versus 0.15���0.32; TAW/SVL 0.06���0.13 versus 0.05���0.10), and from U. fiera possibly in a slightly larger ratio TAL/TAW (0.22���0.37 versus 0.19���0.21). Description of the holotype. Adult male in good condition with an intact tail and everted hemipenes. SVL 63.1 mm, tail length 25.9 mm, maximum tail width 5.7 mm, for further measurements see Table 1. Head triangular in dorsal view; canthus rostralis recognizable and almost straight; snout sloping strongly and continuously downward anteriorly; snout weakly depressed, short; eyes large (eye diameter 4.6 mm), not bulging above dorsal surface of cranium, directed laterally, pupil vertical with crenate borders; ear opening very small but distinct (horizontal diameter 0.6 mm), its opening facing posterolaterally, but also posteroventrally (ear opening clearly visible in lateral view but not in dorsal view); nostrils laterally oriented; body somewhat laterally compressed, without lateral dermal fringes; limbs without fringes and practically without spines on forelimbs and hindlimbs, except for a small flap on the knee; forelimb reaches beyond tip of snout when adpressed forward and does not reach the groin when adpressed backwards along body (forelimb length/axilla���groin distance 27.7/ 29.7 mm = 93%), hindlimb reaches beyond axilla when adpressed forward along body (hindlimb length/axilla���groin distance 37.4/ 29.7 mm = 126%); original tail length 41% of snout���vent length, membranous borders of the denticulated tail rather asymmetrical, broadening on either side and then narrowing again toward the tip), completely absent from the slightly spatulate tail-tip. Nares separated from each other by eight small granular scales, from the first supralabial by one scale, and from the rostral scale by two scales; the first supralabial taller than the others; rostral entire, much wider than tall; mental scale small, not differentiated from infralabial scales; 21/20 (right/left) supralabials and 19/21 infralabials (as defined in methods above); scales at the periphery of the chin (toward the infralabial scales) slightly larger than central chin scales; the dorsal scales of head, neck, body, limbs and tail small, granular, juxtaposed and largely of homogeneous size interspersed with very few larger and partly raised tubercles; the numerous curved transverse lines on the head and dorsal side of the body are not marked by significantly enlarged scales. Very few spines on head and hindlimbs, a dermal flap on each knee, bearing no spine; no flaps or spines on elbow and forelimb; a prominent pointed flap on the posterior portion of each upper eyelid (supraocular spine); posterior border of eye fringed. Axillary pits not recognizable. Scales of the ventral abdomen distinctly larger than dorsal body scales and arranged more homogeneously. Hemipenes everted, bearing two lobes. Calyx with protuberance bearing honeycomb-like structures, especially on the asulcal side. Area of sulcus spermaticus is smooth. Each lobe with a dense field of pointed papillae at its apex. Coloration of the holotype. After eight years of preservation in 70% ethanol the color pattern remains similar to that of the living animal (Figs 6H, 8) but its vividness and intensity have slightly faded. All dorsal surfaces are mottled beige and blackish in base color. The tail has a beige pattern on its dorsal pygal section, bordered by blackish color. The dorsum has rather distinctly defined posteroventrally oriented lighter and darker beige chevrons. The dorsal surfaces of the head are dark brown with a series of six distinct transverse narrow beige lines, running either straight or converging anteriorly or posteriorly. No dark band between the eyes, but a dark V-shaped area on the nape is well distinguishable. Additional dark flecks are present on the mid-dorsum, and several smaller asymmetrical spots on other parts of the body, including legs and nape. One light cream marking is present posteriorly below each eye, descending to the supralabials. The supralabials and the infralabials are generally dark gray in color. The venter, including the ventral limbs except for the lower hindlimbs, is slightly lighter beige than the dorsum, and less mottled. The pectoral region bears two elongated, poorly delimited whitish spots. The postpygal section of the tail is of similar color dorsally and ventrally. The oral mucosa is unpigmented and whitish in preservative. The iris of the eye is gray, and the vertical pupil is blackish. Variation. As described for U. fangorn above, there is a substantial color variation (Figs 6���7), and sexual dimorphism in the edges of the tail. The color of the eye varies from beige/gray to dark brown and reddish-brown. Dorsal color can be uniform beige to reddish-brown with or without white lichen-like markings. Two sharply delimited vertebral black patches on the anterior and posterior part of the dorsum are present in several individuals. Relative tail length and tail width are characterized by substantial variability among individuals (Fig. 4). Here, we have included in the paratype series and in the morphological comparisons a series of individuals from Marotandrano Special Reserve that we attribute to this species. However, it must be stressed that the species identity has been confirmed by DNA sequences only for one of these (UADBA 29428 = APR5955). In the unlikely case that some of these individuals will turn out to belong to another species of Uroplatus, the morphometric variation of U. fivehy may be narrower than reported here. ......continued on the next page Distribution, natural history and conservation status. According to the material collected and examined by us, U. fivehy is known from (1) the type locality on the Sorata Massif, (2) the western slope of the Makira Reserve, and (3) Marotandrano Special Reserve. In addition, mitochondrial DNA sequences published by Ratsoavina et al. (2012) suggest its occurrence in (4) the Anjanaharibe-Sud Massif, and mitochondrial DNA sequences from Raxworthy et al. (2008) furthermore suggest the occurrence of the species in (5) Marojejy, (6) Ankitsika and (7) Betaolana. The confirmed elevational range from our own samples is between 1009 and 1417 m a.s.l., and the record from Ankitsika would extend this range downwards to 830 m a.s.l., characterizing the species as rather wide-ranging from the Northern Central East to the North East of Madagascar from mid-elevations to highlands (see also Ratsoavina et al. 2013). All specimens were found in intact rainforest, at night, perched on branches of trees. At Marotandrano, an adult male was found hidden in a Pandanus leaf axil during the day in closed canopy humid forest, and two adult individuals (male and female) were found at night close to each other in the same tree on 25 November 2004, suggesting it was probably the reproduction period for this species. Individuals were often observed active on small branches, leaves, and lianas at 0.5���3 m above the forest floor. All individuals were collected on slope or ridge forest. In Marotandrano, the species appeared to be quite common in forests associated with vine-like bamboo and shrub vegetation. A minimum convex polygon of the known distribution of this species covers an area of ca 15,100 km 2, qualifying the species for a status of Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List criterion B (IUCN 2012). This species is known from several protected areas (Marotandrano Special Reserve, Makira Reserve, COMATSA Nord, Marojejy National Park, Anjanaharibe-Sud National Park) but cumulatively just seven locations (B subcriterion a). These locations, and especially the unprotected areas between them, are experiencing substantial ongoing declines in the extent and quality of habitat (B subcriterion b(iii)). Therefore, we propose to list this species as Vulnerable under IUCN criterion B1ab(iii)., Published as part of Ratsoavina, Fanomezana M., Glaw, Frank, Raselimanana, Achille P., Rakotoarison, Andolalao, Vieites, David R., Hawlitschek, Oliver, Vences, Miguel & Scherz, Mark D., 2020, Towards completion of the species inventory of small-sized leaf-tailed geckos: two new species of Uroplatus from northern Madagascar, pp. 251-271 in Zootaxa 4895 (2) on pages 261-268, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4895.2.5, http://zenodo.org/record/4322511, {"references":["Raxworthy, C. J., Pearson, R. G., Zimkus, B. M., Reddy, S., Deo, A. J., Nussbaum, R. A. & Ingram, C. M. (2008) Continental speciation in the tropics: contrasting biogeographic patterns of divergence in the Uroplatus leaf-tailed gecko radiation of Madagascar. Journal of Zoology, 275, 423 - 440. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1469 - 7998.2008.00460. x","Ratsoavina, F. M., Louis, E. E. Jr., Crottini, A., Randrianiaina, R. D., Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (2011) A new leaf tailed gecko species from northern Madagascar with a preliminary assessment of molecular and morphological variability in the Uroplatus ebenaui group. Zootaxa, 3022 (1), 39 - 57. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 3022.1.3","Ratsoavina, F. M., Vences, M. & Louis, E. E. Jr. (2012) Phylogeny and phylogeography of the Malagasy leaf-tailed geckos in the Uroplatus ebenaui group. African Journal of Herpetology, 61, 143 - 158. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 21564574.2012.729761","Ratsoavina, F. M., Raminosoa, N. R., Louis, E. E. Jr., Raselimanana, A. P., Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (2013) An overview of Madagascar's leaf tailed geckos (genus Uroplatus): species boundaries, candidate species and review of geographical distribu- tion based on molecular data. Salamandra, 49, 115 - 148.","Ratsoavina, F. M., Ranjanaharisoa, F. A., Glaw, F., Raselimanana, A. P., Miralles, A. & Vences, M. (2015) A new leaf-tailed gecko of the Uroplatus ebenaui group (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Madagascar's central eastern rainforests. Zootaxa, 4006 (1), 143 - 160. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4006.1.7","Ratsoavina, F. M., Gehring, P. S., Scherz, M. D., Vieites, D. R., Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (2017) Two new species of leaf-tailed geckos (Uroplatus) from the Tsaratanana mountain massif in northern Madagascar. Zootaxa, 4347 (3), 446 - 464. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4347.3.2","Ratsoavina, F. M., Raselimanana, A. P., Scherz, M. D., Rakotoarison, A., Razafindraibe, J. H., Glaw, F. & Vences, M. (2019 a) Finaritra! A new leaf-tailed gecko (Uroplatus) species from Marojejy National Park in north-eastern Madagascar. Zootaxa, 4545 (4), 563 - 577. https: // doi. org / 10.11646 / zootaxa. 4545.4.7","IUCN. (2012) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge."]}