Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis, Nguyen & Pham & Ziegler & Ngo & Le, 2017

Nguyen, Truong Quang, Pham, Anh Van, Ziegler, Thomas, Ngo, Hanh Thi & Le, Minh Duc, 2017, A new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) and the first record of C. otai from Son La Province, Vietnam, Zootaxa 4341 (1), pp. 25-40 : 29-35

Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov.

( Figs. 3–5 )

Holotype. IEBR A.2017.1 (Field No. SL 2016.68), adult male, collected on 18 June 2016 by A.V. Pham and H.V. Tu, in the karst forest near Bang Village (21o05.700’N, 104o48.179’E, elevation 1050 m above sea level, asl.), Muong Bang Commune, Phu Yen District, Son La Province, northwestern Vietnam .

Paratypes. TBU 2017.1 (Field No. SL2016.67, subadult male), IEBR A.2017.2 (Field No. SL 2016.69, adult female), the same data as the holotype; VNMN 2017.1 (Field No. SL 2016.467, adult female), collected on 28 October 2016 by A.V. Pham and T.Q.L. Hoang, in the karst forest near Bang Village (21o06.406’N, 104o47.810’E, elevation 890 m a.s.l.), Muong Bang Commune, Phu Yen District, Son La Province, northwestern Vietnam .

Diagnosis. The new species can be distinguished from other members of the genus Cyrtodactylus by a combination of the following characters: medium size (SVL up to 83.2 mm); dorsal tubercles in 13–15 irregular rows; 34–42 ventral scale rows; ventrolateral folds present without interspersed tubercles; 15–17 enlarged femoral scales on each thigh; femoral pores 14 or 15 on each thigh of males, absent in females; precloacal pores 8, in a continuous row in males, absent in females; postcloacal tubercles 2 or 3; lamellae under toe IV 18–21; dorsal head with dark brown marking, oval and arched shape; nuchal loop discontinuous; five brown dorsal bands between limb insertions, third and fourth discontinuous; subcaudal scales transversely enlarged.

Description of holotype. Adult male, snout-vent length (SVL) 77.5 mm; body elongate (AG/SVL 0.46); head distinguished from neck, elongate, depressed (HL/SVL 0.28, HW/HL 0.69, HH/HL 0.44); supranasals in contact with each other anteriorly, separated from each other by a small scale posteriorly; nares oval, surrounded by supranasal, rostral, first supralabial, and three postnasals; loreal region concave; snout long (SE/HL 0.41), round anteriorly, longer than diameter of orbit (OD/SE 0.67); snout scales small, round, granular, larger than those in frontal and parietal regions; eye large (OD/HL 0.28), pupils vertical; upper eyelid fringe with spinous scales; ear opening oval, obliquely directed, small in size (ED/HL 0.09); rostral wider than high (RH/RW 0.71) with a medial suture, bordered by first supralabial, nostril and supranasal on each side; mental triangular, as wide as rostral (RW 3.1 mm, MW 3.0 mm), wider than high (ML/MW 0.76); postmentals two, enlarged, in contact posteriorly, bordered by mental anteriorly, first infralabial laterally, and an enlarged chin scale posteriorly; supralabials 11/11; infralabials 11/9.

Dorsal scales granular; dorsal tubercles round, 3 or 4 times larger than the size of adjoining scales, conical, present on occiput, back and tail base, each surrounded by 9–11 granular scales, in 14 or 15 irregular longitudinal rows at midbody; ventral scales smooth, medial scales 2 or 3 times larger than dorsal scales, round, subimbricate, largest posteriorly, in 34–36 longitudinal rows at midbody; lateral skin folds distinct, without tubercles; gular region with homogeneous smooth scales; ventral scales between mental and cloacal slit 189–193 (counted three times); precloacal groove absent; three rows of enlarged scales present in posterior region of pore-bearing scales; femoral pores bearing scales enlarged, in a continuous row with pore-bearing precloacal scales on the left side but separated from pore-bearing precloacal scales by 2 poreless femoral scales on the right side; femoral pores 15/14; precloacal pores eight, in a continuous row.

Fore and hind limbs moderately slender (ForeaL/SVL 0.17, CrusL/SVL 0.24); dorsal surface of forelimbs covered by few slightly developed tubercles; dorsal surface of hind limbs covered by distinctly developed tubercles; interdigital webbing weakly developed; subdigital lamellae: finger I 14/15 (with 6/6 basally broadened lamellae), finger II 17/17 (7/7), finger III 16/18 (7/7), finger IV 18/17 (7/7), finger V 18/17 (8/7), toe I 15/16 (6/6), toe II 18/17 (7/7), toe III 17/18 (7/7), toe IV -/18 (8/7), toe V 20/19 (8/7).

Tail complete, longer than snout-vent length (TaL 96.5 mm, Tal/SVL 1.24); postcloacal tubercles 3/3; dorsal tail base with distinct tubercles; subcaudals distinctly enlarged, smooth.

Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp.nov. Cyrtodactylus otai ......continued on the next page Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp.nov. Cyrtodactylus otai Coloration in preservative. Ground color of dorsal head and back greyish brown; snout region yellowish with three dark brown spots; dorsal head with dark brown marking, oval and arched shape; a dark stripe extending from posterior corner of eye rearwards to above tympanum; labials brown with cream sutures; neck with some large dark blotches, forming a discontinuous band anteriorly and a continuous band posteriorly; dorsum with five transverse dark brown bands between fore and hind limb insertions, edged in white anteriorly and posteriorly, third and fourth bands broken; dorsal surface of fore and hind limbs with dark brown blotches; tail greyish cream with ten dark brown bands; chin, throat, chest, belly and lower limbs cream; ventral surface of tail grey with seven dark brown bands. For coloration in life see Fig. 3 .

Sexual dimorphism and variation. The females differ from male specimens in the absence of precloacalfemoral pores and hemipenial swellings at the tail base. For other morphological characters see Table 2.

Distribution. Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. is currently known only from the type locality in Phu Yen District, Son La Province, Vietnam ( Fig. 1 ).

Etymology. The specific epithet “ sonlaensis ” refers to the type locality, Son La Province, where the new species was discovered.

Natural history. Specimens were found at night between 19:00 and 21:00, on trees near limestone cliffs and in rock crevices, about 0.1–2.0 m above the ground, at elevations between 900 and 1200 m a.s.l. The surrounding habitat was disturbed evergreen karst forest of medium hardwood and shrub. The humidity was approximately 80– 90% and the air temperature ranged from 22 to 29o C.

Comparisons. We compared the new species with its congeners from Vietnam and neighboring countries in mainland Indochina, including Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Thailand based on examination of specimens (see Appendix) and data obtained from the literature ( Smith 1917, 1921a, b, 1935; Taylor 1963; Ulber 1993; Bauer 2002, 2003; Bauer et al. 2002, 2003, 2009, 2010; Ziegler et al. 2002, 2010, 2013; Pauwels & Sumontha 2014; Pauwels et al. 2004, 2013, 2014a, b, 2016; Nguyen et al. 2006, 2014; Hoang et al. 2007; Orlov et al. 2007; Grismer & Ahmad; Ngo 2008; Ngo & Bauer 2008; Ngo & Grismer 2010, 2012; Ngo & Pauwels 2010; Ngo & Chan 2010, 2011; Ngo et al. 2008, 2010; Sumontha et al. 2010, 2012, 2014; Chan-ard & Makchai, 2011; David et al. 2011; Schneider et al. 2011; Luu et al. 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016a, b, c; Grismer et al. 2012; Kunya et al. 2014, 2015; Nazarov et al. 2014; Panitvong et al. 2014; Le et al. 2016; and Connette et al. 2017).

Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. has distinctly enlarged subcaudals, which are only slightly or not enlarged in the following species: C. ayeyarwadyensis Bauer , C. bidoupimontis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Phung, Nguyen, Hoang & Ziegler , C. bobrovi Nguyen, Le, Pham, Ngo, Hoang, Pham & Ziegler , C. brevidactylus Bauer , C. brevipalmatus (Smith) , C. bugiamapensis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Phung, Nguyen, Hoang & Ziegler , C. buchardi David, Teynié & Ohler , C. cattienensis Geissler, Nazarov, Orlov, Böhme, Phung, Nguyen & Ziegler , C. cryptus Heidrich, Rösler, Vu, Böhme & Ziegler , C. cucdongensis Schneider, Phung, Le, Nguyen & Ziegler , C. dati Ngo , C. gunungsenyumensis Grismer, Wood, Anuar, Davis, Cobos & Murdoch , C. gansi Bauer , C. hitchi Riyanto, Kurniati & Engilis , C. huynhi Ngo & Bauer , C. irregularis (Smith) , C. mandalayensis Mahony , C. martini Ngo, C.

otai Nguyen, Le, Pham, Ngo, Hoang, Pham & Ziegler , C. papilionoides Ulber & Grossmann , C. phuocbinhensis Nguyen, Le, Tran, Orlov, Lathrop, Macculloch, Le, Jin, Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang , C. pseudoquadrivirgatus Rösler, Vu, Nguyen, Ngo & Ziegler , C. quadrivirgatus Taylor , C. ranongensis Sumontha, Pauwels, Panitvong, Kunya & Grismer , C. slowinskii Bauer , C. sommerladi Luu, Bonkowski, Nguyen, Le, Schneider, Ngo & Ziegler , C. tamaiensis (Smith) , C. taynguyenensis Nguyen, Le, Tran, Orlov, Lathrop, Macculloch, Le, Jin, Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang , C. thuongae Phung, Van Schingen, Ziegler & Nguyen , C. vilaphongi Schneider, Nguyen, Duc Le, Nophaseud, Bonkowski & Ziegler , C. wakeorum Bauer , C. wayakonei Nguyen, Kingsada, Rösler, Auer & Ziegler , C. ziegleri Nazarov, Orlov, Nguyen & Ho.

Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. differs from C. aequalis Bauer by the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 9), fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 24), and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 24); from C. annandalei Bauer by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 49.0–55.0 mm), more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 12–24), and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 16–18); from C. angularis (Smith) by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3), the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 3), and the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. astrum Grismer, Wood, Quah, Anuar, Muin, Sumontha, Ahmad, Bauer, Wangkulangkul, Grismer & Pauwels by having fewer dark caudal bands (10 vs. 13–14); from C. auribalteatus Sumontha, Panitvong & Deein by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 5– 7), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 4–5), and more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 6); from C. badenensis Nguyen, Orlov & Darevsky by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 25–29), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), and the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. bichnganae Ngo & Grismer by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 95.3–99.9 mm), having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 11–13), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 9), and fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 10); from C. bansocensis Luu, Nguyen, Le, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 34), more infralabials (9–11 vs. 8), and more ventral scales at midbody (189–202 vs. 158–170); from C. calamei Luu, Bonkowski, Nguyen, Le, Schneider, Ngo & Ziegler by having fewer postcloacal tubercles (2–3 vs. 4) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 38); from C. caovansungi Orlov, Nguyen, Nazarov, Ananjeva & Nguyen by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 90.4–94.0 mm), having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 8), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 6), fewer lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 22) and under toe IV (18–21 vs. 23–25); from C. chanhomeae Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 32) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 34); from C. chauquangensis Hoang, Orlov, Ananjeva, Johns, Hoang & Dau by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 90.9–99.3 mm), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 6), and the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 7); from C. chrysopylos Bauer by having fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 10) and the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. condorensis (Smith) by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 4–7) and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. consobrinoides (Annandale) by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 48.0 mm), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 4), and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 24–30); from C. cucphuongensis Ngo & Chan , by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 96.0 mm), the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence), having fewer lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 21), and under toe IV (18–21 vs. 24); from C. darevskii Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov & Chulisov by having fewer precloacalfemoral pores in males (37 vs. 38–44) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 24–34); from C. doisuthep Kunya, Panmongkol, Pauwels, Sumontha, Meewasana, Bunkhwamdi & Dangsri by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 90.5 mm), having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 6) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 19–20); from C. dumnuii Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Pauwels, Chanhome & Kunya by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 17–19), the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 0–7), and more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16); from C. eisenmanae Ngo by having fewer ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 44–45), more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 4–6), and the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. erythrops Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Panitvong, Pauwels, Chanhome & Kunya by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 28), fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 9), more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. feae Boulenger by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 45.0 mm) and the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. grismeri Ngo by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence) and the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence); from C. hinnamnoensis Luu, Bonkowski, Nguyen, Le, Schneider, Ngo & Ziegler by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 100.6 mm) and having fewer postcloacal tubercles (2–3 vs. 4–5); from C. hontreensis Ngo, Grismer & Grismer by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 2–5); from C. huongsonensis Luu, Nguyen, Do & Ziegler by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 89.8 mm), having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 7–9), more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 23), and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 23); from C. interdigitalis Ulber by having fewer femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 16–18) and fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 14); from C. intermedius (Smith) by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 6–10), the presence of femoral pores (vs. absent), having fewer lamellae under finger IV (17– 19 vs. 20) and under toe IV (18–21 vs. 22); from C. inthanon Kunya, Sumontha, Panitvong, Dongkumfu, Sirisamphan & Pauwels by having fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 18–20), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 6), and more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 5); from C. jaegeri Luu, Calame, Bonkowski, Nguyen & Ziegler by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 31–32), fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 44), and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 24); from C. jarujini Ulber , by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 85.0–90.0 mm), having fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 52–54), generally more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 15–17), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. khammouanensis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov & Chulisov by having fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 40–44); from C. khelangensis Pauwels, Sumontha, Panitvong & Varaguttanonda by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 2–5), fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 16–20), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 6) and the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 6); from C. kingsadai Ziegler, Phung, Le & Nguyen by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 9–12), more femoral pores on each thigh in the males (14–15 vs. 1–4), and the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 4–8); from C. kunyai Pauwels, Sumontha, Keeratikiat & Phanamphon by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 16–20); from C. lekaguli Grismer, Wood, Quah, Anuar, Muin, Sumontha, Ahmad, Bauer, Wangkulangkul, Grismer & Pauwels by the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 33–43); from C. lenya Mulcahy, Thura & Zug by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence) and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 29); from C. lomyenensis Ngo & Pauwels by having fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 39–40) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 32); from C. macrotuberculatus Grismer & Ahmad by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 120.0 mm), more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 17–28) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 19–27); from C. multiporus Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov & Chulisov by having fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 58–60); from C. nigriocularis Nguyen, Orlov & Darevsky by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 0–2), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. uniformly brown); from C. oldhami (Theobald) by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 1–4), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. striped and spotted); from C. pageli Schneider, Nguyen, Schmitz, Kingsada, Auer & Ziegler by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 4), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and the absence of precloacal pores in females (vs. 4); from C. payarhtanensis Mulcahy, Thura & Zug by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence) and having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 26– 32); from C. peguensis Boulenger by the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence) and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. dark brown spots); from C. phetchaburiensis Pauwels, Sumontha & Bauer by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 57.5 mm), having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 33), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 5) and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. phongnhakebangensis Ziegler, Rösler, Herrmann & Vu by having fewer postcloacal tubercles (2–3 vs. 4–5), more scale rows from mental to the front of cloacal slit (189–202 vs. 161–177); from C. phuketensis Sumontha, Pauwels, Kunya, Nitikul, Samphanthamit & Grismer by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 114.7 mm) and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 22–24); from C. puhuensis Nguyen, Yang, Le, Nguyen, Orlov, Hoang, Nguyen, Jin, Rao, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 5), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and fewer lamellae under toe IV (18–21 vs. 23); from C. pulchellus Gray by its smaller size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 114.1 mm), more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 29– 34), and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 22–26); from C. roesleri Ziegler, Nazarov, Orlov, Nguyen, Vu, Dang, Dinh & Schmitz by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 7–10), more precloacalfemoral pores in males (37 vs. 20–28), and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 17–22); from C. rufford Luu, Calame, Nguyen, Le, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 27–29) and fewer precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 42–43); from C. russelli Bauer by having fewer precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 15) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 22); from C. saiyok Panitvong, Sumontha, Tunprasert & Pauwels by its larger size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 56.7–61.0 mm), more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 23–24), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 5), and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 18–19); from C. samroiyot Pauwels & Sumontha by its larger size (SVL reaching 83.2 mm vs. 66.9 mm), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 7), and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 17–18); from C. sanook Pauwels, Sumontha, Latinne & Grismer by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 27–28), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3–4); from C. soni Le, Nguyen, Le & Ziegler by its smaller size (71.2–83.2 mm vs. 88.7–103.0 mm), having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 8–9), more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 18–22), and the absence of femoral pores in females (vs. 11–14); from C. soudthichaki Luu, Calame, Nguyen, Bonkowski & Ziegler by having more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 32–33) and more precloacalfemoral pores in males (37 vs. 29); from C. spelaeus Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Nguyen, Milto, Martynov, Konstantinov & Chulisov by its smaller size (71.2–83.2 mm vs. 88.9–91.0 mm), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and fewer lamellae under toe IV (18–21 vs. 22–24); from C. sumonthai Bauer, Pauwels & Chanhome by the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absence), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 2), and more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16); from C. surin Chan-ard & Makchai by having more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 4) and the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence); from C. thochuensis Ngo & Grismer more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3–5) and fewer dorsal tubercle rows (13–15 vs. 20–26); from C. takouensis Ngo & Bauer by having more enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 3–5), more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 0–2), more precloacal pores in males (8 vs. 3–4), and generally more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16–17); from C. teyniei David, Nguyen, Schneider & Ziegler by its smaller size (SVL 71.2–83.2 mm vs. 89.9 mm), having fewer enlarged femoral scales on each thigh (15–17 vs. 23), the presence of femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and a different dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched); from C. thirakhupti Pauwels, Bauer, Sumontha & Chanhome by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence), and having more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 16); from C. tigroides Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 21) and the absence of precloacal-femoral pores in females (vs. 21); C. variegatus (Blyth) by having more precloacal-femoral pores in males (37 vs. 32) and more ventral scale rows (34–42 vs. 22); from C. wangkulangkulae Sumontha, Pauwels, Suwannakarn, Nutatheera & Sodob by the presence of precloacal-femoral pores in males (vs. absence); and from C. yangbayensis Ngo & Chan by having more femoral pores on each thigh in males (14–15 vs. 0–2) and more lamellae under toe IV (18–21 vs. 15–17).

Morphologically, the new species resemble C. huongsonensis and C. soni . However, it can be distinguished from the latter by having a smaller size and differences in the number of enlarged femoral scales on thighs and the number of femoral and precloacal pores.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Map of sampling sites in northwestern Vietnam: 1) type locality of Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. in Phu Yen District; 2) newly recorded locality of C. otai in Van Ho District, Son La Province; and 3) type locality of C. otai in Mai Chau District, Hoa Binh Province.

FIGURE 3. The male holotype (IEBR A. 2017.1) of Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. in life. Photo A. V. Pham.

FIGURE 4. Cloacal region of the holotype of Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. (IEBR A. 2017.1). Photo A. V. Pham.

FIGURE 5. The female paratype (VNMN 2017.1) of Cyrtodactylus sonlaensis sp. nov. in life. Photo A. V. Pham.