Lygodactylus miops Günther, 1891

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, Zootaxa 5179 (1), pp. 1-61 : 21-23

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)..

Figures

FIGURE 13. Lygodactylus miops in life. A, specimen from Nahampoana probably assignable to this species, photographed 1992 (not genotyped and not assignable to a voucher specimen). B–F, specimens from Betampona, all genetically identified by DNA barcoding with sequences of the COI gene (voucher specimens not collected). B, sample number ACZC 5544 (ACP1884); C, sample number ACZC 5666 (ACP1947); D, sample number ACZC 5478 (ACP1843); E, sample number ACZC 5420 (ACP1807); F, sample number ACZC 5467 (ACP1839).