Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki, Luu, Vinh Quang, Calame, Thomas, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Bonkowski, Michael & Ziegler, Thomas, 2015

Luu, Vinh Quang, Calame, Thomas, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Bonkowski, Michael & Ziegler, Thomas, 2015, A new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from the limestone forest of Khammouane Province, central Laos, Zootaxa 4058 (3), pp. 388-402 : 389-399

Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov.

( Figs. 1–3 )

Holotype. VFU R.2015.18, adult male, Khun Don region (17o33.731’N, 104o52.360’E, elevation 167 m a.s.l.) within Phou Hin Poun NPA, Khammouane Province, central Laos, collected during night time between 19:00 and 21:00 on 4 April 2015 by V. Q. Luu and T. Calame.

Paratypes. IEBR A.2015.34, adult female and NUOL R- 2015.5, subadult male, bearing the same data as the holotype.

Diagnosis. The new species can be distinguished from all other members of the genus Cyrtodactylus from the mainland Indochina region by a combination of the following characters: adult SVL 69.2–70.0 mm; dorsal head and neck with dark blotches; nuchal loop present; dorsum with five brown bands between limb insertions; 19 or 20 irregular rows of dorsal tubercles; 32 or 33 ventral scale rows; ventrolateral folds present with distinct tubercles; dorsal surface of hind limbs with tubercles; 29 precloacal and femoral pores in a continuous row in males, precloacal pores absent in the female; enlarged femoral and precloacal scales present; 4 or 5 postcloacal tubercles; subcaudals transversely enlarged.

Description of the holotype. Adult male, snout-vent length (SVL) 69.2 mm; body elongate (TrunkL/SVL 0.41); head elongate (HL/SVL 0.28), relatively narrow (HW/HL 0.63), depressed (HH/HL 0.33), distinct from neck; loreal region inflated, posterior nasal region concave; snout long (SE/HL 0.44), obtuse, longer than diameter of orbit (OD/SE 0.63); snout scales small, rounded, homogeneous, granular, larger than those on frontal and parietal regions; eye large (OD/HL 0.27), pupils vertical; eyelid fringe with tiny spines posteriorly; ear oval– shaped, small (EarL/HL 0.11); rostral wider than high with a medial suture; supranasals in contact medially; rostral bordered by first supralabial and nostril on each side; nares oval, surrounded by supranasal, rostral, first supralabial, and two enlarged postnasals; mental triangular, as wide as rostral (RW 3.0, MW 2.9); postmentals two, enlarged, in broad contact posteriorly, bordered by mental anteriorly, first two infralabials laterally; supralabials 10/ 11; infralabials 8/8. Dorsal scales small, granular to flattened; dorsal tubercles conical, round, present on occipital region, dorsum and tail base, those on the sides larger, each surrounded by 9 granular scales, in 20 irregular longitudinal rows at midbody; ventral scales smooth, medial scales 2 or 3 times larger than dorsal scales, round, subimbricate, in 32 longitudinal rows at midbody; lateral skin folds distinct, with tubercles; gular region with homogeneous, smooth scales; ventral scales between mental and cloacal slit 170; precloacal groove absent; a series of distinctly enlarged femoral scales present; femoral and precloacal pores 29, in a continuous row.

\ Fore- and hind limbs moderately slender (ForeL/SVL 0.16, CrusL/SVL 0.20), femur longer than crus (FemurL/CrusL 1.34); dorsal surface of forelimbs with slightly developed tubercles; dorsal surface of hind limbs covered by distinctly developed tubercles; fingers and toes without distinct webbing; toe IV longer than finger IV (LD4P/LD4A 1.27); lamellae under fourth finger and fourth toe 18/18.

Tail longer than snout–vent length (TaL 95.2 mm, TaL/SVL 1.38); postcloacal tubercles 5/5; dorsal surface of tail with distinct tubercles at base; subcaudals distinctly transversely enlarged, flat, smooth.

Coloration in life. Ground color of dorsal surface of head and body greyish brown; dorsal head with irregular dark brown marking; nuchal loop dark brown, in U–shape, extending from posterior corner of eye, partly above tympanum to the neck; labials brown; five distinct dark transverse bands between limb insertions, normally with indentations in the posterior part of the dorsal bands at midbody; small tubercles at midbody brown; tubercles on sides yellow; dorsal surface of fore- and hind limbs with dark blotches; dorsal surface of tail grey with 15 dark bands, edged in white; posterior half of the tail white with only faint dark bands transversally; chin, throat, chest, belly and ventral surface of limbs greyish cream; ventral tail grey with dark and yellow blotches.

Sexual dimorphism. The female differs from the males by the absence of femoral and precloacal pores (versus 29 pores in males) and the absence of hemipenial swellings at the tail base (see Tables 1 &2).

Comparisons. In the following we compare the new species with its congeners from Laos and neighbouring countries from the mainland Indochina region, including Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand based on examination of specimens (see Appendix) and data obtained from the literature ( Luu et al. 2014; Nazarov et al. 2014; Nguyen et al. 2014; Panitvong et al. 2014; Pauwels et al. 2014; Pauwels & Sumontha 2014; Schneider et al. 2014; Sumontha et al. 2015) (see Table 3).

Morphologically, Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. closely resembles C. jaegeri Luu, Calame, Bonkowski, Nguyen & Ziegler and C. roesleri Ziegler, Nazarov, Orlov, Nguyen, Vu, Dang, Dinh & Schmitz in overall coloration and pattern. However, the new species can be distinguished from C. jaegeri by having fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 44 in C. jaegeri ), more dorsal tubercle rows on body (19–20 versus 15–17 in C. jaegeri ) and the absence of femoral and precloacal pores in the female (present in C. jaegeri ), and from C. roesleri by having transverse dorsal bands between limb insertions with indentations in the posterior part of dorsal bands at the vertebral region (versus without indentations in C. roesleri ) (see Ziegler et al. 2010), fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 34–40 in C. roesleri ), more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 20–28 in C. roesleri ), and the absence of femoral pores in the female (present in C. roesleri ). For further distinguishing characters see Table 4 and Fig. 4 .

TABLE 3. Morphological comparisons between Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. and its congeners from Laos and neighbouring countries in the Indochina region (compiled after Luu et al.

2014; Nazarov et al. 2014; Nguyen et al. 2014; Panitvong et al. 2014; Pauwels et al. 2014; Pauwels & Sumontha 2014; Schneider et al. 2014; Sumontha et al. 2015). Abbreviations are as

follows: m = male; f= female; – = characters unobtainable from literature; * = tail regenerated, for other abbreviations see material and methods.

. erythrops 78.4 83.0* 28 present present 10+9+ 9 – 16 20 blotched present

(PP+FP)

… …continued on the next page TABLE 3. (Continued) ……continued on the next page TABLE 3. (Continued) Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. has enlarged subcaudals, which are absent in the following species: C. bidoupimontis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Phung, Nguyen, Hoang & Ziegler , C. buchardi David, Teynié & Ohler , C. bugiamapensis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Phung, Nguyen, Hoang & Ziegler , C. cattienensis Geissler, Nazarov, Orlov, Böhme, Phung, Nguyen & Ziegler , C. cucdongensis Schneider, Phung, Le, Nguyen & Ziegler , C. cryptus Heidrich, Rösler, Vu, Böhme & Ziegler , C. huynhi Ngo & Bauer , C. irregularis (Smith) , 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. taynguyenensis Nguyen, Le, Tran, Orlov, Lathrop, Macculloch, Le, Jin, Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang , C. thuongae Phung , van Schingen, Ziegler & Nguyen, C. vilaphongi , and C. ziegleri Nazarov, Orlov, Nguyen & Ho.

The new species has femoral and precloacal pores in males and thus differs from the following species which do not possess such pores in males: C. angularis (Smith) , C. badenensis Nguyen, Orlov & Darevsky , C. chauquangensis Hoang, Orlov, Ananjeva, Johns, Hoang & Dau , C. cucphuongensis Ngo & Chan , C. eisenmanae Ngo , C. grismeri Ngo , C. martini Ngo , C. nigriocularis Nguyen, Orlov & Darevsky , C. oldhami (Theobald) , C. pageli Schneider, Nguyen, Schmitz, Kingsada, Auer & Ziegler , C. paradoxus (Darevsky & Szczerbak) , C. puhuensis Nguyen, Yang, Le, Nguyen, Orlov, Hoang, Nguyen, Jin, Rao, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang , C. saiyok Panitvong, Sumontha, Tunprasert & Pauwels , C. samroiyot Pauwels & Sumontha , C. sanook Pauwels, Sumontha, Latinne & Grismer , C. spelaeus , C. sumonthai Bauer, Pauwels & Chanhome , C. teyniei , C. wayakonei , C. thirakhupti Pauwels, Bauer, Sumontha & Chanhome.

The new species differs from C. astrum Grismer, Wood, Quah, Anuar, Muin, Sumontha, Ahmad, Bauer, Wangkulangkul, Grismer & Pauwels by its smaller size (SVL reaching 70.0 mm versus 108.3 mm), and fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 31–38); from C. auribalteatus Sumontha, Panitvong & Deein by having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 38–40), and more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 10–11); from C. bichnganae Ngo & Grismer by its smaller size (SVL 69.2–70.0 mm versus 95.3–99.9 mm), and the absence of femoral and precloacal pores in the female (versus present); from C. brevipalmatus (Smith) by having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 35–44), more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 22), and the absence of femoral and precloacal pores in females (versus present); from C. caovansungi Orlov, Nguyen, Nazarov, Ananjeva & Nguyen by its smaller size (SVL 69.2–70.0 mm versus 90.4–94.0 mm), having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 38–44), and more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 15); from C. chanhomeae Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels by having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 36–38), fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 32), and the absence of femoral and precloacal pores in the female (versus present); from C. darevskii by its smaller size (SVL 69.2–70.0 mm versus 84.6–100.0 mm), having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 38–46), and fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 38–44); from C. dumnuii Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Pauwels, Chanhome & Kunya by its smaller size (SVL 69.2–70.0 mm versus 76.2–84.2 mm), having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 40), and femoral and precloacal pores in a continuous row in males (versus discontinuous row); from C. erythrops Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Panitvong, Pauwels, Chanhome & Kunya by its smaller size (SVL 69.2–70.0 mm versus 78.4 mm), having more ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 28), and femoral and precloacal pores in a continuous row in males (versus discontinuous row); from C. huongsonensis Luu, Nguyen, Do & Ziegler by having fewer ventral scale rows (21–23 versus 41–48), more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 21–23), and the absence of femoral and precloacal pores in the female (versus present); from C. interdigitalis Ulber by its smaller size (SVL reaching 70.0 mm versus 80.0 mm), having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 37–42), and a slightly lower number of femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 30–32); from C. intermedius (Smith) by its smaller size (SVL reaching 70.0 mm versus 85.0 mm) and by having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 40–50); from C. jarujini Ulber by its smaller size (SVL reaching 70.0 mm versus 90.0 mm) and having fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 52–54); from C. khammouanensis by having fewer ventral scales (32–33 versus 32–38) and fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 40–44); from C. khelangensis Pauwels, Sumontha, Panitvong & Varaguttanonda by its smaller size (SVL 69.2–70.0 mm versus 72.8–95.3 mm in C. khelangensis ), femoral and precloacal pores in a continuous row in males (versus discontinuous row), and the absence of femoral and precloacal pores in the female (versus present); from C. kingsadai Ziegler, Phung, Le & Nguyen by its smaller size (SVL reaching 70.0 mm versus 94.0 mm), having fewer ventral scales (32–33 versus 39–46), and more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 0–16); from C. lekaguli Grismer, Wood, Quah, Anuar, Muin, Sumontha, Ahmad, Bauer, Wangkulangkul, Grismer & Pauwels and C. lomyenensis in having fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 30–36 in C. lekaguli and 39–40 in C. lomyenensis ), and the absence of femoral and precloacal pores in the female (versus present in C. lekaguli and C. lomyenensis ); from C. multiporus by its smaller size (SVL reaching 70.0 mm versus 98.0 mm), having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 39–43), and fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 58–60); from C. phongnhakebangensis Ziegler, Rösler, Herrmann & Vu by its smaller size (SVL reaching 70.0 mm versus 96.3 mm), having fewer femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 32–42), and the absence of femoral and precloacal pores in the female (versus present); from C. takouensis Ngo & Bauer by its smaller size (SVL 69.2–70.0 mm versus 74.7–81.1 mm), having fewer ventral scales (32–33 versus 39–40) and more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 3–6); from C. tigroides Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels by having a smaller size (SVL 69.2–70.0 mm versus 74.3–83.2 mm) and more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 21); and from C. yangbayensis Ngo & Chan by having fewer ventral scale rows (32–33 versus 39–46) and more femoral and precloacal pores in males (29 versus 4–14).

Distribution. Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. is currently known only from the type locality in Khun Don Mountain, Phou Hin Poun NPA, Khammouane Province, central Laos ( Fig. 5 ).

Etymology. This species is named in honour of Mr. Sisomphone Soudthichak, from the Natural Resources and Environment Department of Khammouane Province, Laos, who provided great support for our field research in Laos since 2013. As common names, we suggest Soudthichak’s Bent-toed Gecko (English) and Soudthichak’s Ki Chiem (Laotian).

Natural history. The specimens were found between 19:00 and 21:00, on the branches of shrubs and karst boulders in a karst forest, approximately 0.3 m above the forest floor, between 150 and 170 m a.s.l. The karst forest included species of the dominated families Ebenaceae , Dracaenaceae, Arecaeae , Poaceae , Meliaceae , and Moraceae . The humidity at the time of collection was approximately 85% and the air temperature ranged from 23 to 26o C.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Adult male holotype of Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. (VFU R. 2015.18) in life: A) dorsal view, and B) lateral view. Photos V. Q. Luu.

FIGURE 2. Adult male holotype of Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. (VFU R. 2015.18) in preservative: A) dorsal view, and B) ventral view. Photos V. Q. Luu.

FIGURE 3. Cloacal region of the holotype of Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. (VFU R. 2015.18) in life; pores are marked by black dots. Photo T. Calame.

FIGURE 4. Dorsal pattern of three morphologically similar Cyrtodactylus species: A) Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. (adult female paratype: IEBR A. 2015.34); B) C. jaegeri; and C) C. roesleri from Vietnam. Photos V. Q. Luu, T. Calame & T. Ziegler.

FIGURE 5. Map showing the type locality of Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. in Phou Hin Poun NPA (black circle), Khammouane Province, Laos.

Tables

TABLE 1. Measurements (in mm) and morphological characters of the type series of Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov. (* = regenerated, for other abbreviations see material and methods).

Character	VFU R.2015.18 Holotype	IEBR A.2015.34 Paratype	NUOL R-2015.5 Paratype
Sex	male	female	subadult male
SVL	69.2	70.0	56.8
TaL	95.2	95.1*	71.2
HH	6.4	7.0	6.0
HL	19.3	19.8	16.5
HW	12.2	13.0	10.4
OD	5.3	5.1	4.3
SE	8.4	8.2	7.0
EyeEar	4.9	5.3	4.5
EarL	2.1	1.9	1.5
TrunkL	28.5	30.5	25.5
ForeL	11.2	12.0	9.0
FemurL	15.0	16.4	12.2
CrusL	13.5	15.2	11.9
LD4A	7.0	6.3	5.9
LD4P	8.9	8.3	8.0
RW	3.0	3.4	2.6
RH	2.6	2.1	1.5
MW	2.9	3.0	2.5
ML	2.7	2.4	2.0
SL	10/11	11/11	10/11
IL	8/8	9/9	9/9
N	3/3	3/3	3/3
IN	0	1	0
PM	2	2	2
DTR	20	19	20
GST	9	10	9
V	32	33	33
SLB	170	169	165
SR	78	85	78
FP+PP	29	0	29
PAT	5/5	4/4	5/5
LD4	18/18	18/16	18/17
LT4	18/18	18/18	18/18

TABLE 4. Different diagnostic characters between Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov., C. jaegeri and C. roesleri (after Ziegler et al. 2010, and own data).

Character	Cyrtodactylus soudthichaki sp. nov.	C. jaegeri	C. roesleri
Dorsal tubercle rows	19–20	15–17	13–19
Transverse dorsal bands between limbs	5, normally with indentations in mid-dorsal region	4, normally without indentations in mid-dorsal region	4–5, normally without indentations in mid-dorsal region
V	32–33	31–32	34–40
PP + FP (in males)	29	44	20–28
PP + FP (in females)	0	21	17–22
PAT	4–5	3–6	5–8