Lygodactylus tolampyae ( Grandidier, 1872 )

Vences, Miguel, Multzsch, Malte, Gippner, Sven, Crottini, Angelica, Glaw, Frank, Köhler, Jörn, Rakotomanga, Sandratra, Rasamison, Solohery & Raselimanana, Achille P., 2024, Taxonomizing a truly morphologically cryptic complex of dwarf geckos from Madagascar: molecular evidence for new species-level lineages within the Lygodactylus tolampyae complex, Zootaxa 5468 (3), pp. 416-448 : 428-429

Identity of Lygodactylus tolampyae ( Grandidier, 1872)

The holotype specimen of Hemidactylus tolampyae Grandidier, 1872 (MNHN 7636) unfortunately appears to be missing from the MNHN collection and is likely to be lost. According to the MNHN catalogue and online database, it has not been found since an inventory of the collection in 1983. This agrees with Brygoo (1990), who stated that the specimen had not been found during a search in 1983 and mentioned that the presence of the type had been reported by Angel (1942) and Guibé (1954).

Furthermore, reliable information on the holotype is relatively scarce. Only little morphological information (not even body size) is given by Grandidier (1872) in the original description. Mocquard (1895) only mentions the type but provides no further relevant information. Mocquard (1909) provides the first detailed description: “Queue non distinctement annelée. Ecailles médianes sous-caudales agrandies et formant une série régulière. Narine ouverte au-dessus de la suture entre la rostrale et la première supéro-labiale. 3 écailles entre les naso-rostrales. Mentonnière presque complètement tripartite, la partie médiane bordée en arrière par 3 postmentonnières. 6 pores préanaux.”

This description is highly informative regarding the identity of L. tolampyae as it probably is based (also) on examination of the holotype (apparently only one further individual assigned to the species was available in the Paris museum at that time: MNHN 1899.344 from “Environs de Suberbieville, Boeny” in the North West), and thus confirms that (very probably) the holotype was characterized by several key character states that are currently seen to be typical for this species: (i) a non-verticillated tail (= without whorls); (ii) a mental scale semi-divided by a suture; and (iii) three postmental scales. Unfortunately, the description does not mention the broad contact of the posterior projection of the mental scale with the first infralabial scale, which is considered to be diagnostic for L. tolampyae ( Puente et al. 2009) . However, the data allow us to exclude conspecificity of the L. tolampyae holotype with other species commonly occurring in the West and South West of Madagascar ( L. verticillatus : tail with distinct whorls; L. tuberosus , L. pictus : two post-mentals). Angel (1942) provides a more detailed morphological account from which it becomes clear that he examined among various individuals also the holotype: “ Queue aussi longue, …, fortement gonflée a la bàse, se rétrécissant brusquement aussitôt, au moins chez l’exemplaire type qui est un male.” This author thus provides information on the male sex of the holotype, as well as on its size: 56 mm total length and 28 mm tail length (thus 28 mm SVL and 28 mm TAL). Subsequent morphological accounts of the species by Pasteur (1965) and Puente et al. (2009) did not provide further information on the holotype.

In summary, the available information confirms (i) that the name L. tolampyae has been correctly attributed to the complex of Lygodactylus lineages occurring in the West and North West of Madagascar which are characterized by absence of tail whorls, semi-divided mental and three postmentals, and (ii) that the presumably lost L. tolampyae holotype most likely originated from the West of Madagascar and more specifically from the wider Morondava region. Consequently, the nomen is best applied to the clade containing the mitochondrial lineages A and B (“ L. sp. 14 and 15 aff. tolampyae ” according to Gippner et al. 2021), which are the only lineages of the complex occurring in this region, according to our data.