Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis Schneider, Phung, Le, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2014, sp. nov.

Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov.

(Figs. 2, 3)

Holotype. IEBR A.2013.104, adult male, collected by T. M. Phung on 12 June, 2011, from Cuc Dong Cape, Ninh Hoa District, Khanh Hoa Province, Vietnam.

Paratypes. VNMN A.2013.18, adult male, ZFMK 95513, adult female, ZFMK 95514 subadult male and ZFMK 95515, subadult female, collected on 12 June, 2011, IEBR A.2013.105, adult female and VNMN A.2013.19, adult female, collected on 2 September, 2011, the same data as the holotype.

Diagnosis. Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. is distinguished from the remaining bent-toed geckos by a combination of the following characters: maximum SVL 65.9 mm; 16–19 dorsal tubercle rows; 41–44 ventral scales at midbody; 5 or 6 precloacal pores in males, 4–6 pitted precloacal scales in females; no femoral pores; 6–13 enlarged precloacal scales; 5–9 enlarged femoral scales; no transversally enlarged subcaudals; dorsal pattern consists of irregular dark bands.

Description of the holotype. Adult male with a total length of 147.2 mm (SVL 65.9 mm, tail broken, TL 81.3 mm); rostral Y-shaped, wider than high (RW 2.3 mm, RH 1.7 mm, RW/RH 1.35), medially with a straight, vertical rostral suture, in contact with nasorostral, nare and first supralabial on each side, medially in contact with internasal; mental wider than rostral (MW 2.9 mm); supralabials 9; infralabials 8; supralabials separated from orbit by 3 or 4 rows of granular scales; nares in contact with rostral, nasorostral, supranasal, two postnasals, and first supralabial; internasal single; snout scales larger than head scales; scales between fifth supralabials 53; scales between anterior corner of eyes 57; interorbital region with small round, convex scales; scales in postorbital region distinctly smaller (ca. half the size) than snout scales, posteriorly increasing in size, irregular in shape; postorbital region with enlarged tubercles in 5 or 6 rows on each side; pupil vertical; spinous ciliaria 9/10, posterior ones more developed; ear opening vertical, oval; mental triangular, in contact with two postmentals and the first infralabial on each side; postmentals surrounded by four granular scales, of which two outer ones distinctly enlarged, and first infralabial on each side; gular scales granular.

Dorsal scales small, twice the size of head scales between the eyes; dorsal tubercles in 18 longitudinal rows at midbody; dorsal surface of body with tubercles; dorsal tubercles surrounded by 9–12 dorsal scales, separated from each other by 2–4 scales; lateral body folds slightly developed, without tubercles; ventral scales round, slightly arched, imbricated, 3 or 4 times larger than gular and throat scales, three times larger than dorsals; ventral scales in 42 rows; midbody scales rows 116; scales between mental and cloacal slit 183; dorsal surface of limbs with tubercles, more developed on hind limbs; enlarged femoral scales 6 on each side, two series of three enlarged scales separated by two granular scales on right hind limb, outer enlarged femoral scale separated by six granular scales from other enlarged femoral scales on left hind limb; fingers and toes free of webbing; relative finger lengths I <II <V <IV <III, relative toe lengths I <II <III <V <IV; claw sheathed by two scales; subdigital lamellae: finger I 10 or 11 (including 3 basally broadened lamellae), finger II 13 (4), finger III 15 (4), finger IV 17 (4–5), finger V 12 or 13 (3–4), toe I 10 or 11 (3–4), toe II 14 or 15 (4), toe III 17 (5), toe IV 18–20 (7), toe V 17–18 (6); precloacal depression absent; precloacal pores 6; pore-bearing scales posteriorly surrounded by nine enlarged scales, arranged in a diamond shape; adjoining scales continuously decreasing in size; two postcloacal tubercles on each side, well developed; hemipenis not everted; original tail without distinct whorls; dorsal surface covered by 14 rows of tubercles, each row with 4 or 5 tubercles, tubercles absent in distal part of tail; median row of subcaudals not transversally enlarged.

Coloration in life: Top of head light brown; each side with a dark stripe, from between tip of snout and eye, running below the eyes and connecting with the other band at the neck, stripe on right side not clear, blurred between eye and neck; irregular dark blotches on dorsal surface of the head indistinct; eyelids with green cast; ciliaria bright yellow; iris marbled in black and metallic-yellow; dorsal surface of body light brown with irregular transverse dark brown bands; dark bands between limb insertions four, two inner ones in irregular shape, consisting of blotches and small bands; a median dark spot just behind the neck band; five or six blotches in one row on each side from neck to hind limbs; flanks without dark bands or blotches; dorsal pattern of limbs consisting of a mixture of light and dark brown; dorsal tail with seven dark brown bands or broad blotches on a light brown ground; ventral surface of body solid light beige, with ventral side of tail being slightly darker.

Color in preservative (70 % ethanol): The overall color scheme is somewhat less pronounced, slightly fades in alcohol. Main characteristics are still clearly visible, the slight green cast of the eyelids and the bright yellow color of the ciliaria are not visible, but have the same bright brown color compared to remaining parts of the head.

Variation. The paratype series largely corresponded with the description of the holotype. For measurements, scalation, and color pattern variation see Tables 2, 3 and Fig. 3. ZFMK 95515 has, in contrast to the holotype and the other paratypes, distinct whorls on the dorsal surface of tail. Transverse body bands individually vary in intensity (darker bands versus lighter bands) and shape (continuously developed body bands versus interrupted or irregularly shaped body bands). Sexual dimorphism was also discernible in terms of hemipenial swellings at the under tail base in adult males, the enlarged precloacal scales are distinctly larger in males (even in the subadult male) and the precloacal pores in females are indistinct, like pitted scales.

Comparisons. Comparisons are based on the original descriptions or descriptions provided in broader faunal and taxonomic publications (e.g., Smith 1920, 1921, 1935; Ulber & Grossmann 1991; Darevsky & Szczerbak 1997; Bauer 2002, 2003; Bauer et al. 2002, 2003, 2009; David et al. 2004, 2011; Pauwels et al. 2004, 2013, 2014; Nguyen S.N. et al. 2006, 2013; Hoang et al. 2007; Orlov et al. 2007; Nazarov et al. 2008; Ngo 2008; Ngo & Bauer 2008; Rösler & Glaw 2008; Rösler et al. 2008; Geissler et al. 2009; Mahony 2009; Ngo & Chan 2010; Ngo & Pauwels 2010; Ngo et al. 2008, 2010, 2011; Nguyen T.Q. et al. 2010; Sumontha et al. 2010; Schneider et al. 2011; Grismer et al. 2012; Nazarov et al. 2012; Ziegler et al. 2010, 2013; Luu et al. 2014; Pauwels & Sumontha 2014).

Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from all the Vietnamese congeners as follows: The new species has no transversally enlarged subcaudal scales and thus differs from the following species: C. badenensis Nguyen, Orlov & Darevsky, 2006, C. bichnganae Ngo & Grismer, 2010, C. caovansungi Orlov, Nguyen, Nazarov, Ananjeva & Nguyen, 2007, C. chauquangensis Hoang, Orlov, Ananjeva, Johns, Hoang & Dau, 2007, C. condorensis (Smith, 1920), C. cucphuongensis Ngo & Chan, 2011, C. eisenmanae Ngo, 2008, C. grismeri Ngo, 2008, C. hontreensis Ngo, Grismer & Grismer, 2008, C. huongsonensis Luu, Nguyen, Do & Ziegler, 2011, C. intermedius (Smith, 1917), C. kingsadai, C. martini Ngo, 2011, C. nigriocularis Nguyen, Orlov & Darevsky, 2006, C. paradoxus (Darevsky & Szczerbak, 1997), C. phongnhakebangensis Ziegler, Rösler, Herrmann & Vu, 2002, C. phuquocensis Ngo, Grismer & Grismer, 2010, C. roesleri Ziegler, Nazarov, Orlov, Nguyen, Vu, Dang, Dinh & Schmitz, 2010, C. takouensis Ngo & Bauer, 2008, C. thochuensis Ngo & Grismer, 2012, and C. yangbayensis. The following species have femoral pores, which are lacking in Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov.: C. huynhi (3–8) and C. dati Ngo, 2013 (3–4). Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. has enlarged femoral scales which are absent in C. cryptus. Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. can be distinguished from C. thuongae Phung, van Schingen, Ziegler & Nguyen, 2014 by having more precloacal pores in males (5–6 vs. 0–1).

From the representatives of the C. irregularis complex, Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. differs as follows (only characters are mentioned, which are not listed in Table 4): from C. bidoupimontis by lacking a dark neckband and tail bands which are distinctly broader; from C. bugiamapensis by having fewer dorsal tubercle rows (16–19 vs. 20–24), additionally, the dorsal pattern of Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. consists of irregular dark bands vs. transverse bands formed by dark spots in C. bugiamapensis; from C. cattienensis by having more enlarged precloacal scales in most specimens (8–21 vs. 6–13); from C. irregularis by lacking a thickened tail base that shows very large triple-edged knobs and forms 3–5 pronounced semi-rings of tail segments, additionally, the dorsal pattern of Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. differs from the pattern of C. irregularis (banded vs. blotched); from C. phuocbinhensis by having irregular dark bands vs. two dark brown stripes or blotches on dorsum; from C. pseudoquadrivirgatus by the absence of enlarged lateral tubercles (vs. present), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absent), and by having uniformly bright colored limbs versus striped or mottled limbs in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus; from C. taynguyenensis by the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absent) and by having irregular dark bands (vs. irregular blotches bordered by light brown edges); from C. ziegleri by having fewer dorsal tubercle rows (16–19 vs. 20–24).

FIGURE 5.

From other congeners from the Indochinese region, the new species differs as follows: Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. has 4–6 precloacal pores in both sexes and thus differs from the following species, which have distinctly lower or higher precloacal pore counts: C. aequalis Bauer, 2003 (9), C. annandalei Bauer, 2003 (11–12), C. ayeyarwadyensis Bauer, 2003 (10–28), C. brevidactylus Bauer, 2002 (8), C. chrysopylos Bauer, 2003 (10), C. consobrinus (Peters, 1871) (9–11), C. erythrops Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha Niyomwan, Panitvong, Pauwels, Chanhome & Kunya,, 2009 (9), C. gansi Bauer, 2003 (16–29), C. interdigitalis Ulber, 1993 (14), C. pulchellus (8), C. russelli Bauer, 2003 (15), C. slowinskii Bauer, 2002 (9–11), C. sumonthai Bauer, Pauwels & Chanhome, 2002 (2), C. teyniei David, Nguyen, Schneider & Ziegler, 2011 (14 in the single known specimen, an adult female), C. tigroides Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels, 2003 (8–9), and C. wakeorum Bauer, 2003 (12).

Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. lacks a series of precloacal-femoral or precloacal and femoral pores, which is present in the following Cyrtodactylus species: C. auribalteatus Sumontha, Panitvong & Deein, 2010 (6 precloacal pores + 4–5 femoral pores), C. brevipalmatus (Smith, 1923) (7–10+6–7), C. chanhomeae Bauer, Sumontha & Pauwels, 2003 (32–34 precloacal-femoral pores), C. consobrinoides (Annandale, 1905) (26), C. dumnuii Bauer, Kunya, Sumontha, Niyomwan, Pauwels, Chanhome & Kunya, 2010 (5–6+6), C. feae (Boulenger, 1893) (32), C. jarujini Ulber, 1993 (42–54), C. lekaguli Grismer, Wood, Quah, Anuar, Muin, Sumontha, Ahmad, Bauer, Wangkulangkul, Grismer & Pauwels, 2012 (31–43), C. lomyenensis Ngo & Pauwels, 2010 (39–40), C. phuketensis Sumontha, Pauwels, Kunya, Nitikul, Samphantamit & Grismer, 2012 (33–36), C. tamaiensis (Smith, 1940) (40), and C. variegatus (Blyth, 1859) (32).

The following Cyrtodactylus species differ from Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. by the absence of precloacal pores in both sexes: C. buchardi David, Teynié & Ohler, 2004, C. guakanthanensis Grismer, Belabut, Quah, Chan, Wood & Hasim, 2014, C. sanook Pauwels, Sumontha, Latinne & Grismer, 2013 and C. thirakhupti Pauwels, Bauer, Sumontha & Chanhome, 2004. Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. has no transversally enlarged subcaudals and thus differs from C. angularis (Smith, 1921), C. jaegeri Luu, Calame, Bonkowski, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2014, C. khelangensis Pauwels, Sumontha, Panitvong & Varaguttanonda, 2014, C. oldhami (Theobald, 1876), C. pageli Schneider, Nguyen, Schmitz, Kingsada, Auer & Ziegler, 2011, C. samroiyot Pauwels & Sumontha, 2014, and C. surin Chan-Ard & Makchai, 2011. Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. has 41–44 ventral scales at midbody and thus differs from C. mandalayensis Mahony, 2009 (32), C. papilionoides Ulber & Grossmann, 1991 (30–34), and C. wayakonei Nguyen, Kingsada, Rösler, Auer & Ziegler, 2010 (31–35). Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis sp. nov. differs from C. quadrivirgatus by having generally more ventral scales (40– 44 vs. 40), by having more precloacal pores in males (5–6 vs. 4), and the presence of enlarged femoral scales (vs. absent in C. quadrivirgatus).

Etymology. The specific epithet is referring to the type locality of the new species. As common names we propose Cucdong Bent-toed Gecko (English) and Thach sung ngon cuc dong (Vietnamese).

Distribution. The new species is currently known only from the type locality in Cuc Dong Cape, Ninh Hoa District, Khanh Hoa Province, southern Vietnam (Fig. 4).

Ecological notes. The type series of Cyrtodactylus cucdongensis was found at night time, on granitic stones, at elevations between 5 and 50 m a.s.l. The surrounding habitat was mixed secondary forest of small prickly shrubs and species of the families Annonaceae, Dipterocarpaceae, Ebenaceae, and Fabaceae (Fig. 5).