taxonID	type	description	language	source
EA0EFD71D657FF90FD8C522DFEB3A6E2.taxon	description	urn: lsid: zoobank. org: act: F 5 B 84 AC 9 - 6161 - 4300 - 9136 - 64 C 13 A 3 FC 0 CC Figs 1 – 3; Table 1 – 3	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D657FF90FD8C522DFEB3A6E2.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis Scincella honbaensis sp. nov. is distinguished from all of its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characters: relatively small size in adults (SVL 47.4 mm); 28 smooth midbody scale rows; dorsal scales enlarged, 6 rows on back; 64 paravertebrals; 74 ventral scale rows; 4 supraoculars; prefrontals in broad contact with one another; 2 loreals; 7 supralabials, fifth and sixth below the eye; 1 anterior and 2 posterior enlarged temporals; 3 pairs of nuchals; tympanum deeply sunk and oval; 15 or 16 smooth lamellae beneath finger IV and 21 beneath toe IV; 2 enlarged precloacals; dorsum with 2 rows of longitudinal black dots.	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D657FF90FD8C522DFEB3A6E2.taxon	etymology	Etymology The specific epithet ‘ honbaensis ’ is a toponym derived from the Hon Ba Mountain where the new species was discovered. We recommend ‘ Hon Ba Ground Skink’, ‘ Th ằn l ằn c ổ hòn bà’, and ‘ R ắn m ối hòn bà’ as the common English, Vietnamese, and local names of the new species, respectively.	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D657FF90FD8C522DFEB3A6E2.taxon	materials_examined	Type material Holotype VIETNAM • ♂, adult; Khanh Hoa Province, Hon Ba Mountain; 12 ° 06 ′ 59.7 ″ N, 108 ° 56 ′ 44.0 ″ E; 1510 m a. s. l.; 23 Jun. 2017; Luan T. Nguyen and Manh V. Le leg.; GenBank: PV 022547; ITBCZ 4679; ITBCZ.	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D657FF90FD8C522DFEB3A6E2.taxon	description	Description (holotype, ♂, adult) MEASUREMENTS. SVL 47.4 mm; snout relatively long and pointed (SnL = 4.1 mm; SnL / HW = 0.66; SnL / HL = 0.34); lower eyelid with an undivided transparent disc; body rather compressed and slender; tail longer than snout – vent length, regenerated on tip part; limbs pentadactyl, toes reach to wrist when limbs adpressed (Fig. 3). Head scales smooth; rostral convex, distinctly visible from above, in broad contact with frontonasal; no supranasals; prefrontals in broad contact with one another; four supraoculars; frontal narrowing posteriorly, longer than wide (3.0 mm vs 1.6 mm), longer than its distance from snout (2.5 mm), bordered laterally by first two supraoculars, anteriorly by prefrontals, and posteriorly by frontoparietals; pair of frontoparietals, shorter than frontal, in contact with supraoculars 2 – 4; parietals in contact posteriorly, behind interparietal; 3 pairs of nuchals, twice the size of dorsal scale; 7 supralabials on both sides, fifth and sixth below eye, sixth largest; 2 loreals, equal in size; 2 preoculars, lower one much larger than upper one; nostril in center of nasal, which in contact with first supralabial, rostral, anterior loreal, and frontonasal; 8 supraciliaries, first largest; 1 enlarged anterior temporal, in contact with sixth and seventh supralabials; 2 posterior temporals, lower one much smaller and overlapping upper one; 7 infralabials, first two in contact with postmental, second and third in contact with fist chin shield; 3 pairs of enlarged chin shields, first pair medially in contact with each other, second pair separated by small scale; tympanum deeply sunk, oval, and oblique. Dorsal scales smooth, larger than lateral and ventral scales, 6 rows on back between dorsolateral bands; 28 midbody scale rows; 64 paravertebral scales; ventral scales smooth, in 73 rows; subcaudal scales on original part of tail slightly enlarged; 15 or 16 smooth lamellae beneath finger IV and 21 beneath toe IV; 2 enlarged precloacal scales, right scale overlapping left one. In life, overall dorsal coloration olive with two longitudinal black dots on dorsum; dorsolateral band dark brown and continuous; a black band on side of snout, continuous behind eye and joining dorsolateral band; lower half of flank light brown with sparse black dots; lower part of head and neck somewhat bluish white; lower part of neck, body, limbs, and tail yellowish to yellow; free margin of upper and lower eyelids orange to yellow; eye immaculate black. In preservation, color fades but pattern remained with two longitudinal black dots on dorsum and sparse black dots on lower part of side; overall dorsal and lateral coloration light brown; venter cream. Morphological characters of the holotype were summarized in Table 3. Field notes The specimen was collected at night, on the ground near the Forest Station on top of Hon Ba Mountain. It was seen when removing tile debris. Surrounding habitat consisted of montane primary evergreen forest with scattered rocks and thick layer of leaf litter.	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D657FF90FD8C522DFEB3A6E2.taxon	distribution	Distribution The new species is currently known only from Hon Ba Mountain, Khanh Hoa Province, Vietnam (Fig. 1).	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D657FF90FD8C522DFEB3A6E2.taxon	discussion	Comparisons Scincella honbaensis sp. nov. differs morphologically from its congeners in Indochina and China as follows: from S. apraefrontalis by having more midbody scale rows (28 vs 18), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 8 – 9), more paravertebral scale rows (64 vs 52), first supralabial and nasal separated (vs fused), and presence (vs absence) of prefrontal (Nguyen et al. 2010 b); from S. badenensis by having fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 32 – 36), more nuchal pairs (3 vs 0 – 1), one (vs two) first enlarged temporal, and fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (6 vs 8) (Nguyen et al. 2019); from S. baraensis by having fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 30), more ventrals (74 vs 64 – 66), absence (vs presence) of weak auricular lobules, and fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (6 vs 8) (Nguyen et al. 2020); from S. barbouri (Stejneger, 1925) by having more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 15 – 17), more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 or 16 vs 9 – 10), fewer nuchal pairs (3 vs 4 or 5), fewer paravertebral scale rows (64 vs 70 – 79), (Stejneger 1925; Ouboter 1986); from S. darevskii by having more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 17), more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 or 16 vs 12), more ventrals (74 vs 65), prefrontals in contact (vs separated), fewer supraoculars (4 vs 5), and absence (vs presence) of weak auricular lobules (Nguyen et al. 2010 c); from S. devorator by having more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 17 or 19), prefrontals in contact (vs separated), limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed, and absence (vs presence) of a black broad vertebral band (Darevsky et al. 2004; Nguyen et al. 2011); from S. doriae by having more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 15 – 18), head relatively longer and pointed (HW / HL = 0.52 vs 0.64), frontal longer (vs as long as) its distance from snout, dorsum with two longitudinal rows of black spots (vs scattered black spots) (Boulenger 1887; Smith 1935; Taylor 1963; Bourret 2009); from S. fansipanensis by having more midbody scale rows (28 vs 22), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 10 – 12), more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 or 16 vs 7 – 9), and limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed (Okabe et al. 2004); from S. huanrenensis Zhao & Huang, 1982 by having lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 13 – 16), more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 or 16 vs 9), fewer paravertebral scale rows (61 [not included nuchals] vs 66 – 84), and limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed (Zhao & Huang 1982; Chen et al. 2001); from S. melanosticta by having more nuchal scales (3 pairs vs 0), fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 34 – 38), dorsal scale enlarged (vs same size as lateral scales), and fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (6 vs 10) (Smith 1935; Taylor 1963; Bourret 2009; Neang et al. 2018); from S. modesta Günther, 1864 by having more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 10 – 17), more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 or 16 vs 8 – 12), and dorsum with two longitudinal rows of black spots (vs scattered black spots) (Smith 1935; Chen et al. 2001); from S. monticola by having more midbody scale rows (28 vs 22 – 26), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 10 – 13), more paravertebrals (64 vs 52 – 59), more ventrals (74 vs 52 – 58), and prefrontals in contact (vs separated) (Schmidt 1927; Neang et al. 2018); from S. nigrofasciata by having fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 32 – 33), more nuchal scales (3 pairs vs 0 or 1), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 15 – 17), fewer paravertebral scale rows (64 vs 69 – 74), fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (6 vs 8), and fewer enlarged anterior temporal (1 vs 2) (Neang et al. 2018); from S. ochracea by having fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 30 – 32), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 16 – 18), more ventrals (74 vs 66 – 71), fewer enlarged anterior temporal (1 vs 2), absence (vs presence) of weak auricular lobules, and absence (vs presence) of dark vertebral stripe (Bourret 2009; Pham et al. 2015; Neang et al. 2018); from S. ouboteri by having fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 30 – 32), more ventrals (74 vs 65 – 71), fewer enlarged anterior temporals (1 vs 2), more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 or 16 vs 10 – 12), and absence (vs presence) of weak auricular lobules (Pham et al. 2024); from S. potanini Günther, 1896 by having more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 – 16 vs 9.9 ± 0.7), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 14.3 ± 1.5 – 17), and limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed (Günther 1896; Ouboter 1986); from S. przewalskii (Bedriaga, 1912) by having fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 32 – 34), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 17), more supralabials (7 vs 6), and more infralabials (7 vs 6) (Wang & Zhao 1986); from S. punctatolineata Boulenger, 1893 by having more midbody scale rows (28 vs 24 – 26), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 12 – 14), prefrontals in contact (vs separated), presence (vs absence) of nuchals, and limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed (Smith 1935); from S. rara by having more midbody scale rows (28 vs 24), more paravertebrals (64 vs 53), and a single (vs double) row of lamellae beneath toes and fingers II – IV (Darevsky & Orlov 1997); from S. reevesii by having more nuchals (3 pairs vs 0 or 1), dorsal scale enlarged (vs same size as lateral scales), fewer enlarged anterior temporal (1 vs 2), and fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (6 vs 8) (Smith 1935; Bourret 2009; Neang et al. 2018); from S. rufocaudata by having fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 32 – 34), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 15 – 17), fewer paravertebrals (64 vs 68), fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (6 vs 10), and one (vs two) anterior temporal (Darevsky & Nguyen 1983; Neang et al. 2018); from S. rupicola by having fewer midbody scale rows (28 vs 34 – 36), more nuchals (3 pairs vs 0 or 1), fewer paravertebrals (64 vs 68 – 73), fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (6 vs 8), and one (vs two) anterior temporal (Smith 1935; Taylor 1963; Neang et al. 2018); from S. schmidti Barbour, 1927 by having more midbody scale rows (28 vs 26), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 11), and limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed (Barbour 1927); from S. truongi by having more ventrals (74 vs 60 – 70), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 13 – 15), and more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 or 16 vs 10) (Pham et al. 2025); from S. tsinlingensis Hu & Zhao, 1966 by having more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 11 – 16) and fewer paravertebrals (64 vs 78 – 85), (Ouboter 1986; Inger et al. 1990); from S. victoriana Shreve, 1940 by having more midbody scale rows (28 vs 26), more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 15 or 16), more paravertebrals (64 vs 50 – 57), more ventrals (74 vs 53 – 56), and smooth (vs keeled) scales on dorsum and tail (Ouboter 1986; Neang et al. 2018); and from S. wangyuezhaoi Jie, Gao, Huang, Ren, Jiang, Li & Li, 2023 by having more lamellae beneath toe IV (21 vs 13 – 16), more lamellae beneath finger IV (15 or 16 vs 9 – 11), and more supraciliaries (8 vs 5 – 7) (Jia et al. 2023).	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D652FF8FFDB452C3FDA7A502.taxon	description	urn: lsid: zoobank. org: act: 2 EBCDACA- 55 AA- 4222 - 86 CD-B 492 EAA 4 D 4 BB Figs 1 – 2, 4 – 5; Table 1 – 3	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D652FF8FFDB452C3FDA7A502.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis Scincella auranticaudata sp. nov. is distinguished from all of its congeners by a combination of the following morphological characters: medium size in adults (SVL up to 62.1 mm); 34 – 36 smooth midbody scale rows; dorsal scales not enlarged, ½ + 8 + ½ rows on back; 67 – 74 paravertebrals; 65 – 69 ventral scale rows; 4 supraoculars; prefrontals separated from or just in contact with one another; 2 loreals; 7 supralabials, fifth below center of eye; 2 anterior and 2 posterior enlarged temporals; 1 pairs of nuchals; tympanum deeply sunk and oval; 10 – 13 smooth lamellae beneath finger IV and 17 – 20 beneath toe IV; 2 enlarged precloacals; hemipenis smooth, forked near the base with two long symmetrical lobes; dorsum with a vertebral line formed by large black spots.	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D652FF8FFDB452C3FDA7A502.taxon	etymology	Etymology The specific epithet ‘ auranticaudata ’ is a Latin compound word derived from ‘ aurantiacus ’ (meaning ‘ orange-colored’) and ‘ caudatus ’ (meaning ‘ tail’), referring to the orange coloration on the tail of the new species. We recommend ‘ Orange-tailed Ground Skink’, ‘ Th ằn l ằn c ổ đuôi cam’, and ‘ R ắn m ối đuôi cam’ as the common English, Vietnamese, and local names of the new species, respectively.	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D652FF8FFDB452C3FDA7A502.taxon	materials_examined	Type material Holotype VIETNAM • ♂, adult; Binh Thuan Province, Ta Kou Mountain; 10 ° 49 ′ 30 ″ N, 107 ° 53 ′ 46 ″ E; 286 m a. s. l.; 3 Jun. 2020; Sang N. Nguyen and Vu D. H. Nguyen leg.; GenBank: PV 022551; ITBCZ 7700; ITBCZ. Paratypes VIETNAM • 1 ♀, gravid; Binh Thuan Province, Ta Kou Mountain; 10 ° 48 ′ 53 ″ N, 107 ° 53 ′ 43 ″ E; 520 m a. s. l.; 2 Jun. 2020; Sang N. Nguyen leg.; GenBank: PV 022548; ITBCZ 6527; ITBCZ • 1 ♂, adult; Binh Thuan Province, Ta Kou Mountain; 10 ° 48 ′ 52 ″ N, 107 ° 53 ′ 42 ″ E; 504 m a. s. l; 30 May 2020; Sang N. Nguyen and Vu D. H. Nguyen leg.; GenBank: PV 022549; ITBCZ 7620; ITBCZ • 1 ♀, gravid; Binh Thuan Province, Ta Kou Mountain; 10 ° 48 ′ 52 ″ N, 107 ° 53 ′ 42 ″ E; 504 m a. s. l; 30 May 2020; Sang N. Nguyen and Vu D. H. Nguyen leg.; GenBank: PV 022550; ITBCZ 7623; ITBCZ.	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D652FF8FFDB452C3FDA7A502.taxon	description	Description (holotype, ♂, adult) MEASUREMENTS. SVL 62.1 mm; snout short and obtuse; lower eyelid with an undivided transparent disc; body rather robust; tail longer than snout – vent length (TaL = 85.3 mm; TaL / SVL = 1.37); limbs pentadactyl, toes reach to fingers when limbs adpressed. Head scales smooth; rostral convex, distinctly visible from above, in broad contact with frontonasal; no supranasals; prefrontals well separated from one another; four supraoculars; frontal narrowing posteriorly, longer than wide (3.8 mm vs 2.2 mm), longer than its distance from snout (2.5 mm), bordered laterally by first two supraoculars, anteriorly by prefrontals and frontonasal, and posteriorly by frontoparietals; pair of frontoparietals, in contact with supraoculars 2 – 4; parietals in contact posteriorly, behind the interparietal; 1 pair of nuchals, twice as size of dorsal scale; 7 supralabials on both sides, fifth below center of eye, sixth largest; 2 loreals, anterior one smaller than posterior one; 2 preoculars, lower one much larger than upper one; nostril in center of nasal, which in contact with rostral, two first supralabials, anterior loreal, and frontonasal; 9 supraciliaries, first largest; 2 enlarged anterior temporals, lower one larger than and overlapping upper one, in contact with sixth and seventh supralabials; 2 posterior temporals, lower one smaller than and overlapping upper one; 7 infralabials on right side and 6 on left side, first two in contact with postmental; 3 pairs of chin shields, first pair medially in contact with each other, second pair separated by a small scale; tympanum deeply sunk and oval. Dorsal scales smooth, not larger than lateral and ventral scales, ½ + 8 + ½ rows on the back between dorsolateral bands; 36 midbody scale rows; 74 paravertebral scales; ventral scales smooth, in 68 rows; 86 subcaudal scales; 13 smooth lamellae beneath finger IV and 19 beneath toe IV; 2 enlarged precloacal scales, left scale overlapping right one. Fully everted hemipenis smooth, forked near base, forming two long lobes with regular transversal shallow grooves on body of each lobe; clear sulcus spermaticus starting from base and divided into two lobes prior to forked position (Fig. 4). In life, anterior part of dorsum and upper head red to bright brown, posterior part of dorsum dark brown, with vertebral enlarged black spots extending from back to tail base; interrupted dorsolateral band with black spots, starting from shoulder to tail base; lateral side of neck and chest red; tail orange; lower part of head, body, and limbs pink; lower part of tail pink to yellowish; eyes with black round pupil and visible yellowish iris. In preservation, color fades but pattern remained with black vertebral and dorsolateral interrupted bands; red, orange, and yellow faded to cream or white; overall dorsal and lateral coloration bright brown; venter cream. Variation Paratype ITBCZ 7620 has prefrontals just in contact with each other and nuchals three times the size of dorsal scale. Other slight variations in size and scalation of the type series were summarized in Table 3. Sexual dimorphism Males are bigger than females (SVL 60.0 – 62.1 vs 48.9 – 51.6 mm). Lower side of tail base in males is more or less swollen whereas this area in females is flat. Field notes All specimens were collected at night, on the ground among rotting leaves in evergreen forest on a mountain slope. Paratype ITBCZ 6527 was collected during a light rain. The orange tail of the new species was also observed in nature in March 2018, July 2019, and January 2020. Other skink recorded sympatrically with the new species was Sphenomorphus cf. yersini Nguyen, Nguyen, Nguyen, Orlov & Murphy, 2018.	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D652FF8FFDB452C3FDA7A502.taxon	distribution	Distribution The new species is currently known only from Ta Kou Mountain, Binh Thuan Province, southern Vietnam (Fig. 1).	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
EA0EFD71D652FF8FFDB452C3FDA7A502.taxon	discussion	Comparisons Scincella auranticaudata sp. nov. differs morphologically from its congeners in regions of Indochina and China as follows: from S. apraefrontalis by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 18), dorsal scales not enlarged (vs enlarged), more lamellae beneath toe IV (17 – 20 vs 8 – 9), more paravertebrals and ventrals (67 – 74 and 65 – 69 vs 52 and 50, respectively), and presence (vs absence) of prefrontal (Nguyen et al. 2010 b); from S. badenensis (Fig. 5 A) by having hemipenis forked near the base, forming two long smooth lobes (vs forked near the tip with two short lobes and small papilla at the end of each lobe), tail orange (vs dark brown), and males with vertebral black spots on dorsum (vs pure dorsum in males) (Nguyen et al. 2019); from S. baraensis by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 30), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 or 3.5 pairs), more enlarged anterior temporal (2 vs 1), absence (vs presence) of weak auricular lobules, and hemipenis with two long lobes (vs a short lobe) (Nguyen et al. 2020); from S. barbouri by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 26 – 28), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 4 or 5 pairs), and absence (vs presence) of distinctly enlarged dorsal scales (Stejneger 1925; Ouboter 1986); from S. darevskii by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 28), more paravertebral scale rows (67 – 74 vs 62), fewer supraoculars (4 vs 5), more enlarged anterior temporal (2 vs 1), absence (vs presence) of weak auricular lobules, and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6) (Nguyen et al. 2010 c); from S. devorator by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 28 – 30), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 pairs), absence (vs presence) of distinctly enlarged dorsal scales (Darevsky et al. 2004; Nguyen et al. 2011); from S. doriae by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 26 – 32), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 or 4 pairs), absence (vs presence) of distinctly enlarged dorsal scales, and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6) (Boulenger 1887; Smith 1935; Taylor 1963; Bourret 2009); from S. fansipanensis by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 22, rarely 24), more lamellae beneath toe IV (17 – 20 vs 10 – 12), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 pairs), more supraciliaries (8 or 9 vs 5, rare 6), and limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed (Okabe et al. 2024); from Scincella honbaensis sp. nov. by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 28), fewer ventral scale rows (65 – 69 vs 74), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 pairs), and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6); from S. huanrenensis by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 26 – 28), more lamellae beneath toe IV (17 – 20 vs 13 – 16), fewer ventral scale rows (65 – 69 vs 75 – 89), and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6) (Zhao & Huang 1982; Chen et al. 2001); from S. melanosticta by having a shorter relative tail (TaL / SVL = 1.23 – 1.38 vs 1.50 – 1.75), more nuchal scales (1 pair vs 0), more enlarged anterior temporal (2 vs 1), fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 10), and dorsum with large vertebral black spots (vs numerous black dots on both sides of midline) (Boulenger 1887; Smith 1935; Taylor 1963; Bourret 2009); from S. modesta by having small (vs enlarged) dorsal scales, more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 26 – 30), and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6 or 7) (Smith 1935; Chen et al. 2001); from S. monticola by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 22 – 26), more lamellae beneath toe IV (17 – 20 vs 10 – 13), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 or 4 pairs); more paravertebrals and ventrals (67 – 74 and 65 – 69 vs 52 – 59 and 52 – 58, respectively), and more enlarged anterior temporal (2 vs 1) (Schmidt 1927; Neang et al. 2018); from S. nigrofasciata Neang, Chan & Poyarkov, 2018 (Fig. 5 C) by having a shorter relative tail (TaL / SVL = 1.23 – 1.38 vs 1.56 – 1.94 [in the original description of S. nigrofasciata, TaL / SVL ratio of subadult CBC 02841 shown in table 1 is 1.56, not 1.27; female CBC 02840 shown in figure 4 a probably has a regenerated tail and is excluded herein]), interrupted (vs continuous) dorsolateral band, and dorsum with a vertebral black spots (vs 5 – 7 dark stripes) (Neang et al. 2018); from S. ochracea by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 30 – 32), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 pairs), more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6), and absence (vs presence) of weak auricular lobules (Bourret 2009; Pham et al. 2015; Neang et al. 2018); from S. ouboteri by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 30 – 32), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 2 – 4 pairs), more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6), and absence (vs presence) of weak auricular lobules (Pham et al. 2024); from S. potanini by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 27), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 pairs), and limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed (Günther 1896; Ouboter 1986); from S. przewalskii by having small (vs enlarged) dorsal scales, fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 4 pairs), more supralabials (7 vs 6), and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6) (Bedriaga 1912; Wang & Zhao 1986); from S. punctatolineata by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 24 – 26), more lamellae beneath toe IV (17 – 20 vs 12 – 14), more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6), and limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed (Smith 1935); from S. rara by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 24), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 pairs), more paravertebrals (67 – 74 vs 53), and a single (vs double) row of lamellae beneath toes and figures II – IV (Darevsky & Orlov 1997); from S. reevesii by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 28 – 32), more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 8), a shorter relative tail (TaL / SVL = 1.23 – 1.38 vs 1.5 – 2.0), and dorsum with large vertebral black spots (vs small black spots) (Smith 1935; Bourret 2009); from S. rufocaudata (Fig. 5 B) by having fewer longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 10), presence (vs absence) of nuchal scales, dorsum with large vertebral black spots (vs small black spots), dorsolateral band on flank interrupted (vs continuous), and absence (vs presence) of a distinct black stripe extending from loreal to temporal area (Darevsky & Nguyen 1983; Neang et al. 2018); from S. rupicola (Fig. 5 D) by having a shorter relative tail (TaL / SVL = 1.23 – 1.38 vs 1.70 – 1.71), fewer subcaudals (82 – 88 vs 119), absence (vs presence) of paired black spots on dorsal side of neck, and absence (vs presence) of a black band behind the eye (Smith 1916, 1935; Taylor 1963); from S. schmidti by having a shorter relative tail (TaL / SVL = 1.23 – 1.38 vs 1.90), limbs in touch (vs separated) when adpressed, more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 26), and more lamellae beneath toe IV (17 – 20 vs 11) (Barbour 1927); from S. truongi by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 28), more lamellae beneath toe IV (17 – 20 vs 13 – 15), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 pairs), and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6) (Pham et al. 2025); from S. tsinlingensis by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 26 – 30), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 2 – 5 pairs), and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs ½ + 4 + ½) (Ouboter 1986; Inger et al. 1990); from S. victoriana by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 26), fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 3 pairs), and smooth (vs keeled) scales on dorsum and tail (Ouboter 1986); and from S. wangyuezhaoi by having more midbody scale rows (34 – 36 vs 27 – 30), absence (vs presence) of enlarged dorsal scales, fewer nuchal scales (1 vs 2 – 4 pairs), and more longitudinal dorsal scale rows on back (½ + 8 + ½ vs 6) (Jia et al. 2023).	en	Nguyen, Sang Ngoc, Nguyen, Luan Thanh, Le, Manh Van, Nguyen, Vu Dang Hoang, Phan, Khanh Duy, Vo, Thi-Dieu-Hien, Murphy, Robert W., Che, Jing (2025): Two new skinks of the genus Scincella Mittleman, 1950 (Squamata: Scincidae) from southern Vietnam. European Journal of Taxonomy 989: 266-288, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2025.989.2899, URL: https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/download/2899/13135
