Lygodactylus salvi, Vences & Multzsch & Gippner & Miralles & Crottini & Gehring & Rakotoarison & Ratsoavina & Glaw & Scherz, 2022

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 : 28-29

Lygodactylus salvi sp. nov.

Lygodactylus sp. 8 : Gippner et al. (2021).

Holotype. ZSM 783 /2001 ( FGMV 2001.74 ), an adult male collected by F. Andreone, F. Mattioli, J. Randrianirina, and M. Vences on the western slope of the Tsaratanana massif ( Manarikoba forest , Antsahamanara campsite), northern Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S14.0450, E48.7844, ca. 1000 m a.s.l., between 4–9 February 2001 ( Fig. 15 ).

Paratype. ZSM 557 /2014 ( DRV 6327 ), a female collected by F.M. Ratsoavina, D. R. Vieites, M. Vences, R. D. Randrianiaina, S. Rasamison, A. Rakotoarison, E. Rajeriarison, and T. Rajoafiarison , from Ambodikakazo, a site south of the Tsaratanana Massif, northern Madagascar, at geographical coordinates S14.2098, E48.8981, 1411 m a.s.l., on 16 June 2010 .

Diagnosis. Lygodactylus salvi sp. nov. corresponds to a genetically highly distinct lineage from northern Madagascar that is not closely related to any nominal species of Lygodactylus as defined in the previous sections. It belongs to subclade A3 within Domerguella as defined herein. It can also be assigned to the subgenus Domerguella by an undivided mental scale with two postmentals, absence of a claw on the first finger, and 6 preanal pores in males. Within Domerguella , the new species is only known from two localities in northern Madagascar and differs from the other nominal species of Domerguella occurring in this part of the island as follows: from L. expectatus by non-enlarged dorsolateral scales (longitudinal count of dorsal scales>210 vs. <170), from L. rarus by lack of regular crossbands on tail (vs. presence) and different body shape without elongated limbs (relative hindlimb length 0.48–0.50 vs.>0.55); from L. madagascariensis by smaller longitudinal dorsal scale count (211–217 vs. 219–258); and from L. petteri by a larger longitudinal count of ventral scales (107–112 vs. 101–105 in all but one individual of L. petteri ); and from L. tantsaha by a smaller longitudinal count of dorsal scales (211–217 vs. 239–240).

Given the somewhat uncertain allocation of the nomina to the eastern species in subclade A5, a morphological diagnosis from these species is convoluted. However, genetically, the new species is highly distinct from all species in this subclade, and differs from L. guibei as well as from many specimens of L. miops by a less distinctly expressed lateral spine at the tail base of males (vs. presence of a distinct, large spine in L. guibei , and an at least slightly more distinct spine in L. miops ). Furthermore, the new species can be distinguished from L. guibei and L. miops by smaller relative eye diameter (ED is 4.8–5.0% of SVL, vs. 5.3–7.7% in L. guibei and L. miops ). Finally, this species shows concordant differentiation in mitochondrial genes (deep divergence in 16S to all other species:>11%) and the unlinked loci CMOS and RAG-1 (haplotype sharing with lineage L. sp. 17 only in some CMOS haplotypes).

For a distinction from the sister lineage, described below as. L. roellae , see Diagnosis of that species. For a distinction from additional species newly named and described herein, see the respective diagnoses below.

Etymology. The name is dedicated to Salvador “Salvi” Carranza, Institut de Biologia Evolutiva (CSIC-UPF), Barcelona, in recognition for his substantial contributions to gecko taxonomy, and conservation of herpetofauna. The species epithet name is defined as a noun in apposition (not a noun in the genitive case) to avoid ending with a non-euphonious double-i.

Description of the holotype. Adult male, hemipenes everted, in moderate state of preservation, tail regenerated, right forelimb is removed as source of tissue for molecular analysis ( Fig. 15 ). SVL 29.9 mm, TAL 24.9 mm; for other measurements see Table 1 . Long head with distinct neck, body broader than head. The distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior border of the eye (4.2 mm) is greater than the interorbital distance anteriorly (3.6 mm), and greater than the distance between the eye and ear opening. Snout covered with enlarged granular scales compared to the rest of the dorsum. Nostril surrounded by four scales: rostral, first supralabial, and two supranasals. Mental scale undivided; no contact between posterior projection of mental scale and first infralabial; two symmetrical postmental scales with four postpostmental scales; seven infralabial scales; seven supralabial scales; three internasal scales; granular dorsal scales; dorsum with small, homogeneous, granular and unkeeled scales of similar size to those on trunk, the scales on limbs are slightly larger; 217 dorsal scales longitudinally along the body; 107 ventral scales between mental and cloaca; venter with large homogeneous smooth scales that are a bit smaller in the gular region; first finger present but very small, not bearing a claw; three pairs of subdigital lamellae on the fourth toe; six dorsolateral tubercles, each consisting of one scale; six preanal pores; tail without whorls; small lateral spines at the base of the tail.

Life coloration of the holotype based on available photographs ( Fig. 17 ) was grayish with a slightly distinct red-brownish lateral stripe running from the eye to the base of the tail. Both colors are also distinctly present on the limbs. Overall, the appearance is cryptic with no distinct black markings ( Fig. 17 ). Color after 20 years in preservative ethanol is almost uniformly gray brownish, with a weak dorsal pattern. In the preserved specimen, the ventral side is uniformly whitish with a slight yellowness. Small brown spots are present on the throat and the rest of the venter.

Variation. The female paratype ( ZSM 557 /2014) is bigger than the holotype, with an SVL of 36.2 mm, but has relatively shorter hindlimbs ( HIL / SVL 0.48). The relative size of tubercles at the tail base is a bit smaller, while the lateral tubercles between the legs contain a few more scales (1–3). The animal has bigger eyes in relation to its size. While the dorsal scale count is a bit lower (211), the ventral scale count is a bit higher (112). Coloration in preservative is uniformly grayish-brown, without lateral stripe, and with very small symmetrical dark dorsal markings anterior to hindlimb insertion; ventrally with dense dark mottling on throat, chest and belly. The differences between holotype and paratype could be due to different sex or just random variation .

Distribution. L. salvi is known from (1) the type locality, Manarikoba forest on the west slope of the Tsaratanana Massif, and (2) Ambodikakazo south of Tsaratanana.

Natural history. Practically nothing is known of the natural history of this enigmatic species.

Figures

FIGURE 15. Dorsal and ventral views of preserved holotypes of new species of the Lygodactylus madagascariensis group named in the current study.

FIGURE 17. Photo of Lygodactylus salvi sp. nov., adult male holotype ZSM 783/2001 (FGMV 2001.74) from Tsaratanana (Antsahamanara) in life.