Cnemaspis adii, Srinivasulu, Chelmala, Kumar, Gandla Chethan & Srinivasulu, Bhargavi, 2015
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3947.1.5 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:4117CDBD-E806-4E3A-AF3B-396A7EEC505A |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5616827 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FB7A8792-FFB2-FFFC-1596-F93CA43DFCE1 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Cnemaspis adii |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Cnemaspis adii sp. nov.
Figures 1–7.
Holotype. NHM.OU.REP.CN.2–2013, adult male, behind Elephant Stable (15°19'16" N, 76°28'20" E; 467 m a.s.l), Hampi, Karnataka, India collected on 16 February 2013 by Aditya Srinivasulu.
Paratypes. NHM.OU.REP.CN.1–2013, adult female, collection details are same as the holotype except collected by Aditya Srinivasulu & Tariq A. Shah. NHM.OU.REP.CN.3–2013, adult male, Sri Krishna Temple (15°19'49" N, 76°27'37" E; 467 m a.s.l), Hampi, Karnataka, India collected on 16 February 2013 by Aditya Srinivasulu & Tariq A. Shah.
Diagnosis. A medium-sized Cnemaspis (snout to vent length at least 34.9 mm), dorsal pholidosis at midbody homogeneous, small, granular and feebly keeled. Spine-like tubercles absent on flanks; ventrals smooth, imbricate, 22 to 26 scale rows across venter; two pairs of postmentals, primary pair in contact with the mental and separated from each other with a single chin shield; nostril in contact with supralabial I. Males with two precloacal pores, two femoral pores on each side of the thigh. 20–22 lamellae under the 4th digit. Tail cylindrical, with six rows of large (much larger than the dorsal scales), posteriorly pointed dorsal tubercles; ventrals smooth, imbricate, without a series of enlarged median subcaudal scales.
The new species of Cnemaspis described here was compared with all 23 extant species of the genus Cnemaspis known from Indian mainland and two species from Andaman Islands. Cnemaspis adii sp. nov. may be distinguished from all the peninsular Indian congeners on the basis of the following differing characters: spine-like tubercles absent on flanks (versus spine-like tubercles present on flanks in C. assamensis , C. jerdonii , C. littoralis , C. heteropholis , C. gracilis , C. monticola , C. nilagirica , C. goaensis , C. mysoriensis , C. indraneildasii ); scales on the dorsal aspect of trunk homogeneous (versus scales heterogeneous in C. gracilis , C. ornata , C. beddomei , C. goaensis , C. heteropholis , C. monticola , C. australis , C. andersonii , C. yercaudensis , C. wicksii , C. girii , C. kottiyoorensis ); absence of keeled scales on the venter or gular regions (versus keeled scales on the venter or gular regions in C. beddomei and C. goaensis ); males with two femoral pores on each side of the thigh and two precloacal pores (versus femoral pores absent, precloacal pores present in C. beddomei , C. nairi , C. ornata ; only femoral pores present in C. heteropholis , C. indica , C. jerdonii , C. littoralis , C. sisparensis , C. wynadensis , C. girii , C. kottiyoorensis ; versus both femoral and precloacal pores absent in C. boiei , C. assamenis ; 4 precloacal and 3 femoral pores on each thigh present in C. otai ; continuous series of 26–28 precloacal-femoral pores in C. kolhapurensis ); primary pair of postmentals separated by a single chin shield (versus primary post mentals in broad contact as in C. otai ).
Cnemaspis adii sp. nov. closely resembles C. yercaudensis in general morphology, mental and postmental arrangement, absence of spine-like tubercles on the flanks and low number of precloacal pores. However, it can be distinguished from the latter in having SVL of 34.9 mm (versus SVL 29.7 mm); 9 supralabials, 9 infralabials (versus 7 supralabials, 7 infralabials); two precloacal, two femoral pores on each thigh (versus two precloacal, three femoral pores on each side of the thigh); dorsum with homogeneous, small, granular and feebly keeled scales (versus dorsum with three pairs of paravertebral rows of tubercles); narrow digital lamellae under digit IV of pes 20–22 (versus 11–12 narrow digital lamellae under digit IV of pes); and venter and gular region creamy white with patterned black markings extending from snout to anterior part of the gape running parallel to each other diagonally in the gular region (versus venter and gular region yellowish-cream, unpatterned).
Description of Holotype (NHM.OU.REP.CN.2–2013) Adult male (Fig. 1A) in generally good condition with entire, original tail, snout to vent length 34.9 mm ( Table 1 View TABLE 1 ). Body elongate and depressed; head moderately short (HL/SVL = 0.26), distinct from the neck, slightly wide (HW/HL = 0.66), not strongly depressed (HD/HL = 0.42); snout slightly long (SE/HL = 0.53), longer than eye diameter (EW/SE = 0.37); scales on the snout and canthus rostralis are slightly larger than those on forehead and interorbital region; occipital and temporal region scales smaller compared to the scales on the snout and canthus rostralis; eye relatively small (EW/HL = 0.20); orbits of eyes with extra-brillar fringes not elongated, large anteriorly and gradually becoming smaller posteriorly, pupil round, ear opening deep, oval, small (EL/HL = 0.07); eye to ear distance greater than diameter of eyes (EE/EW = 1.39).
Rostral large, wider than deep ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2. A – C ); posteroventrally, rostral wider than long, slightly notched, rostral is in contact with the nostril, supralabial I; nostrils oval, oriented dorsolaterally ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2. A – C ); nasal reduced, fragmented, nostril is feebly in contact with supralabial I; two rows of scales separate orbit from supralabials; scales on snout and forehead granular, larger than those in interorbital region, much larger than those on occiput ( Fig. 2A View FIGURE 2. A – C ); midorbital scale row (35), mid-interorbital scales long, larger than the outer ones; mental enlarged, subtriangular, much wider (1.94 mm) than deep (1.40 mm) ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2. A – C ); two pairs of well-developed postmentals, first pair smaller than mental, more or less trapezoid in structure, separated by a single chin shield; second pair of postmentals are abruptly rounded, about half the length of the inner pair in size, surrounded by first pair of postmental anteriorly and bounded by four hexagonal smooth scales medially and posteriorly ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2. A – C ); supralabials to midorbital position 7, supralabials to angle of jaws 9 ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2. A – C ); infralabials to midorbital position 7, infralabials to angle of jaws 9 ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2. A – C ); ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2. A – C ); chin shields and gular scales are flat, smooth and granular ( Fig. 2B View FIGURE 2. A – C ); tongue narrowly elongate, lacking an obvious median cleft.
Body relatively slender, not elongate (AG/SVL = 0.44) (Fig. 1, 3); dorsal scales on trunk homogeneous, granular, feebly keeled scales ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2. A – C D), subequal, not arranged in regular rows; scales of vertebral region undifferentiated, without spinous process; ventrally, scales in gular, pectoral and abdominal regions subequal, larger than those of dorsum at same level ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2. A – C E), rounded, juxtaposed and smooth; scales decrease in size from chin to anterior gular region; ventrals across mid body 24; precloacal pores 2 ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2. A – C J, 2K); femoral pores (left: right) 2:2, separated by 12 non pore-bearing scales on either side with precloacal pores at the center ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2. A – C J, 2K); precloacal groove absent; scales on palm and sole smooth and rounded ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2. A – C F– 2I); scales on forelimb and dorsal aspect of hindlimb smooth, weakly unicarinate, 2–3 times larger in size than the dorsal granules, those on inner surface of hindlimb slightly smaller.
Forelimbs moderately long, slender; forearm short (FL/SVL = 0.20); hindlimbs relatively short, tibia short (TBL/SVL = 0.23); digits long, slender, all bearing claws that are slightly recurved. Subdigital scansors smooth, entire, a few fragmented ones at base, unnotched; lamellae on the basal phalanges larger; interdigital webbing absent; total subdigital lamellae (left:right), finger I (12:11), II (15:16), III (17:17), IV (19:20), V (18:17), toe I (11:11), II (17:17), III (20:20), IV (22:22), V (21:20); relative length of digits (measurements, in mm) IV (3.15)> III (2.82)> V (2.68)> II (2.45)> I (2.03) (right manus) ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2. A – C F&G), and IV (4.12)> V (3.87)> III (3.08)> II (2.99)> I (1.82) (right pes) ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2. A – C H, 2I).
Tail cylindrical, relatively slender, slightly longer than snout-vent length (TL/SVL = 1.12) (Fig. 1); tail base distinctly swollen when viewed ventrally ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2. A – C J). Dorsum of tail distinctly segmented covered with six enlarged (much larger than those on the dorsum) posteriorly-pointed tubercles along each side of an indistinct median furrow which are quite prominent in the lateral side; ventral scales larger than the dorsal scales, smooth, imbricate, without a series of enlarged median sub-caudal scales.
Variation. Differences in squamation and morphometrics of both the holotype and paratypes (adult female NHM.OU.REP.CN.1–2013 and subadult male NHM.OU.REP.CN.3–2013) are presented in Table 1 View TABLE 1 . The adult female paratype is smaller than the holotype (SVL 31.7 mm versus 34.9 mm), while subadult male paratype is as long as the holotype (SVL 34.7 mm versus 34.9 mm). In the holotype, the second postmental on the left side is divided into two scales, which is not seen either in the paratypes or in any other live specimens examined. Both paratypes resemble the holotype in most respects except for the following characters – (A.) the number of lamellae (right and left) of: (i) digit I of the manus (adult female paratype 9-10 and subadult male paratype 11-11 versus adult male holotype 11-12), (ii) on digit IV of the manus (adult female paratype 18-18 and subadult male paratype 19-17 versus adult male holotype 20-19), (iii) on digit I of the pes (adult female paratype 9-9 and subadult male paratype 11-11 versus adult male holotype 11-11), and (iv) on digit IV of the pes (adult female paratype 22-20 and subadult male paratype 22-22 versus adult male holotype 22-22); (B.) infralabials to the angle of jaw (right and left) (adult female paratype 8-9 and subadult male paratype 7-8 versus adult male holotype 9-8); and (C.) scales across venter (adult female paratype 26 and subadult male paratype 22 versus adult male holotype 24). The male paratype (Fig. 1C), resembles the holotype except in having a femoral pore on each side of the thigh (versus 2) and 8 supralabials on right side of the angle of jaw (versus 9). No other variation in meristic characters was observed among the sexes.
Colour in life. Holotype and paratypes wheatish-cream with black and grey mottling mixed with pink coloration dorsally and mild yellowish tinge in the flanks ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 ). The coloration on the dorsum is slightly darker when the animal is in alarmed state ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 A). Interorbital region is slightly greenish blue in colour with pale yellow supracillaries around the orbit. Dorsum with five rows of bright orange-colored blotches with irregular size and shape arranged more or less in a uniform series extending from nape to tail base ( Figs. 3 View FIGURE 3 B, 3C). Mid-dorsal row of orange blotches bear black spots which are predominant in both the nape and tail region, and the rest are comparatively less prominent. The space between the mid dorsal blotches is completely pale with no colour demarcation, making it appear like creamy white blotches ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 B). Mid-lateral and the lateral-most rows of blotches which are adjacent to the mid dorsal row are 8 in number, accompanied by prominent black spots with a sequence of larger blotches followed by a smaller one which is observed in the mid-lateral series.
The dorsal aspect of head, manus and pes also show orange blotches with black demarcation arranged in an irregular pattern. Limbs and tail show alternating light and grey banding intermixed with orange blotches. Ventral surface is predominantly creamy white, patterned black markings extending from snout to anterior part of the gape running parallel to each other diagonally in the gular region was observed in both sexes.
Colour in alcohol. Colour pattern in preservative is similar to that in life with slight fading; the dorsal background colour and pattern in the gular region did not show any fading. The yellow coloration on the supracillaries around the orbit is lost in preservation. The series of orange blotches with black spots are clearly observed under magnification or light source in preservation.
Etymology. The species is named after Aditya Srinivasulu, fondly called Adi, who collected the types, and in recognition of his interest in herpetology. The suggested English name for this species is Adi’s day gecko.
Distribution. At present this species is known only from the vicinity of the type locality, Hampi—a World Heritage Site located in Bellary district of Karnataka, India ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 4 ). This species was observed to be relatively common at the locality, with sightings in the all the temple ruins in the Hampi and Kamlapur areas.
Natural history. All the specimens were found active, bouldering on the rocks and the rock walls of the old temple ruins during diurnal searches ( Figs. 5 View FIGURE 5 A, 5B). The types were found sympatrically with Hemidactylus giganteus (Stoliczka, 1871) , Hemidactylus cf. maculatus (Duméril & Bibron, 1836) and Hemidactylus cf. brookii (Gray, 1845) .
TABLE 1. Measurements (mm) and scale counts for type series of Cnemaspis adii sp. nov. Abbreviations as in Materials and Methods. * indicates tail is incomplete.
| Holotype | Paratypes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| NHM.OU.REP.CN.2–2013 | NHM.OU.REP.CN.1–2013 | NHM.OU.REP.CN.3–2013* | |
| Sex | Male | Female | Male |
| SVL | 34.9 | 31.7 | 34.7 |
| AG | 15.4 | 13.0 | 16.3 |
| TBL | 8.1 | 8.5 | 8.5 |
| TL | 39.3 | 43.2 | 7.6* |
| TW | 3.9 | 3.4 | 3.4 |
| HL | 9.1 | 8.9 | 9.5 |
| HW | 6.0 | 5.4 | 5.4 |
| HD | 3.9 | 3.4 | 3.7 |
| EL | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| EaW | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| FL | 7.0 | 6.9 | 6.9 |
| EW | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| NE | 7.7 | 7.6 | 7.5 |
| SE | 4.9 | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| EE | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.7 |
| IN | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 |
| IO | 3.9 | 4.1 | 3.2 |
| EN | 3.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| SED | 8.7 | 8.5 | 8.2 |
| SN | 1.1 | 0.5 | 1.1 |
| SL | R9:L9 | R9:L9 | R8:L9 |
| IL | R9:L8 | R8:L9 | R7:L8 |
| MLamL | 12–15–17–19–18 | 10–16–16–18–14 | 11–16–18–17–15 |
| MLamR | 11–16–17–20–17 | 9–15–16–18–14 | 11–16–17–19–17 |
| PLamL | 11–17–20–22–21 | 9–18-18–20-19 | 11–17–18–22–18 |
| PLamR | 11–17–20–22–20 | 9–18–19–22–19 | 11–18–18–22–20 |
| V | 24 | 26 | 22 |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.