A revision and redescription of the rock gecko Cnemaspis siamensis (Taylor 1925) (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Peninsular Thailand with descriptions of seven new species

Abstract

A taxonomic revision of Cnemaspis siamensis (Smith 1925) revealed it to be a complex composed of four species: C. siamensis (Smith 1925) which occurs on Ko Tao Island, Surat Thani Province and on the peninsula ranges from Khao Mod, Surat Thani Province in the south, northward east of the Tenasserim Mountains to Kaeng Krachan National Park, Phetchaburi Province; C. chanardi sp. nov. ranging from Tai Rom Yen National Park, Surat Thani Province in the north, southward through the western foothills of the Nakhon Si Thammarat and Sankalakhiri Mountains to Phuphaphet Cave, Satun Province and westward to Khlong Thom District, Krabi Province; C. vandeventeri sp. nov. ranging from Kapur District, Ranong Province southward to at least Khlong Had Sompen, District, Ranong Province west of the Tenasserim and Phuket Mountains and possibly all the way to Phuket Island; and C. kamolnorranathi sp. nov. restricted to the northwestern section of the Itshmus of Kra, ranging from Tham Khao Sonk, Thachana District, Surat Thani Province southward to Tai Rom Yen National Park, Surat Thani Province. These species are easily separated from one another on the basis of their unique combination of having or lacking precloacal pores, dark gular markings, a series of lightly colored bars on the flanks, and a lightly colored, prescapular crescent as well as other aspects of squamation. Four additional new species from western and southern Thailand are also described: C. huaseesom sp. nov. from Sai Yok National Park, Kanchanaburi Province; C. punctatonuchalis sp. nov. from Thap Sakae District, Prachuap Khiri Khan Province; C. narathiwatensis sp. nov. ranging from Waeng District, Narathiwat Province south to Bang Lang, Yala Province; and C. niyomwanae sp. nov. from Thum Khao Ting, Palean District, Trang Province, Thailand. These species are differentiated from each other and all other Cnemaspis on the basis of their unique combinations of color pattern and squamation characters. This brings the total number of species of Cnemaspis in Thailand from five to 12 and continues to illustrate that the unrealized diversity in this group is a function of unfocused collecting efforts coupled with poor taxonomy.

The discovery of Rock Geckos Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) in the Tanintharyi Region, Myanmar with the description of two new species

“…All specimens agree morphologically with C. siamensis by having a silver-gray dorsum with transverse bars and flanks, gular region white with dark black longitudinal stripes, subcaudal scales slightly enlarged, forearm, subtibials, ventrals, subcaudals, and dorsal tubercles keeled, gular scales smooth, 8-9 supralabials and 6-8 infralabials. These characters agree with literature descriptions provided by Taylor (1965) and Grismer et al (2010). Das & Leong (2004), Manamendra-Arachchi et al (2007, Iskandar et al (2017).…”

“…This species is probably more widely distributed than currently documented and likely inhabits similar microhabitats on this and other islands in the group. (Grismer et al 2010). Another male specimen (USNM 594370; GenBank accession no.…”

Integrative taxonomy uncovers high levels of cryptic species diversity inHemiphyllodactylus Bleeker, 1860 (Squamata: Gekkonidae) and the description of a new species from Peninsular Malaysia

“…data) is a clear indication that sampling from this mountain is far from complete. Given the high degree of herpetological endemism and diversity seen in the other two major upland systems of Peninsular Malaysia, the Banjaran Bintang and Banjaran Titiwangsa (see Grismer & Pan, ; Grismer et al ., 2010b; Grismer, 2011a and references therein), and what relatively few species are know from the upland areas of the Banjaran Timur (see Boulenger, ; Dring, ), we can estimate that only a small fraction of this herpetofauna is known. Effective management and conservation strategies can only be accomplished once this herpetofauna is more fully understood.…”

“…Kluge (, ), by implication, was the first to apply the nomen H. harterti to both populations and was followed by Grismer et al . () who listed a complete synonymy of names. Zug () was the first in over a century to examine the holotype of H. larutensis and by comparing it to a series of photographs of the holotype of H. harterti , he indicated the two species were conspecific.…”

“…This is especially true in tropical regions such as Southeast Asia, the dynamic and complex environmental history of which (Hall, , , , ; Woodruff, , ; Bird, Taylor & Hunt, ; Outlaw & Volker, ; Reddy, ; Cannon, Morley & Bush, ; Cannon, ; Gower et al ., ; Morley, ; Richardson, Costion & Muellner, ) has contributed greatly to the phylogenetic and phylogeographic structuring of a number of wide‐ranging clades thought previously to be single species (e.g. Matsui et al ., ; Stuart, ; Inger, Stuart & Iskandar, ; Wood et al ., , ; Grismer et al ., 2010b, 2012a; Malhotra et al ., ; Brown et al ., ; Johnson et al ., ; Nishikawa et al ., ; Loredo et al ., ). The infusion of a molecular phylogenetic data set into the morphology‐based classification of the wide‐ranging genus Hemiphyllodactylus not only contributes to this growing body of knowledge, but highlights the inherent tendency of morphological data sets to underestimate biodiversity in taxonomic revisions of widespread groups.…”