Another new species of Cyrtodactylus (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from Binh Dinh Province, south-central Vietnam Author Ngo, Hanh Thi Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Zülpicher Str. 47 b, D- 50674 Cologne, Germany & AG Zoologischer Garten Köln, Riehler Str. 173, D- 50735 Cologne, Germany & Central Institute for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 19 Le Thanh Tong Road, Hanoi, Vietnam Author Do, Quyen Hanh Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam Author Do, Dang Trong Phu Yen University, 01 Nguyen Van Huyen Road, Phu Yen, Vietnam Author Pham, Cuong The Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam & Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam Author Bui, Thanh Phuong Thi Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam Author Ho, Anh Thi Ngoc Faculty of Biology, University of Science, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 334 Nguyen Trai Road, Hanoi, Vietnam Author Nguyen, Truong Quang Institute of Ecology and Biological Resources, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam & Graduate University of Science and Technology, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Hanoi 10072, Vietnam Author Ziegler, Thomas Institute of Zoology, University of Cologne, Zülpicher Str. 47 b, D- 50674 Cologne, Germany & AG Zoologischer Garten Köln, Riehler Str. 173, D- 50735 Cologne, Germany Author Le, Minh Duc Central Institute for Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 19 Le Thanh Tong Road, Hanoi, Vietnam & Faculty of Environmental Sciences, University of Science, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 334 Nguyen Trai Road, Hanoi, Vietnam text Zootaxa 2024 2024-04-29 5446 1 105 120 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5446.1.6 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.5446.1.6 1175-5326 11084665 F78635F8-6BE6-4F5B-BB7C-13BF84E8E4AA Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov. ( Figs. 3–5 ) Holotype . IEBR R .5207 (Field number BD2016.33 ), adult male, collected by Dang Trong Do and Tan Van Nguyen on 9 August 2016 ( 14°01.495′ N , 109°13.353′ E ; 150 m a.s.l. ), Cat Hai Commune , Phu Cat District , Binh Dinh Province . Paratypes . IEBR R .5208 (Field number BD2016.34 ), adult male and IEBR R .5209–5212 (Field number BD.2016.35-2016.37, BD.2016.39), adult females, the same collection data as the holotype . FIGURE 3. The male holotype of Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov. (IEBR R.5207) in preservative. A) Precloacal region with precloacal pores, B) Subdigital view of left hand, and C) Subdigital view of left foot. Photos: T. Ziegler Diagnosis. The new species can be distinguished from other members of the genus Cyrtodactylus by a combination of the following characteristics: Size medium (SVL up to 80.4 mm ); nasal scales 4; internasal single; ventral scale in 39–42 longitudinal rows at midbody; ventrolateral folds present or absent without interspersed tubercles; precloacal pores 6 or 7 in males; 5 or 6 enlarged femoral scales on each thigh; femoral pores 10 in males; postcloacal tubercles 2–4; lamellae under toe IV 18–21; dorsal pattern consisting of slightly clear transverse banding formed by shaped dark brown bands, a continuous neckband with U-shape or triangle shape in the middle, dorsal head surface with small dark brown blotches; tail with ½ or 1/3 scales subcaudals distinctly enlarged in the middle. Description of holotype . Adult male, snout-vent length (SVL) 80.0 mm; body elongate (AG/SVL 0.46); head distinct from neck, elongate, depressed (HL/SVL 0.29, HW/HL 0.65, HH/HL 0.40); eye medium (OrbD/HL 0.23), pupils large and vertical; upper eyelid fringe with spinous scales; ear opening below the postocular stripes, obliquely directed and oval, small in size (EarL/HL 0.1); nares oval, surrounded by supranasal, rostral, fist supralabial, nasorostral and three postnasals; supranasals separated from each other by one internasal; loreal region and frontal concave; snout medium (SnE/HL 0.40), round, longer than diameter of orbit (OrbD/SnE 0.58); supralabials 12/10; infralabials 9/9. Dorsal scales granular; dorsal tubercles round, four or five times larger than the size of adjoining scales, each surrounded by 10 or 11 granular scales; tubercles forming 18 irregular longitudinal rows at midbody; ventral scales smooth, medial scales three or four times larger than dorsal granules, in 41 longitudinal rows at midbody, lateral folds present in the right side and unclear in the left side, without interspersed tubercles; seven precloacal pores arranged in a chevron; 6/5 enlarged femoral scales beneath thigh, bearing 10 pores in total (5 on each thigh, three pores and two pitted femoral scales in the right side). Fore and hind limbs moderately slender (ForeaL/SVL 0.14, CrusL/SVL 0.17); dorsal surface of forelimbs covered by few slightly developed tubercles with round shape, keeled, two times larger than the size of adjoining scales; dorsal surface of hind limbs covered by slightly developed tubercles with round shape, three or four times larger than the size of adjoining scales; fingers and toes lacking distinct webbing; subdigital lamellae: finger I 12/12, finger IV 19/17, toe I 12/13, toe IV 20/19 (left/right). Tail regenerated, 59.4 mm in length; postcloacal tubercles 3/3; original part of the tail with 1/3 scales subcaudals distinctly enlarged in the end. Coloration in life. Ground color brown; dorsal surface of head light brown with dark brown blotches, circle, oval and arched shape; eyelids yellow; nuchal loop dark brown, extending from posterior corner of eye to the neck, continuous with U-shape in the middle; dorsum with three or four dark brown irregular transverse bands between limb insertions; tubercles on limbs, dorsum and tail light to yellowish brown; dorsal surface of fore- and hind- limbs with dark brown transverse bands; original part of tail with eight transverse dark light brown bands, dark brown bands wider than light brown interspaces, light brown marbling with dark brown spots, regenerated part dark brown; chin, throat, chest, belly and ventral side of limbs cream ( Fig. 4 ). Coloration in preservative. Color faded slightly in alcohol, yellow color disappeared in preservation (especially the bright yellow of the eyelids). Ground color of dorsal head, neck, body, limbs and tail greyish brown; skin above the eyes greyish; chin, throat, chest, belly and ventral surface of limbs did not change noticeably in preservation. Sexual dimorphism and variation. The females differ from male specimens in the absence of hemipenial swelling at the tail base. For other morphological characteristics see Table 1 and Fig. 3 . Distribution. Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov. is currently known only from the type locality in Phu Cat District, Binh Dinh Province , Vietnam ( Fig. 1 ). Etymology. Specific epithet binhdinhensis is a toponym in reference to the type locality of the new species, Binh Dinh Province of Vietnam . For the common names, we suggest Binh Dinh Bent-toed Gecko (English) and Thạch sùng ngón bình định (Vietnamese). Natural history. Specimens were encountered at night between 19:00 and 22:00, on granite rocks, along a small rocky stream, approximately 0.5–1.5 m above the ground, at elevations between 140 and 160 m a.s.l. The surrounding habitat was evergreen forest of medium and small hardwoods mixed with shrubs and vines ( Fig. 5 ). The humidity was approximately 50–66% and the air temperature ranged from 28.3 to 32.5°C. Other reptile species found at the sites included Gekko sp. ; Scincella rufocaudata ( Darevsky & Nguyen, 1983 ) ; Psammodynastes pulverulentus ( Boie, 1827 ) ; and Trimeresurus albolabris ( Gray, 1842 ) . FIGURE 4. The female paratype of Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov. (IEBR R.5209) in life. Photos: D.T. Do FIGURE 5. Micro-habitat of Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov. in Phu Cat District, Binh Dinh Province. Photo: D.T. Do Comparisons. We compared the new species with 29 congeners from the Cyrtodactylus irregularis complex based on examination of specimens and data obtained from the literature ( Smith 1921 ; Heidrich et al. 2007 ; Orlov et al. 2007 ; Nazarov et al. 2008 ; Ngo & Bauer 2008 ; Rösler et al. 2008 ; Geissler et al. 2009 ; Ngo & Chan 2010 ; Nazarov et al. 2012 ; Ngo 2013 ; Nguyen et al. 2013 ; Ziegler et al. 2013 ; Schneider et al. 2014 ; Luu et al. 2017 ; Pauwels et al. 2018 ; Neang et al. 2020 ; Ostrowski et al. 2020 ; Ostrowski et al. 2021 ; Nguyen et al. 2021 ; Do et al. 2021 , 2023; Ngo et al. 2023 ). TABLE 1. Measurements (in mm) and morphological characters of the type series of Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov. Bilateral meristic characters are given as left/right. Abbreviations: * = regenerated tail; max = maximum; min = minimum; other abbreviations defined in the text.

Cat No	IEBR R.5207	IEBR R.5208	Min–Max	IEBR R.5209	IEBR R.5210	IEBR R.5211	IEBR R.5212	Min–Max
Sex	Male	Male	(n = 2)	Female	Female	Female	Female	(n = 4)
SVL	80.0	58.9	58.9–80.0	80.4	73.1	71.0	67.2	67.2–80.4
TaL	59.4*	75.4	Max 75.4	*	84.7	78.0	82.5*	Max 84.7
HL	23.4	18.0	18.0–23.4	23.2	21.6	20.2	19.3	19.3–23.2
HW	15.2	11.5	11.5–15.2	16.1	14.1	13.7	12.9	12.9–16.1
HH	9.3	6.9	6.9–9.3	12.4	8.1	8.0	6.9	6.9–12.4
OrbD	5.3	4.7	4.7–5.3	5.3	5.1	4.9	5.0	4.9–5.3
SnE	9.2	7.5	7.5–9.2	9.3	9.1	8.8	8.3	8.3–9.3
EE	6.1	4.4	4.4–6.1	6.1	5.8	5.7	5.1	5.1–6.1
NarEye	7.1	6.0	6.0–7.1	7.1	7.1	6.6	6.2	6.2–7.1
EarL	2.3	1.9	1.9–2.3	2.1	1.9	1.9	1.9	1.9–2.1
ForeaL	11.4	9.3	9.3–11.4	11.3	10.7	10.6	9.8	9.8–11.3
CrusL	13.3	10.3	10.3–13.3	14.1	12.1	12.3	11.0	11.0–14.1
AG	36.4	23.2	23.2–36.4	32.3	27.1	29.9	28.0	27.1–32.3
BW	16.2	11.0	11.0–16.2	17.3	13.5	14.1	12.0	12.0–17.3
Internar	2.3	2.0	2.0–2.3	2.2	2.5	2.2	2.0	2.0–2.5
Interorb	6.2	5.9	5.9–6.2	6.3	6.9	6.5	5.5	5.5–6.9
RW	3.1	2.9	2.9–3.1	-	3.3	3.1	3.1	3.1–3.3
RH	2.4	1.3	1.3–2.4	2.4	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.6–2.4
MW	3.1	2.6	2.6–3.1	3.1	2.6	2.4	2.4	2.4–3.1
ML	2.1	2.0	2.0–2.1	2.3	2.0	1.6	1.9	1.6–2.3
SL	12/10	12/12	10–12	10/11	12/11	12/12	11/10	10–12
IL	9/9	9/9	9	10/10	10/10	10/9	9/9	9–10
N	4/4	4/4	4	4/4	4/4	4/4	4/4	4
IN	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
PM	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
GST	10/11/10	9/10/9	9–11	9/11/10	11/11/10	9/9/10	9/9/10	9–11
V	41	42	41–42	42	41	40	39	39–42
FP	5/5 (2 pitted)	5/5	5 each thigh	3/3	3/3	0/3	0/0	0–3 each thigh
PP	7	6	6–7	6	5	6	5	5–6
PAT	3/3	4/3	3–4	3/3	2/2	3/2	3/3	2–3
TubR	18	21	18–21	21	21	20	19	19–21
EFS	6/5	6/6	5–6	5/5	5/5	5/5	5/5	5
LD1	12/12	12/12	12	11/12	12/12	12/12	11/10	10–12
LD4	19/17	19/19	17–19	17/17	18/18	17/18	17/17	17–18
LT1	12/13	12/13	12–13	12/12	12/11	12/12	11/11	11–12
LT4	20/19	20/21	19–21	20/19	21/21	18/19	19/18	18–21

TABLE 2. Morphological comparisons between Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov. and 29 taxa of the Cyrtodactylus irregualris complex based on examination of specimens and data obtained from the literature ( Smith 1921 a; Heidrich et al. 2007 ; Orlov et al. 2007 ; Nazarov et al. 2008 ; Ngo & Bauer 2008 ; Rösler et al. 2008 ; Geissler et al. 2009 ; Ngo & Chan 2010 ; Nazarov et al. 2012 ; Ngo 2013 ; Nguyen et al. 2013 ; Ziegler et al. 2013 ; Schneider et al. 2014 ; Luu et al. 2017 ; Pauwels et al. 2018 ; Neang et al. 2020 ; Ostrowski et al. 2020 ; Ostrowski et al. 2021 ; Nguyen et al. 2021 ; Do et al. 2021 ; Ngo et al. 2023 ) (measurements in mm, * = regenerated or broken tail, Max = maximum, other abbreviations defined in the text).

No.	Taxa	SVL	TaL	V	EFS	FP (M)	FP (F)	PP (M)	PP (F)	LD4	LT4	Color pattern of dorsum	Enlarged subcaudals
1	Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov.	58.5–80.4	max 84.7	39–42	5–6	10	0–6	6–7	5–6	17–19	18–21	banded	present
2	C. arndti	73.4–80.9	50.1*–91.51	26–38	5–11	0–2	0	6	6	15–20	17–22	banded	present
3	C. badenensis	59.3–74.1	58.6–82.4	25–28	absent	absent	absent	0	0	–	18–22	banded	present
4	C. bidoupimontis	74.0–86.3	75.0–86	38–43	8//10	absent	absent	4//6	0	15–20	18–23	banded	absent
5	C. bugiamapensis	58.6–76.8	65.3–83.0	36–46	6–10	absent	absent	7–11	0–7	15–17	17–20	blotched	absent
6	C. buchardi	60.0–65.0	46.0–54.0	30	absent	absent	?	9	?	14	12	blotched	absent
7	C. caovansungi	90.4–94.0	120.0	38–44	8	6	absent	9	0	22	23–25	banded	present
8	C. cattienensis	43.5–69.0	51.0–64.7	28–42	3//8	absent	absent	6//8	0	12–16	14–19	banded	absent
9	C. chumuensis	67.5	51.4*	43–45	4–5	0–2	?	6–7	?	16–19	17–21	banded	absent
10	C. chungi	66.6–68.5	62.75*–82.15	30–31	4//6	absent	absent	7	6	17–20	banded	absent
11	C. cryptus	62.5–90.8	63.5–88.4	47–50	absent	absent	absent	9–11	0.	18–19	20–23	banded	absent
12	C. cucdongensis	55.8–65.9	max. 81.3	35–44	5–9	absent	absent	5–6	4–6	13–18	15–20	banded	absent
13	C. culaochamensis	69.8–79.8	89.7–91.2	45–50	absent	absent	absent	7–8	absent	18–19	20–23	banded	absent
14	C. dati	max 70.1	max 57.3	42–48	4//7	3//4 each	?	5//6	?	?	18–19	blotched	absent
15	C. gialaiensis	50.1–62.8	?	38–45	Absent	absent	absent	9–10	0–8	14–15	15–17	banded	absent

...Continued on the next page TABLE 2. (Continued)

No.	Taxa	SVL	TaL	V	EFS	FP (M)	FP (F)	PP (M)	PP (F)	LD4	LT4	Color pattern of dorsum	Enlarged subcaudals
16	C. huynhi	67.2–79.8	61.5–78.6	43–46	3–5	3–8	0–6	7–9	0–8 (pitted)	14–17	17–21	banded	absent
17	C. irregularis	72.0–86.0	66.0–74	38–45	7–8	absent	absent	5–7	0–6	15–16	18–19	blotched	absent
18	C. kingsadai	83.0–94.0	max 117	39–46	9//12	3–7	0	7//9	4//8	19–21	21–25	banded	present
19	C. orlovi	61.0–77.7	Max 71.2	36–39	3//8	absent	absent	5//6	0	15–17	16–19	banded	absent
20	C. phnomchiensis	76.1–80.7	56.9–79.1	45–54	0–8	absent	0–6	4–5	1–7 pitted	18–20	20–23	banded	absent
21	C. phumyensis	63.6–66.8	?	33–41	5–7	absent	absent	5–7	6 pitted	18–19	18–21	banded	absent
22	C. phuocbinhensis	46.0–60.4	76.1	43–47	5	absent	absent	7	0	16–21	17–19	striped/blotched	absent
23	C. pseudoquadrivirgatus	48.6–83.3	55.7–82.3	41–57	absent	absent	absent	5–9	5–10	15–21	16–25	blotched	absent
24	C. raglai	95.0–111.7	113.4–135	36–39	9–Oct	absent	absent	5	0	?	21–22	banded	present
25	C. sangi	49.9–56.3	47.9*	37	4	absent	absent	7	4 (Pitted)	?	?	banded	Absent
26	C. tayhoaensis	82.9–94.2	max 104.3	37–41	10–11	3–7	0	4–5	0	20–22	22–24	banded	present
27	C. takouensis	74.7–81.1	77.7–91	39–40	3//5	0–2	0	3//4	0	16–17	18–20	banded	present
28	C. taynguyenensis	60.0–85.0	66.0–94.0	42–49	absent	absent	absent	6	0	13–18	17–21	blotched	absent
29	C. yangbayensis	78.5–92.3	91.3–109.1	39–46	5//16	0–2	0	6//8	0	16–19	15–17	banded	present
30	C. ziegleri	84.6–93.0	95.0–107.0	33–39	8–10	0–4	0–6	5–8	0–8	16–19	18–21	banded	absent

Among the species of the Cyrtodactylus irregularis group, Cyrtodactylus binhdinhensis sp. nov. differs from C. arndti Ngo, Hormann, Le, Pham, Phung, Do, Ostrowski, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2023 by having more ventral scale rows (39–42 vs . 26–38 in C. arndti ), more femoral pores in males (10 vs. 0–2 in C. arndti ), and dark brown transverse bands of the tail wider than light brown interspaces ( vs. narrower transverse bands than light interspaces in C. arndti ); from C. badenensis by having more ventral scale rows (39–42 vs . 25–28 in C. badenensis ), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5–6 vs . absent in C. badenensis ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs . absent in C. badenensis ), and the presence of precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs . absent in C. badenensis ); from C. bidoupimontis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Phung, Nguyen, Hoang & Ziegler, 2012 by having fewer enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs . 8–10 in C. bidoupimontis ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs . absent in C. bidoupimontis ), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs . absent in C. bidoupimontis ); from C. bugiamapensis Nazarov, Poyarkov, Orlov, Phung, Nguyen, Hoang & Ziegler, 2012 by having the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs . absent in C. bugiamapensis ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs . absent in C. bugiamapensis ), and the difference of dorsal color pattern (banded vs . blotched in C. bugiamapensis ); from C. buchardi by having more ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 30 in C. buchardi ), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. absent in C. buchardi ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. buchardi ), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs. 9 in C. buchardi ), more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 14 in C. buchardi ), under toe IV (18–21 vs . 12 in C. buchardi ), and the difference of dorsal color pattern (banded vs . blotched in C. buchardi ); from C. caovansungi Orlov, Nguyen, Nazarov, Ananjeva & Nguyen, 2007 by having a smaller size ( 58.5–80.4 mm vs. 90.4–94 mm in C. caovansungi ), fewer enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs . 8 in C. caovansungi ), more femoral pores in males (10 vs . 6 in C. caovansungi ), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs. 9 in C. caovansungi ), and fewer lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 22 in C. caovansungi ) and toe IV (18–21 vs . 23–25 in C. caovansungi ); from C. cattienensis Geissler, Nazarov, Orlov, Böhme, Phung, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2009 by the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. cattienensis ), having more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 12–16 in C. cattienensis ), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. cattienensis ); from C. chumuensis Ngo, Hormann, Le, Pham, Phung, Do, Ostrowski, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2023 by having fewer ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 43–45 in C. chumuensis ), more femoral pores in males (10 vs. 0–2 in C. chumuensis ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. chumuensis ), and dark brown transverse bands of the tail wider than light brown interspaces ( vs. wider transverse bands than light interspaces in C. chumuensis ); from C. chungi Ostrowski, Le, Ngo, Pham, Phung, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2021 by having more ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 30 or 31 in C. chungi ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. chungi ), the enlarged subcaudal scales ( vs. slightly enlarged in C. chungi ), and dark brown transverse bands of the tail wider than light brown interspaces ( vs. wider transverse bands than light interspaces in C. chungi ); from C. cryptus Heidrich, Ro ̈sler, Vu, Böhme & Ziegler, 2007 by having fewer ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 47–50 in C. cryptus ), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. absent in C. cryptus ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. cryptus ), fewer precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs. 9–11 in C. cryptus ), and the enlarged subcaudal scales ( vs. subcaudal 2 or 3 times larger than dorsal tail scales in C. cryptus ); from C. cucdongensis Schneider, Phung, Le, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2014 by the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. cucdongensis ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs . absent in C. cucdongensis ), and having dark brown transverse bands of the tail wider than light brown interspaces ( vs. wider transverse bands than light interspaces in C. cucdongensis ); from C. culaochamensis Ngo, Grismer, Pham & Wood, 2020 by having fewer ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 45–50 in C. culaochamensis ), the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. absent in C. culaochamensis ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. culaochamensis ), and the enlarged subcaudal scales ( vs. slightly enlarged subcaudal scales in C. culaochamensis ); from C. dati Ngo, 2013 by having fewer ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 42–48 in C. dati ), more femoral pores in males (10 vs . 3 or 4 each thigh in C. dati ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. dati ), and the difference of dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched in C. dati ); from C. gialaiensis by the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. absent in C. gialaiensis ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. gialaiensis ), having fewer precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs. 9 or 10 in C. gialaiensis ), more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 14 or 15 in C. gialaiensis ) and toe IV (18–21 vs. 15–17 in C. gialaiensis ), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. gialaiensis ); from C. huynhi Ngo & Bauer, 2008 by having fewer ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 43–46 in C. huynhi ), more femoral pores in males (10 vs. 3–8 in C. huynhi ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. huynhi ), more dorsal longitudinal rows of tubercles at midbody between the lateral folds (19–21 vs. 16–18 in C. huynhi ); from C. irregularis sensu stricto by having fewer enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. 7 or 8 in C. irregularis ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. irregularis ), more lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 15 or 16 in C. irregularis ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. irregularis ), and the difference of dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched in C. irregularis ); from C. kingsadai Ziegler, Phung, Le & Nguyen, 2013 by having a smaller size ( 58.5–80.4 mm vs. 83–94 mm in C. kingsadai ), fewer enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. 9–12 in C. kingsadai ), more femoral pores in males (10 vs. 3–7 in C. kingsadai ) and toe IV (28–21 vs. 21–25 in C. kingsadai ); from C. orlovi Do, Phung, Ngo, Le, Ziegler, Pham & Nguyen, 2021 by having the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. orlovi ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. orlovi ), and dark brown transverse bands of the tail wider than light brown interspaces ( vs. wider transverse bands than light interspaces in C. orlovi ); from C. phnomchiensis Neang, Henson & Stuart, 2020 by having fewer ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 45–54 in C. phnomchiensis ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. phnomchiensis ), more precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs. 4 or 5 in C. phnomchiensis ), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. phnomchiensis ); from C. phumyensis Ostrowski, Do, Le, Ngo, Pham, Nguyen, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2020 by the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. phumyensis ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. phumyensis ), and the absence of two irregular dark longitudinal stripes in the shoulder region ( vs. presence in C. phumyensis ); from C. phuocbinhensis Nguyen, Le, Tran, Orlov, Lathrop, Macculloch, Le, Jin, Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang, 2013 by having fewer ventral scale rows (39–42 vs. 43–47 in C. phuocbinhensis ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. phuocbinhensis ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. phuocbinhensis ), and the difference of dorsal color pattern (banded vs. striped/ blotched in C. phuocbinhensis ); from C. pseudoquadrivirgatus Rösler, Nguyen, Vu, Ngo & Ziegler, 2008 by having the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. absent in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus ), and the difference of dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched in C. pseudoquadrivirgatus ); from C. raglai Nguyen, Duong, Grismer & Poyarkov, 2021 by having a smaller size ( 58.5– 80.4 mm vs . 95–111.7 mm in C. raglai ), fewer enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. 9–10 in C. raglai ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. raglai ), and more precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs. 5 in C. raglai ); from C. sangi Pauwels, Nazarov, Bobrov & Poyarkov, 2018 by having a larger size ( 58.5–80.4 mm vs. 49.9–56.3 mm in C. sangi ), more ventral scale rows (39–42 vs . 37 in C. sangi ), more enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. 4 in C. sangi ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. sangi ), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. sangi ); from C. takouensis by having more femoral pores in males (10 vs. 0–2 in C. takouensis ), more precloacal pores in males (6 or 7 vs. 3 or 4 in C. takouensis ), and a different dorsal color pattern (slightly clear transverse bands formed by shaped dark brown banded vs. five pale yellow clear bands, alternating with dark brown bands in C. takouensis ); from C. tayhoaensis Do, Do, Le, Ngo, Ziegler, Nguyen & Pham, 2023 by having a smaller size ( 58.5–73.7 mm vs. 82.9–94.2 mm in C. tayhoaensis ), fewer enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. 10 or 11 in C. tayhoaensis ), more femoral pores in males (10 vs. 3–7 in C. tayhoaensis ), more precloacal pores in males (6–7 vs. 4–5 in C. tayhoaensis ), fewer lamellae under finger IV (17–19 vs. 20–22 in C. tayhoaensis ) and toe IV (18–21 vs. 22–24 in C. tayhoaensis ); from C. taynguyenensis Nguyen, Le, Tran, Orlov, Lathrop, Macculoch, Le, Jin, Nguyen, Nguyen, Hoang, Che, Murphy & Zhang, 2013 by the presence of enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. absent in C. taynguyenensis ), the presence of femoral pores in males (10 vs. absent in C. taynguyenensis ), the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs . absent in C. taynguyenensis ), and the difference of dorsal color pattern (banded vs. blotched in C. taynguyenensis ); from C. yangbayensis Ngo & Chan, 2010 by having more femoral pores in males (10 vs. 0–2 in C. yangbayensis ), the presence of pitted precloacal pores in females (5 or 6 vs. absent in C. yangbayensis ), more lamellae under toe IV (18–21 vs. 15–17 in C. yangbayensis ), and the difference of nuchal loop color pattern (continuous with U-shape or triangle shape vs . broken into two dark fragments or V-shape); from C. ziegleri Nazarov, Orlov, Nguyen & Ho, 2008 by having a smaller size ( 58.5–80.4 mm vs. 84.6–93.0 mm in C. ziegleri ), fewer enlarged femoral scales (5 or 6 vs. 8–10 in C. ziegleri ), more femoral pores in males (10 vs. 0–4 in C. ziegleri ), and the presence of transversely enlarged subcaudal plates ( vs. absent in C. ziegleri ).