Redescription of Lepidodactylus flaviocularis (Squamata: Gekkonidae), with the description of a new species from Makira Island, Solomon Islands Author Kraus, Fred text Zootaxa 2023 2023-09-04 5339 6 562 576 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5339.6.5 journal article 265725 10.11646/zootaxa.5339.6.5 5f2d788c-65e2-4739-aafa-aaab3e049b20 1175-5326 8313789 4E8BEE3A-4A4A-4F14-A1F6-8C9305770D44 Lepidodactylus flaviocularis Brown, McCoy, & Rodda, 1992: 440 . Figs. 1 , 2A Holotype : USNM 313865 , mature male, collected by G.H. Rodda on Mt. Austen, Guadalcanal Island, Solomon Islands , 23 November 1990 . Diagnosis. A moderately sized species of Lepidodactylus (SVL = 44.0–46.0 mm) with all lamellae undivided; 37–38 enlarged pore-bearing precloacal/femoral scales in a continuous row extending to distal end of each thigh; 38 precloacal/femoral pores in sole male; T3T4webL = 0.26–0.27, T4T5webL = 0.14–0.18, 15–21 lamellae beneath T4, covering most of digit (T4lamellaeL/T4L = 0.88–0.94); EN/IN = 1.86–1.96; pale ventral field ~25 scale rows wide; yellow circumorbital ring in life. Comparisons with other species. The absence of any divided lamellae under the digits places this species in Brown & Parker’s (1977) phenetic Group I. From other members of this group, L. flaviocularis is distinguished as follows: from L. magnus Brown & Parker , L. oorti (Kopstein) , and L. sacrolineatus Kraus & Oliver by its smaller size (adult SVL = 50–71 mm in L. magnus , 53–57 mm in L. oorti , 52–60 mm in L. sacrolineatus ) and more extensive toe webbing (T3T4webL = 0.26–0.27 vs. 0.11–0.17 in those three species); from L. pumilus (Boulenger) , L. sacrolineatus , and L. zweifeli Kraus in having a continuous row of enlarged pore-bearing scales (vs. pores arrayed into three series in those three species); from L. aignanus Kraus in having 37–38 enlarged scales of the pore-bearing series in a continuous row extending to distal end of each thigh (vs. 17 enlarged pore-bearing scales limited to precloacal region in L. aignanus ); from L. euaensis Gibbons & Brown , L. listeri (Boulenger) , L. manni Schmidt , L. mutahi , L. orientalis and L. pumilus in having 15–21 lamellae under T4 (vs. 8–13 in those six species). Among Melanesian Lepidodactylus , only L. pulcher Boulenger has as many lamellae (16–19) beneath T4, but that species differs from L. flaviocularis in having 1–2 divided subterminal lamellae under T4. The yellow eye ring in life distinguishes L. flaviocularis from all other members of the genus except L. gardineri , which has divided subterminal lamellae. Redescription of the holotype . A mature male of medium size ( SVL = 46.0 mm); tail missing. Head relatively long (HL/ SVL = 0.26) and wide ( HW /HL = 0.82), distinct from neck ( Fig. 1A ). Loreal region slightly inflated; no distinct canthus rostralis. Top of snout, area between nares, and area posterior to nares shallowly concave. Snout tapered and rounded at tip, relatively long (SN/HL = 0.44), significantly longer than eye diameter (SN/ EY = 1.8). Eye of modest size ( EY /HL = 0.25, EY / EN = 0.64); pupil vertical, constricted into series of four lobes; anterior supraciliaries slightly larger than adjacent granules, posterior ones subequal to adjacent granules. Ear opening small (Ear/HL = 0.093), narrowly compressed, oriented obliquely; distance between ear and eye larger than eye diameter ( EE / EY = 1.3). Rostral twice as wide ( 1.9 mm ) as high ( 0.9 mm ), highest just medial to nares, lower between these points; length 0.35 mm . Supranasals separated by three internasals along posterior rostral margin. Rostral in contact with first supralabials, two supranasals, and three internasals. External nares circular; each bordered by rostral, two supranasals, first supralabial, and one postnasal. Mental triangular, 0.70 mm wide. Mental bordered posteriorly by two tiny scales; no enlarged postmentals but small field of slightly enlarged chin scales progressively decrease in size posteriorly to join granular chin scales. First five infralabials bordered below by enlarged scales, but fourth and fifth infralabials separated from these by intervening small scales; remaining scales below infralabials of approximately same size as throat scales, which decrease in size medially. Supralabials to mid-orbital position ten on each side; only two more enlarged supralabials posterior to this; angle of jaw bordered with granular scales. Infralabials 15 ( R ) and 14 (L) . Body of rather narrow habitus (TrL/SVL = 0.46), slightly depressed. Dorsal scales on head, body, limbs, and throat tiny, juxtaposed granules, slightly larger on sides and snout; tubercles absent. Ventral scales larger, flat and smooth, subimbricate, gradually decreasing in size laterally to become granular. Enlarged precloacal/femoral scales in single series of 38 scales extending to distal end of each thigh, 38 precloacal/femoral pores ( Fig. 1B ); thigh scales anterior to this row larger than those posterior. Enlarged scales form a pubic patch between precloacal series and vent; tiny scales intruding laterally between precloacal series and pubic patch but not forming a continuous row; nine scales in a row between apex of enlarged precloacal series and vent. Scales on palms and soles rounded, flattened, smooth, subimbricate. Fore- and hindlimbs relatively small (FA/SVL = 0.11, CS/SVL = 0.14). Digits well-developed ( Fig. 1C, D ), moderately dilated throughout their length (T4W/T4L = 0.29), all but first fingers and toes with recurved claws; clawed phalanges laterally compressed, free above and extending slightly beyond terminal lamellae. Subdigital lamellae narrow and smooth, all undivided ( Fig. 1C, D ); lamellae extend for almost entire length of each toe (T4lamellaeL/T4L = 0.94). Lamellae of manus 9–11–13–15–10 on right, 10–11–13–14–11 on left; of pes 11–13– 17–21–11 on right, 11–12–16–18–11 on left. Relative lengths of digits on manus and pes I <II <V <III <IV. Webbing present between all digits, most extensive between T3 and T4 (T3T4webL/T4L = 0.27, T4T5webL/T4L = 0.18). A fringe of scales extends from base of fifth toe anterior along inner margin of leg. Tail missing. Cloacal sacs swollen ( Fig. 1B ), with small external orifices situated near lateral margins of vent; one (R) or two (L) slightly enlarged, blunt postcloacal spurs on each side of tailbase; midventral scales of sac hexagonal, subimbricate, slightly larger than those ventrolaterally. Color in preservative : Dorsal ground color on body, head, and limbs pale brown ( Fig. 1A ), each scale very pale brownish white punctated with black; approximately five slightly darker areas mid-dorsally between nape and tail base. Venter same pale brownish-white ground with far fewer scales punctated with black, giving overall whitish appearance ( Fig. 1B ). Palmar, plantar and subdigital surfaces pale yellow gray; tips of digits with some brown ( Fig. 1C, D ). Circumorbital scales brown externally, pale brownish white on side adjacent to eye. Pupil tan with some gold near margins, veined with brown. Measurements (in mm) . SVL = 46.0, TrL = 21.0, FA = 5.0, CS = 6.3, HL = 11.8, HW = 9.7, Ear = 1.1, EE = 3.9, EY = 2.9, SN = 5.2, EN = 4.5, IN = 2.3, T4L = 5.1, T4W = 1.5, T4lamellaeL = 4.8, T3T4webL = 1.4, T4T5webL = 0.9. Variation . A single additional specimen ( KU 341207 ) has been collected since the holotype , doubling the number of specimens available to assess morphological variation in this species. It is from Barana , Moka River , 9.5060°S , 159.9811°E , 275 m a.s.l. , Guadalcanal Island , Solomon Islands and was collected by S. Travers and company on 10 February 2014 . This specimen differs from the holotype in being female, having 14 (R) and 13 (L) infralabials, and 37 enlarged precloacal/femoral scales. Lamellae of manus 10–11–13–13–11 on right, 10–11–13–15–9 on left; of pes 9–13–15– 18–12 on right, 9–12–15–15–9 on left. The lamellae on T4 of the left pes are arranged in a series of 13, separated by a row of small scales, followed by another lamella, then another row of small scales, and then a final lamella, counting distally to proximally. This specimen also has less webbing between the fourth and fifth toes ( T4 T5 webL/ T4 L = 0.14 instead of 0.18). The fringe of scales from the base of the fifth toe and along the hindlimb is reduced and barely discernable. This specimen was collected 23 years after the holotype , and the color is correspondingly better. The dorsal ground color is similar to the holotype but is slightly darker, and there is a vague darker-brown blotch on top of the head, another above the scapulae, and the top of the snout is darker brown. The brown under the tips of the digits is clearer than in the holotype . The venter is similar to the holotype but has somewhat more dark punctations than are seen in the holotype . The eyelids are dark gray, and the iris is tan. Measurements of KU 341207 (in mm) . –SVL = 44.0, TrL = 23.0, FA = 5.1, CS = 5.9, HL = 11.2, HW = 8.7, Ear = 0.9, EE = 3.7, EY = 2.7, SN = 5.0, EN = 4.1, IN = 2.2, T4L = 4.2, T4W = 1.5, T4lamellaeL = 3.7, T3T4webL = 1.1, T4T5webL = 0.6. Color in life . A photo of an animal collected by Mike McCoy in 1978 but not preserved is reddish with six darker red-brown saddles between the nape and hindlimb insertion ( Fig. 2A ). The yellow scales around the orbit are clearly visible. A photo of the holotype taken by Gordon Rodda (not illustrated here) shows an animal that is yellow-tan instead of reddish. The dorsal bands on that animal are somewhat narrower, and the yellow eye ring is again evident. Both of these animals were figured in Brown et al. (1992) in black and white. A third specimen is illustrated in Oliver et al. (2018b) and McDonald et al. (2022) and is similar to Fig. 2A . Remarks. Brown et al. (1992) recorded the SVL of the holotype as 49.5 mm in life and 47.5 mm in preservative approximately two years after preservation. I now obtain a SVL measurement of 46.0 mm, reflecting additional shrinkage since 1992. Brown et al. (1992) and I also differ in one of the scale counts. They claimed that there were 18 lamellae under the fourth toe; I count 18 on the left foot but 21 on the right. It is possible that they only counted lamellae on one side of the specimen; however, they also counted 10 or 11 lamellae under the first toe, suggesting that they counted lamellae on both sides. Our count difference on the right foot for number of T4 lamellae may be due to their ignoring three smaller proximal lamellae that I included. These were not as wide as the more distal lamellae but are still three times or more wider than deep, so I included them in the count.