Gehyra shiva, Meesook & Donbundit & Jindamad & Topai & Kunya & Suthanthangjai & Suthanthangjai & Chotjuckdikul & Chonkamnord & Sumontha & Pauwels, 2025

Gehyra shiva sp. nov.

( Figures 1–6 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4 View FIGURE 5 View FIGURE 6 )

Holotype. CUMZ-R-2635 (field no. MS 750), adult male caught on 1 st July 2024 in Tham (= Cave) Phra Siwa (13°19’16.0”N, 102°19’40.1”E), Khao (= Mountain) Kok Ma Muang , Khlong Hat District, Sa Kaeo Province, eastern Thailand, by W. Meesook, N. Donbundit, M. Sumontha, K. Kunya, T. Jindamad, N. Topai, N. Chotjuckdikul, W. Suthanthangjai and T. Chonkamnord. GoogleMaps

Paratypes (4). CUMZ-R-2636 (field no. MS 749, adult male) , CUMZ-R-2637 (field no. MS 748, adult male) and CUMZ-R-2638 (field no. MS 747, adult female), same locality, date and collectors as holotype; and GoogleMaps CUMZ-R-2639 (field no. 746, adult female), collected on 30 June 2024 at Phet Pho Thong (13°24’50.6”N, 102°19’37.9”E), Khao Leuam, Khlong Hat District , Sa Kaeo Province, by the same collectors as the holotype GoogleMaps .

Diagnosis. Gehyra shiva sp. nov. can be distinguished from all other Southeast Asian congeneric species by the combination of its maximal known SVL of 53.8 mm, 8–10 supralabials, 54–67 dorsal and 46–56 ventral scale rows at midbody, absence of skin folds on limbs, 34–37 preanofemoral pores in males in a continuous series extending along the whole length of the femur (pores absent in females), tail not to moderately widened behind vent in adults, a single row of widened subcaudals (more than 1/3 of the width of tail in its anterior part, progressively occupying the whole width of the tail towards the tip), digits and toes unwebbed, 7 or 8 divided subdigital lamellae on 4 th toe, and a dorsal pattern with five regular dark brown bands between limb insertions, separated or not by pairs of large, white round paravertebral spots.

Description of holotype. Adult male ( Figures 1 View FIGURE 1 and 2 View FIGURE 2 and Table 1 View TABLE 1 ). SVL 52.4 mm. Head long (HeadL/SVL 0.32), relatively broad (HeadW/HeadL ratio 0.67), somewhat depressed (HeadD/HeadL ratio 0.36), poorly distinct from the neck.

Lores and interorbital region slightly inflated; prefrontal region concave; canthus rostralis smoothly rounded. Snout moderate (SnOrb/HeadL ratio 0.33), less than 1.5 times eye diameter (OrbD/SnOrb ratio 0.78); scales on rostrum, lores, top of head and occiput small, granular, lacking enlarged tubercles; scales on snout larger than those on interorbital region. Eye relatively large (OrbD/HeadL ratio 0.25). Pupil vertical with crenelated margins. Supraciliaries very short. Ear opening oval, moderate (EarL/HeadL ratio 0.07); eye to ear distance subequal to diameter of orbit (OrbEar/OrbD ratio 1.09). Rostral more than two times wider (2.6 mm) than deep (1.2 mm). No rostral groove present; two much enlarged supranasals in broad contact above rostral. Rostral in contact with supralabial I, nostrils, and both supranasals. Nostrils round, each surrounded by rostral, supranasal, two postnasals and first supralabial. Interorbital scale rows across narrowest point of frontal 8. Mental triangular, wider (2.2 mm) than deep (1.2 mm), deeper than infralabials; mental in contact with four scales: laterally with first infralabials and posteriorly with a pair of greatly enlarged and elongate inner postmentals meeting behind the mental. Each postmental bordered anteriorly by first infralabial, medially by mental, laterally by an enlarged chin shield (outer postmental), and posteriorly by undifferentiated granular gular scales. Including the two postmentals, there are two pairs of enlarged chin shields. Enlarged supralabials to midpoint of orbit 8/9; supralabials to angle of jaws nine (left and right); nine enlarged infralabials (left and right). Gular scales small, subimbricate, grading posteriorly into slightly larger, subimbricate pectoral scales, which grade posteriorly into larger, subimbricate ventrals.

Body robust, trunk relatively long (TrunkL/SVL ratio 0.65), dorsoventrally depressed in cross-section, with poorly distinct ventrolateral folds. Dorsal scales small, granular to subimbricate, without tubercles. Ventral scales slightly larger than dorsals. Midbody scale rows across belly to ventrolateral folds 56. No enlarged, precloacal scales. Thirty-seven pore-bearing preanofemoral scales, in a continuous row, extending along the whole length of the femur.

Scales on palm and sole smooth, flat, rounded. Scales on dorsal aspects of hind limbs homogeneous, granular. Scales on dorsal surface of forelimb homogeneous, granular, flat to slightly conical. Fore- and hind limbs moderately long, stout; forearm and tibia moderately long (FAL/SVL ratio 0.15; TibL/SVL 0.14). No skin folds (sensu Oliver et al. 2016) on fore and hindlimbs. Digits relatively short; digit I, both manus and pes, clawless; all remaining digits strongly clawed; distal portions of digits II-V strongly curved, arising from distal portion of expanded subdigital pad. Scansors beneath each toe divided; scansors 6-7-7-7-7 (left manus), 6-7-7-8-8 (right manus), 6-7-7-8-8 (left pes), 6-7-8-8-NA (right pes). Relative length of digits of manus: IV>III>V>II>I. No webbing between digits or toes.

Tail mostly regenerated (TailL 56.3 mm of which 49.0 mm regenerated), depressed; dorsal surface of original part of tail covered with small, squarish, juxtaposed granules forming more or less regular transverse rows. Median row of strongly enlarged subcaudal plates extending more than a third of the width of the original part of the tail ( Figure 2 View FIGURE 2 ). A single, moderate, post-cloacal tubercle on each side of tail base.

Coloration in life. Background color of dorsal surface of head, dorsum, and dorsal surfaces of limbs and tail light brown ( Figure 1 View FIGURE 1 ). Iris reddish brown with black marbling. Blackish brown preorbital stripe extending from eye midway between eye and nostril, prolonged behind eye till above tympanum. Supraorbital region with a discrete bluish tint. A few irregular blackish brown and white spots on the dorsal surface of head. Supralabials beige speckled with yellow. Five transverse dark brown bands on dorsum between limb insertions. Additional, irregularly disposed, dark brown and white spots on dorsum and flanks. Dorsal surface of original part of tail showing a dark brown band; regenerated part light brown with a few dark brown speckles. Irregular dark brown spots on the dorsal surfaces of limbs, hands and feet. Throat, belly, underside of limbs and feet and of tail beige without spots; pore-bearing scales darker.

Variation. Main morphometric and meristic characters of the type series are provided in Table 1 View TABLE 1 . Morphological characters and color pattern of the paratypes agree in most respects with the holotype.The females lack preanofemoral pores. Only one of the paratypes, the male CUMZ-R-2637, has an original tail; its TailL/SVL ratio is 1.16; its widened subcaudal row occupies more than 1/3 of the width of tail in its anterior part, and progressively occupies the whole width of the tail towards the tip. In paratypes CUMZ-R-2637 and CUMZ-R-2639, pairs of white round, regularly arranged paravertebral spots separate the dark brown dorsal bands ( Figure 4 View FIGURE 4 ); these white spots are less visible but perceptible in CUMZ-R-2636 ( Figure 3 View FIGURE 3 ). They are well visible in juveniles, in which the dorsal dark bands appear very contrasted ( Figure 5 View FIGURE 5 ). There are eight to ten dark bands on original tails ( Figures 4 View FIGURE 4 and 5 View FIGURE 5 ).

Distribution and natural history. The two localities where the new species was found are part of a North-South alignment of limestone reliefs in Sa Kaeo and Chanthaburi provinces, along the Cambodian border ( Jantarit and Ellis 2023; Figure 7 View FIGURE 7 ). Both localities are at less than five kilometers from the border with Cambodia where the species will probably soon be found. These reliefs, surrounded by cultivated lands, represent the western foothills of the Cardamom Range. Nothing is known about the diet or the reproduction of the new species. At the type-locality, individuals were observed inside the cave and on limestone rocks near the cave entrance. The species is nocturnal and locally common. Within Phra Siwa Cave or near its entrance ( Figure 8 View FIGURE 8 ) Gehyra shiva sp. nov. individuals were observed in direct proximity to Malayemys macrocephala (Gray) ( Geoemydidae ), Calotes versicolor (Daudin) ( Agamidae ), Boiga cyanea (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril) , Chrysopelea ornata (Shaw) , Lycodon capucinus (Boie) and L. davisonii (Blanford) , Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus) ( Colubridae ), Bungarus candidus (Linnaeus) , Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor) ( Elapidae ), Cnemaspis chanthaburiensis Bauer & Das , Cyrtodactylus khlonghatensis Ampai, Rujirawan, Yodthong, Termprayoon, Stuart & Aowphol, 2024 , Dixonius cf. siamensis Boulenger , Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann) , Gekko gecko (Linnaeus) , Hemidactylus frenatus Duméril & Bibron and H. platyurus (Schneider) ( Gekkonidae ), Psammodynastes pulverulentus (Boie) (Psammodynastidae), Malayopython reticulatus (Schneider) ( Pythonidae ), Sphenomorphus maculatus (Blyth) and Subdoluseps bowringii (Günther) ( Scincidae ), Varanus salvator (Laurenti) ( Varanidae ), Calloselasma rhodostoma (Kuhl) , Trimeresurus aff. cardamomensis (Malhotra, Thorpe, Mrinalini & Stuart) ( Viperidae ) and Xenopeltis unicolor Reinwardt ( Xenopeltidae ). At Phet Pho Thong it was also found in syntopy with Cyrtodactylus khlonghatensis .

Etymology. The specific epithet shiva is a name in apposition, invariable, based on the name of the type locality, Tham Phra Siwa, dedicated to Shiva, the god of destruction, a prominent deity in Hinduism. We suggest the following common names: จิ้งจกหินศิวะ (Djing-djok-hin Siwa; Thai); Shiva four-clawed gecko (English) , and Gehyra de Shiva (French).

Comparison to other species. Based on its scalation and dorsal pattern, Gehyra shiva sp. nov. is readily distinguishable from the five other Gehyra species found in mainland Southeast Asia; their main diagnostic characters are compared in Table 2 View TABLE 2 .

Gehyra shiva sp. nov. differs from the Thai endemic G. angusticaudata by its much higher VentR (46–56 versus 35), absence of webbing on fingers and toes (versus basal webbing), and its dorsal pattern (five transverse dark bands on dorsum versus no bands; when present, large paired paravertebral white round spots versus small, nearly indistinct, white spots).

Gehyra shiva sp. nov. can be distinguished from G. fehlmanni by its higher VentR (46–56 versus 42), much higher PrePo number (34–37 versus 22), absence of webbing on fingers and toes (versus basal webbing), and by its dorsal pattern (five transverse dark bands on dorsum versus no bands).

Gehyra shiva sp. nov. can be easily differentiated from G. lacerata by its lower SL number (8–10 versus 12), much higher PrePo number (34–37 versus 20), its transversely enlarged subcaudals (versus not enlarged), a tail not to moderately widened posterior to vent (versus strongly widened), and by its dorsal pattern (five transverse dark bands on dorsum versus no bands; when present, large round white paravertebral spots versus large white spots spread across all dorsum and flanks). Adult Gehyra lacerata individuals have a more robust habitus than adults of G. shiva sp. nov. and of the other Thai representatives of the genus (see illustrations in Pauwels et al. 2022).

From Gehyra mutilata (and its Malayan subjective synonyms Gehyra butleri Boulenger, 1900 , described from Kuala Lumpur, and Peropus packardii Cope, 1869 , described from Penang; see synonymies by Taylor 1963 and Grismer 2011), Gehyra shiva sp. nov. can be distinguished based on its smaller SVL (53.8 versus 61 mm), higher VentR (46–56 versus 35–44), absence of webbing on fingers and toes (versus basal webbing), its dorsal pattern (five transverse dark bands on dorsum versus no bands; when present, large white paravertebral round spots versus small, often poorly visible, or no white spots in G. mutilata ), and a tail not- to moderately widened behind vent (versus moderately to strongly widened).

Compared to Gehyra wongchan , endemic to Lopburi Province in central Thailand, G. shiva sp. nov. shows a slightly higher TailL/SVL ratio (1.16 versus 1.09–1.10), lower InterOrbS number (8–10 versus 12–14), distinctly lower DSR number (54–67 versus 76–80), much higher PrePo number (34–37 versus 17 or 18), and a different dorsal pattern (five transverse dark bands on dorsum versus no bands).