Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh, Grismer & Sinovas & Quah & Thi & Chourn & Chhin & Hun & Cobos & Geissler & Ching & Murdoch, 2025

Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh sp. nov.

Suggested common names are Khpoh Slender Gecko (English)

https:// zoobank.org:pub: 44F544B5-5177-4790-BDF1-C5F49E98DB75

Figs 1–4 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4

Holotype. Adult female ( LSUHC 15238 View Materials ) from Phnom Khoph, Banan District, Battambang Province, Cambodia (13.025962°N 103.000378°E; 18 m) at 2130 on 24 March 2024 collected by Matthew L. Murdoch, L. Lee Grismer, Evan S. H. Quah, Sothearen Thi, and Anthony Cobos. GoogleMaps

Diagnosis. Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh sp. nov. can be potentially be distinguished from all other species of Hemiphyllodactylus in clade 6, H. pardalis , H. bokor , H. samkos , and Hemiphyllodactylus sp. from Cambodia ( Table 2 View TABLE 2 ), as well as species from Myanmar and adjacent parts of Indochina ( Grismer et al. 2017, 2018a, 2020a,b; Sukprasert et al. 2018; Eliades et al. 2019) by having 16 chin scales, five circumnasals, two intersupransals, 11 supralabials and infralabials, 15 dorsals, 14 ventrals, 3333 lamellar formula on the hand, 4433 lamellar formula on the foot, two subdigital lamellae on the first digit one of the hand and foot, small postmentals, no femoral or precloacal pores, one cloacal spur, small undifferentiated subcaudals, iris brownish, adult female coloration not yellow, no distinct dark-colored spots on top of head, well-defined thin dark-colored pre-and postorbital stripes, the latter extending to the anterior one-third of the ventral portion of the flank (i.e. post-axilla), lateral row of small linearly arranged light-colored spots on flanks, no dorsolateral or ventrolateral dark-colored stripe on trunk, wide vertebral area generally unicolor, no dark-colored bands or reticulate pattern on trunk, no distinct well-defined dark-colored spots on dorsum, no dark-colored paravertebral markings on trunk, dorsolateral row of small linearly arranged dark-colored-colored spots on trunk, sacral band incomplete across sacrum, and cecum and gonadal tracks unpigmented.

Description of holotype. Adult female SVL 30.6 mm; head triangular in dorsal profile, depressed, distinct from neck; lores flat; rostrum moderate in length (SN/SVL 0.09); prefrontal region faintly concave; canthus rostralis smoothly rounded; snout moderate, rounded in dorsal profile; eye large; ear opening horizontally elliptical, small; eye-ear distance greater than diameter of eye; 16 chin scales, five circumnasal scales, rostral wider than high, bordered posteriorly by large supranasals; two equally sized intersupranasals (= postnasals); external nares bordered anteriorly by rostral, dorsally by supranasal, posteriorly by two postnasals, ventrally by first supralabial (= circumnasals); 11 (R,L) rectangular supralabials tapering to below posterior margin of eye; 11 (R,L) rectangular infralabials tapering to below posterior margin of eye; scales of rostrum, lores, top of head, and occiput small, slightly raised, nearly equal in size; dorsal superciliaries flat, mostly square, weakly subimbricate, slightly larger anteriorly; mental triangular, bordered laterally by first infralabials and posteriorly by three small postmentals of equal size; outer postmentals in contact with first infralabial; no enlarged chin scales; gular scales small, subimbricate, grading posteriorly into slightly larger, subimbricate throat and even larger pectoral scales which grade into similarly sized, subimbricate ventrals.

Body gracile, elongate (AG/SVL 0.50), slightly compressed dorsoventrally; ventrolateral folds absent; dorsal scales small, granular but slightly raised at the tips, 15 at midbody within the length of eye diameter; ventral scales flat, subimbricate larger than dorsal scales, 14 at midbody ventral within the length of eye diameter; precloacal scales larger than abdominal scales; no pore-bearing femoral or precloacal scales; no enlarged femoral or precloacal scales; no pitted preclocal scales; single enlarged tubercle (spur) on lateral margin of tail base.

Forelimbs short, robust in stature, covered with raised, subimbricate scales dorsally and ventrally; palmar scales slightly raised, subimbricate; all digits except digit I well-developed; digit I vestigial, clawless bearing two subdigital lamellae; distal subdigital lamellae of digits II–V undivided, angular and U-shaped, lamellae proximal to these transversely expanded; distal lamellar formula of hand II–V 3333 (R,L); claws on digits II–V well developed, unsheathed; distal portions of digits strongly curved, terminal joint free, arising from central portion of lamellar pad; hind limbs short, more robust than forelimbs, covered with slightly raised, subimbricate scales dorsally and by larger, flat subimbricate scales anteriorly and ventrally; plantar scales raised, juxtaposed; all digits except digit I well-developed; digit I vestigial, clawless bearing two subdigital lamellae; distal subdigital lamellae of digits II–V undivided, angular and U-shaped, lamellae proximal to these transversely expanded; distal lamellar formula of digits II–V 4433 (R,L); claws on digits II–V well developed, unsheathed; distal portions of digits strongly curved, terminal joint free, arising from central portion of lamellar pad.

Tail complete, 36.0 mm in length, long, 1.18 times SVL; caudal scales occurring in whorls; dorsal caudals larger than dorsal body scales, flat, subimbricate; ventrolateral caudals slightly enlarged, weakly flared anteriorly; subcaudals flat, slightly larger than dorsal caudals, not plate-like. Morphometric data are presented in Table 2 View TABLE 2 .

Coloration in life ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 ). Background color of the dorsal surfaces of the head, body, limbs tan; tail orange bearing diffuse irregularly shaped lighter colored dorsal markings; top of head bearing scattered small poorly defined dark-colored spots; well-defined dark-colored pre- and postorbital stripe, extending from the naris to the anterior one-third of the ventrolateral portion of flank (i.e. post-axilla); dorsolateral row of small, well-defined, dark-colored spots extend from the postorbital region and terminate just anterior to the sacrum; lateral row of small, well-defined, light-colored spots extend from the postorbital region and terminate at the posterior margin of the sacrum where they become large; wide vertebral area on the trunk generally immaculate; limbs bear varying degrees of faint dark-colored speckling; and all ventral surfaces are beige with varying degrees of faint dark-colored speckling.

Distribution. Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh sp. nov. is known only from the type locality at Phnom Khpoh, Banan District, Battambang Province, Cambodia ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 ).

Etymology. The specific epithet “ khpoh ” is an invariable noun in apposition in reference to the type locality.

Natural History Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh sp. nov. was found near the base of a karstic cliff-face on a small karst rock (~0.66– 0.66 m in diameter) on the ground surrounded by low-growing grass ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 ). A juvenile Hemidactylus frenatus was found beneath the same rock.

Comparisons ( Tables 2–4 View TABLE 2 View TABLE 3 View TABLE 4 ). The molecular analyses indicate that Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh sp. nov. is a genetically divergent member of Hemiphyllodactylus outside any recently recognized clade ( Agung et al. 2022) and the sister species of H. pardalis ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 ) by which it is potentially differentiated by having 16 vs 11 chin scales; 11 vs nine infralabial scales; 15 vs 21 dorsal scales; 14 vs 10 ventral scales; a lamellar formula on the foot of 3344 vs 4444; two vs four subdigital lamellae on the first toe; a less elongate body (AG/SVL = 0.50 vs 0.65–0.67); and a less triangularly shaped head (HW/HL = 0.71 vs 0.63). It is categorically differentiated from H. pardalis by having the following character states that are invariable across all other species: small vs enlarged postmentals; no pore-bearing femoral or precloacal scales or enlarged pitted scales (present in female H. pardalis ); adult females not yellowish; a generally wide unicolor vertebral region; lacking a dorsal pattern composed of distinct black spots; a brown vs a orange iris; and an orange vs yellow unregenerated tail.

......continued on the next page

......continued on the next page

Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh sp. nov. differs from the other Cambodian species H. bokor , H. samkos , and Hemiphyllodactylus sp. from Phnom Kulen as follows (the Cambodian specimens of the widespread parthenogenetic human commensal H. typus not included; see Neang et al. [2024]). From H. bokor it differs by having 16 vs eight chin scales; 15 vs 23 or 24 dorsal scales; a lamellar hand formal of 3333 vs 4554; a lamellar foot formula of 4433 vs 4555 or 5555; two subdigital lamellae on finger I vs three or four; two subdigital lamellae on toe I vs three or four; small vs enlarged postmentals; and having one vs two or three cloacal spurs. Categorically it differs by having well-defined thin dark-colored pre- and postorbital stripes; lateral row of small light-colored spots; a generally unicolor vertebral region; lacking large dark-colored paravertebral markings on trunk; having a dorsolateral row of linearly arranged small dark-colored spot; lacking a complete light-colored post-sacral band across the sacrum; the original tail being orange; and unpigmented cecum and gonadal tracts.

From Hemiphyllodactylus samkos it differs by having 16 vs 8–10 chin scales; 15 vs 18 or 19 dorsal scales; a lamellar foot formula of 4433 vs 4555, 5555, or 5665; small vs enlarged postmentals; and having one vs two or three cloacal spurs. Categorically it differs by having well-defined thin dark-colored pre- and postorbital stripes; lateral row of small light-colored spots; a generally unicolor vertebral region; lacking large dark-colored paravertebral markings on trunk; having a dorsolateral row of linearly arranged small dark-colored spot; lacking a complete light-colored post-sacral band across the sacrum; the original tail being orange; and unpigmented cecum and gonadal tracts.

From Hemiphyllodactylus sp. from Phnom Kulen to which Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh sp. nov. is most similar ( Fig. 3 View FIGURE 3 ) it differs by having 16 vs 10 chin scales; 14 vs 11 ventral scales; a lamellar foot formula of 4433 vs 3444; and two subdigital lamellae on finger and toe I vs three. Categorically it differs by having a brown vs a gold iris and an orange vs a yellow original tail. Selected differences between Hemiphyllodactylus khpoh sp. nov. and the species of clade 6 are presented in Tables 3 View TABLE 3 and 4 View TABLE 4 (following Luu et al. 2024).