MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review of genus Cyrtodactylus (Reptilia: Sauria: Gekkonidae) in fauna of Laos with description of four new species

2014· review· en· W4295123106 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roman A. Nazarov, Nikolay A. Poyarkov, Nikolai L. Orlov, Ngoc‐Loi Nguyen, Konstantin D. Milto, A.A. Martynov, Evgeniy L Konstantinov, Anatoly Sergeevich Chulisov

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Zoological Institute RAS · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchOntario Genomics InstituteGenome CanadaOntario GenomicsOntario Innovation TrustTrung tâm nhiệt đới Việt - NgaGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsGekkonidaeBiologyDorsumAnatomySquamataZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe four new species of the genus Cyrtodactylus based on the results of phylogenetic analysis of 673 bp of the COI mtDNA gene and morphological description of voucher specimens from Khammouane and Vientiane provinces, Laos. The three of the new species, namely Cyrtodactylus khammouanensis sp. nov., Cyrtodactylus darevskii sp. nov. and Cyrtodactylus multiporus sp. nov., are described from a small area in monsoon tropical forests on limestone in the environs of Nahome Village, Boulapha District, Khammouane Province, Central Annamites. Cyrtodactylus darevskii sp. nov. differs from all other Laotian Cyrtodactylus by a combination of the following morphological characters: (1) maximum SVL up to 100 mm; (2) dorsal pattern formed by the narrow dark nuchal band and 4–5 dark transverse breaking bands with light yellowish posterior edges between limbs; (4) 38–46 ventral scales; (5) continuous series of 38–44 precloacal and femoral pores in males and 24–34 precloacal and femoral pores in females; (6) preclocal groove lacking; (7) 4–5 postcloacal spurs present in both sexes; (8) one median row of subcaudal scales. Cyrtodactylus khammouanensis sp. nov. appears to be closely related to the recently described C. jaegeri Luu et. al., 2014 and can be distinguished from this species and the remaining Laotian congeners by a combination of the following morphological features: (1) medium size, with a maximum SVL up to 73 mm; (2) males with continuous series of 40–44 precloacal and femoral pores; (3) preclocal groove lacking; (4) 32–38 longitudinal rows of ventral scales at midbody; (5) weakly keeled tubercles present on the dorsum and lacking on the head; (6) 5–6 enlarged postcloacal spurs in both sexes; (8) one median row of subcaudal scales; (7) dorsal pattern consisting of wide dark nuchal band and 4–5 dark wide transverse bands. Cyrtodactylus multiporus sp. nov. is distinguished by a combination of the following morphological attributes: (1) maximum SVL of up to 98 mm; (2) dorsal patterns consisting of dark irregular separate spots between limbs and on the dorsal surface of the head; (3) nuchal band absent; (4) 30–38 ventrals; (5) continuous series of 58–60 precloacal and femoral pores in males; (6) preclocal groove lacking; (7) 5–6 postcloacal spurs present in both sexes; (8) one median row of subcaudal scales. Cyrtodactylus spelaeus sp. nov. is described from a cave in north of Vientiane Province of Laos and differs from other congeners by a combination of the following characters: (1) maximum SVL of 98 mm; (2) dorsal pattern formed by oblong dark irregular butterflyshaped blotches with light contrast margins; (3) nuchal band with light edging consists of two separate parts, which contact in occipital region; (4) 37–39 ventral scales; (5) 7–8 precloacal pores in males; (5) preclocal groove lacking; (6) 2–3 postcloacal spurs present in both sexes; (7) ten rows of enlarged dorsal tubercles. Our study increase the number of Cyrtodactylus species known for Laos to fifteen. COI DNA-barcoding is successfully applied to reveal cryptic diversity within the genus Cyrtodactylus.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Zoological Institute RASSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207