Hemiphyllodactylus puncak Hong, Anuar, Grismer & Quah, 2026, sp. nov.

Hemiphyllodactylus puncak sp. nov. Figures 8 and 9 Holotype. MALAYSIA • Adult male; Kedah, Langkawi Island, Gunung Raya; 6°22.164’N, 99°49.022’E; 870 m a. s. l.; 19 Aug. 2018; Shahrul Anuar Mohd Sah, Evan S. H. Quah, and L. Lee Grismer leg.; LSUHC 15050. Paratypes. MALAYSIA • Two adult females; same collection data as for holotype; 21 Aug. 2018; LSUHC 15081 and 15082. Diagnosis. Hemiphyllodactylus puncak sp. nov. can be differentiated from all other species of Hemiphyllodactylus in having the unique combination of a maximum SVL of 35.6 mm; 5–7 chin scales; enlarged postmentals; four or five circumnasal scales; one or two scales between supranasals (= postrostrals); nine or 10 supralabials; 10 infralabials; 15 or 16 longitudinally arranged dorsal scales at midbody and seven or eight ventral scales contained within one eye diameter; lamellar formula on hand 4454 or 4554 or 4555; lamellar formula on foot 4554 or 4565 or 4675 or 5655; four subdigital lamellae on first finger and four or five on first toe; 44 continuous, pore-bearing femoroprecloacal scales in male; one cloacal spur on each side; subcaudals not plate-like; a dark postorbital stripe extending to at least base of neck; presence of dorsolateral light-coloured spots on trunk; absence of dark dorsolateral or ventrolateral stripe on trunk; generally unicolour wide vertebral area; postsacral marking lacking light-coloured anteriorly projecting arms; and unpigmented caecum and gonadal ducts. These characters are scored across all species of the harterti group listed in Table 5. Description of holotype. Adult male; head sub-triangular in dorsal profile, depressed, distinct from neck; lores and interorbital regions flat; rostrum moderate in length (NE / HL 0.27); prefrontal region flat; canthus rostralis smoothly rounded, barely discernible; snout moderate, rounded in dorsal profile; eye large; ear opening round, small; eye to ear distance greater than diameter of eye; rostral wider than high, partially divided dorsally, bordered posteriorly by small supranasals; anterior rostral scales slightly damaged; one intranasal (= postnasal); external nares bordered anteriorly by rostral, dorsally by supranasal, posteriorly by one postnasal, ventrally by first supralabial (= circumnasals 4 L, R); nine (L, R) square supralabials tapering to below posterior margin of orbit; 10 (L, R) square infralabials tapering to below posterior margin of orbit; scales of rostrum, lores, top of head, and occiput small, granular, those of rostrum largest and flat; skin on left side of head damaged; dorsal superciliaries flat, rectangular, subimbricate; mental triangular, bordered laterally by first infralabials and posteriorly by two slightly enlarged postmentals; six chin scales; gular scales small, subimbricate, grading posteriorly into slightly larger, subimbricate, throat and pectoral scales which grade into slightly larger subimbricate ventrals. Body somewhat elongate (AG / SVL 0.50), dorsoventrally compressed; ventrolateral folds absent; dorsal scales small, granular, 15 scales at midbody contained within one eye diameter; ventral scales flat, subimbricate, much larger than dorsal scales, seven scales at midbody contained within one eye diameter; enlarged precloacal scales; 44 pore-bearing femoral and precloacal scales; forelimbs short, slender in stature, covered with flat, subimbricate scales dorsally and ventrally; palmar scales flat, subimbricate; all digits except digit I well-developed; digit I vestigial, clawless; distal subdigital lamellae of digits II – V undivided, angular and U-shaped; lamellae proximal to these transversely expanded; lamellar formula of digits II – V 4554 (L, R); four transversely expanded lamellae on digit I; claws on digits II – V well-developed, unsheathed; distal portions of digits strongly curved, terminal joint free, arising from central portion of lamellar pad; hindlimbs short, more robust than forelimbs, covered with flat, juxtaposed scales dorsally and by larger, flat subimbricate scales ventrally, plantar scales low, flat, subimbricate; all digits except digit I well-developed; digit I vestigial, clawless; distal subdigital lamellae of digits II – V undivided, angular and U-shaped; lamellae proximal to these transversely expanded; lamellar formula of digits II – V 4565 (L, R); four transversely expanded lamellae on digit I; 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 rectangular in cross-section; all caudal scales on regenerated tail flat, subimbricate, not forming distinct caudal segments. Morphometric data are presented in Table S 2. Colouration in life (Fig. 8). Dorsal colouration of head, body, and limbs greyish brown, and overlain with fine, dark stippling; presence of a dark pre- and postorbital stripe which is bordered dorsally by a beige stripe that continues as series of spots along dorsolateral margin of the body; irregularly shaped, dark marking present on the top of the head; wide vertebral area generally unicolor with some beige spots; dark postsacral marking bordered posteriorly by a larger beige marking, lacking light-coloured anteriorly projecting arms; ground colour of the dorsum of the regenerated tail is slightly lighter than head, body, and limbs, and overlain with fine, dark stippling; dorsal surface of limbs with beige and dark markings; ventral surfaces beige and suffused with brown stippling, especially around neck to midbody; and subcaudal region orange. Variation (Fig. 8). The paratypes are generally similar in colour pattern to the holotype. LSUHC 15081 has a more orangish ground colouration and dark bands on the original sections of the tail, while the regenerated tip is light brown. LSUHC 15082 has more a densely stippled regenerated tail. Distribution. Hemiphyllodactylus puncak sp. nov. is known only from Gunung Raya, Langkawi Island, Kedah, Peninsular Malaysia. Natural history. The habitat of H. puncak sp. nov. is surrounded by upper hill dipterocarp forest (Fig. 10). All specimens were found at night crawling on the same tree next to the old hotel on the top of Gunung Raya approximately 3 m above the ground. It had rained in the evening, and conditions were misty on the night the specimens were found. Other species of herpetofauna that were observed around the old hotel and nearby hill dipterocarp forest include Leptobrachium smithi Matsui et al., 1999; Microhyla butleri Boulenger, 1900; Acanthosaura cf. meridiona Trivalairat, Sumontha, Kunya & Chiangkul, 2022; Draco blanfordii Boulenger, 1885; Cyrtodactylus brevipalmatus Smith, 1923; C. macrotuberculatus Grismer & Ahmad, 2008; Hemiphyllodactylus typus; Gehyra mutilata (Wiegmann, 1834); Gekko monarchus (Schlegel, 1836); Hemidactylus frenatus Duméril & Bibron, 1836; Scincella melanosticta (Boulenger, 1887); and Trimeresurus sabahi Regenass & Kramer, 1981. Etymology. The new species name ‘ puncak ’ is the Malay word for peak and named in reference to this species being found on the peak of Gunung Raya on Langkawi Island. Comparisons. Hemiphyllodactylus puncak sp. nov. can be differentiated from H. cicak by having a larger maximum SVL (35.6 mm vs. 31.4 mm); more supralabials (nine or 10 vs. eight); more infralabials (10 vs. eight); fewer ventral scales (seven or eight vs. 10 or 11); lamellar formula on hand (4454 or 4554 or 4555 vs. 2332); lamellar formula on foot (4554 or 4565 or 4675 or 5655 vs. 2333); more subdigital lamellae on first finger (four vs. two); more subdigital lamellae on first toe (four or five vs. two); more femoroprecloacal pores (44 vs. 42); unicolour dorsal pattern (having vs. lacking); dark paravertebral markings on trunk (lacking vs. having); dark ventrolateral stripe on trunk (lacking vs. having); higher mean value of size-corrected AG (1.23 vs. 1.15, p value = 0); higher mean value of size-corrected HL (0.91 vs. 0.83, p value = 0); higher mean value of size-corrected SN (0.49 vs. 0.41, p value = 0.01); higher mean value of size-corrected HW (0.75 vs. 0.66, p value = 0.03); and higher mean value of size-corrected ED (0.32 vs. 0.20, p value = 0.01) (Fig. 6; Tables 6, S 6 – S 8). Hemiphyllodactylus puncak sp. nov. can be differentiated from H. bintik by having fewer intersupranasals (one or two vs. three); fewer supralabials (nine or 10 vs. 11); fewer infralabials (10 vs. 12); fewer dorsal scales (15 or 16 vs. 17); lamellar formula on hand (4454 or 4554 or 4555 vs. 2443); lamellar formula on foot (4554 or 4565 or 4675 or 5655 vs. 3444); unicolour dorsal pattern (having vs. lacking); dark paravertebral markings on trunk (lacking vs. having); dorsolateral light-coloured spots on trunk (having vs. lacking); and caecum pigmentation (unpigmented vs. pigmented). From H. harterti, H. puncak sp. nov. can be differentiated by having a smaller maximum SVL (35.6 mm vs. 42.1 mm); lamellar formular on hand (4454 or 4554 or 4555 vs. 3333); lamellar formular on foot (4554 or 4565 or 4675 or 5655 vs. 3343); more subdigital lamellae on first finger (four vs. three); unicolour vertebral area (having vs. lacking); and caecum pigmentation (unpigmented vs. pigmented). From H. larutensis, H. puncak sp. nov. can be differentiated by having a smaller maximum SVL (35.6 mm vs. 52.2 mm); fewer intersupranasals (one or two vs. three); lamellar formula on hand (4454 or 4554 or 4555 vs. 2443 or 3333 or 3443 or 3444); lamellar formula on foot (4554 or 4565 or 4675 or 5655 vs. 3343 or 3444 or 3554 or 4555); more femoroprecloacal pores (44 vs. 27–36); fewer cloacal spurs (one vs. two or three); and light-coloured anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral marking (lacking vs. having). Hemiphyllodactylus puncak sp. nov. can be differentiated from H. tehtarik by having a smaller maximum SVL (35.6 mm vs. 40.4 mm); fewer chin scales (5–7 vs. eight); fewer intersupranasals (one or two vs. three); fewer supralabials (nine or 10 vs. 11); fewer dorsal scales (15