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

Hemiphyllodactylus jeraiensis sp. nov. Figure 11 Holotype. MALAYSIA • Adult male; Kedah, Gunung Jerai; 5°47.728’N, 100°26.200’E; 960 m a. s. l.; 22 Jun. 2018; Shahrul Anuar Mohd Sah, Evan S. H. Quah, Zou Bei and Hong Zijia leg.; USMHC 2895. Diagnosis. Hemiphyllodactylus jeraiensis sp. nov. can be differentiated from all other species of Hemiphyllodactylus in having the unique combination of a maximum SVL of 36.5 mm; seven chin scales; enlarged postmentals; five circumnasal scales; three scales between supranasals (= postrostrals); nine supralabials; nine infralabials; 12 longitudinally arranged dorsal scales at midbody and seven ventral scales contained within one eye diameter; lamellar formula on hand 2333; lamellar formula on foot 2333; two subdigital lamellae on first finger and two on first toe; 39 continuous, pore-bearing femoroprecloacal scales in male; two cloacal spurs on each side; subcaudals not plate-like; a dark postorbital stripe extending to 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 0.32); 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; three intranasal (= postnasal); external nares bordered anteriorly by rostral, dorsally by supranasal, posteriorly by two postnasal, ventrally by first supralabial (= circumnasals 5 L, R); nine (L, R) square supralabials tapering to below posterior margin of orbit; 10 (L, R) rectangular infralabials tapering to below posterior margin of orbit; scales of rostrum, lores, top of head, and occiput small, granular, those of rostrum largest and slightly raised; dorsal superciliaries flat, rectangular, subimbricate; mental triangular, bordered laterally by first infralabials and posteriorly by two slightly enlarged postmentals; seven 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 0.51), dorsoventrally compressed; ventrolateral folds absent; dorsal scales small, granular, 12 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; 39 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 2333 (L, R); two 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 2333 (L, R); two 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 rounded 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. 11 A). Dorsal colouration of head, body, limbs and regenerated tail 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 lacking light-coloured anteriorly projecting arms; dorsal surface of limbs with beige and dark markings; ventral surfaces beige and suffused with brown stippling, especially around neck and midbody; and subcaudal region light orange. Distribution. Hemiphyllodactylus jeraiensis sp. nov. is known only from Gunung Jerai, Kedah, Peninsular Malaysia. Natural history. The habitat of H. jeraiensis sp. nov. is surrounded by lower montane forest. The holotype was found at night crawling on leaf approximately 2 m above the ground along a trail (Figs 11 B, 12). Other species of herpetofauna that were observed along the trail include Limnonectes blythii (Boulenger, 1920); L. plicatellus (Stoliczka, 1873); Hylarana nazgul (Quah et al., 2017); Odorrana hosii (Boulenger, 1891); Pelobatrachus nasutus (Schlegel, 1858); Cnemaspis harimau Chan et al., 2010; Cyrtodactylus macrotuberculatus; and Ahaetulla mycterizans (Linnaeus, 1758). Etymology. The new species name ‘ jeraiensis ’ is in reference to the type locality of this species on Gunung Jerai, Kedah, Peninsular Malaysia. Comparisons. Hemiphyllodactylus jeraiensis sp. nov. can be differentiated from H. puncak sp. nov. by having more intersupranasals (three vs. one or two); fewer infralabials (nine vs. 10); fewer dorsal scales (12 vs. 15 or 16); lamellar formular on hand (2333 vs. 4454 or 4554 or 4555); lamellar formula on foot (2333 vs. 4554 or 4565 or 4675 or 5655); fewer subdigital lamellae on first finger (two vs. four); fewer subdigital lamellae on first toe (two vs. four or five); fewer femoroprecloacal pores (39 vs. 44); more cloacal spurs (two vs. one); and higher mean value of size-corrected AG (1.27 vs. 1.23, p value = 0.03) (Fig. 6; Tables 6, S 6 – S 8). From H. cicak, H. jeraiensis sp. nov. can be differentiated by having a larger maximum SVL (36.5 mm vs. 31.4 mm); more intersupranasals (three vs. one or two); more supralabials (nine vs. eight); more infralabials (nine vs. eight); fewer dorsal scales (12 vs. 16–18); fewer ventral scales (seven vs. 10 or 11); lamellar formula on hand (2333 vs. 2332); fewer femoroprecloacal pores (39 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 (1.27 vs. 1.15, p value = 0); and higher mean value of size-corrected HW (0.77 vs. 0.66, p value = 0.02) (Fig. 6; Tables 6, S 6 – S 8). Hemiphyllodactylus jeraiensis sp. nov. can be differentiated from H. bintik by having fewer supralabials (nine vs. 11); fewer infralabials (nine vs. 12); fewer dorsal scales (12 vs. 17); lamellar formula on hand (2333 vs. 2443); lamellar formula on foot (2333 vs. 3444); fewer subdigital lamellae on first finger (two vs. four); fewer subdigital lamellae on first toe (two vs. five); more cloacal spurs (two vs. one); 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. jeraiensis sp. nov. can be differentiated by having a smaller maximum SVL (36.5 mm vs. 42.1 mm); fewer supralabials (nine vs. 10 or 11); fewer infralabials (nine vs. 10 or 11); fewer dorsal scales (12 vs. 14–19); lamellar formular on hand (2333 vs. 3333); lamellar formular on foot (2333 vs. 3343); fewer subdigital lamellae on first finger (two vs. three); fewer subdigital lamellae on first toe (two vs. four); fewer femoroprecloacal pores (39 vs. 42–45); unicolour vertebral area (having vs. lacking); and caecum pigmentation (unpigmented vs. pigmented). From H. larutensis, H. jeraiensis sp. nov. can be differentiated by having a smaller maximum SVL (36.5 mm vs. 52.2 mm); fewer dorsal scales (12 vs. 13–20); lamellar formula on hand (2333 vs. 2443 or 3333 or 3443 or 3444); lamellar formula on foot (2333 vs. 3343 or 3444 or 3554 or 4555); fewer subdigital lamellae on first finger (two vs. three or four); fewer subdigital lamellae on first finger (two vs. 3–5); more femoroprecloacal pores (39 vs. 27–36); and light-coloured anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral marking (lacking vs. having). Hemiphyllodactylus jeraiensis sp. nov. can be differentiated from H. tehtarik by having a smaller maximum SVL (36.5 mm vs. 40.4 mm); fewer chin scales (seven vs. eight); fewer supralabials (nine vs. 11); fewer infralabials (nine vs. 10); fewer dorsal scales (12 vs. 18); fewer ventral scales (seven vs. 12); lamellar formula on hand (2333 vs. 3333); lamellar formula on foot (2333 vs. 3454); fewer subdigital lamellae on first finger (two vs. five); fewer subdigital lamellae on first toe (two vs. five); fewer cloacal spurs (two vs. three); dorsolateral light-coloured spots on trunk (having vs. lacking); dark ventrolateral stripe on trunk (lacking vs. having); and light-coloured anteriorly projecting arms on postsacral marking (lacking vs. having). From H. titiwangsaensis, H. jeraiensis sp. nov. can be differentiated by having a smaller maximum SVL (vs. larger); unicolor