identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03AF87A5D94AFFEA6BC8FE1FFCA4F899.text	03AF87A5D94AFFEA6BC8FE1FFCA4F899.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hoplodactylus Fitzinger 1843	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Genus:  Hoplodactylus Fitzinger, 1843</p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus Fitzinger, 1843: 100 . Type species (by monotypy):  Platydactyle [sic.] duvaucelii Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1836: 312 ; </p>
            <p> extant, North Island and some adjacent islands, New Zealand.  Pentadactylus Gray, 1845: 160 . Type species (by monotypy):  Pentadactylus duvaucelii (Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1836) ; extant, North </p>
            <p> Island and some adjacent islands, New Zealand.  Platydactylus of some authors, in part, see below (not Goldfuss, 1820).  Naultinus of some authors, in part, see below (not Gray, 1842).  Rhacodactylus Guibé 1954 (not Bocage, 1873).  Woodworthia Jewell 2008 in part (not Garman, 1901). </p>
            <p> Diagnosis.—  Hoplodactylus (  sensu stricto) species differ from most other diplodactylid taxa in the combination of relatively large body size (SVL: 95–160 mm) and head dimensions at maturity; subdigital pads&gt;2/3 rds of toe length; 14–21 subdigital lamellae on underside of digit IV of pes; distal-most 1/3 rd of subdigital lamellae distinctively chevron-shaped, with angle of curvature of subsequent lamellae increasing proximally; ventral skin speckled and opaque. </p>
            <p> Remarks.—  Rhacodactylus Fitzinger, 1843 (type species by monotypy:  Ascalabotes leachianus Cuvier, 1829 ) was introduced as an unspecified subdivision of  Hoplodactylus distinct from  Hoplodactylus (s. str.) Fitzinger, 1843. Genus-level taxonomy in New Zealand diplodactylids, especially application of  Hoplodactylus sensu latu , has been highly unstable (see Fitzinger 1843: 100; Gray 1843: 203; Boulenger 1885: 171; Chrapliwy et al. 1961:6). Revision by Nielsen et al. (2011) considered  Hoplodactylus to form the sister clade to  Woodworthia Garman, 1901 and comprise two species:  H. (s. str.) duvaucelii and  H. (sensu lato) delcourti Bauer &amp; Russell, 1986 . The relationship of  H. delcourti Bauer &amp; Russell, 1986 to  Hoplodactylus (s. str.) species is unclear; and is presently being revised (Heinicke et al. in review).  H. delcourti is by far the largest (SVL: 370 mm, n = 1) of all diplodactylid taxa and further differs from  Hoplodactylus (s. str.) species in having higher subdigital lamellae counts on both the right pes: 12 (I), 20 (II), 20 (III), 23 (IV), 15 (V); and manus: 13 (I), 21 (II), 20 (III), 25 (IV), 11 (V), 3–5 additional rows of preanal pores (totaling 8–12, arranged in a subtriangular patch) and dorsal patterning of longitudinal stripes (Bauer and Russell 1986).  H. delcourti is presumed to be extinct. It is known from a single poorly preserved specimen (MNHN 1985-38) lacking locality information. A New Zealand provenance was partially inferred (Bauer and Russell 1986) due to historical anecdotes of kawekaweau (very large lizards; Mair 1872). More recently, it has been posited that  H. delcourti is unlikely to originate from New Zealand, with a New Caledonian origin inferred (Worthy 2016). However, its distribution remains unclear, but likely derives from the southwest Pacific. We consider  H. delcourti is highly unlikely to be congeneric with  H. duvaucelii . However, we leave this taxon in  Hoplodactylus sensu latu in the interest of taxonomic stability pending further work. </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus (s. s.) species presently inhabit lowland coastal forest and scrubland including flax, mānuka, kawakawa and pōhutukawa (Hard 1954; Towns 1971; Whitaker 1968), taking refuge in tree hollows, beneath ground cover, and within deep crevices and burrows (such as of tuatara and petrels on rocky cliffs; McCann 1955; Whitaker 1968; van Winkel et al. 2018). Conversely, extinct mainland  Hoplodactylus populations likely inhabited mixed podocarp-broadleaf forests prior to widespread anthropogenic landscape modification (Worthy 1987; McWethy et al. 2014).  Hoplodactylus species are extremely long-lived, with wild and captive-reared individuals recorded over 50 years old (Cree &amp; Hare 2016).  Hoplodactylus is the only New Zealand diplodactylid genus in which saurophagy, including cannibalism, has been documented (Barwick 1982). </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AF87A5D94AFFEA6BC8FE1FFCA4F899	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Scarsbrook, Lachie;Walton, Kerry;Rawlence, Nicolas J.;Hitchmough, Rodney A.	Scarsbrook, Lachie, Walton, Kerry, Rawlence, Nicolas J., Hitchmough, Rodney A. (2023): Revision of the New Zealand gecko genus Hoplodactylus, with the description of a new species. Zootaxa 5228 (3): 267-291, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5228.3.3
03AF87A5D94BFFE96BC8FF3FFA85FF37.text	03AF87A5D94BFFE96BC8FF3FFA85FF37.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hoplodactylus duvaucelii (Dumeril & Bibron 1836)	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Hoplodactylus duvaucelii (Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1836)</p>
            <p>Figures 2B, 3F–H, 4D–F; Supplementary Figures 4, 5D–F</p>
            <p> Platydactyle [sic] duvaucelii Duméril &amp; Bibron 1836: 312 ; Duméril &amp; Duméril 1851: 35; Duméril et al. 1854: 248. </p>
            <p> Platydactylus duvaucelii Lichtenstein &amp; von Martens 1856: 4 ; Bavay 1869: 6; Boulenger 1883: 126; Chrapliwy et al. 1961: 7. </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus duvaucelii .– Fitzinger 1843: 100; Boulenger 1885: 172; Boulenger 1890: 100; Smith 1933a: 13; Smith 1933b: 377; Stephenson 1948: 339, pl. 63; Hard 1954: 144; Stephenson &amp; Stephenson 1955: 341, figs. 1b, c, 2b, c, 3b, 6a, d, e; McCann 1956a: 46 (in part); Stephenson 1960: 280; Holder 1960: 302 (in part); Myers 1961: 171; Kluge 1967a: 25 (in part); Kluge 1967b: 1013 (in part); Gundy &amp; Wurst 1976: 115; Bauer 1986: 9, figs. 1, 20, 33, 67–69 (in part); Bauer &amp; Russell 1986: 141; Bauer 1987: 593; Worthy 1987a: 219; Worthy 1987b: 416 (in part); Bauer 1990: 108 (in part); Ainsworth et al. 1991: 347; McFadden &amp; Towns 1991: 5; Towns 1991: 125; Worthy 1991: 330; Case et al. 1992: 95; Parrish &amp; Pierce 1993: 57; Bauer &amp; Henle 1994: 139 (in part); Cree 1994: 352 (in part); Daugherty et al. 1994: 318 (in part); Towns 1994: 459; Towns &amp; Daugherty 1994: 327 (in part); Christmas 1995: 4; Towns 1995: 290; Towns et al. 1995: 10; Eifler 1996: 2; Hitchmough 1997: 1 (in part); Towns et al. 1997: 110; Bauer 1998: 43 (in part); Conning &amp; Miller 1999: 32; Atkinson &amp; Towns 2001: 104; Towns et al. 2001: 4 (in part); Towns 2002: 331; Hay et al. 2003: 16 (in part); Parrish &amp; Gill 2003: 209; Todd 2003: 17 (in part); Holmes 2004: 4 (in part); Towns &amp; Atkinson 2004: 11; Hoare 2006: 4, fig. 1; Hoare &amp; Hare 2006: 161; Neilson et al. 2006: 354; Werner &amp; Seifan 2006: 1488; Barry et al. 2007: 260; Gardner-Gee et al. 2007: 32; Hoare et al. 2007: 511, fig. 1; Ji et al. 2007: 264; van Winkel et al. 2007: 271; Moore et al. 2008: 457; Todd 2008: 105; van Winkel 2008: 15, pls. 1.1, 2.1–2.2, 3.1–3.2, 4.1–4.3, 5.1, 7.1; Agnew 2009: 19, figs. 24–25; Bell 2009: 417, fig. 2; Lee et al. 2009: 834; Towns et al. 2009: 14; Barry 2010: 2; Barry et al. 2010: 235; Bellingham et al. 2010: 135; Gardner-Gee &amp; Beggs 2010: 296, fig. 3; Middleton et al. 2010: 249; Russell et al. 2010: 170, fig. 9; van Winkel et al. 2010: 113, fig. 1; Barry et al. 2011: 199, fig. 1; Hare 2011: 274; Murphy &amp; Thompson 2011: 578; Nielsen et al. 2011: 17; fig. 7 (in part); Shea et al. 2011: 5; Wong et al. 2011: 331; Dhami et al. 2012: 538; Moir et al. 2012: 203; Remeš et al. 2012: 55; Thomlinson 2012: 8; van Winkel &amp; Ji 2012: 203; Armstrong &amp; Ewen 2013: 290; Baling et al. 2013a: 250; Baling et al. 2013b: 275; Berner et al. 2013: 466; Galbraith &amp; Cooper 2013: 259; Hitchmough et al. 2013: 10 (in part); Jones et al. 2013: 41; Parker 2013: 286; Barry et al. 2014: 396; Bell 2014: 8 (in part); Daza et al. 2014: 443, figs. 11g –i; Jarvie &amp; Monks 2014: 211; Miller et al. 2014: 1048; Monks et al. 2014: 169; Nichols 2014: 10; Romijn et al. 2014: 111 (in part); van Winkel &amp; Weihong 2014: 13, fig. 2; Dumont 2015: 8; Evans et al. 2015: 263; Gibson et al. 2015: 891; Heath &amp; Whitaker 2015: 751 (in part); Holdom 2015: 8, figs. 1.1, 2.6, 2.7, 3.1, 5.4; Le Souëf et al. 2015: 340, figs. 1–3; Mockett 2015: 73 (in part); Brown et al. 2016: 38; Chapple 2016a: 371; Chapple 2016b: 4 (in part); Chapple &amp; Hitchmough 2016: 116 (in part); Cree &amp; Hare 2016: 174 (in part); Gartrell 2016: 213; Gardner et al. 2016: 929; Glenday 2016: 3, pls.1.0, 2.0, 2.1a–2.1c, 2.2a, 2.2b, 3.0–3.3, 3.4a–3.4c, 4.1, 5.1–5.6, 6.0; Gollin 2016: 54; Hare and Cree 2016: 246 (in part); Hare et al. 2016: 140, fig. 6.3 (in part); Hitchmough et al. 2016a: 9 (in part); Hitchmough et al. 2016b: 89 (in part); Lettink &amp; Hare 2016: 17; Morgan-Richards et al. 2016: 77, fig. 2 (in part); Nelson et al. 2016: 333; Paluh 2016: 30, fig. 11i; Plein et al. 2016: 1187; Romijn &amp; Hartley 2016: 196 (in part); Scott 2016: 16; Shea 2016: 18; Towns et al. 2016a: 242; Towns et al. 2016c: 123; Worthy 2016: 71 (in part); Harker et al. 2017: 306, fig. 1; Lozito &amp; Tuan 2017: 148, fig. 2 (in part); Mockett 2017: 42; Vasconcelos et al. 2017: 8; Busbridge &amp; Stewart 2018: 192; Paluh &amp; Bauer 2018: 698; Sullivan 2018: 74; van Winkel et al. 2018: 114, pls. 35, 40, 46, 127 (in part); Skipwith et al. 2019: 10 (in part); While et al. 2019: 332; Woolley et al. 2019: 2; Andruzzi et al. 2020: 2; Glynne et al. 2020: 804 (in part); Woolley 2020: 15; Gollin et al. 2021: 7; Elangovan et al. 2021: 1; Scarsbrook 2021: 19, figs. 1.5, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 (in part); Scarsbrook et al. 2021: 2 (in part); Scarsbrook et al. 2022: 3, fig. 1 (in part). </p>
            <p> Naultinus pacificus .– Gray 1843: 203 (in part); Blyth 1859: 279; Buller 1870: 7 (not Gray, 1842). </p>
            <p> Pentadactylus duvaucelii .– Gray 1845: 160; Günther 1864: 118. </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus granulatus .– Lucas &amp; Frost 1897: 273 (in part, not Gray, 1845). </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus duvancellii [sic].– Schaefer 1902: 35. </p>
            <p> Haplodactylus duvaucelii .– Womersley 1941: 328. </p>
            <p> Rhacodactylus trachyrhynchus .– Guibé 1954: 16 (not Bocage, 1873). </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus duvaucellii [sic].– Hard 1954: 144; Towns 1971: 91. </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus duvauceli [sic].– McCann 1955: 39, fig. 3, pl. 4 (in part); McCann 1956a: 46 [in part]; McCann 1956b: 15 (in part); Kinsky &amp; Sibson 1959: 137; Atkinson 1964: 399; Atkinson 1965: 3; Sharell 1966: 49, pls. 28–31 (in part); Thoresen 1967: 197; Atkinson 1968: 287; Merton &amp; Atkinson 1968: 107; Whitaker 1968: 623; Hardy 1972: 165; Richards 1973: 228; Towns &amp; Hayward 1973: 94; Whitaker 1973: 122; Towns 1974: 35; Hicks et al. 1975: 211; Bell 1976: 318; McCallum 1981a: 153; McCallum 1981b: 55; Ogle 1981: 192; Porter 1981: 10; McCallum &amp; Harker 1982: 22; Harper 1983: 307; Bau- er 1985: 90 (in part); Newman &amp; Towns 1985: 279; Whitaker 1987: 315; Holdaway 1989: 12. (unjustified emendation). </p>
            <p> Naultinus duvaucelii .– Chrapliwy et al. 1961: 6 (in part). </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus diwancelii [sic].– Jullien &amp; Renous-Lécuru 1973: 14. </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus taranganus Steindachner in Bauer 1987: 594 (nomen nudum). </p>
            <p> Woodworthia duvaucelii .– Jewell 2008: 50 (in part). </p>
            <p> Type material.—   Lectotype MNHN-RA 5977 and paralectotypes (MNHN-RA 6680, MNHN-RA 6681, RMNH 2722), “Bengal” (in error, = New Zealand). Type locality (by subsequent unintended designation of Bauer, 1990, see below):  Taranga Island , Hen and Chicken Islands. </p>
            <p> Material examined.—   The lectotype from images only; not the paralectotypes. “Cape Maria van Dieman” (OMVT925, OMVT939, OMVT940). Poor Knights Islands: Tawhiti Rahi Island (RE.003534, RE.003535);  Aorangi Island (RE.001751, RE.006490, CD1032).  Bream Island (RE.002674). Hen and  Chicken Islands :  Muriwhenua Island (RE.003491);  Coppermine Island (FT630);  Taranga Island (RE.006492, FT576, FT580).  Great Barrier Island (RE.003011, LH3223).  Mercury Islands :  Stanley Island (RE.003256);  Double Island (RE.003160);  Middle Island (FT175, FT176);  Green Island (FT177, FT178);  Korapuki Island (RE.003157, FT179).  Alderman Islands :  Hernia Island (RE.006671, FT560);  Raumahuanui Island (FT566);  Hongiora Island (FT567);  Middle Chain Island (FT562); Raumahuaiti (FT564). Waikato (mainland): Maungatautari (RE.007381); precise locality unknown, historic (LH166).  Waitomo (mainland):  Holocene fossil (AU7700.2; WO333).  Wairarapa (mainland):  Mataikona River ,  Holocene fossil (S.46528.2);  Ruakokopotuna ,  Holocene fossil (S.47439)  . </p>
            <p>Distribution.— New Zealand: formerly throughout the North Island (Holocene); presently restricted to islands off the north-eastern North Island and some mainland predator-free sanctuaries (Fig. 1).</p>
            <p> Remarks.— The type series for  H. duvaucelii were labelled simply “Bengal, Duvaucel”, with the Indian provenance clearly an error (Smith 1933a, b; Stephenson 1948; Bauer 1987, 1990). Smith (1933b) subsequently designated New Zealand as the type locality (ICZN Art. 76A), then Bauer (1990) unintentionally designated the Hen and Chicken Islands as the revised type locality, misciting Smith (1933b). The lectotype is clearly from the North Island or a nearshore island off same (pers. obs.; Bauer 1987; Supp. Fig. 4), and the Hen and Chicken Islands are a plausible source population for the type series. This is both the location mentioned in Smith (1933b) and, fortuitously, the inferred type locality (i.e., Taranga [Hen] Island) of a nomen nudum based on a series of specimens at NHW (“  Hoplodactylus taranganus Steind. ”; see: Bauer 1987). </p>
            <p> The provenance of the “Cape Maria van Dieman” (CMVD) specimens is unclear. That name has variously, informally been applied to Motuopao Island (off CMVD), or even much of the Aupouri Peninsula/Te Hiku o te Ika (on which CMVD is located) in some contexts (especially on historical specimen labels), rather than strictly the tiny headland of CMVD itself. Additionally, many museum specimens dating from around the turn of the 20 th century originated from lighthouse keepers, who traded with visiting vessels and naturalists as well as their local communities, in addition to collecting samples themselves (KW pers. obs.). It is possible this provenance refers to the samples coming to OM from the keepers of the Motuopao Island or CMVD lighthouses, and not necessarily the actual origin of the samples themselves (Kane Fleury pers. comm. 2021). However, these specimens are genetically distinct from all other sampled North Island populations (Scarsbrook et al. 2022), and therefore, a Far North origin seems probable (if not from CMVD itself). It should also be noted that the northernmost extant island populations of  H. duvaucelii (Stephenson’s Island and Cavalli Islands) have not been sampled genetically. </p>
            <p> Although the origin of the enigmatic Maungatautari specimen (RE.007381; Morgan-Richards et al. 2016) remains unknown, we consider it more likely to be an escapee from a captive population rather than from a relictual, otherwise unknown natural mainland population. Genetically the sample is unique but close to those from islands in the Bay of Plenty (Scarsbrook et al. 2022). No other verified mainland sightings of living  H. duvaucelii have been reported in at least the last 60 years. </p>
            <p> Considerable genetic (Scarsbrook et al. 2022) and morphological (Scarsbrook et al. 2021) variation occurs among the numerous extant populations of  H. duvaucelii . Those from Great Barrier Island (now extremely rare, possibly extinct) and the Poor Knights Islands are especially divergent and undoubtably warrant recognition as distinct management units to maximize preservation of remaining diversity within this species. Intensive and urgent monitoring surveys should therefore be carried out on Great Barrier Island to establish whether a low-density population of  H. duvaucelii persists (last reported capture in 2011; Morgan-Richards et al. 2016). Specimens from the Poor Knights Islands, where this species occurs in high densities (McCallum 1981a), are morphologically highly variable relative to other extant populations, and notably include a high proportion of relatively large, pale and lightly patterned specimens. Historical and often undocumented translocations of this species, or museum labelling errors, may have slightly confounded reported phylogenetic signals (Scarsbrook et al. 2022) as well as interpretations of morphological characters. Future translocation events and management of captive populations should be informed by these results. </p>
            <p>  Suggested IUCN Red List status of  H. duvaucelii is ‘ Critically Endangered A 1 (a, b, c, e)’: population reduction of&gt;90% observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND have ceased. This is based on range contractions (following the arrival of humans in New Zealand), from widespread and abundant on the mainland (i.e., Northland to  Wairarapa ; Fig. 1), to presently restricted to small islands and predator-free mainland sanctuaries (with the completion of mainland extirpation probably having occurred during the 20 th century, within the last three generations for this very long-lived species)  . </p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AF87A5D94BFFE96BC8FF3FFA85FF37	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Scarsbrook, Lachie;Walton, Kerry;Rawlence, Nicolas J.;Hitchmough, Rodney A.	Scarsbrook, Lachie, Walton, Kerry, Rawlence, Nicolas J., Hitchmough, Rodney A. (2023): Revision of the New Zealand gecko genus Hoplodactylus, with the description of a new species. Zootaxa 5228 (3): 267-291, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5228.3.3
03AF87A5D949FFE26BC8FE8EFED9FB0B.text	03AF87A5D949FFE26BC8FE8EFED9FB0B.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Hoplodactylus tohu Scarsbrook & Walton & Rawlence & Hitchmough 2023	<html xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
    <body>
        <div>
            <p> Hoplodactylus tohu n. sp.</p>
            <p>Figures 2A, 3A–D, 4A–C; Supplementary Figures 5A–C.</p>
            <p> ZooBank registration of  Hoplodactylus tohu n. sp. : urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub: BC2A430C-D97C-4F45-9AFB-228379864926. </p>
            <p> Naultinus pacificus .– Gray 1843: 203 (in part, not Gray, 1842). </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus duvaucelii [sic] McCann 1955: 39, fig. 3, pl. 4; McCann 1956a: 46; McCann 1956b: 15; Bustard 1963: 218; Sharell 1966: 49, pls. 28–31; Thoresen 1967: 197; Whitaker 1973: 122; Domrow et al. 1980: 295; Barwick 1982: 377; Bauer 1985: 90; Halliday &amp; Verrell 1988: 260; Wilson &amp; Freeman 1993: 1 – all in part (not Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1836). </p>
            <p> Hoplodactylus duvaucelii .– Holder 1960: 302; Kluge 1967a: 25; Kluge 1967b: 1013; Werner et al. 1978: 378;7 Kennedy 1979: 1; Bauer 1986: 9; Worthy 1987b: 416; Bauer 1990: 108; Thompson et al. 1992: 123; Daugherty et al. 1993: 439; Bauer &amp; Henle 1994: 139; Cree 1994: 352 Daugherty et al. 1994: 318; Towns &amp; Daugherty 1994: 327; Worthy &amp; Holdaway 1994: 326; East et al. 1995: 256; Worthy &amp; Holdaway 1995: 350; Worthy &amp; Holdaway 1996: 314; Hitchmough 1997: 1; Worthy 1997: 93; Bauer 1998: 43; Girling et al. 1998: 139, fig. 4; Worthy 1998: 448; Bannock et al. 1999: 102; Lukis 1999: 12; Flannagan 2000: 4; Jones 2000: 1, fig. 2.9; Towns &amp; Ferreira 2001: 219; Towns et al. 2001: 4; Seligmann 2002: 277; Whitaker et al. 2002: 1; Hay et al. 2003: 16; Todd 2003: 17; Seligmann et al. 2003: 130; Holmes 2004: 4; Naish 2004: 18; Hare &amp; Cree 2005: 137; Armstrong &amp; Davidson 2006: 74; Hare et al. 2007: 89; Nielsen 2008: 5; Kelly &amp; Sullivan 2010: 208; Miskelly 2010: 3; Wilson 2010: 6; Frank &amp; Wilson 2011: 16; Nielsen et al. 2011: 17; Bell &amp; Herbert 2012: 8; Str̂ckens et al. 2012: 542; Garcia-Porta &amp; Ord 2013: 2667; Hitchmough et al. 2013: 10; Bell 2014: 8; Romijn et al. 2014: 111; Heath &amp; Whitaker 2015: 751; Mockett 2015: 73; Chapple 2016b: 4; Chapple &amp; Hitchmough 2016: 116; Cree &amp; Hare 2016: 174; Hare et al. 2016: 140; Hare &amp; Cree 2016: 246; Hitchmough et al. 2016a: 9; Hitchmough et al. 2016b: 89; Morgan-Richards et al. 2016: 77, fig. 2; Romijn and Hartley 2016: 196; Towns et al. 2016b: 308; Worthy 2016: 71; Bell and Herbert 2017: 38; Bowers 2017: 64; Knox et al. 2017: 490; Lozito &amp; Tuan 2017: 148, fig. 2 Sion 2017: 131; Stancher et al. 2018: 36; van Winkel et al. 2018: 114, pls. 31, 40, 46, 128; Skipwith et al. 2019: 10; Florence-Bennett 2020: 13; Glynne et al. 2020: 804; Herbert 2020: 12; Price et al. 2020: 231; Scarsbrook 2021: 19, figs. 1.5, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1; Scarsbrook et al. 2021: 2; Scarsbrook et al. 2022: 3, fig. 1 – all in part (not Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1836). </p>
            <p> Naultinus duvaucelii .– Chrapliwy et al. 1961: 6 (in part, not Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1836). </p>
            <p> Woodworthia duvaucelii .– Jewell 2008: 50 (in part, not Duméril &amp; Bibron, 1836). </p>
            <p>
                 Type material.—   Holotype: New Zealand, Marlborough Sounds,  Middle Trios Island , male, Y. M. McCann, February 1950, RE.000503  .   Paratypes: New Zealand, Marlborough Sounds,  
                <a title="Search Plazi for locations around (long 174.0/lat -40.842167)" href="https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/search?materialsCitation.longitude=174.0&amp;materialsCitation.latitude=-40.842167">Middle Trios Island</a>
                 , 40°50.53′ S, 174°0.00′ E, both male, C. H. Daugherty, 22 November 1988, RE.006685, RE.006686 (tissue clips: FT2047, FT2048 respectively)  . 
            </p>
            <p> Material examined.—   The type material.  Stephens Island (OMVT949)  .   Trios Islands: Middle Trios Island (RE.000505,FT2046);  South Trios Island (RE.006687).  Sentinel Rock (RE.000948).  Chetwode Island (RE.000949).  Brothers Islands :  North Brother Island (RE.002561, RE.005496, RE.006509, RE.006510, RE.007265, FT277, FT278).  Northwest South Island (mainland):  Gouland Downs ,  Holocene fossil (S.38813.2). Canterbury (mainland):  Waikari ,  Holocene fossil (S.33501, S.33703.1, S.33703.7, S.33703.10, S.33703.11);  Waitaki ,  Holocene fossil (OMVT719 a, OMVT807 a, OMVT807 b, OMVT3331, OMVT3332, OMVT3333)  . </p>
            <p> Diagnosis.—  Hoplodactylus tohu may be distinguished from its only congener,  H. duvaucelii , by several characters:  H. tohu (generally) does not attain as great a size at maturity (Supp. Fig. 1), has a more pronounced brillar fold (Fig. 3A–B, E–F, 4C, F), and less often bears a median cleft in the mental scale (Supp. Table 3). An abrupt size decrease at the 5 th infralabial scale characterizing  H. tohu is far less common in  H. duvaucelii , with most individuals of the latter examined exhibiting a gradual size decrease in infralabial scales (Fig. 3B, F).  H. tohu further differs from  H. duvaucelii in generally having fewer subdigital lamellae on all digits of both the right manus and pes (Fig. 3C–D, G–H, Supp. Fig. 3). The first digit of the right manus in  H. duvaucelii differs in having a consistently less emergent claw and, usually, a comparatively bulbous distal end (Fig. 3C, G). Previously reported differences (Morgan-Richards et al. 2016) in the coloration and extent of patterning between these taxa (Fig. 4) are generalizations and can be misleading given fluid overlap between the two species. Dorsal body coloration and patterning in  H. tohu often resembles those of young  H. duvaucelii in being relatively more strongly contrasting (Fig. 4A–B, D–E), with patterning generally becoming weaker at maturity. However, considerable variation in coloration and pattern (see Supp. Fig. 5) was observed throughout ontogeny in both species. </p>
            <p>Description.— Coloration on dorsal surface grey to grey-brown, sometimes with olive and dark brown blotches; patterning of well-developed, roughly symmetrical transverse bands from nape to tail base centered along spine, resembling chevrons or paired diamonds, less defined on tail and generally less defined on older individuals; often bearing irregular series of longitudinal rows of pale grey or white spots dorsolaterally, extending onto limbs; ventral surface buff, with occasional light brown speckling, speckles less frequent on head. Mouth lining and tongue pink. Body moderately large (SVL: 81.2–115.7 mm), robust, stout (TrK: 25.4–50.3 mm). Head large (HL: 26.1–33.8 mm; HW: 18.3–27 mm; HH: 12.2–16 mm), robust, subtriangular; inflated laterally between posterior edge of orbit and ear opening (EE: 7.7–11.8 mm), narrowing towards craniovertebral junction; neck clearly demarcated. Snout oviform (EN: 7.4–11.1 mm); slight indentation in medial nasal region, often blunt along anteriormost margin between nares (IN: 4–5.8 mm). Dorsum of occiput/nape covered in small granular scales that abruptly increase in size at level of anterior edge of orbit towards anterior margin of snout (2–3 times diameter of occipital granules); one row of enlarged, oval scales posterior to internasal(s) and dorsal to supralabials, broader than high; twice the diameter of adjacent loreal scales. Eyes approximately one fifth head length; varying in shade from pale olive-buff to dark greens or browns; pupils lenticular with weakly crenulated margin. Supraciliary scales elongate, conical, directed increasingly posterior posteriorly; brillar fold very pronounced; frontal narrowing anteriorly (IO: 7.8–11.8 mm), supraocular portion deeply furrowed. Ear opening moderate (EL: 2–4.1 mm), ovoid, twice as high as wide; oriented obliquely (widest posterodorsally to anteroventrally), skin fold covering dorsal limit. Rostral subpentagonal, much broader than high; contacted dorsally by 2 enlarged, oval supranasals and 1–3 smaller (homogenous), round internasals; medial rostral crease extending ventrally from upper margin ½ to ¾ length of rostral; usually terminating diffusely, but sometimes as an ovoid crease. Nares rounded, situated anterolaterally; bordered by rostral, supranasal, 3–5 small postnasals and first supralabial. Supralabials rectangular, rounded dorsally; slightly higher than broad; numbering 13–16 per side; gradually decreasing in size posteriorly; final 3–4 more narrowly convex; supralabials terminating beneath the posterior orbital margin (with 11 or 12 beneath orbit midline); posteriormost twice the size of loreal scales. Mental trapezoidal to subtriangular, with longest face along jaw margin, narrowing posteriorly; mental crease usually absent, extending ½ length of scale where present; mental shorter than laterally adjacent first infralabials; contacted posteriorly by 1 large or 2 smaller hexagonal postmentals, which separate infralabials. Infralabials numbering 9–14 per side; from the snout, infralabials 1–4 on each side are quadrate, more rounded ventrally, higher than broad; infralabial 5 usually marks commencement of a significant and discrete infralabial size decrease, sometimes on one side only, with subsequent infralabials becoming progressively smaller and increasingly circular in shape, terminating in-line with the posterior orbital margin. Anterior infralabials and postmental(s) bordered posteriorly by series of enlarged irregular chin shields; rows indistinct; anteriormost approximately ¾ diameter of postmental, with gradual transition to very small, rounded throat granules posteriorly. Dorsal scales small, mostly homogenous in size, bead-like, apically flattened, partially overlain; indistinct from scales of nape. Ventral scales roughly twice diameter of dorsal scales, circular, flattened, subimbricate, slightly enlarged in precloacal region, extending in rows onto thighs where they form a subtriangular patch; transition to granules at throat abrupt. Skin folds extending ventrolaterally along trunk; anteroposterior folds above fore- and hindlimb insertion. Limbs relatively short and robust, hindlimbs longer; scales on forelimb dorsum larger than dorsal body scales, subimbricate distally; ventral forelimb scales smaller than those dorsally; clear transition to enlarged scales of palm which resemble ventral body scales. Scales on preaxial surface of thigh enlarged, up to three times diameter of dorsal body scales at knee; circular, subimbricate; gradually decreasing in size both posteriorly and distally (along shin) to smaller granules; transition to scales of soles indistinct (resembling ventral body scales). 5–6 rows of precloacal pores in males, anteriormost 2 rows extending distally just over halfway along hind thigh; absent in females. Digits broad, with dilated pads on digits II–V that rapidly transition into slender distal extension, mostly of constant width but becoming narrowly tapered near distal end; digit I smallest on all feet, digit IV longest on manus, digit V longest on pes; angle at rest between digits IV and V greatest, greater on pes than manus; digits II–V of pes and I–IV of manus very weakly webbed; dorsal scales on digits large, especially on first digit; all digits bear recurved, mostly exposed claws. Basalmost 1–2 subdigital lamellae sometimes fragmented; unfragmented subdigital lamellae curved outwards, usually smoothly but sometimes more sharply curved medially; lamellar counts of right manus: 6–7 (I), 9–11 (II), 12–14 (III), 12–15 (IV), 9–11 (V), and pes: 6–9 (I), 10–13 (II), 14–16 (III), 14–18 (IV), 11–16 (V) digits. Tail (original) stout, shorter than SVL, gradually tapered to end, roughly circular in cross-section; often lost through autotomy and then regenerated. Regenerated tail demarcated by abrupt decrease in scale size and anteroposterior striations from point of detachment distally. Base of tail distinctly swollen (TW: 8.7–14.7), most notable in males at cloacal spurs, with enlarged hexagonal scales on underside roughly twice size of more anterior ventral scales. Caudal scales usually arranged in discrete, irregular rows, generally decreasing in size distally from the septum; autotomy septa visibly marked by one, sometimes two rows of large or smaller scales, separated by 9–11 scale rows; dorsal caudal scales approximately 1.5 times size of dorsal body scales, demarcating tail base; highly variable in both size and shape, circular to rounded rectangular; ventral caudal scales enlarged medially, twice as large as dorsal; rectangular to hexagonal, higher than broad, subimbricate. Cloacal spurs consisting of a set of greatly enlarged, conical scales, with most acute point orientated posterodorsally, situated adjacent to cloaca (laterally); often asymmetric in number: 2–5 (L) and 1–4 (R), first (largest) roughly twice size of ventral scales, decreasing in size posteriorly.</p>
            <p>Distribution.— New Zealand: formerly throughout the South Island (Holocene); presently restricted to some islands in the outer Marlborough Sounds and Cook Strait (Fig. 1).</p>
            <p> Remarks.—  Hoplodactylus tohu has been recognized as distinct from  H. duvaucelii for several years (MorganRichards et al. 2016; Hitchmough et al. 2021a). However, it has been unclear what rank to apply to this taxon. New Zealand diplodactylids frequently have highly conserved morphologies, and often greater intra- than inter-specific morphological variation (Hitchmough et al. 2016b). With both  Hoplodactylus species recognized here having undergone recent major range contractions resulting in significant declines in morphological and genetic diversity (Scarsbrook et al. 2021; Scarsbrook et al. 2022), it is difficult to weight subtle character differences as these may have arisen, or increased in prevalence, recently, through chance, in relictual populations, and therefore not reflect deeper evolutionary divergences. That these taxa have been reported to produce viable cross-bred offspring in captive populations (Morgan-Richards et al. 2016) fails to meet the criteria of the Biological Species Concept (Mayr 1942). Reproductive isolation in the wild cannot be tested given their allopatric distributions. However, several pairings of lizard species that are widely recognized to be distinct (Brennan et al. 2016; Leaché &amp; Cole 2006; Olave et al. 2011), including some other New Zealand diplodactylids (e.g.,  Naultinus sp. ; Hitchmough et al. 2016b), have been shown to similarly produce viable hybrid offspring. Intergeneric hybrids have even been reported (RH pers. obs). Genetic distance (i.e., ~2.2% and ~4.0% across the mitochondrial genome and ND2 respectively) and estimated timing of lineage divergence of ~4.51 mya (Scarsbrook et al. 2022) between the two  Hoplodactylus species recognized here are comparable with those of other recognized diplodactylid species pairings (e.g., 3.8% ND2 divergence between  Mokopirirakau kahutarae Whitaker, 1985 , and  Mokopirirakau granulatus Gray, 1845 ; Knox et al. 2021). Their discrete (allopatric) distributions reflect commonly observed biogeographic patterns in other taxa (Baker et al. 1995; Efford et al. 2002; Greaves et al. 2007; Liggins et al. 2008; Lloyd 2003), which further influences our treatment of species-level distinction. </p>
            <p> Reports of interbreeding between  H. tohu and  H. duvaucelii in captivity makes careful management of both species essential to maintain species/genetic integrity. Individuals sourced for reintroduction or translocation purposes need to be of the correct species, and sourced from moderately large and stable populations (e.g. North Brother Island; Wilson 2010) to minimise impact on the source population. Further, source populations should be proximate (where practicable) to the site of translocation to ensure preservation of regional adaptations; a consideration more applicable to  H. duvaucelii as extant populations are more numerous and occupy more ecologically varied habitats. It seems probable, for example, that  H. duvaucelii rather than  H. tohu , would have naturally occurred at Mana Island, off the southern North Island. However, the latter was translocated there from North Brother Island in 1998 through the release of 40 individuals (Miskelly 2010), with a self-sustaining population reported 15-years later (Bell &amp; Herbert 2017). </p>
            <p> H. tohu has been recognized as a distinct management unit by the Department of Conservation since 2021 (Hitchmough et al. 2021a), listed as “nationally increasing” with the ‘Conservation Dependant’ and ‘Range Restricted’ qualifiers.  H. tohu has a severely restricted distribution comprising a few islands (Fig. 1; Supp. Table 1) with highly anthropogenically modified habitats. The estimated total population size of the largest extant population, on the Brothers Islands, is between 583–677 (Wilson 2010). Based on this, the suggested IUCN Red List status of  H. tohu is ‘Critically Endangered A1 (a, b, c, e)’: population reduction of&gt;90% observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND have ceased. Occurrence of  H. tohu on several managed predator-free islands that already have conservation management strategies in place does at least render moderate security to this species from localized disturbances such as fire or predator incursions. However, additional protection through translocations to fenced and more distant mainland sanctuaries (e.g. Orokonui Ecosanctuary near Dunedin, and the Mokomoko Dryland Sanctuary in Central Otago) could be beneficial, given the increased vulnerability of small and sparsely forested islands to the effects of climate change (e.g. sea-level rise, coastal erosion, storm intensity; Macinnis-Ng et al. 2021). Such translocation may also facilitate the re-establishment of ‘lost’ ecological interactions and morphological diversity (e.g. Scarsbrook et al. 2021) specific to mainland and densely forested ecosystems. </p>
            <p> There is evidence of genetic sub-structuring (Scarsbrook et al. 2022) within the distribution of  H. tohu , although this has been greatly reduced with the extinction of mainland South Island populations. Careful management, and possible further research should consider if individual populations are experiencing inbreeding depression and might benefit from genetic rescue – establishment of ‘new’ populations through interbreeding of individuals from different populations to increase genetic ‘fitness’ (i.e., adaptability). Conversely, continued maintenance of discrete lineages may also be appropriate if those lineages reflect local habitat adaptations or if pooled populations would comprise too few individuals to maintain the resulting genetic diversity due to genetic drift. </p>
            <p>Etymology.— The specific epithet was proposed by Dr Sharon Barcello-Gemmel, Rangatira of Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust, in recognition of the tupuna [ancestor] Tohu Kākahi. Tohu Kākahi was one of the two Parihaka prophets with whakapapa [genealogical] connections to Te Ātiawa – the iwi [tribe] with mana whenua [authority] over Ngāwhatu Kai Ponu [The Brothers], where the largest extant population occurs. Name used as noun in apposition.</p>
        </div>
    </body>
</html>
	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AF87A5D949FFE26BC8FE8EFED9FB0B	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Scarsbrook, Lachie;Walton, Kerry;Rawlence, Nicolas J.;Hitchmough, Rodney A.	Scarsbrook, Lachie, Walton, Kerry, Rawlence, Nicolas J., Hitchmough, Rodney A. (2023): Revision of the New Zealand gecko genus Hoplodactylus, with the description of a new species. Zootaxa 5228 (3): 267-291, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5228.3.3
