TARENTOLA GIGAS BRANCOENSIS SCHLEICH, 1984

(FIGS 1, 2D 1, 3, 5D 1, 6D 1, 7D 1)

Tarentola gigas brancoensis Schleich, 1984: 104 (holotype: ZSM 01.362/78, Branco Islet; paratypes: 02.- 06.362/78, 01.-12.19/82, same data), 1987: 49, 1996: 124; Carranza et al., 2000: 641, 2002: 247; López- Jurado et al., 2005: 101; Frazen & Glaw, 2007: 220.

Tarentola borneensis: Gray, 1845: 165 (part.) (Borneo ex errore pro Branco, following Joger, 1984b); Joger, 1985: 307

Tarentola gigas: Angel, 1937: 1695 (part.); Mateo et al., 1997: 9, 11 (part.)

Tarentola delalandii gigas: Loveridge, 1947: 330 (part.); Greer, 1976: 702 (part.); Schleich, 1980: 147 (part.); Schleich, 1982b: 82 (part.); Schleich & Wuttke, 1983: 83

Tarentola ‘ delalandii ’ gigas: Schleich, 1982a: 246 (part.)

Tarentola borneensis gigas: Joger, 1984b: 100

Tarentola borneensis borneensis: Joger, 1993: 443

Specimens examined: Two voucher specimens (Appendix 1).

Additional material and references: Schleich (1980: 147) refers to ZSMH 362/1978 (unknown islet); Joger (1984b: 100) to BMNH 1946.8.25.79-80 (Branco islet); Schleich (1987: 49) to ZSM 01.362/78; 02.-06.362/78, 01.-12.19/82 (Branco Islet); Frazen & Glaw (2007: 220) to ZSM 362/1978/1 (female, Branco Islet, given as ZSM 01.362/ 78 in the original description), ZSM 362/1978/2-8 (five adults, two juveniles, same data, given as ZSM 02.-06.362/ 78 in the original description), ZSM 19/1982/1-7 (seven individuals, same data, given as ZSM 01.-12.19/ 82 in the original description). Diagnosis: Giant gecko with SVL above 100 mm [maximum SVL 113 mm, 98.0 mm on average (Schleich, 1987)].

It differs from T. g. gigas by its smaller body mass, by the ratio between the width and length of the fourth toe being generally higher than 1:5, by presenting a lower scale count around midbody (160–195 versus 180–213) and a shorter snout (Schleich, 1984; Joger, 1984b).

Distribution: Branco Islet, Cape Verde.

Genetic and phylogeographic remarks: See T. gigas, above.

Conservation status: Listed as Endangered and so in need of urgent protection under the criteria of the First Red List of Cape Verde (Schleich, 1996). The Cape Verde authorities later considered the status of this population as Endangered (Anonymous, 2002).