taxonID	type	description	language	source
19358A1A8B01FFA48980FAB8FD6EF133.taxon	distribution	Distribution. From India and Nepal to China, southwards to Indonesia (Indoaustralian Archipelago) (Figure 3 B); G. albofasciolatus is endemic to Borneo; G. verreauxi is endemic to the Andaman Islands; Gekko sp. " Tioman " is endemic to Tioman Island; Gekko sp. " Sulawesi " is endemic to Sulawesi; Gekko sp. " Togian " is endemic to Togian and Batudaka. Allochthonous populations of Gekko gecko exist in the Caribbean, in Belize, on Hawaii and in Florida (Kraus 2009).	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B01FFA48980FAB8FD6EF133.taxon	discussion	Remarks. In the original description of Gecko albo-fasciolatus (= Gekko albofasciolatus), Günther (1867) only provided a vague type locality Polynesia with a question mark. Smith (1935) subsequently stated “ type loc. unknown, probably Malay Archipelago. “ Later, Wermuth (1965) wrote „ Polynesia “ as the type locality with the addition (fide Smith 1935), that the species probably occurs in the Indo-Australian Archipelago. According to Günther (1872), G. s m i t h i i occurs in the north of Borneo (Labuan, now Sabah) and G. albofasciolatus in the South (Banjermassin, Martapoura). We herein restrict the type locality of G. albofasciolatus to Banjermassin (= Banjarmasin), Kalimantan, Indonesia. While commenting on G. albofasciolatus, Günther (1872: 589) stated that he received three specimens from Dr. Bleeker from Borneo under different names (Platydactylus pentonopus, Platydactylus borneensis, and Hemidactylus zosterophorus). From Günther’s (1872) footnotes it is obvious that he allocated all of Bleeker’s specimens to G. albofasciolatus. Of Bleeker’s species, only Platydactylus borneensis had been recorded from Borneo. The names P. borneënsis (= P. borneensis) and H. zosterophorus were introduced by Bleeker (1857) without formal species descriptions (see also Bleeker 1860). The type loaclity of Platydactylus borneensis (non Pentadactylus borneensis Günther, 1864 = Aeluroscalabotes felinus Günther, 1864; non Tarentola borneensis Gray, 1845 = Tarentola delalandii Duméril & Bibron, 1836) is “ Bandjermasin ” and the type locality of Hemidactylus zosterophorus is “ Padang (ook op Nias) ”. In his critical review of Bleeker’s type specimens, Boulenger (1887) did not consider the taxa Platydactylus borneensis and Hemidactylus zosterophorus. According to Bauer (1994), both names are species inquirenda and Kluge (2001) listed them as nomina nuda (see also Rösler 2000). Therefore, the names Platydactylus borneensis Bleeker, 1857 and Hemidactylus zosterophorus Bleeker, 1857, which are according to Günther’s (1872) statements younger, subjective synonyms of Gekko albofasciolatus Günther, 1867, are not available. The same concerns Günther’s (1872) name Platydactylus pentonopus. Boulenger (1885) synonymized G. albofasciolatus with G. s m i t h i i (see also Wermuth 1965; Kluge 1991, 1993; Bauer 1994; Rösler 2000). De Rooij (1915) obviously also followed Boulenger (1885), because she listed the distribution of G. albofasciolatus based on Günther (1872) under the species G. smithii. Recently, Kluge (2001) revalidated G. albofasciolatus at the specific rank, but Malkmus et al. (2002) and Das (2004) did not consider G. albofasciolatus as part of the Bornean herpetofauna. According to its original description (Günther 1867), G. albofasciolatus differs from G. s m i t h i i by a different coloration of the dorsum (reddish-olive, marbled with grayish in G. albofasciolatus) and the venter (lower parts uniform whitish in G. albofasciolatus). Both species correspond well with respect to size and characteristic scalation (e. g., nares not in contact with rostral; postmentals relatively short; number of supralabials and sublabials; dorsal tubercle rows; precloacal pores) as well as in head and back pattern. A distinguishing feature at present is the number of ventrals (26 in G. albofasciolatus versus 29 – 39 in G. smithii). However, further specimen-based studies are needed to confirm whether G. albofasciolatus in fact deserves specific recognition. Concerning G. s m i t h i i, Das (2004, 2007) depicted specimens from Borneo, which did not show a Y-shaped head pattern, as is characteristic for specimens from Thailand and Malaysia (see also figures in Chan-ard et al. 1999; Grossmann 2006). A specimen from eastern Kalimantan showed a brown vertebral stripe and very small white dorsal flecks (Grossmann 2006). Lim & Lim (1999) recorded G. s m i t h i i for the first time from Tioman Island, Malaysia (see Grossmann & Tillack 2004, 2005), which has been followed by Hien et al. (2001), and Grismer et al. (2002, 2004). However, the Pulau Tioman form differs from G. s m i t h i i sensu stricto according to Grossmann (2006) in eye coloration (turquous blue versus mossy green) and in ground coloration (gray brown versus green) and has been considered distinctive by Grismer (2006). In life, the form from Tioman more closely resembles G. v e r re a u x i, from which it differs in the lighter eye coloration (emerald green in G. verreauxi) and the position of the nostril. We therefore suspect the form from Tioman Island to represent a distinct species and thus refer to it as Gekko sp. ” Tioman ”. Additionally, Koch et al. (2009) published the first records of G. smihii from Sulawesi and Pulau Togian as well as from Pulau Batudaka. These authors argued against human introduction and rather believed that a natural dispersal from the Sunda shelf had occurred. Slight differences of the forms from Sulawesi and Togian compared with G. smithii s. str. were explained by Koch et al. (2009) as incipient divergence stemming from isolation, but they could not exclude the possibility that a cryptic species complex exists. Accordingly, we herein treat these both forms tentatively under the names Gekko sp. " Sulawesi " and Gekko sp. " Togian ". We herein consider the species of the Gekko gecko group a monophyletic unit. Species displaying green to blue or brick red iris (i. e., G. albofasciolatus, G. nutaphandi, G. siamensis, G. smithii, G. v e r re a u x i, Gekko sp. ” Tioman “, Gekko sp. ” Sulawesi “, Gekko sp. ” Togian “) and more-or-less green ground coloration seem to be closely allied. For remarks on Gekko gecko and congeners see below.	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B07FFB88980FB73FEC5F7A7.taxon	distribution	Distribution. China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam including offshore islands; possibly Laos (Figure 3 A).	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B07FFB88980FB73FEC5F7A7.taxon	discussion	Remarks. The Gekko japonicus group is very complex. Different morphological features of the species of this group (e. g., nares in contact with rostral or not, broad webbing between fingers and toes or not, dorsal tubercles absent or present, tubercles on limbs absent or present, see Table 2) demonstrate that this genetically well-defined clade is highly morphologically variable (see Figure 1). Numerous authors have listed Gekko chinensis as a representative of Vietnam’s herpetofauna (e. g., Bourret 1937 b, 1940 a, 1943; Zhao & Adler 1993; Welch 1994; Bobrov 1995 a; Rösler et al. 2005). According to Nguyen et al. (2005), G. chinensis is widely distributed in the north of the country, whereas G. palmatus is only recorded from the two northern provinces of Lang Son and Vinh Phuc (see also Nguyen & Ho 1996). However, according to Ziegler et al. (2006) and based on new locality records (see Appendix 1) the distribution of G. palmatus in Vietnam in fact extends from several northern provinces southward to central Vietnam in Quang Binh Province. Taking into account the records given for G. c h i n e n s i s by Nguyen & Ho (1996), the latter species must occur in sympatry with G. palmatus at least in the northern Vietnamese provinces of Bac Giang, Bac Kan, Cao Bang, Lang Son, Quang Ninh, and Vinh Phuc. However, all Gekko studied by us from these provinces proved to be G. palmatus and none had the diagnostic characters of G. c h i n e n s i s. This also makes the records of G. chinensis from Hai Duong and Ninh Binh provinces (see Nguyen & Ho 1996) questionable and they are probably based on misidentifications of G. palmatus. Bobrov & Semenov (2008) listed all previous identifications of G. chinensis from Vietnam as G. palmatus. Ota et al. (1995) believed G. c h i n e n s i s and G. palmatus to represent allopatric taxa (see also Matsui & Ota 1995). Concordant with the latter authors we herein suggest that the known occurrence of G. chinensis is limited to China (southern provinces of Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Guizhou, Hong Kong, Sichuan, and Yunnan) whereas that of G. palmatus is only in northern and central Vietnam (Bac Giang, Bac Kan, Cao Bang, Hai Duong, Hai Phong, Lang Son, Ninh Binh, Quang Binh, Quang Ninh, and Vinh Phuc provinces). Further collections or study of museum specimens are needed to clarify the identification of populations along the China-Vietnam border and whether G. chinensis and G. palmatus occur in sympatry. The distinguishing character of broad toe webbing in G. palmatus versus a narrower webbing in G. c h i n e n s i s, which can regularly be found in the older literature (e. g., Boulenger 1907; Smith 1935; Bourret 1937 b), may have conspicuously added to the above listed confusion and misidentifications, because it represents an ambiguous diagnostic character (Ota et al. 1995). Smith (1935: 114) even concluded that G. palmatus is “ possibly a racial form of G. c h i n e n s i s. ” However, G. palmatus and G. chinensis can be easily distinguished by the size of the internasals compared to the nasorostrals (internasals same size or larger than nasorostrals in G. chinensis versus always smaller in G. palmatus) and statistically significant differences in the number of midbody scales and the number of lamellae on the first, third and fifth fingers as well as the first toe (Ota et al. 1995). A key character that allows for proper identification of both aforementioned species is the presence of limb tubercles. These are present in G. c h i n e n s i s, but are completely lacking in G. palmatus (our data). Ota et al. (1995) indicated shank tubercles for G. chinensis and the specimen depicted in Zhao & Adler (1993: pl. 21, fig. G.) has tubercles both on the fore and hind limbs; but the specimen of G. palmatus depicted by Nguyen et al. (2009: fig. 314) completely lacks such tubercles. The taxonomic history of G. similignum is controversial. The type locality of this taxon is Hainan Island (Smith 1923). Stejneger (1932) synonymized G. similignum with G. chinensis (see also Zhao et al. 1999). However, Ota et al. (1995) and Kluge (2001) listed it as valid at the specific rank. Gekko chinensis and G. smilignum differ in maximum SVL, in the number of scales around midbody and in the number of lamellae on the first and fourth toes (see Table 1).	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1BFFB98980FCCDFD21F77C.taxon	distribution	Distribution. G. monarchus is known from the Philippines westwards to Myanmar and to Indonesia (Aru Islands, Kei Islands, New Guinea) in the south (Figure 3 A); G. kikuchii is endemic to Lanyu Island, Taiwan; remaining group members are endemic to the Philippines.	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1BFFB98980FCCDFD21F77C.taxon	discussion	Remarks. G. kikuchii was described by Oshima (1912) from Botel Tobago (Lanyu) near Taiwan. Many subsequently published taxonomic papers refer to Oshima (1912) but do not provide further insights in the form of a redescription of the species or new material (e. g., Horikawa 1927; Wang & Wang 1956; Lue et al. 1988); see also relevant comments in Ota (1989 b). In describing G. mindorensis, Taylor (1919) compared the new species with G. kikuchii and G. monarchus. According to Taylor (1919), G. mindorensis differs from the former species by its longer limbs, more preanofemoral pores and by lacking webbing between toes in both sexes; G. mindorensis differs from G. m o n a rc h u s by a relatively larger ear opening, a larger eye diameter, a smaller interorbital distance, more flattened dorsal tubercles, more ventrals and preanofemoral pores, and a distinctly different dorsal pattern (see also Taylor 1922 a). However, Wang (1962) pointed to the similarity of G. kikuchii with G. monarchus and G. mindorensis. Brown & Alcala (1978) redescribed G. mindorensis based on new specimens, but only provided thorough comparisons with G. monarchus, but not with G. kikuchii. Based on the new variation in size and scalation reported in the redescription provided by Brown & Alcala (1978), G. mindorensis was in fact no longer distinguishable from G. kikuchii based on the data on the latter species provided by Taylor (1919), as is also obvious from Table 1. Crombie (in Bauer 1994) thus had doubts on the distinct status of G. mindorensis and stated “ probably a junior synonym of Gekko kikuchii. ” Finally, Ferner et al. (2001) and Kluge (2001) listed G. mindorensis as a synonym of G. kikuchii. However, there might be differences in pattern between G. kikuchii and G. mindorensis. Figures of different specimens of G. kikuchii in Ota (1989 b, 1991), Lue et al. (1999), Shang (2001), and Henkel & Schmidt (2003) show a brown ground coloration with a nearly identical dorsal pattern, consisting of two parallel dark brown pairs of blotches. In contrast, the ground coloration of G. mindorensis seems to be gray, with transverse rows (see Gaulke 2003: fig. 8) or rows dissolved into four to six blotches each (see Rösler et al. 2006: fig. 13). In addition, the light dorsal blotches in G. mindorensis appear to be more distinct than in G. kikuchii. We must add that the detailed figures provided by Okada (1936: fig. 4) most probably belong to a Hemidactylus species (maybe H. stejnegeri), but certainly not G. kikuchii. The synonymy of G. mindorensis with G. kikuchii is also contradicted on zoogeographic grounds. The amphibian and lizard fauna of Lanyu Island shows, according to Okada (1936) and Ota et al. (1988), greater affinities to Taiwan than to the Philippines, and G. mindorensis does not occur on the northern Philippine Islands (e. g., Luzon, Batanes) that are closest to Taiwan (Brown & Alcala 1970, 1978; Alcala 1986; Gaulke & Altenbach 2006). Kuntz & Ming (1970) listed G. kikuchii for Penghu Lieh-tao (Pescador Island), but the species is endemic to Lanyu Island (“ Botel Tobago ”) (see Ota 1989 b). Further taxonomic research is required on more specimens, especially of G. kikuchii, to clarify whether G. mindorensis is a junior synonym of G. kikuchii, or whether two closely related cryptic species are involved.	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1AFFB98980FDBEFF41F061.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Laos, Tailand and Vietnam (Figure 3 A).	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1AFFB98980FDBEFF41F061.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Based on morphological characters, G. russelltraini and G. takouensis are probable sister species, and both are closely related to G. canaensis and G. lauhachindaei. Futhermore G. grossmanni and G. petricolus are likely sister species. G. grossmanni has a similar pattern compared with G. p e t r i c o l u s, but the latter species is the sole member of the Gekko petricolus group that has tubercles on the hind limbs. G. badenii differs from the aforementiond taxa from southern Vietnam and Thailand in having a banded dorsal pattern without flecks between bands.	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1AFFB98980FA8CFF79F2FA.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Philippines (Figure 3 B).	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1AFFB98980FA8CFF79F2FA.taxon	discussion	Remarks. G. p o ro s u s was, for a long time, only known from the juvenile holotype (CAS 60526) (see Taylor 1922 b), which was redescribed by Brown & Alcala (1978). The redescription by the latter authors led to slightly smaller measurements, and they did not mention the dark dorsal flecks that were visible in the freshly collected holotype. Brown et al. (2009) redescribed G. p o ro s u s using new material: three adult males with transverse rows of spots.	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B19FFBC8980FB5BFDB9F784.taxon	distribution	Distribution. G. vittatus is known from Indonesia (from Java to New Guinea), Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and northern Vanuatu (Torres and Banks Islands, Malakula Island); Gekko sp. ” Belau “ is currently recorded from the Republic of Palau; Gekko sp. ” Malaupaina “ is currently reported from Malaupaina Island (Olu Malau Islands), Solomons (Crombie & Pregill 1999; McCoy 2006).	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B19FFBC8980FB5BFDB9F784.taxon	discussion	Remarks. Gekko vittatus was described by Houttuyn (1782) with the locality data “ zekerlyk uit de India. ” Fitzinger (1826) referred the species to the genus Platydactylus Goldfuss, 1820 (see also Schlegel 1827; Wagler 1830; Duméril & Bibron 1836), which was subsequently split into three subgenera by Fitzinger (1843), of which vittatus belonged to his new subgenus Scelotretus. Lacerta unistriata, which was described by Shaw (1792), proved to be a synonym of G. vittatus (e. g., Daudin 1802; Gray 1845; Boulenger 1885; Wermuth 1965; Bauer 1994; Kluge 2001). Likewise Platydactylus bivittatus, which was described by Duméril & Bibron (1836) from New Guinea and Waigeo Island, Indonesia, was synonymized with G. vittatus (Loveridge 1948). Fitzinger’s (1843) Platydactylus (Scelotretus) bivittatus and Boulenger’s (1885) Gecko vittatus var. bivittatus referred to the same taxon. Gecko trachylaemus, described by Peters (1873), was also synonymized with G. vittatus (Peters & Doria 1878). The number of preanofemoral pores recorded in G. vittatus varies considerably according to different authors (Boulenger 1885: 50 – 59, De Rooij 1915: 14 – 58, Loveridge 1948: 21 – 57). Such variation of preanofemoral pores has not been described for any other Gekko species and likely points to the existence of cryptic species. However, in the series of G. vittatus from New Guinea and Ambon Island which was studied by us, we could not find any significant differences (see Table 1). With respect to pattern, we observed only slight variation in the number of light tail bands (4 – 6) and in the shape of the vertebral stripe on the tail and its bifurcation in the shoulder region (bifurcated branches may reach only as far as the back of head or may reach the eyes).	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1EFFB58980FCCDFC2FF49C.taxon	diagnosis	Diagnosis. A large species of Gekko, with SVL> 150 mm; head distinct from body; body somewhat flattened; tail round in section, not thickened at base; supralabials 10 – 14; sublabials 9 – 13; nares in contact with rostral; nasals 3 – 6; internasal 0 – 1; interorbitals 17 – 29; dorsal tubercle rows 12 – 18; scales between mental and cloacal slit 133 – 141; midbody scales 82 – 103; subdigital lamellae below first toe 13 – 19; subdigital lamellae below fourth toe 18 – 24; no extensive webbing between fingers and toes; forearm and hind limbs with tubercles; precloacal pores 13 – 20; postcloacal tubercles 1 – 4; tail tubercles present; subcaudals not enlarged; grayish brown to grayish green ground coloration, with reddish brown dorsal blotches; dorsal pattern tends to consist of transverse bands and short stripes.	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1EFFB58980FCCDFC2FF49C.taxon	materials_examined	Holotype: BMNH 1946.8.2598 — male, ad., China, collector unknown (Figures 8, 9). SVL 130.0 mm; TL 110.0 mm; LT 28.5 mm; HL 36.4 mm; HW 26.2 mm; HH 14.0 mm; SE 11.5 mm; EE 12.4 mm. SVL / TL 1.18; SVL / LT 4.56; SVL / HL 3.57; HL / HW 1.39; HL / HH 2.60; SE / EE 0.93. Rostral concave above, wider than high (RW 4.80 mm, RH 2.70 mm, RW / RH 1.78), wider than mental (RW / MW 1.71); 13 / 13 supralabials; 22 / 18 snout scales adjacent to supralabials; nares not in contact with rostral (Figure 9 A); 5 / 4 nasals; nasorostrals ca. double the size of supranasals and five times larger than postnasals; internasal single, large (Figure 9 B); snout medially with flat, elongate depression; lateral snout scales round to oval, curved, next to each other; ca. 12 – 13 large scales between postnasals and orbital cavity; 61 scales between seventh supralabials; medial snout scales barely smaller than lateral snout scales; dorsal ciliary scales 1.5 times higher than medial snout scales; temporal scales larger than lateral snout scales; ear opening vertical, oval; 20 interorbitals, granular, in orbital region twice as large as medially; back of head and neck granular; granular scales slightly larger than medial interorbitals; neck tubercles round, concial; mental pentagonal, longer than wide (MW 2.8 mm, ML 3.0 mm, MW / ML 0.93), not distinctly larger than first sublabials (Figure 9 C); 11 / 11 sublabials; 17 / 15 gular scales adjacent to sublabials; 2 small postmentals, hexagonal, 1.5 times longer than wide, anteriorly in contact with mental and first sublabials; 5 gular scales adjacent to postmentals; outer gular scales ca. 1.5 times larger than inner ones; gular scales as large as medial snout scales, round, slightly curved, smooth, next to each other, arranged in more or less regular transverse rows; dorsals as large as medial snout scales, round flat, next to each other, arranged in more or less regular transversal rows; dorsal tubercles 2 – 3 times as large as adjacent dorsals (DTL 2.1 mm, DTW 1.5 mm, DTL / DTW 1.40, DTLx 100 / SVL 1.62, DTWx 100 / SVL 1.15), oval, asymmetrically conical (Figure 9 D), arranged in 14 more or less regular longitudinal rows, encircled by 9 dorsals; lateral tubercles smaller than dorsal ones (LTL 1.8 mm, LTW 1.2 mm, LTL / LTW 1.50, LTLx 100 / SVL 1.39, LTWx 100 / SVL 0.92); lateral folds slightly developed; ventrals flat, smooth, subimbricate, and larger than dorsals; 102 scales around midbody; limbs without tubercles; arm and forearm scales flat, smooth, subimbricate; shank with curved tubercles; dorsal and ventral thigh scales anteriorly flat, imbricate, posteriorly smaller, curved; enlarged femoral scales lacking; 9 / 10 tubercles on thigh; fingers and toes 1 – 4 basally with narrow webbing; 19 / 19 subdigital lamellae below first finger and 21 / 23 below fourth finger; 18 / 18 subdigital lamellae below first toe and 23 / 24 below fourth toe; 19 precloacal pores in a continuous, angular-shaped row (Figure 9 E); ca. five rows of enlarged scales behind precloacal pores; 1 / 1 blunt, conical postcloacal tubercles; tail not thickened at base, with whorls; dorsal tail scales larger than scales of body dorsum, more or less squarish, slightly curved, subimbricate, arranged in relatively regular transverse rows; six dorsal, medial scale rows in the third tail whorl; anterior tail tubercles asymmetrically conical, posterior ones curved; six tubercles in the third and fifth tail whorl, in a transverse row in posterior whorl region; four scale rows between tubercle rows 2 – 3 and 3 scale rows between tubercle rows 3 – 4; subcaudals larger than dorsal tail scales, flat, smooth, subimbricate, arranged in two parallel rows, 2 – 3 rows per whorl (Figure 9 F). Dorsum olive brown (4655 U); head with indistinct brown (478 U) stripes and blotches; back with dark brown bands (469 U); back tubercles light gray (Cool Gray 1 U) as well as encircling dorsals, resulting in a light flecked dorsal pattern; those light flecks displaced, in ca. 8 transverse rows; limbs marbled, with scattered light tubercles; six dark and six light tail bands, of which the dark ones are broader (Figure 8 A); venter gray (400 U); throat light gray, with indistinct pattern; medially stronger pigmented belly, with few brown (4635 U) blotches (Figure 8 B); anterior tail slightly banded, posterior parts with more distinct bands; tail tip dark. Further specimens: We list the characters of 42 additional specimens from China and Vietnam that proved to be morphologically assignable to G. reevesii (see Appendix 1): 70.0 – 173.0 mm SVL; 58.0 – 138.0 mm TL; 15.4 – 35.2 mm LT; 20.8 – 46.5 mm HL; 16.0 – 37.5 mm HW; 9.6 – 22.5 mm HH; 9.6 – 16.4 mm SE; 8.9 – 17.7 mm EE. Body proportions: SVL / TL 1.03 – 1.26; SVL / LT 4.25 – 5.34; SVL / HL 3.02 – 3.75; HL / HW 1.25 – 1.60; HL / HH 1.91 – 2.85; SE / EE 0.73 – 1.12. Scalation: RW 3.8 – 6.3 mm; RH 1.90 – 3.70 mm (RW / RH 1.41 – 2.20); MW 2.10 – 4.60 mm; ML 1.80 – 4.00 mm (MW / ML 0.85 – 1.50); RW / MW 1.20 – 2.14; 10 – 14 SPL; 9 – 13 SBL; 3 – 6 N; 0 – 1 IN; 17 – 29 IO; 2 PM; 3 – 6 GP; 12 – 18 DTR; 5 – 10 GSDT; 133 – 141 SMC; 86 – 102 SR; 28 – 32 V; 15 – 19 LF 1; 18 – 24 LF 4; 13 – 19 LT 1; 18 – 24 LT 4; 2 – 24 TT; 13 – 20 PP; 0 – 18 PS; 1 – 4 PAT; 6 T 1 W; 6 T 5 W; 3 – 5 scales between second and third and third and fourth caudal tubercle rows. reevesii; for abbreviations see Material and methods. continued next page Comparisons: Comparisons with subspecies of G. gecko: Characters of different geographic populations of G. gecko are in part overlapping. Mean values of supralabials, sublabials, dorsal tubercle rows, lamellae below fingers and toes change clinally from north to south (Rösler 2005 a). Gekko reevesii significantly differs (p <0.001) from G. g. gecko sensu stricto from Java, by having a smaller SVL, a proportionally smaller head height, fewer supralabials, interorbitals, femoral tubercles, and postcloacal tubercles, as well as by having greater number of tubercles rows, precloacal pores, lamellae below first finger, lamellae below first toe, and lamellae below fourth toe (see Tables 3 – 4). The ground coloration of G. reevesii is grayish brown to grayish green (Figure 10) versus ultramarine gray to bluish gray in G. g. gecko. The dorsal blotches of G. reevesii are reddish brown to dark brown versus cinnober red in the nominate form. Furthermore, the dorsal pattern of G. reevesii tends to comprise transverse bands and short stripes versus relatively irregularly arranged, distinct single blotches (see figures in Zhao & Adler 1993; Rösler 1995; Ziegler 2002; Grossmann 2004 a; Nguyen et al. 2009). Gekko reevesii does not co-occur with G. g. azhari. Because the latter was described based on two females only (Mertens 1955), and because no further specimens have been collected since then, comparisons and relations with adjoining Indian populations of G. gecko (e. g., West Bengal, Dhaka) are barely known and require further investigation (Peterson 1980; Ahmed & Dasgupta 1992; Tikader & Sharma 1992). Based on current knowledge, G. reevesii can be morphologically distinguished from G. g. azhari by its larger SVL and domed versus flat dorsal tubercles (see Tables 3 – 4). see Material and methods, except for T 3 W = tubercles in the third tail whorl; SB 2 / 3 = scales between second and third tail tubercle rows; SB 3 / 4 = scales between third and fourth tail tubercle rows. continued next page Our genetic samples did not include representatives of G. reevesii. However, Qin et al. (2007) found significant differences between geckos from as close as 85 km in Guangxi (red tokay from Nanning versus black tokays from Chongzuo and Qinzhou). Such differences (> 8 %) among probably parapatric, if not sympatric, taxa are certainly taxonomically noteworthy. In addition, further taxonomic subdivisions may also be present in Gekko gecko. Our molecular phylogeny revealed two relatively deeply divergent evolutionary lineages: a western clade (Myanmar, Thailand) and an eastern clade (China, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia), within which close relationships of Chinese and Indonesian G. gecko exist (Figure 1). As extensive human-mediated movement of G. gecko occurs in association with the traditional medicine trade throughout the range of the species (Bauer 2009), and G. gecko is common around human habitations, it is possible that the observed relationships may be confounded by translocations. Certainly, much deeper sampling of G. g e c k o across its entire range is needed. Comparisons of the western G. gecko with G. g. azhari are particularly crucial, as is, of course, the evaluation of G. reevesii. Possible further evidence of multiple species in G. gecko comes from chromosomal studies. All G. gecko karyotyped to date have a diploid number of 38 and a fundamental number of 48 (Cohen et al. 1967; Wu & Zhao 1984; Solleder & Schmid 1984; Sharma & Kasid 1992; Du et al. 2002), however, Solleder & Schmid (1984) found heteromorphic sex chromosomes in males, while these were not reported by other workers, and some researchers have reported acrocentric pairs (Cohen et al. 1967), whereas others explicitly state that none are present (Sharma & Kasid 1992). Comparisons with remaining Gekko species: G. reevesii differs from all other Gekko species by its large SVL (> 170 mm), in combination with narial contact with rostral only, more than ten lamellae below fourth toe, subcaudals not enlarged, and a variable gray ground coloration (see identification key below).	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
19358A1A8B1EFFB58980FCCDFC2FF49C.taxon	distribution	Distribution. Gekko reevesii is currently known from southern China (provinces of Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, and Yunnan) and northern Vietnam (southwards to Quang Binh Province). According Lue et al. (1999) and Shang (2001), several early 20 th century records of G. reevesii from Taiwan represent individuals artificially transported from the Chinese mainland. At least within Guangxi both red and black tokays occur in close proximity. Indeed, based on the sampling of Qin et al. (2007), red tokay (G. gecko gecko) populations from Nanning, Ningming County are virtually surrounded by black tokay (G. reevesii) sites. Both forms also occur in northern Vietnam. The exact boundaries of G. reevesii thus remain uncertain.	en	Rösler, Herbert, Bauer, Aaron M., Heinicke, Matthew P., Greenbaum, Eli, Jackman, Todd, Nguyen, Truong Quang, Ziegler, Thomas (2011): Phylogeny, taxonomy, and zoogeography of the genus Gekko Laurenti, 1768 with the revalidation of G. reevesii Gray, 1831 (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Zootaxa 2989: 1-50, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.278393
