No, he's pointing to the gecko on the right, just above the green gecko.
It is most certainly mislabeled as being Australian, unless by chance it is an extreme example of convergence in a species that has yet to be described.
As has been mentioned in the other thread, the eye seems to signify either
U. fimbriatus or
U. giganteus. It is a very poor photo for identification's sake. The angle is bad along with the inclusion clear identifying characteristics. Also, as I have been mentioning for a while now, work by Bauer et al. suggests that molecular evidence is pointing in the direction that
Uroplatus is a more speciose genus than we recognize at present, and perhaps the individuals we recognize as certain species are not actually so, and are possibly new species. That said, no one can say with certainty what species of gecko that is. If that tail is indeed the original, and it actually is the way it appears in the picture, then that is a tail more like that of
U. lineatus or
U. guentheri. It looks as though the tail lacks fringes, and the dermal fringes of the body look reduced to some extent. I will admit, the tail does not look regrown, there is no discernable change in color at the break point and there is seemingly some amount of pattern, which regrown tails of leaftail geckos tend to lack. This is not to say regrown tails are a solid color, but they generally lack contrasting pattern to the base "pattern" which tends to have a uniform, granular appearance.
In the end, I won't say anything for sure other than the fact it's an interesting individual. I'll point out this article, as I usually do, suggesting that there are still individuals within different clades of [at least] the "fimbriatus" group that seem to warrant status as different species from the "
fimbriatus" we tend to label them as, as hobbyists.
article:
http://todd.jackman.villanova.edu/Uroplatus.pdf
identify this gecko
Linear Mode
