Uroplatus ebenaui is actually ~9 different species, and that's just the start!

[the moof]

Hey guys,

so some of you may remember my post from a few months ago, where I explained my academic rather than herpetocultural interest in the herpetofauna of Madagascar.

In light of that interest, I wanted to update you on the most recent advance in our knowledge of this genus, so that we can all keep abreast of the changing taxonomy, and general overall complexity, of these wonderful but extremely complicated geckos.

Often changes in the taxonomic world go missed by animal-keepers, and the result is the proliferation of incorrect taxonomy and accidental cross-breeding of different species. I want to make sure that doesn't happen.

A new paper was published two weeks ago by Dr. Fanomezana Ratsoavina et al. in the German journal Salamandra, under the title "An overview of Madagascar’s leaf tailed geckos (genus Uroplatus): species boundaries, candidate species and review of geographical distribution based on molecular data." This paper is basically a summary of Dr. Ratsoavina's PhD thesis, which was on the systematics and ecology of the Uroplatus geckos, focusing mainly on the U. ebenaui-group.

The main outcomes of the paper are as follows (only outcomes of taxonomic importance - there are other outcomes that are interesting evolutionarily/geographically/conservationally etc. but those are probably less interesting for most of you, and certainly less important than the changing taxonomy):

• What we currently refer to as 'Uroplatus ebenaui' is constituted of at least nine deeply genetically divergent lineages. That is to say, U. ebenaui is just one of ~9 species. Ratsoavina et al. have identified these as 'candidate species' - they have not tried to name them themselves, but rather established that they are likely to be valid species, and in need of future work (which is where I plan to fit in in this whole spiel) - four confirmed candidates (valid species in need of a name), and four needing further confirmation.

• U. phantasticus has two very closely related, similar-looking undescribed candidate species, which may have been confused with it in the past (and co-occur with it in some areas of Madagascar).

• U. aff. henkeli is apparently just one undescribed species (this was big news to me - I was under the impression that it was several).

• Some lineages (read: species) simply cannot be told apart using morphology alone.

• Uroplatus lineatus might be two species... more work is needed.

• Uroplatus giganteus is a valid species, contrary to what some researchers might think.

• Uroplatus sikorae individuals from Ranomafana and areas south of it have an unpigmented oral mucosa. So oral mucosa pigmentation is not a 100% way to distinguish between U. sikorae and U. sameiti

• U. sikorae contains at least five deep lineage divergences that may, from future research, be revealed to be new species.

The issue of multiple species currently being listed as 'Uroplatus ebenaui or 'U. phantasticus' is very concerning for the pet trade, because the export of geckos from the island is done with at best limited verification of precisely which species are under consideration. For that reason, we see a lot of atypical individuals showing up in captivity that are actually undescribed cryptic species.

Personally I see this as a real cry for the implementation of (a) careful policing of exported geckos, to be certain that the geckos in the boxes are what it says on the lid, (b) stud books in the Uroplatus-keeping community, and (c) careful practices among breeders, to ensure that different species are not being interbred accidentally, which may result in the pollution of ex-situ blood lines.

I may update this post in a few days to add a table or something to show what we know about the different U. ebenaui-group undescribed species, just so that people have a good way to identify what they have, because the paper itself is not open access.

If you have questions or anything, let me know. I am eager to hear the thoughts of keepers and breeders here.

Best,
Mark

 

[miguel camacho!]

From the herpetocultural perspective, this is quite interesting as it perhaps provides indirect explanation of why breeding many of the Uroplatus was so problematic in the past.

The Uroplatus studbook is something I've seen discussed rarely in the past, though I am still unsure of any particular use of a studbook (other than simply following lineages from whoever can/will produce reliable documentation) when the vast majority of us know next to nothing about the origins/localities of the animals in our collections. Fortunately, our understanding of the genus is improving with publications such as this; though, without actual species descriptions to accompany these declarations of new candidate species, much confusion is left to be sorted. And without clear morphological characteristics to guide the designation of new species (i.e., being left with species best delineated by both genes and geographic range), hobbyists are ultimately left with a churning pool of unidentified/unidentifiable species (and possibly subspecies) that might never be resolved. Though, this could all be good for the hobby in terms of better understanding of compatibility and origins, and from the viewpoint of the interplay of conservation and herpetoculture: better documentation of the animals and management of species for export. However, by characterizing new species that are potentially from very small/dwindling populations, it has the potential to be detrimental by driving up demand and/or exploitation of the species and its habitat. I'm not saying that is sure to happen, but let's just hope we don't see a situation arise as has happened with Lygodactylus williamsi.

Anyway, I guess it's nice to see some confirmation that U. aff. henkeli is indeed more closely related to U.henkeli, as I've always thought that it might play out more closely related to U. sikorae. I have yet to get through most of the paper, and having only skimmed certain portions to this point, I'm still wondering if what we're referring to as U. aff. henkeli as hobbyists is really the same thing referred to as U. henkeli [Ca11] in this paper (previously referred to as U. sp. H in Raxworthy et al. 2008), or any of the unconfirmed candidate species currently falling within the designation of U. sikorae. I know Raxworthy et al. 2008 mentions a smaller SVL in this U. henkeli-like undescribed species, but little is mentioned of these possibly new "northern U. sikorae" to distinguish them morphologically other than the unpigmented oral mucosa. Yet, from what I can see in figure 4, there is at least one under the designation U. sikorae that is lacking pigmentation of the oral mucosa as well as the tongue tip, as we hobbyists know as one of the characteristics that at least separates U. aff. henkeli from U. henkeli. I originally learned to designate most of the species within the genus by characterization of the iris (which, in truth, we are coming to learn is not reliable with recognition of all of these new species), but I'm going to maintain that the iris of U. aff henkeli is more strikingly similar to any U. sikorae I've seen than any other species.

Anyway, I'd like to propose something as a side-note, on one side from the Uroplatus hobbyist community, and the other being you (Mark). From the community's perspective, why the hell are we sitting and waiting for this old idea of the "Uroplatus UVB Project" to come to fruition contingent on Bill Love's return to Madagascar? It's fairly apparent that there have been several others with varying interests in Uroplatus who have visited the island since the conception of the project, yet the only candidate ever considered to carry out the measurements was Bill Love. Why is this stagnating (over 5 years), especially after drawing so much interest? What I'm getting at is this: Mark, it's fairly apparent you'll be conducting field work in the somewhat near future. You're an astute biologist with research interests set squarely in Madagascar, yet a concern for the conservation of the species. I understand that grad field work can be strenuous and time-consuming, but I was wondering if you'd have any interest, if all the necessary people could come back around to honor their pledges for contributions to purchase and ship you the UVB light meter (which, according to my brief search, can be purchased for ~$120US) by the time of your next departure, would you be willing and able to obtain some measurements? I know I'm putting you on the spot, but realize that you have no obligation to take part, as I understand your time in Madagascar is very much oriented on your academic pursuits. But if you think there's the possibility of adding this relatively small piece of equipment to your field pack, I think we'd be able to raise the funds to purchase you a thank-you that might be of use to your pursuits. After all, $450 was originally pledged. That's more than enough for the equipment, thank-you gift, and shipping.

 

[Umbra]

Perhaps we can finally sort out the issue with the Uroplatus phantasticus "large form". I still have a lone ~13.5-14 cm female in need of a mate.

 

[the moof]

Selective quoting to reply to what you said, Mike:

The Uroplatus studbook is something I've seen discussed rarely in the past, though I am still unsure of any particular use of a studbook (other than simply following lineages from whoever can/will produce reliable documentation) when the vast majority of us know next to nothing about the origins/localities of the animals in our collections.

I completely agree. This lack of field source thing really needs to be changed before we can hope to change the practices in the pet industry. But there are two obvious ways forward: (1) every needs to keep track of blood lines and who they are getting their geckos from (even without locality data, at least we can at least track the generations and inbreeding that way), and (2) all of the more major breeders who know some locality data for their geckos should attempt to take steps to only breed with geckos that they can be certain are the same species.

Fortunately, our understanding of the genus is improving with publications such as this; though, without actual species descriptions to accompany these declarations of new candidate species, much confusion is left to be sorted. And without clear morphological characteristics to guide the designation of new species (i.e., being left with species best delineated by both genes and geographic range), hobbyists are ultimately left with a churning pool of unidentified/unidentifiable species (and possibly subspecies) that might never be resolved.

Again, completely agree. The important thing to remember is that this paper did not have in its scope to even attempt new species descriptions, but rather to (a) consolidate the wealth of knowledge that has been shoddily referenced in the past, and (b) facilitate future species descriptions by basically painting giant glowing arrows to what we need to resolve. It makes my job a MILLION times easier.

Also there are some morphological indications expanded upon both in the text and in table 2, so I will probably summarise those in a future post on this thread (or a new thread) to help people identify what they are working with.

...by characterizing new species that are potentially from very small/dwindling populations, it has the potential to be detrimental by driving up demand and/or exploitation of the species and its habitat. I'm not saying that is sure to happen, but let's just hope we don't see a situation arise as has happened with Lygodactylus williamsi.

Indeed, this is a problem. This is why I argued in a different thread for the better documentation of animal collection, so that we can be certain that the species set up for export are those that are allowed to be exported.

...nice to see some confirmation that U. aff. henkeli is indeed more closely related to U.henkeli, as I've always thought that it might play out more closely related to U. sikorae. I have yet to get through most of the paper, and having only skimmed certain portions to this point, I'm still wondering if what we're referring to as U. aff. henkeli as hobbyists is really the same thing referred to as U. henkeli [Ca11] in this paper (previously referred to as U. sp. H in Raxworthy et al. 2008), or any of the unconfirmed candidate species currently falling within the designation of U. sikorae. I know Raxworthy et al. 2008 mentions a smaller SVL in this U. henkeli-like undescribed species, but little is mentioned of these possibly new "northern U. sikorae" to distinguish them morphologically other than the unpigmented oral mucosa. Yet, from what I can see in figure 4, there is at least one under the designation U. sikorae that is lacking pigmentation of the oral mucosa as well as the tongue tip, as we hobbyists know as one of the characteristics that at least separates U. aff. henkeli from U. henkeli. I originally learned to designate most of the species within the genus by characterization of the iris (which, in truth, we are coming to learn is not reliable with recognition of all of these new species), but I'm going to maintain that the iris of U. aff henkeli is more strikingly similar to any U. sikorae I've seen than any other species.

I always wondered what character you were using to identify with! This is interesting, I have very rarely heard eyes referred to for dianostics among Uroplatus, but that may be because most people are working with dead specimens, where the eyes are quite hard to do anything with (they go all gummy - it's quite amusing).

They list Tsarikibany as one of the localities for U. aff henkeli, and I can vouch for that assessment as I did some of the research there, and you, Mike, actually identified one of the geckos I photographed from there as U. aff henkeli yourself (a long time ago on Flickr). Thus, I think they are accurate with their consideration of U. aff henkeli. Nonetheless, I do see where you are coming from. I would not be surprised if better sampling turns out more deeply divergent lineages that are not considered.

Anyway, I'd like to propose something as a side-note, on one side from the Uroplatus hobbyist community, and the other being you (Mark). From the community's perspective, why the hell are we sitting and waiting for this old idea of the "Uroplatus UVB Project" to come to fruition contingent on Bill Love's return to Madagascar? It's fairly apparent that there have been several others with varying interests in Uroplatus who have visited the island since the conception of the project, yet the only candidate ever considered to carry out the measurements was Bill Love. Why is this stagnating (over 5 years), especially after drawing so much interest? What I'm getting at is this: Mark, it's fairly apparent you'll be conducting field work in the somewhat near future. You're an astute biologist with research interests set squarely in Madagascar, yet a concern for the conservation of the species. I understand that grad field work can be strenuous and time-consuming, but I was wondering if you'd have any interest, if all the necessary people could come back around to honor their pledges for contributions to purchase and ship you the UVB light meter (which, according to my brief search, can be purchased for ~$120US) by the time of your next departure, would you be willing and able to obtain some measurements? I know I'm putting you on the spot, but realize that you have no obligation to take part, as I understand your time in Madagascar is very much oriented on your academic pursuits. But if you think there's the possibility of adding this relatively small piece of equipment to your field pack, I think we'd be able to raise the funds to purchase you a thank-you that might be of use to your pursuits. After all, $450 was originally pledged. That's more than enough for the equipment, thank-you gift, and shipping.

I have actually spoken with Bill Love quite recently, and I know that he has no intentions of going back to Madagascar any time soon. I was actually on the last trip he ran, nearly eight years ago. Goodness that makes me feel old.

That sounds perfectly feasible, Mike, and I would be happy to try to gather that data. My concern is that the vast majority of Uroplatus sightings are at night, and getting back to the night spotting locations the day after with a UV meter might be difficult. Still, if you think it is worth the effort, I would be happy to gather that data. Certainly I should at least be able to first characterise the Uroplatus diversity of an area and then take ambient readings around the forest, which would give a fairly good idea of overall UV levels.

I probably will not be going back to the field until Dec 2014/Jan-Feb 2015 - I have to wait to go with Frank Glaw, and he just ran an expedition to the Comoros earlier this year, so doesn't plan to go back in 2014. I am in the middle of piecing together a different expedition that I might run at short notice to the north east of the island to try and find Phelsuma masohoala, which has not been seen in 20 years, but that plan is currently just in the 'dream' phase as I like to call it, and in all likelihood will not come to fruition.

In summary, I would be more than happy to take up the banner for the UVB project, if you can deal with the fact that it will be at least a year before I make it back into the field to gather the data. I'm in a very good position to pass on the torch to other people working in the field if I hear about someone going back before me though, so that is also a possibility (e.g. Franco Andreone and Angelica Crottini who are actually in Madagascar right now on an expedition, etc.).

Finally:

Perhaps we can finally sort out the issue with the Uroplatus phantasticus "large form". I still have a lone ~13.5-14 cm female in need of a mate.

Good lord that is enormous! That is far larger than the largest specimen recorded in this paper, and actually probably the largest U. phantasticus I have heard of.

It would be a really interesting idea to get genetic barcode from geckos like this that are unusual, so that we can see where they fall. It's very cheap, but a bit of a hassle if you don't know what you're doing. Hmm... I shall have to think on that.

 

[Mother Lode Gecko]

Thanks for the taxonomic update!

 

[pakinjak]

I'm thinking primarily of the hobby when I say this, but it seems obvious to me that we should be keeping track of collection data from here on out. That should have happened all along, but honestly I've never even come close to getting the info any time I asked. As soon as I saw the portion of the paper that described U. Sikorae possibly having unpigmented ocal mucosa, it made me wonder "now what are we supposed to do about sameiti/sikorae in the hobby?" I already have three pairs of "Sameiti" that were completely identified by their throats, though I might be able to say that they are somewhat distinct from the sikorae pictures I've seen. Honestly, I think it may not matter to me in my herp room. Even I think that sounds awful, but I don't know what else we're supposed to do. There is no sameiti quota, yet they still get accidentally exported (as far as we know anyway), so other than these accidentals there isn't opportunity for collection data. My question to you fellows is- what do I do with the sameiti I currently have in my room???

 

[the moof]

That is a very good question Pakinjak.

I see only one way forward if you really want to be certain, and that involves sending a little bit of tissue to a genetic barcoding lab, which will then sequence the CO1 gene of the mitochondrion. This barcode allows for species level identification of all of Madagascar's herps, and we have a really reliable set of primers for it. At $10 for a sample, it is not even very expensive. The problem is, it's not an easy or publicly accessible way of assorting the hundreds of Uroplatus geckos in captivity. For one, most people won't do it (cost, difficulty, laziness, etc.), and it won't be of any use unless you know what species the other geckos are.
Also, there's been so much admixture now that the only way forward that I can see is to isolate new exports from old ones, and essentially reboot the whole thing. That would allow us to keep working as we have with the geckos outside the country without locality or species information, and also keep the new exports as pure as possible.

As you say, it is absolutely vital that all exports now come with locality information. But even then, it is not going to be 100% accurate, as several of the new U. aff ebenaui species occur sympatrically (together) in the same location (and one of the new U. aff phantasticus species as well). Still, it will help to contribute to the monitoring of the geckos in captivity.

What we need to do for now is to wait. Wait until the taxonomic situation has been sorted out a bit more. Right now we have some measurements and general features to go off of, but they are not exactly the best for identifying species. Once the proper descriptions come out, it will be much easier to work. Still, that may take a decade, so if anyone has better ideas, I am all ears!

Also to refer to your final question: there are places where U. sameiti and U. sikorae occur in sympatry as well, so they should be able to get along just fine. If they breed... well that's an issue, but not one we can do anything about right now.

 

[GaryCrain]

Perhaps we can finally sort out the issue with the Uroplatus phantasticus "large form". I still have a lone ~13.5-14 cm female in need of a mate.

https://www.facebook.com/neil.meister.7?fref=ts

Contact Neil...he seems to have a lone male available all the time.

 

[Umbra]

https://www.facebook.com/neil.meister.7?fref=ts

Contact Neil...he seems to have a lone male available all the time.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll shoot him a message.

Edit: Apparently he sold him already. Oh well.