Bioacoustics of Gekko asahi

Comparisons. The main characteristics that distinguish Gekko asahi sp. nov. from other species of the subgenus Japonigekko are summarized in Table 2 . Based on both morphological and molecular evidence, Gekko asahi sp. nov. is closely related to G. kaiyai and G. hokouensis . However, morphological comparisons and analyses revealed their differences (Fig. 3 ; Suppl. material 1 : table S 4). In particular, both males and females of Gekko asahi sp. nov. are significantly larger (p <0.05) than those of G. hokouensis (mean SVL 64.4 ± 4.85, N = 12 in males; mean SVL 70.6 ± 5.43, N = 13 in females in Gekko asahi sp. nov. vs. mean SVL 55.1 ± 7.07, N = 3 in males; mean SVL 58.2 ± 4.43, N = 8 in females in G. hokouensis ). Male Gekko asahi sp. nov. have greater HH / SVL (0.098 ± 0.007 vs. 0.087 ± 0.005) and FLL / SVL (0.122 ± 0.004 vs. 0.114 ± 0.008), but smaller IND / SVL (0.037 ± 0.002 vs. 0.042 ± 0.001) than in G. hokouensis (see Suppl. material 1 : table S 4). Female Gekko asahi sp. nov. have smaller HW / SVL (0.199 ± 0.004 vs. 0.206 ± 0.007) and EL / SVL (0.056 ± 0.003 vs. 0.064 ± 0.004) than in G. hokouensis (see Suppl. material 1 : table S 4). Gekko asahi sp. nov. is also larger than G. kaiyai both in males (mean SVL 64.4 ± 4.85; N = 12 vs. 57.9 ± 4.09; N = 11) and females (mean SVL 70.6 ± 5.43; N = 13 vs. 62.0 ± 4.10; N = 4) (see Suppl. material 1 : table S 4). As compared to males of G. kaiyai , Gekko asahi sp. nov. males have greater SE / SVL (0.12 ± 0.003 vs. 0.08 ± 0.005) and EE / SVL (0.087 ± 0.005 vs. 0.075 ± 0.005), but smaller AG / SVL (0.43 ± 0.01 vs. 0.46 ± 0.02), HW / SVL (0.20 ± 0.005 vs. 0.22 ± 0.009), and HL / SVL (0.23 ± 0.01 vs. 0.26 ± 0.006). Females of Gekko asahi sp. nov. have smaller HW / SVL (0.19 ± 0.004 vs. 0.21 ± 0.007), but greater HH / SVL (0.096 ± 0.007 vs. 0.085 ± 0.008), SE / SVL (0.115 ± 0.005 vs. 0.077 ± 0.005), EE / SVL (0.084 ± 0.003 vs. 0.077 ± 0.004), and EL / SVL (0.056 ± 0.003 vs. 0.051 ± 0.002) than females of G. kaiyai . In addition, Gekko asahi sp. nov. can be distinguished from G. kaiyai by having more SR (127–158 vs. 99–121), more IO (34–44 vs. 22–33); and in life, ventral surface of body pale reddish yellow, pale yellow, or pale yellowish-gold (vs. creamy white). And it can be distinguished from G. hokouensis by having fewer SPL (7–9 vs. 10–14), more IO (34–44 vs. 30–33), dorsal surfaces of both fore- and hindlimbs bearing tubercles (vs. lacking tubercles), and in life, ventral surface of body pale reddish yellow, pale yellow, or pale yellowish-gold (vs. creamy white). In comparison with the other two sympatrically occurring species, Gekko japonicus and G. yakuensis , Gekko asahi sp. nov. can be distinguished from G. japonicus by having fewer PAT (1 vs. 3–5), dorsal surface of hindlimbs bearing tubercles (vs. lacking tubercles), and in life, ventral surface of body pale reddish yellow, pale yellow, or pale yellowish-gold (vs. creamy white). It can be further distinguished from G. yakuensis by having fewer SPL (7–9 vs. 12–13), and dorsal surfaces of both fore- and hindlimbs bearing tubercles (vs. lacking tubercles). By having SPL 7–9, Gekko asahi sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from G. aaronbaueri Tri, Thai, Phimvohan, David & Teynié, 2015 , G. adleri , G. bonkowskii Luu, Calame, Nguyen, Le & Ziegler, 2015 , G. canhi Rösler, Nguyen, Van Doan, Ho, Nguyen & Ziegler, 2010 , G. chinensis , G. cib , G. kwangsiensis Yang, 2015 , G. liboensis Zhou, Liu & Li, 1982 , G. liui Zhou, Zhou, Wang, Li, Zhang, Li, Shen, Liu & Rao, 2025 , G. melli Vogt, 1922 , G. nadenensis Luu, Nguyen, Le, Bonkowski & Ziegler, 2017 , G. palmatus Boulenger, 1907 , G. paucituberculatus Wang, Qi, Zhou & Wang, 2024 , G. prep Zhou, Chen, Liu, Li, Qi, Li & Peng, 2025 , G. scientiadventura Rösler, Ziegler, Vu, Herrmann & Böhme, 2004 , G. shibatai Toda, Sengoku, Hikida & Ota, 2008 , G. similignum , G. tesselatus Xu, Ma, Cai, Qi, Matsukoji, Poyarkov, Sun, Jiang & Peng, 2025 , G. thakhekensis Luu, Calame, Nguyen, Le, Bonkowski & Ziegler, 2014 , G. truongi Phung & Ziegler, 2011 , G. vertebralis Toda, Sengoku, Hikida & Ota, 2008 , and G. wenxianensis Zhou & Wang, 2008 , (vs. 13–14 in G. aaronbaueri , 10–15 in G. adleri , 12–14 in G. bonkowskii , 14 in G. canhi , 10–14 in G. chinensis , 10–12 in G. cib , 10–12 in G. kwangsiensis , 11 in G. liboensis , 11–13 in G. liui , 10–13 in G. melli , 12–14 in G. nadenensis , 11–15 in G. palmatus , 11 in G. paucituberculatus , 14 in G. prep , 12–14 in G. scientiadventura , 10–13 in G. shibatai , 12–14 in G. similignum , 10 or 11 in G. tesselatus , 12–14 in G. thakhekensis , 13–15 in G. truongi , 10–15 in G. vertebralis , and 12 in G. wenxianensis ). In addition, by having IO 34–44, Gekko asahi sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from G. alpinus Ma, Shi, Shen, Chang & Jiang, 2024 , G. auriverrucosus Zhou & Liu, 1982 , G. fengshanensis Huang, Wang, Qi , Song, Huang, Wang & Mo, 2025, G. jinjiangensis Hou, Shi, Wang, Shu, Zheng, Qi, Liu, Jiang & Xie, 2021 , G. khunkhamensis Sitthivong, Lo, Nguyen, Ngo, Khotpathoom, Le, Ziegler & Luu, 2021 , G. scabridus Liu & Zhou, 1982 , G. sengchanthavongi Luu, Calame, Nguyen, Le & Ziegler, 2015 , G. swinhonis , G. taibaiensis Song, 1985, and G. tawaensis (vs. 22–28 in G. alpinus , 26–27 in G. auriverrucosus , 22–27 in G. fengshanensis , 20–24 in G. jinjiangensis , 31–32 in G. khunkhamensis , 30 in G. scabridus , 28–32 in G. sengchanthavongi , 23–24 in G. swinhonis , and 28 in G. taibaiensis and G. tawaensis ). Finally, by the absence of webbing between the fingers and toes, Gekko asahi sp. nov. can be easily distinguished from G. guishanicus Lin & Yao, 2016 , G. ichangensis Cao, Sucharitakul, Tie, Suwannapoom, Yan & Chomdej, 2025 and G. subpalmatus Günther, 1864 (vs. webbing present).