Fauna Spotters logo

Cape Le Grand Gecko (Christinus sp. 'Cape Le Grand')

The Cape Le Grand gecko is a poorly known Western Australian gecko. Its appearance, habitat and ecology are not documented, so works teams should use cautious reptile survey and handling practices and seek expert advice if a possible individual is found.

Conservation status

Western Australia, WA Threatened and Priority Fauna List: Priority 2.

Seasonal information

Activity and breeding months have not been documented. Plan for the possibility of an encounter throughout the year.

Breeding: Not recorded.

Activity: Seasonal activity is not recorded.

Seasonal timing of activity and breeding is not established.

  • Precautionary planning: Planning window only. No species-specific seasonal timing is known, so maintain encounter precautions throughout the year.

Identification: Appearance and size

The Cape Le Grand gecko is a gecko, but diagnostic features have not been documented.

Body pattern, colour, scale features, measurements and weight have not been documented. Do not use descriptions or measurements of other Christinus species as identification criteria for this species.

Identification: Similar species

Features distinguishing this species from other geckos have not been documented. Take clear photographs and seek identification from a suitably experienced reptile specialist if uncertain.

Identification: Field signs

Species-specific field signs, calls, tracks, scats and other evidence have not been documented. Treat an unconfirmed sign as evidence of a possible reptile, not as a confirmed record of this species.

Distribution: Known range

The South Coast region is flagged for this species in the DBCA list, but no confirmed locality or range description is available.

The range and named occurrence localities have not been documented. The South Coast is the DBCA region flagged for this species, but this does not establish a more precise distribution.

Distribution: Records and status

Atlas of Living Australia records show no public Western Australian coordinates for this species. It is poorly known and recorded from few locations, with some records on conservation lands. No national listing is recorded.

Habitat: Habitat information

Habitat use by the Cape Le Grand gecko has not been documented.

Vegetation types, landforms, soils and other habitat used by this species have not been documented. Do not assume it uses habitats described for other Christinus species.

Habitat: Site assessment

For a development site in the flagged South Coast region, assess the actual vegetation, ground structure and available refuges across the proposed works area. Record these as site observations, not as established habitat preferences for the species.

Foraging habitat: Diet and feeding

The Cape Le Grand gecko’s diet, feeding behaviour and foraging habitat have not been documented.

Prey, diet and feeding times have not been documented. Do not infer its diet from information about other geckos.

Foraging habitat: Works-site precautions

Avoid disturbing potential refuge areas during unrelated work. If a gecko is found, pause nearby activity and have the animal assessed by a suitably experienced person before deciding how work can proceed.

Breeding habitat: Breeding information

Breeding habitat and reproductive biology have not been documented for this species.

Breeding months, egg or litter size, nesting sites and juvenile habitat have not been documented.

Breeding habitat: Precaution

Do not schedule work on the assumption that breeding is confined to a particular season. If a possible individual or concentration of reptiles is found, seek advice before disturbing the area.

Sheltering habitat: Refuge information

Sheltering sites and refuge behaviour have not been documented for the Cape Le Grand gecko.

Specific shelter types, retreat sites and aggregation behaviour have not been documented.

Sheltering habitat: General reptile search practice

As general reptile survey practice, visually check accessible ground-level crevices and sheltered features on the site. Do not treat any particular feature as a confirmed refuge for this species. Avoid moving rocks or other cover unless authorised and necessary, and replace disturbed cover carefully.

Threats: Known threats

Specific threats to the Cape Le Grand gecko have not been documented.

The Priority 2 category describes limited knowledge and records; it is not a threat category under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Threats: Work-related risks

As a general precaution for reptiles, clearing, vehicle movements and handling can harm an animal if it is present. Minimise unnecessary disturbance and stop work locally if a possible individual is encountered.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

Survey detectability and effective methods have not been documented for this species. Use a cautious, recorded search, and do not assume a non-detection means absence.

Check current DBCA advice and project records for relevant information. The South Coast region is flagged for this species, but no species-specific locality or public coordinates are available.

Survey methodology: 2. Site inspection

Have a suitably experienced ecologist inspect the proposed works area and record vegetation, ground features, potential refuges, weather and search effort. These observations describe the site and do not establish habitat preferences for the species.

Survey methodology: 3. Encounter records

Record the date, time, exact location, conditions, photographs and identification confidence for any possible individual. Do not handle an animal solely to improve a photograph or identification.

Vegetation associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific vegetation association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Ecosystem associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific ecosystem association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Soil and substrate associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific soil association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Water and wetland associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific water association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Fauna records and mapped habitat: Not yet analysed

Record locations can be overlaid with mapping, but record frequency alone does not measure habitat preference. No species is excluded from desktop assessments by this analysis.

No quality-controlled record-to-map analysis has been completed for this species. The existing generalised distribution dots and indicative range polygons have not been treated as precise occurrence coordinates.

A defensible run needs dated, independently attributable records, coordinate uncertainty, duplicate and captive-record checks, layer versions and regional scope. Preference and absence require additional survey-effort and detection evidence.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: No supported exclusion recorded

Not recorded is not the same as cannot occur. Low suitability, resident habitat, breeding habitat and occasional movement are different conclusions.

This library has not established a vegetation, ecosystem or soil-type exclusion for this species. This does not mean all habitat is suitable; the evidence needed to justify an exclusion has not been assembled.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: Before using a negative association

  • Confirm the taxon, geographic region, life stage and habitat function covered by the evidence.
  • Check survey methods, season, repeated effort and detectability before interpreting non-detection.
  • Investigate credible contradictory records and microhabitats absent from broad mapping.
  • Do not convert a missing map class, low record count or failed data request into species absence.

Before habitat disturbance: 1. Confirm requirements

Plan works with the limited distribution information and substantial ecological knowledge gaps in mind.

Confirm current DBCA and project approval requirements before works begin. The species is DBCA Priority 2.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Brief the crew

Explain the possibility of encountering a gecko, the stop-work and notification process, and the need to avoid unapproved handling. Identify who will make decisions if a possible individual is found.

Before habitat disturbance: 3. Reduce disturbance

Keep clearing and vehicle access within approved limits. Where practicable, avoid unnecessary disturbance of ground cover and sheltered features until they have been checked by a competent person.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Pause work

Use a cautious stop-and-check response if a possible gecko is found during works.

Stop activity close to the animal and prevent machinery or people from entering the immediate area. Avoid sudden movements and do not attempt to capture it.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Seek assessment

Notify the nominated ecologist or fauna spotter catcher and obtain an identification assessment. Do not assume that the animal is the Cape Le Grand gecko based only on its location.

During habitat disturbance: 3. Record and proceed carefully

Document the encounter and follow current approvals and the ecologist’s advice before restarting nearby work. Any capture or relocation should only be undertaken by an appropriately authorised and competent person.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Complete records

Document encounters and review whether controls worked after the relevant works are complete.

Retain survey and encounter records, including photographs, locations, identification confidence, actions taken and the area of work affected.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Review controls

Review any encounter or near miss with the project ecologist and works team. Adjust work procedures where needed and follow applicable reporting and approval conditions.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Restore disturbed areas

Species-specific rehabilitation requirements have not been documented for the Cape Le Grand gecko.

Rehabilitate areas in line with project approvals and the site rehabilitation plan. Use locally appropriate methods and avoid introducing unapproved materials or creating new disturbance.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Monitor and report

Record rehabilitation actions and any reptile observations made during follow-up checks. Do not describe restored features as habitat for this species unless supported by site-specific evidence.

Sources