Fauna Spotters logo

Cape Range Stone Gecko (Diplodactylus capensis)

The Cape Range Stone Gecko is a terrestrial gecko known from the Northwest Cape of Western Australia. It is listed as DBCA Priority 2. Its known distribution is limited and its ecology is poorly understood, so potential fauna habitat should be checked carefully before works begin.

Conservation status

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

Seasonal planning

No activity or breeding months have been documented for this species. Use year-round precautionary planning, with survey timing set by the project ecologist according to site conditions and work requirements.

Breeding: Oviparous, but breeding months are not recorded.

Activity: Seasonal activity and detectability have not been documented.

Species-specific seasonal information has not been documented.

  • Precautionary planning: General year-round planning window only. This does not indicate that species activity has been documented in every month.

Identification: Appearance and size

Use the diagnostic features below as a guide. Detailed field identification and size information are limited.

A medium-large Diplodactylus with a stout head, tall labial scales, an elongate tail and wide scansors with a row of discrete, unbroken lamellae along each digit.

The dorsal colour is light reddish brown, with a pale continuous dorsal stripe and transverse bars. No measured body length or mass is recorded.

Identification: Similar species and field signs

Diplodactylus species can be morphologically similar. Diplodactylus capensis is distinguished from D. mitchelli and D. granariensis by a combination of size, scale and pattern characters. Identification should not rely on colour alone.

No species-specific field signs, such as characteristic tracks or droppings, have been recorded.

Distribution: Known range

Records place the species in a small area of the Northwest Cape, within the Pilbara region identified on the WA priority list.

The Reptile Database records the species from Western Australia and identifies Shothole Canyon, Northwest Cape, as the type locality. Atlas of Living Australia records show 43 Western Australian records at 11 distinct 0.1-degree locations, between latitude -22.4 and -21.9 and longitude 113.9 and 114.2.

Distribution: WA status and region

The DBCA Threatened and Priority Fauna List dated 1 July 2025 lists the Cape Range Stone Gecko as Priority 2 and identifies the Pilbara region. Priority 2 is a DBCA priority-list category, not a threatened species listing under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

No national listing is identified. The DBCA category describes fauna that are poorly known and known from few locations. The list notes that some occur on conservation lands.

Habitat: Available information

Species-specific habitat information is sparse. Assess habitat at each site without assuming that undocumented features are absent.

The vegetation, soil type and landform occupied by D. capensis have not been documented. The type locality is Shothole Canyon on the Northwest Cape.

Habitat: Broader stone gecko context

Stone geckos generally are terrestrial geckos that occur on hard soils in southern and arid parts of Australia. This is genus-group context, not a confirmed habitat description for D. capensis.

Foraging habitat: Diet and feeding

Foraging habitat and diet have not been documented for this species.

Prey and feeding behaviour have not been documented.

Foraging habitat: Site assessment

Do not infer preferred feeding areas from the species name or broad information about other geckos. Record the site features present and have a suitably qualified ecologist assess their relevance.

Breeding habitat: Reproduction

The species lays eggs, but breeding sites and timing have not been documented.

The Reptile Database records D. capensis as oviparous. Its breeding season, clutch size, egg-laying location and development details are not recorded.

Breeding habitat: Precaution

Treat potential breeding habitat as unknown. Before clearing, ask the project ecologist to assess the proposed disturbance area and set site-specific precautions rather than relying on assumed breeding months.

Sheltering habitat: Known information

Species-specific shelter sites and refuge behaviour have not been documented.

Shelter types and refuge locations for D. capensis have not been identified.

Sheltering habitat: Field precautions

During site checks, note ground and surface features that may provide cover, but do not identify them as species-specific refuges without evidence. Avoid unnecessary disturbance while inspecting potential fauna habitat.

Threats: Evidence limits

Specific threats to this species have not been identified.

No taxon-specific threat assessment is available. The Priority 2 listing indicates that the species is poorly known and known from few locations; it is not a threatened, endangered or vulnerable listing.

Threats: Works-site risks

Assess the potential effects of each development, including habitat loss or direct disturbance, based on the site and proposed works. Present these as species-specific threats only where evidence supports that conclusion.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

Survey methods and detectability specific to D. capensis have not been documented. Use cautious, documented field methods and do not treat a non-detection as proof of absence.

Check the project footprint against the known Northwest Cape distribution and the Atlas of Living Australia record envelope. Review current fauna records and any site-specific survey information available to the project.

Survey methodology: 2. Field inspection

Have a suitably qualified ecologist or fauna spotter catcher inspect proposed disturbance areas and record habitat features. Search carefully and non-destructively for geckos and potential refuges, using methods appropriate to terrestrial geckos. No species-specific survey protocol or detection season has been established.

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 records and approvals

Plan works with the limited distribution information and substantial gaps in species-specific ecology in mind.

Confirm the works location, current records and applicable project requirements with the project ecologist. Priority 2 is a DBCA priority-list status, not by itself a statutory threatened-species listing.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Set out work areas

Clearly mark approved disturbance limits and any areas identified by the ecologist for avoidance or further inspection. Brief clearing crews on the species’ appearance and the requirement to stop and report a possible detection.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Stop and notify

Use a cautious stop-and-check approach if a gecko is found or suspected during works.

Pause work in the immediate area, keep people and machinery clear, and notify the fauna spotter catcher or project ecologist. Do not handle or move the animal unless an appropriately qualified and authorised person directs this under the project procedures.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Record and proceed cautiously

Record the location, time, photographs where safe, and circumstances of the observation. Resume only when the responsible project personnel have assessed the situation and confirmed the next steps under the project’s approvals and procedures.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Close out observations

Document outcomes and pass any new occurrence information to the project ecologist.

Record detections, non-detections, any fauna response and the areas actually disturbed. Keep records in the project fauna register and provide them to the responsible ecologist.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Review remaining works

Use observations and any changes to site conditions to review precautions for remaining works. Do not assume that a cleared area or a single survey establishes that the species is absent.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Restore disturbed areas

Species-specific rehabilitation requirements have not been documented.

Rehabilitate in accordance with the approved project plan and site-specific ecological advice. Where feasible, limit further disturbance and retain or restore locally appropriate ground conditions identified by the project ecologist.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Monitor and adapt

Document rehabilitation actions and monitor them against the project’s agreed objectives. Claim a benefit to D. capensis from a particular planting, substrate or refuge treatment only where supported by site-specific evidence.

Sources