The following details were sent to the OP on the 12Sep. I did state that my lack of reasons for the ID were atypical of me and no doubt due to the fact that the ID was a last minute spur of the moment act as I was posting my major response to his requests...
With respect to my IDing the Delma, there no question that I should have mentioned that there are two species found in Darwin (D. borea and D. tincta) and that they are extremely similar in appearance. Following are the differences mostly used to differentiate between them...
Delma tincta
A. 3rdupper labial below eye;
B. 2 supranasals (occasionally 4);
C. midbody scales in 14 rows (occasionally 12 to 16);
D. head and nape markings fading with age.
Delma borea
A. 4th upper labial below eye;
B. 4 supranasals;
C. Midbody scales in 16 rows (occasionally 14 to 18
D. head and nape markings normally remain sharp in far northern NT but occasionally obscure in adults.
From my observations D. tincta has a slightly shorter snout, a relatively larger eye and a less dorsoventrally depressed (thicker) head compared to D. borea.
From David Knowles I am told that the pale bands on the head and nape widen out like the sides of a triangle in D. tincta, while in D. borea they remain relatively parallel sided. I am more than comfortable to trust Dave?s field knowledge in that area. D. tincta is also the most commonly encountered one in Darwin. I am uncertain whether this is because of numbers or its more diurnal habits compared to D. borea, but either way that sort of attribute does not cut it with the more hard-nose identifiers.
Bottom line, following an examination of your photos under magnification I am comfortable in making the species call as tincta based on the information in the last two paragraphs. Hopefully you can put this information to future use and also verify its voracity while you are at it - which is never a bad option, and rather than being offended I would actually recommend that you do so.
Blue