identification please

skips

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
521
I'm inexperienced when it come to chilopods. I'm thinking of purchasing a scolopendra mirabilis (i.e. tanzanian neon blue legged centipede). I keep looking for care information and frequently come across this "tanzanian blue legged centipede", and all they ever say is that it's a scolopendra species--as if that helps. this cant be a mirabilis, right?

http://www.petbugs.com/caresheets/Scolopendra-sp3.html
 

Draiman

Arachnoking
Old Timer
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
2,819
That looks more like Ethmostigmus trigonopodus "Blue Leg", or maybe even a small Otostigmus sp. I don't know of any Scolopendra species with such uniform blue coloration on the legs.

But all of this is simply my usually incorrect opinion, so don't take my word for it.
 
Last edited:

zonbonzovi

Creeping beneath you
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
3,346
That photo is a little misleading as the colors look a little saturated?(I'm only a very amateur photographer). The claim of "up to 9"" is a bit of a stretch, too. To the best of my knowledge, E. trigonopodus maxes out at 6.5" on average with S. mirabilis being smaller. There seems to be some dispute as to what exactly consitutes a "neon blue leg", but the 'pedes typically sold as such have solid, turquoise colored legs. E. trigonopodus has either dark blue, tiger striped or solid yellow legs. All of the above are quite attractive and reasonably priced IMO, although buried 99% of the time. I have a couple shots of E. trigonopodus on my insectgeeks profile(see below) if that helps.
 

peterbourbon

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
622
Last edited:

skips

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
521
Hi,

Gavin is right, E. trigonopodus. Can't be Otostigmus.

BTW, now you know a Scolopendra with shiny blue legs ;)
http://media.photobucket.com/image/escolopendra azul gomita/camba-rip/BkcYoU136677-021.jpg?o=1

BTW2: I'm never tired of saying it: Only stick to coloration as an additional help, never trust it too much. I know what I'm saying, had to deal with those issues in the last weeks again. ;)

Regards
Turgut
I saw that picture a couple days ago. That thing is beautiful. Did you figure out what exactly it was? Was that what the thread was about?
 

skips

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
521
That photo is a little misleading as the colors look a little saturated?(I'm only a very amateur photographer). The claim of "up to 9"" is a bit of a stretch, too. To the best of my knowledge, E. trigonopodus maxes out at 6.5" on average with S. mirabilis being smaller. There seems to be some dispute as to what exactly consitutes a "neon blue leg", but the 'pedes typically sold as such have solid, turquoise colored legs. E. trigonopodus has either dark blue, tiger striped or solid yellow legs. All of the above are quite attractive and reasonably priced IMO, although buried 99% of the time. I have a couple shots of E. trigonopodus on my insectgeeks profile(see below) if that helps.
I knew I'd seen your name somewhere. So it's not E. trigonopodus. Got a guess on what it is?
 

peterbourbon

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
622
Hi,

the centipede on your linked picture is Ethmostigmus trigonopodus.
The small neon blue-legged from Tanzania that was sold in past has been mis-identified as S. mirabilis, but it's surely not.
And it's still not 100% sure what it really is. People in past (me, too) guessed it's S. morsitans, but it doesn't show some typical taxonomical features of that species.

Yesterday I didn't have time to look up the papers for the Mexican centipede, but I may check today or tomorrow. I'm sure we won't be able to identifiy it, but maybe we can exclude two other possibilities, so we hopefully end up in two species that could fit.

Regards,
Turgut
 

skips

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
521
Hi,

the centipede on your linked picture is Ethmostigmus trigonopodus.
The small neon blue-legged from Tanzania that was sold in past has been mis-identified as S. mirabilis, but it's surely not.
And it's still not 100% sure what it really is. People in past (me, too) guessed it's S. morsitans, but it doesn't show some typical taxonomical features of that species.

Yesterday I didn't have time to look up the papers for the Mexican centipede, but I may check today or tomorrow. I'm sure we won't be able to identifiy it, but maybe we can exclude two other possibilities, so we hopefully end up in two species that could fit.

Regards,
Turgut
Iteresting. This brings up some interesting questions for somebody new to centipedes. With scorpions and spiders people are usually fairly confident with their guesses on what species are which by site, given that features like chelicerae and pectines are shown. I know that spiracles can be something to look at with pedes, but what other criteria are there since coloration obviously can be about as useful as a common name? Also, would you say it's harder to identify centipedes than scorpions or T's?
 

peterbourbon

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
622
Hi,

I don't know anything about spiders and scorpions, so i can't judge how hard it is to identify a centipede, but I find it not easy from a personal view - and other hobby people may confirm.

If it comes to common pedes in the hobby, it's not difficult, but everytime you see a new centipede it's like a struggle.

I even heard it's so easy to identify a millipede and that IDing centipedes is frustrating.

Nevertheless i guess it has more to do with the lack of knowledge and chaos in literature where myriapodologists always try to find constant (and not variable) significant taxonomic features that distinct one species from another. Many of those taxonomic features are variable as well.

The biggest question is always: How variable and imprecise is the description to the species I assume this speciman to be? You usually get to a point where it either can be one or the other species - you are stuck inbetween, because you get a "victim of variability".

Centipede taxonomy is ambiguous, there are so many "parts" that need revision. While one myriapodologist takes the time to revise a certain species, other species may get into the "range" of taxonomic consideration. You are then left with the idea that someone must revise the other part, too.

I think scolopendromorpha need a revision in general, not only a few parts.
Time is the main issue - and no one got much of it.

Regards,
Turgut
 

Androctonus_bic

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,141
Maybe the ambiguous taxonomy of pedes, the not easy way to get it, the not too many info and the relative variability and new speciments to ID that apears in hobby month by month make it more atractive...

I have a couple of pictures in my computer ( of course find in the net) that I don't now what pede are... maybe now is the time to put name to this pedes...:eek:
 

cacoseraph

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
8,325
i think one thing that complicates id'ing centipedes is that they can regrow legs and antenna... which sometimes don't regrow 100% exactly the way they were... but we look at legs and antenna for diagnostic characteristics sometimes
 

skips

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
521
all very interesting. Is there alot of literature using genetic typing or just morphological characteristics? I mean if you want narrow most inverts down to the family level or maybe genus you could use morphology, but it seems ridiculous that people still rely on it for setting up a phylogeny.
 

peterbourbon

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
622
Hi,

that's the main problem: All keys are based on morphology - and this pitily does not work well for centipedes. While you can examine gonopods in diplopoda and rely on their uniqueness, there is no such 100% reliable morphological character for centipedes, because they vary more or less and the distinction of species is often based on a combination of several morphological characters. You always need to get your hands on more specimen to find out the varying parts and don't be confused by elements that don't fit exactly to the provided description.

That's why i think genetic analysis can reveal some things, but this is a more or less complex (and usually expensive) examination method - and i don't give up hoping that the few myriapodologists with good reputation (and therefore more possibilities) disengage themselves from the classic methods and stick to genetic experiments. There are not many young academics who concentrate on Scolopendromorpha and bring up the spirit and courage to try something new.

Regards,
Turgut
 

skips

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
521
Hi,

that's the main problem: All keys are based on morphology - and this pitily does not work well for centipedes. While you can examine gonopods in diplopoda and rely on their uniqueness, there is no such 100% reliable morphological character for centipedes, because they vary more or less and the distinction of species is often based on a combination of several morphological characters. You always need to get your hands on more specimen to find out the varying parts and don't be confused by elements that don't fit exactly to the provided description.

That's why i think genetic analysis can reveal some things, but this is a more or less complex (and usually expensive) examination method - and i don't give up hoping that the few myriapodologists with good reputation (and therefore more possibilities) disengage themselves from the classic methods and stick to genetic experiments. There are not many young academics who concentrate on Scolopendromorpha and bring up the spirit and courage to try something new.

Regards,
Turgut
You know though, it really shouldnt be that expensive anymore. The human genome took years to complete with basic sanger sequencing but at present a human genome could take a month or two and its so much cheaper. the lab I work in, while focused on microbes, is about to send out 12 amplified sets of DNA for sequencing, each containing possibly hundreds of bacteria species, and still at a modest cost (modest for research at least). I think maybe it is harder to get grants for centipede phylogenics. You always have to be able to prove something that will make money at some point in the future, or be published in a major publication.

at least this is the feeling I get. I'm only an undergrad and its not like ive written a grant lately.

Another thing ive noticed which is different from the arachnid part of this forum is that people refer to morphs and common names far more often. Is this because of the confusion on what species things are, or do you think it's that using morph names contributes to the confusion?
 

peterbourbon

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
622
Hi,

that's very interesting. I already thought about sending material for DNA-research, at least for maybe two morphs of the same species, just out of curiosity (not scientifical intention or publication) - but finally you need a lot of specimen of both morphs to find out the constant DNA-streams and distinct from variable elements, am I right? In addition to that, genetic research is obviously different from classical taxonomy which means: A "classical" taxonomist maybe doesn't know enough of DNA-research to work properly with the results. And never forget: DNA-research for taxonomical purpose (at least for invertebrates) is a "modern" method and therefore it's also a matter of personal intention - I believe there are some reputated "classical" taxonomists out there who don't give much on DNA-research and stick to the old morphology methods. But it would be a tempting project of different specialists working together, I agree.

Regarding common names for "morphs": I always thought there are a lot of people who rather like to use common names in forums. If you refer to the additional morph-information like "cherry red" or "Chinese giant": In this case it's necessary, because both specimen are S. s. dehaani in recent taxonomy, but differ in coloration. To know what people refer to it's always necessary to add a color morph information.

You have to deal with a lot of things like that, because Scolopendromorpha seem to be highly variable when it comes to coloration.

Regards,
Turgut
 

skips

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
521
Hi,

that's very interesting. I already thought about sending material for DNA-research, at least for maybe two morphs of the same species, just out of curiosity (not scientifical intention or publication) - but finally you need a lot of specimen of both morphs to find out the constant DNA-streams and distinct from variable elements, am I right? In addition to that, genetic research is obviously different from classical taxonomy which means: A "classical" taxonomist maybe doesn't know enough of DNA-research to work properly with the results. And never forget: DNA-research for taxonomical purpose (at least for invertebrates) is a "modern" method and therefore it's also a matter of personal intention - I believe there are some reputated "classical" taxonomists out there who don't give much on DNA-research and stick to the old morphology methods. But it would be a tempting project of different specialists working together, I agree.

Regarding common names for "morphs": I always thought there are a lot of people who rather like to use common names in forums. If you refer to the additional morph-information like "cherry red" or "Chinese giant": In this case it's necessary, because both specimen are S. s. dehaani in recent taxonomy, but differ in coloration. To know what people refer to it's always necessary to add a color morph information.

You have to deal with a lot of things like that, because Scolopendromorpha seem to be highly variable when it comes to coloration.

Regards,
Turgut
Not really anymore depending on the method. The standard used to be to use Random Fragment Length Polymorphisms which required quite a bit of DNA because you were just using it and not replicating it to replace your used stock.

You can just use PCR to amplify your DNA though and thus dont need nearly as much. One type is the amplified fragment length polymorphism. I would take a DNA sample and use an enzyme that cleaves it at different but specific sites. These fragments of DNA are specific to an organism and will be very similar to a related organism. They are then amplified by PCR and blotted to get a pattern on a gel indicative of the organism and similar to other relatives. It may cost a hundred or two hundred bucks for one round of the process which in a research budget is not too bad.

that all being said you may find that the markers you're trying to use are just that highly variable. It happens.

The rest of what you said is noted. if you want to talk about a morph you really do need to use the morph name. Hopefully there will be some newer myriopodollogists that start using modern techniques. I think in ever case when genetics start to be looked at whole phylogenies change
 

clockworkorange

Arachnopeon
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
26
Very interesting thread!

I am not a myriapodologist -yet- as I m doing a PhD now but i did try to reevaluate the taxonomical validity of the Scolopendra subspinipes species group a couple of years ago and I have to say that with Chilopods, we are in an odd situation... The variability of the morphological characters requires statistical tests on a rather large scales and the gene fragment regularly use for taxonomy at the species level in arthropods (the mitochondrial Cytochrome Oxydase) reveals an increadible high variability from one population to the other of a same subspecies. This implies the use of a correction factor during analysis and that's when it all get too complicated... Unfortunately, as far as I know, there is no myriapodologist who has decided yet to merge traditional morphological taxonomy with molecular phylogenetics. This combination (total evidence approach) has been used successfully by Edgecombe and Giribet but at the class and order level, never at a genus scale. Maybe I will stop sitting on my results one day and will decide to further them a bit...
 

Galapoheros

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
8,982
Wow Turgut, you are ALL pedes? That's good, good to have a few of those here. I like my pedes but I tend to like it all so I get kind of spread out and don't focus so much on one area.
 

skips

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
521
Very interesting thread!

I am not a myriapodologist -yet- as I m doing a PhD now but i did try to reevaluate the taxonomical validity of the Scolopendra subspinipes species group a couple of years ago and I have to say that with Chilopods, we are in an odd situation... The variability of the morphological characters requires statistical tests on a rather large scales and the gene fragment regularly use for taxonomy at the species level in arthropods (the mitochondrial Cytochrome Oxydase) reveals an increadible high variability from one population to the other of a same subspecies. This implies the use of a correction factor during analysis and that's when it all get too complicated... Unfortunately, as far as I know, there is no myriapodologist who has decided yet to merge traditional morphological taxonomy with molecular phylogenetics. This combination (total evidence approach) has been used successfully by Edgecombe and Giribet but at the class and order level, never at a genus scale. Maybe I will stop sitting on my results one day and will decide to further them a bit...
Good book, a clockwork orange. the movie was terrible though. Now why use allometries? also, if you use cytochrome C why not go with some other highly conserved gene. In bacteria we use 16s RNA sequences. So why not try something else, GAPDH, or beta actin? You should stop sitting on your results. BTW, where does a myrapodologist publish?
 
Top