# Gigantea & galapagoensis



## Maikardaaion (Jun 4, 2006)

*Scolopendra gigantea*, the biggest centipede I keep  she's almost 25 cm in lenght




*Scolopendra galapagoensis*, the second biggest  of my collection, at the moment circa 20 cm


----------



## Tarantula (Jun 4, 2006)

Are you sure that is a galapagoensis? Reminds me of a _Scolopendra subspinipes spp._ from China I saw not long ago.

Photo by Søren Rafn:
http://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scolopendrasptigerleg011mn.jpg


----------



## Maikardaaion (Jun 4, 2006)

When Steven posted the S. viridicornis photos I'm 100% sure this is S. galapagoensis. 

Notice the ringfurrow just behind the head and typical antennae.


----------



## Tarantula (Jun 4, 2006)

Okey, then I just have to say congrats to keeping the centipede I want the most!


----------



## Greg Pelka (Jun 4, 2006)

As always Szymon - beautiful pedes 
and beautiful photos 

Cheers;-)
Greg


----------



## CopperInMyVeins (Jun 4, 2006)

Funny, that Scolopendra galapagoensis has the same colors as the animal that we have at the museum, which is positively IDed as S. gigantea (also looks just like the S. gigantea shown in the article on them catching bats).  Do you actually have verification that it came from the Galapagos Islands? Do you know what the morphological differences between S. galapagoensis and S. gigantea are?


----------



## Maikardaaion (Jun 4, 2006)

Please, You must understand... I'm no scientist. I read this boards, sometimes I try to take part in it. I don't know the exact number, as well as what are the morphological differences between those two. Some differences are obvious - coloration, some are more subtelle which I don't know.
Please search the boards for more galapagoensis and viridicornis photos and related topics, I'm sure You'll find more.

Is Your specimen of gigantea live or preserved ?
BTW, many of preserved specimens I saw (in many placees - including museums and scientific collections) was incorrectly labeled.

The specimen I have on my pictures came to Europe with one of Ecquador livestock export. When I acquired it, it was labeled Scolopendra sp. Ecquador. As far as I know S. galapadoensis is not endemic to Galapagos Islans, and if there are any different geographical forms this will be the Ecquadorean, not Galapagos one. From the same transport I bought Sc. sp. robusta (it's the name it is best known under) and that definately is another species.


----------



## Tarantula (Jun 4, 2006)

How do you know the specimen in your museum is right IDed? Also S. galapagoensis ocurs more than on the Galapagos Island. They also are found on the coast of Ecuador, Southern Peru and the Cook Islands.


//Niklas


----------



## CopperInMyVeins (Jun 4, 2006)

I don't know 100% that it was IDed right, but I know that I trust the skills and knowledge of the person who IDed it, and I also don't have any information that tells me it's not gigantea.  The morphological characteristics actually match up with those of S. gigantea, unlike with the S. subspinipes that you posted, which has similar coloration, but is clearly different physically. It was not collected in any of the places you mentioned.  There is a lot of confusion about just what centipede species are in the pet trade, Ethmostigmus trigonopodus is a perfect example of that.  I plan on doing a lot more research to help sort things out though.


----------



## Tarantula (Jun 4, 2006)

Compare to Szymon pics of his gigantea in the first post. That is how gigantea look. IMO not as the galapagoensis in the other pics...


----------



## diKe (Jun 4, 2006)

I think your "Scolopendra gigantea" is identificated wrong if it looks like his Scolopendra galapagoensis. His centipedes are right called. 

By the way, the centipede in the movie was no Scolopendra galapgoensis...


----------



## CopperInMyVeins (Jun 4, 2006)

diKe said:
			
		

> By the way, the centipede in the movie was no Scolopendra galapgoensis...


What movie?


----------



## diKe (Jun 5, 2006)

CopperInMyVeins said:
			
		

> What movie?


I mean the article, it is a picture made of a film. In this film the centipede climbs up the ceiling of a cave in Venezuela and catches a bat and eats it.


----------



## bengerno (Jun 5, 2006)

Hi,

Anyhow, congrats for such nice pedes, whatever species are they!!  
Beautiful pics! :clap:


----------



## danread (Jun 5, 2006)

CopperInMyVeins said:
			
		

> I don't know 100% that it was IDed right, but I know that I trust the skills and knowledge of the person who IDed it, and I also don't have any information that tells me it's not gigantea.  The morphological characteristics actually match up with those of S. gigantea, unlike with the S. subspinipes that you posted, which has similar coloration, but is clearly different physically. It was not collected in any of the places you mentioned.  There is a lot of confusion about just what centipede species are in the pet trade, Ethmostigmus trigonopodus is a perfect example of that.  I plan on doing a lot more research to help sort things out though.


Which _S, subspinipes_ that he posted? If you plan on doing a lot more research, i suggest you do it before jumping on someone else's ID skills. If you look at the first tergite of the pede in question, you can see that it has a ring furrow, something that _S. subspinipes_ doesn't have.

The person who ID'd the pedes doing the rounds as _S. morsitans_ as _Ethmostigmus sp_ was the same person who ID'd the pede in this thread as _S. galapogensis_. If you want to do some more research, a good place to start is reading Steven's posts (here is a good one), he's the only person i know with a copy of Attems!

Cheers,


----------



## Steven (Jun 5, 2006)

Dan, i'm not the only one with a copy of "Attems" around here  

but for the difference between Sc.gigantea and Sc.galapagoensis
there's an easy key just looking at the smooth basil antennomeres:
gigantea = more then 7 , galapagoensis = less then 7
Gigantea usually have 8 or 9 while galapagoensis usually has 5,5.


this is a good start to check out the difference between the two:

*Neotype designation and a diagnostic account
for the centipede, Scolopendra gigantea L. 1758,
with an account of S. galapagoensis Bollman 1889
(Chilopoda Scolopendromorpha Scolopendridae)

R.M. SHELLEY 1 and S.B. KISER 2
Tropical Zoology 13: 159-170, 2000*

and ya can find it online for free somewhere,...
just google around a bit.


i find it strange that still most of the members here only judge on what scolopendrids "look like" on pictures then actually start counting or checking spines, segments etc... i personally think there are "other" colorforms of gigantea out there that we haven't seen in the hobby yet,... 
so maybe indeed that museum specimen is a gigantea after all,... but maybe cause it's preserved it lost many coloration ??? just my 0,20 cents 



*EDIT*
ow yeah,...
Maikardaaion, awsome pictures and drooling specimen !
:clap:


----------



## CopperInMyVeins (Jun 5, 2006)

danread said:
			
		

> Which _S, subspinipes_ that he posted? If you plan on doing a lot more research, i suggest you do it before jumping on someone else's ID skills. If you look at the first tergite of the pede in question, you can see that it has a ring furrow, something that _S. subspinipes_ doesn't have.


I'm referring to this animal from the second post: http://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=scolopendrasptigerleg011mn.jpg
Now that I look at it I can see the ridge furrow, but it's certainly not as well defined as on the other animals posted I called it S. subspinipes because that's what it was posted as.  Do you know what species it actually is?  I also don't believe I was jumping on anyone's ID skills, the person I was responding to was questioning the ID of the animal I've seen without even seeing it himself.  I'm just trying to add information to this thread, I guess that's frowned upon here by some people.


----------



## CopperInMyVeins (Jun 5, 2006)

Steven said:
			
		

> i personally think there are "other" colorforms of gigantea out there that we haven't seen in the hobby yet,...
> so maybe indeed that museum specimen is a gigantea after all,... but maybe cause it's preserved it lost many coloration ??? just my 0,20 cents


The museum animal is not preserved, it's very much alive, around 14" in length, I PMed Maikardaaion with more detailed info and pictures, and I believe he's going to pass it on to you for further ID help.


----------

