# What to call them!  Centruroides sculpturatus/Centruroides exilicauda



## Kathy (Feb 28, 2010)

People keep correcting me that they are no longer called c. sculpts, but they will always be c. sculpts to me.   The more I read the more confused I get between the difference in names.  Maybe someone can explain in Scorpions for Dummies 101 language?


----------



## tom (Feb 28, 2010)

*exilicauda versus sculpturatus*

Very simply the species name was changed by the scientists proposing a new name for what had been known previously as sculpturatus.Check the literature for Scorpion morphology/ indentification. there are a number of articles written on the subject and can easily be downloaded on the internet.
cheers, Tom


----------



## snappleWhiteTea (Feb 28, 2010)

a lot of people just call them sculpts still.


----------



## Irene B. Smithi (Feb 28, 2010)

I'm sticking with C. Sculpts and refuse REFUSE to call them anything else. lol  well, other then my little pest lol


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 1, 2010)

i've been told by more than a few people that they are *separate* species. very very closely related, but separate. reference this thread:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=165100&highlight=exilicauda+sculpturatus


----------



## Michiel (Mar 1, 2010)

It is really simple people:
Only the population of Baja, California is called _C.exilicauda_, the rest of the population is called _C.sculpturatus_. Kathy, your Arizonian specimens are _C. sculpturatus_. 

You see guys, nothing difficult here


----------



## Aztek (Mar 1, 2010)

Yeah.. Baja California, Mexico is still the Exilicauda.

Sculpturus is the rest.


Pretty likely that there's mixed populations out there in captivity.


----------



## gromgrom (Mar 1, 2010)

so the gene pool in arizona are different from california? that doesnt make sense

unless you mean theyre the same minus/plus a few genes


----------



## jayefbe (Mar 1, 2010)

gromgrom said:


> so the gene pool in arizona are different from california? that doesnt make sense
> 
> unless you mean theyre the same minus/plus a few genes


There is no gene flow between the Arizona (sculpturatus) and BAJA California (which is part of Mexico, exilicauda) species.  Of course they share the majority of the same genes (as they do with us and all other eukaryotes), but they are different species since they are found in reproductively isolated populations and have been separate long enough to warrant separate species classifications.


----------



## Kathy (Mar 1, 2010)

So they ARE different species - so when someone tells me that I am wrong in calling them c. sculpts, I am correct - c. exilicuda is a different species in Baja.  Correct?  I have money riding on this.....


----------



## Kathy (Mar 1, 2010)

Michiel said:


> It is really simple people:
> Only the population of Baja, California is called _C.exilicauda_, the rest of the population is called _C.sculpturatus_. Kathy, your Arizonian specimens are _C. sculpturatus_.
> 
> You see guys, nothing difficult here


See, that does not make sense to me - when you say population it implies they are the same species, just called something different in different areas of the country,...


----------



## Nomadinexile (Mar 1, 2010)

Completely different species kathy.   Like C. scuplturatus and C. vittatus.
Not the same.   


They look the same.  Many people are confused.  It's really hard to tell.  But they are different species.


----------



## jayefbe (Mar 1, 2010)

kathy_in_arizona said:


> See, that does not make sense to me - when you say population it implies they are the same species, just called something different in different areas of the country,...


His post does make it sound as though he's just referring to different populations of the same species, but that's not necessarily the case when talking about populations and it's probably a language barrier issue.


----------



## BeakerTheMighty (Mar 1, 2010)

Centruroides sculpturatus and Centruroides exilicauda are both seperate and currently recognized species. (Fet et al. 2000). My understanding (though honestly I'm not going to go digging through references to verify it right now, so if anyone has any  material that contradicts this please post) is that what is commonly called the AZ Bark Scorpion was originally called sculpturatus until being synonimized with the species in  Northern Mexico (C. exilicauda) in 1973. So for pretty much anyone who developed an interest in scorpions in the last 35 years, its always been C. exilicauda. However, to complicate  things further, in 2004 a study conducted at the National Autonomous University of Mexico on the chemical / dna content of venom  from both species showed differences significant enough that the Centruroides species native to AZ was seperated back into it's own species (C. sculpturatus). Simple version at the moment is that Arizona Barks are C. sculpturatus. Centruroides exilicauda still exists in Northern Mexico, but does not incorporate AZ centruroides anymore.
Centruroides species can display a great  variety of color variation and morphs, which  has made it difficult for taxonomists. There have been a number of other Centruroides "species" that became subspecies or were eliminated as a color morph of what was previously thought to be a separate species. Many revisions have taken place in the genus, and I would be absolutely amazed if this was the last revision we see.


----------



## Michiel (Mar 2, 2010)

gromgrom said:


> so the gene pool in arizona are different from california? that doesnt make sense
> 
> unless you mean theyre the same minus/plus a few genes


Maybe my statement was incomplete, or I expected you to understand it quicker 
They are comparable in morphometrics, life history, habitat, but i.e. not in coloration patterns and in genetics. This makes that the specimens from Baja, is regarded as a separate species. If these where the same species, just from different populations, they should be obviously assigned to one species, which is not the case, that's why they have different names, etc etc 
At least, this is what I understood of the literature and from people who know about North-American scorps...


----------



## Widowman10 (Mar 3, 2010)

anyone ever done any successful cross-breeding to produce viable offspring? wonder if it's been done unknowingly.


----------



## Cowin8579 (Mar 3, 2010)

Are you ready to collect this year Kathy? lol


----------



## Kathy (Mar 3, 2010)

Cowin8579 said:


> Are you ready to collect this year Kathy? lol


I'm ready, I've been out looking but have not seen any.  Found a baby on my kitchen floor last week though.  I am hoping to see a lot less this year since I caught so many last summer.  I've had about 10 ppl PM me already to be put on the list.  LOL.  I'm not ignoring the PM's, I'm just waiting to find some...or....hopefully....not!


----------



## Cowin8579 (Mar 3, 2010)

lol how funny.  I'm surprised they are in such high demand, although the story behind your situation is pretty funny!


----------



## redhourglass (Mar 3, 2010)

The taxonomic history has a history so lets leave it as is.  Very complicated but let us move forward into patterns of diversity and zoogeography.

Another discussion awaits,

Sinc. Chad 



Michiel said:


> Maybe my statement was incomplete, or I expected you to understand it quicker
> At least, this is what I understood of the literature and from people who know about North-American scorps...


----------



## shining (Jul 15, 2011)

hahahahaha i see im not the only one who gets hit up to find this species for people..
it would be nice to find someone who finds centipedes to trade with.

im a grave digger!!!!


----------

