# Centruroides bicolor?



## fusion121 (Oct 21, 2004)

I've been offered some of these (needless to say I accepted ), does anyone have any care tips on this species, Communal, habitat etc?
Thanks


----------



## edesign (Oct 21, 2004)

didn't know a C. bicolor existed til now lol...but i knew you'd posted on here enough to say Androctunus if that's what you meant. AWESOME looking scorp i might add...i'm jealous!  :drool: 

I found a lil info on habitat at The Scorpion Files (southern Costa Rica, forest species, prob fairly high humidity):

http://www.ub.ntnu.no/scorpion-files/c_bicolor.php 

other than that even Google wasn't much help...


----------



## Raan_Jodus (Oct 21, 2004)

I think everyone else will agree with me when i say:

you lucky <beep>

good luck with em, and breed em like no tomorrow.  We need more.


----------



## fusion121 (Oct 21, 2004)

Unfortunately they're not the intense colour morph like the picture on the scorpionfiles.


----------



## MichiganHerp (Oct 21, 2004)

all i know is i have been drooling  :drool: over one of those for some time now.....i am so jelous i cant beleave yoiu found some...i have been looking for some time and i know alot of ppl in the herp world and am pretty well known and not even i could get them.....darn this suck!!!!! :worship:  :worship:  :worship:  :drool:  :drool: 


well let me know how they do please i am very intrested in them

you are very lucky

and good luck
anthony


----------



## JeffG (Oct 21, 2004)

Raan_Jodus said:
			
		

> I think everyone else will agree with me when i say:
> 
> *you lucky <beep>*



Yup, what he said


----------



## fusion121 (Oct 21, 2004)

A picture from the breeder(I'm hoping the ID's right):


----------



## Raan_Jodus (Oct 21, 2004)

still really nice... a generation or two down the line and you could get a nice extreme colour morph.  Kind of like how people get the regular and chocolate morphs of B. Jacksoni


----------



## edesign (Oct 21, 2004)

ya, even without the highly contrasted colors in the pic i linked they're still very nice looking...

<-- still jealous


----------



## fusion121 (Oct 21, 2004)

I'm just hoping they don't die in the post


----------



## pandinus (Oct 21, 2004)

Damn You Uk Bastards!!!!!


----------



## Ythier (Oct 22, 2004)

Hi,
I currently have some babies (from the same breeder  ) and babies are growing really slowly, they're tiny and totally different in coloration from babies margaritatus or gracilis. There are pictures of babies on my site. I think it's really C.bicolor you're getting  
Greetings,
Eric
(PS. There is a good description of C.bicolor in the "Scorpion of Costa-Rica" of Francke & Stockwell)


----------



## Navaros (Oct 22, 2004)

C. Bicolor....AND Tityus....AND everything else. There is only one option. Europe must be destroyed. ;P Congrats fusion, I hope you enjoy them.


----------



## fusion121 (Oct 22, 2004)

Ythier said:
			
		

> Hi,
> I currently have some babies (from the same breeder  ) and babies are growing really slowly, they're tiny and totally different in coloration from babies margaritatus or gracilis. There are pictures of babies on my site. I think it's really C.bicolor you're getting
> Greetings,
> Eric
> (PS. There is a good description of C.bicolor in the "Scorpion of Costa-Rica" of Francke & Stockwell)


Thanks for the info eric  Do you keep them communally?


----------



## Nazgul (Oct 22, 2004)

Hi,

I´ve also got some scorplings of these (yes, from the same breeder  ) and I´m not convinced that they are really C. bicolor. What makes you sure about this, Eric? By the way, mine are not growing slowly, most of them have molted once in my possession and I received them a few weeks ago.

Greetings
Alex


----------



## Ythier (Oct 22, 2004)

Mm..you're right Alex, just with the youngs I can't say that it's C.bicolor.
But you will be agree with me if I assure that it's not gracilis/margaritatus. That's no bad at all  
So, as the adult specimen seems to be comes from Costa-Rica (just 4 species and it's not a margaritatus, koesteri or limbatus), and as it has very contrasted colours...so there's for me every chances that it's a bicolor (or a non-described species)...
My babies grow not extremly slowly (they have molted two times since I have it), but more slowly than a baby marg or gracilis.
What do you think about this species Alex ? :? 
Greetings,
Eric


----------



## fusion121 (Oct 22, 2004)

Is it definitely a centruroides? I thought Tityus when I first saw the picture since it reminded me of T. bahiensis. But its not easy to tell.


----------



## Nazgul (Oct 22, 2004)

Hi Eric,

you are right, I´m sure as well it´s no margaritatus nor gracilis. I didn´t know the mother´s origin is Costa Rica, did Giorgio say this? I have no idea which species yet. I was too lazy to examine them carefully so far . But it should be easy to find out if it´s C. bicolor by using the description in the Francke & Stockwell book, you are right again, Eric . My youngs are looking completely different from the specimen on the picture, is this a picture from Giorgio?

Greetings
Alex


----------



## fusion121 (Oct 22, 2004)

Nazgul said:
			
		

> Hi Eric,
> 
> you are right, I´m sure as well it´s no margaritatus nor gracilis. I didn´t know the mother´s origin is Costa Rica, did Giorgio say this? I have no idea which species yet. I was too lazy to examine them carefully so far . But it should be easy to find out if it´s C. bicolor by using the description in the Francke & Stockwell book, you are right again, Eric . My youngs are looking completely different from the specimen on the picture, is this a picture from Giorgio?
> 
> ...


Yes the pictures from him and he says they came from coasta rica, the scorplings seem to look totally differrent to the adults.


----------



## Ythier (Oct 22, 2004)

fusion121 said:
			
		

> Yes the pictures from him and he says they came from costa rica


Yes, Giorgio said me also that it comes from Costa-Rica and our scorplings are from the specimen on the picture.



			
				fusion121 said:
			
		

> the scorplings seem to look totally differrent to the adults.


Indeed. Here's a young.







Greetings,
Eric


----------



## ArNT1 (Oct 22, 2004)

That's a big difference!


----------



## Nazgul (Oct 23, 2004)

Hi,

here are some more pictures.

Greetings
Alex


----------



## Ythier (Oct 23, 2004)

Great pictures Alex, as usually 
It seems that yours have molted on more time than mine.
Greetings,
Eric


----------



## Nazgul (Nov 4, 2004)

Hi,

I examined a specimen with a binocular today using the Francke 6 Stockwell book and the Stahnke key. I´d say it´s definately no C. bicolor. Francke & Stockwell are writing in the diagnosis "...Pedipalp chela fixed finger with nine primary rows of denticles..." This species has 8. Furtheron Francke & Stockwell are giving for males 27 - 28 (mode 27) and for females 23 - 28 (mode 26) pectinal teeth. Stahnke is giving 28 - 29 for males and 26 - 28 for females. I counted pectinal teeth of nine of my ten specimens, one had molted too recently. The results are 1 x 27, 3 x 28, 1 x 29, 4 x 30. That means the pectinal tooth count is 27 - 30 (mode 29).

It´s neither C. limbatus, this species has nine rows of denticles as well. Pectinal tooth count and the number of denticle rows could mean it´s C. margaritatus but when I examined the granulation on the chela with a piece  of molt the granulation was different from the drawings given for C. margaritatus in the Francke & Stockwell. Of all Centruroides spp from Costa Rica C. margaritatus fits most just because it´s the only species with a similar pectinal tooth count and because of the 8 rows of denticles.

But I don´t think we can be really sure the mother comes from Costa Rica. I will ask Giorgio once again.

My conclusion is that it´s not C. bicolor, nor C. limbatus, nor C. margaritatus nor any other Centruroides spp listed in the Francke & Stockwell. But it´s definately a Centruroides sp  .

Greetings
Alex


----------



## fusion121 (Nov 4, 2004)

Nazgul said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I examined a specimen with a binocular today using the Francke 6 Stockwell book and the Stahnke key. I´d say it´s definately no C. bicolor. Francke & Stockwell are writing in the diagnosis "...Pedipalp chela fixed finger with nine primary rows of denticles..." This species has 8. Furtheron Francke & Stockwell are giving for males 27 - 28 (mode 27) and for females 23 - 28 (mode 26) pectinal teeth. Stahnke is giving 28 - 29 for males and 26 - 28 for females. I counted pectinal teeth of nine of my ten specimens, one had molted too recently. The results are 1 x 27, 3 x 28, 1 x 29, 4 x 30. That means the pectinal tooth count is 27 - 30 (mode 29).
> 
> ...



Hi Alex
Very interesting, I'm taking one of these to the British Natural History Museum on Wednesday to see if they can shed some light on the ID of this species as they have all the original description papers there, not to mention many many type specimens.


----------



## Nazgul (Nov 4, 2004)

Hi,

using the Stahnke key leads to C. margaritatus which I just checked. Maybe it´s really this species. It´s the one that fits most. I´ve never seen a C. margaritatus with that kind of coloration but coloration is a poor character for id´ing scorpions.

Greetings
Alex


----------



## fusion121 (Nov 4, 2004)

I don't unfortunatley have much literature on the Centruroides, however the picture that Giorgio gave of the female adult really doesn't look like C. margaritatus, but perhaps your right and its just a very unusual colour morph.


----------



## redhourglass (Nov 4, 2004)

Hello fusion, Alex and all.

I for one look forward to a response c/o species determination from the British Natural History Museum.

BTW, Alex...a great post earlier.  I wouldn't put to much faith in the Stahnke key.  It makes for more madness than clarity in my opinion and it doesn't state fixed or moveable finger with regards to primary granular row counts.  I'm going from memory.  

An interesting article for reading is :
_Frederick Wagner in Descriptions of Centruroides Marx from the Yucatan 
Peninsula_  I don't have the date of publication but is found the literature section of the Catalog.  This paper goes into reason respectively with mis diagnoses from previous authors in Centruroides c/o granular row counts.  However, it does give a good description of C. marg. and C. gracilis, etc.

It is great to see others go through the flux of Centruroides identification without locality data...  :wall: 

Kind Regards,

Chad Lee



			
				fusion121 said:
			
		

> Hi Alex
> Very interesting, I'm taking one of these to the British Natural History Museum on Wednesday to see if they can shed some light on the ID of this species as they have all the original description papers there, not to mention many many type specimens.


----------



## Nazgul (Nov 5, 2004)

Hi,

thanks, Chad. I found the citation in the bibliography of the Catalog. Unfortunately I´m not at home until Sunday evening so I won´t be able to order the paper before.

But when I read your post it came to my mind that I´m having another paper on the comparison of C. gracilis and C. margaitatus in my possession. As far as I remember it´s not by Wagner. I will have a look at it when I´m home again. It could be useful to see if it´s really C. margaritatus or not.

Greetings
Alex


----------



## Ythier (Nov 6, 2004)

Very interesting Alex, good job, thanks :clap: 
I've just a very little doubt about granulation. Last time, I wanted to ID a young P.villosus with a key, I'm now sure it's a villosus with some characters, but I saw that granulations (on chelae, cephalothorax...) wasn't exactly the same that on my key, there were the main features, but it was not exaclty the same granulation, so I think (I'm not sure) that granulation evolve between firsts instars and adult, I think it is more simple (or less complex) in the firsts instars, and I don't know if granulation is a good caracter to ID young instars.
But as you said, with pectinal counts and rows of denticles it's not a bicolor (btw, do you asked to Giorgio regarding localization of sampling ?)
Thanks again for you ID.
Greetings,
Eric
(PS. I apologize to english-speakers, I'm in a hurry and my english is awful, sorry :8o   )


----------



## Nazgul (Nov 6, 2004)

Hi,

I received an answer from Giorgio. He said a friend of him collected them in Costa Rica. Therefor the origin should be sure. 

According to the origin it should really be C. margaritatus  :? . Your answer, Eric, would lead into that direction either. Anyways I´ll check it with the gracilis - margaritatus comparison paper when I´m home again.

Greetings
Alex


----------



## fusion121 (Nov 6, 2004)

Does anyone have:

MARTIN-FRIAS, Eliézer and DE ARMAS, Luis F.  Scorpions in Mexico: Comments on some species from Centruroides gracilis and C. margaritatus (SCORPIONES; BUTHIDAE) groups. J. Venom. Anim. Toxins, Dec. 2001, vol.7, no.2, p.331-331

This apprently deals with the taxonomy of the two species.


----------



## Ythier (Nov 6, 2004)

Mmm...strange, I think also that a different colour morph of margaritatus is possible, but babies (mine at least) are very different and smaller than babies margs or gracilis...
Anyway, beautiful species


----------



## Nazgul (Nov 7, 2004)

Hi,

today I checked this species again using this paper: 
SISSOM W.D. & W. LOURENCO (1987): The genus Centruroides in South America (Scorpiones, Buthidae) - Journal of Arachnology 15: 11-28
It contains a rediscrpition of C. margaritatus with even more and more detailed figures for determination than in the Francke & Stockwell book. It also contains a table with the average number of denticle rows on the fixed *and* on the movable finger (of more than 120 examined specimens of C. margaritatus). The very most C. margaritatus are having 7 rows on the fixed finger and 8 rows on the movable finger. This species has 8 rows on both fingers. Unfortunately I was able to examine only 2 skins, but I will do it with further ones of course. 

According to Lourenco and Sissom this species is not C. margaritatus. But it´s quite confusing that the number of rows on the fixed given by Lourenco and Sissom is 7 and the one given by Francke & Stockwell and Stahnke is 8. Lourenco examined over 120 specimens of C. margaritatus, Francke & Stockwell examined about 350 at least for the pectinal tooth count. If they counted the denticle rows of all these specimens isn´t mentioned.

The granulation on the pedipalps fits with the figures given by Lourenco & Sissom, the trichobothrial patterns don´t.

So, after all I still don´t know which species. Would be nice to know which paper´s to follow. The book "Scorpions of Costa Rica" and the paper were both published the same year. It will take some time until I´ll receive the paper Chad cited. Maybe it´ll help to lighten it up a bit.

Greetings
Alex


----------



## Ythier (Nov 8, 2004)

Nazgul said:
			
		

> According to Lourenco and Sissom this species is not C. margaritatus. But it´s quite confusing that the number of rows on the fixed given by Lourenco and Sissom is 7 and the one given by Francke & Stockwell and Stahnke is 8.


And do you asked to Kovarik ? He probably give 9 rows  , and perhaps Fet give 10 ?  
Greetings,
Eric


----------



## redhourglass (Nov 8, 2004)

Hi !

Just a quick comment.  The Wagner paper I spoke of doesn't provide a redescription of C. margaritatus.  My apologies.

A good read though.

Good luck,

Chad



			
				Nazgul said:
			
		

> Hi,
> It will take some time until I´ll receive the paper Chad cited. Maybe it´ll help to lighten it up a bit.
> Greetings
> Alex


----------



## fusion121 (Nov 9, 2004)

Nazgul said:
			
		

> According to Lourenco and Sissom this species is not C. margaritatus. But it´s quite confusing that the number of rows on the fixed given by Lourenco and Sissom is 7 and the one given by Francke & Stockwell and Stahnke is 8. Lourenco examined over 120 specimens of C. margaritatus, Francke & Stockwell examined about 350 at least for the pectinal tooth count. If they counted the denticle rows of all these specimens isn´t mentioned.



Hi 
I counted 8 rows of denticles  on the fixed and moveable finger as you did, the Lourenco and Sissom paper says that C. margaritatus can have this many rows of denticles on the moveable and fixed fingers. 





though its not a common number. The paper does also say:



> Preliminary evidence indicates that C. margaritatus varies considerably in cuticular granulation, morphometrics, and pectinal tooth counts . These differences do not appear great enough in light of the current understanding of C . margaritatus to warrant specific or subspecific status for the different populations .


It seems within the limits of the variation in this species that C. margaritatus could well be the case. Anyway I'm taking one into the museum tomorrow to see what they have to say, 

Image copyright:
SISSOM W.D. & W. LOURENCO (1987): The genus Centruroides in South America (Scorpiones, Buthidae) - Journal of Arachnology 15: 11-28


----------



## Nazgul (Nov 9, 2004)

Hi,

yes, C. margaritatus fits in mostly (more than any other species described for Costa Rica). The differences in my examined specimens to certain drawings weren´t major ones and could have been cause I examined non-adult specimens. 

Yes, Sissom & Lourenco say that C. margaritatus *can* have 8 rows on the fixed finger but it´s less than 1/7 of the examined specimens. It´s very unlikely that out of three examined specimens (1 you, 2 me) all of them turn out to have 8 rows. Nevertheless I´ll count the rows of all other specimens as soon as they have molted.


I´m very curious about the results of your visit in the museum tomorrow  .

Greetings
Alex


----------



## fusion121 (Nov 10, 2004)

Hmm. I went to see  Paul Hillyard, one of the arachnid curators, at the NHM today, unfortunately he admitted south american scorpions are not really his area. However he had a look and agreeded the evidence seems to point to C. margaritatus, however he said he would not trust an ID based on a 3rd instar scorpling, the ID/ID characters may become clearer when the scorpion matures. So I guess the identity of these scorpions will have to remain a bit mysterious for a while longer.


----------



## G. Carnell (Nov 10, 2004)

did he let you check the scorp specimens from costa rica??


----------



## fusion121 (Nov 10, 2004)

G. Carnell said:
			
		

> did he let you check the scorp specimens from costa rica??


Didn't compare with specimens as he though it was too difficult to compare adult features to those of a scorplings, he did say I could bring it back when it matured to see if he could try and definitively ID it then.


----------



## Ythier (Nov 14, 2004)

Hi,
I'll ask to Lourenço tomorrow, hope we'll have a name in the week..
Greetings,
Eric


----------



## skinheaddave (Nov 14, 2004)

Nazgul said:
			
		

> it´s less than 1/7 of the examined specimens. It´s very unlikely that out of three examined specimens (1 you, 2 me) all of them turn out to have 8 rows.


Since denticles have a genetic basis (obvious, since they are used to differentiate species) and yours all seem to come from the same source who collected his breeding stock from the same location, it would not be surprising that they all had the same number.  It would seem, even, that the chances are good they are siblings.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Nazgul (Nov 15, 2004)

Hi,

all of them are siblings indeed. As far as I understood all of them are coming from one single wc gravid female.

By the way, I was wrong, Stahnke doesn´t give 8 rows for the fixed but for the movable finger. Wagner in the paper mentioned by Chad before is stating that the number of denticle rows on the fixed finger can easily lead to misidentification and is not a good distinctive feature. One of the reasons is the apical row which sometimes appears and is sometimes counted and sometimes not depending on the author.

Furtheron I´m having contact to a guy who owns a male C. margaritatus which has a very similar coloration to the one of the adult female from Giorgio. As as he told me it´s a male C. margaritatus for sure cause it mated successfully with one of his normal colored females.

Greetings
Alex


----------



## smalltime (Nov 15, 2004)

Nazgul said:
			
		

> Furtheron I´m having contact to a guy who owns a male C. margaritatus which has a very similar coloration to the one of the adult female from Giorgio. As as he told me it´s a male C. margaritatus for sure cause it mated successfully with one of his normal colored females.


Alex, be careful with a statement like that.... If they mated it doesn't mean the offspring was just as viable and even if they were just as viable it wouldn't necessarily mean the parents were the same species.... (Compare Brachypelma hybrids....) 

But let's not get into the whole species-concept thing


----------



## Ythier (Nov 15, 2004)

Yes there are in the litterature some cases of hybridation with viable scorplings (bicolor x australis, etc...)


----------



## fusion121 (Nov 15, 2004)

What I find quite strange is the fact that the young's colouration is completely different to that of the mother, the cream coloured stripe on the tergites was not present in Giorgio's female. Normally the colour variation between young and adults is not so extreme.


----------



## Nazgul (Nov 15, 2004)

smalltime said:
			
		

> Alex, be careful with a statement like that.... If they mated it doesn't mean the offspring was just as viable and even if they were just as viable it wouldn't necessarily mean the parents were the same species.... (Compare Brachypelma hybrids....)
> 
> But let's not get into the whole species-concept thing



Hi,

yes, you are right. There´s even at least one known case of hybridation in Centruroides. Lourenco crossed C. gracilis and C. margaritatus. None of the scorplings of several offsprings reached 3rd instar. Citation is LOURENÇO W.R. (1991) - Interspecific hybridation of laboratory reared Centruroides... I don´t know the exact citation but I can look it up if someone is interested.

I don´t know how much the guy has left of his offspring but at least a few must have survived so far cause he´s offering them for sale as C. margaritatus. Of course they are not adult yet and I don´t know if they turn out to be fertile.

@fusion: I don´t think coloration is a good distinctive feature. For example the scorplings of the C. gracillis I´m keeping are of totally different coloration as the adults.

Greetings
Alex


----------

