# Hadrurus obscurus?



## Galapoheros (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm dumb.  I can't believe I bought more scorps.  I had to get them though.  The source says they came from the Mohave Desert.  What do you think?, truly H. obscurus?  And I tried to get a male and a female.  My only worry is that the diff I see might be because of the possibility one of the scorps is not mature.  But I think the small one is mature(don't know 100%), so do y'all think I have a male and fem too?  The more I look at the first pic, the more I think the small one has a molt to go(?)





me thinks: male





me thinks: female


----------



## beetleman (Nov 4, 2009)

wow! they are awesome,they look alittle like my pallidus, i wouldn't mind getting some of those also:drool: yeah, looks like ya gotta pair alright:clap:


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 4, 2009)

So do you not think they are H. obscurus?  The truth is what it is, I just want to know.  I saw some info on the web but can't really tell.  Most pics of obscurus I see are darker than these.


----------



## beetleman (Nov 4, 2009)

they could be,my pallidus is very light like those,but again i'm not definite.


----------



## beetleman (Nov 4, 2009)

i just looked at some pics of them aswell,the obscurus look alot darker almost like arizonensis,yours are like my pallidus,hmm:? i'm not sure on these.


----------



## H. laoticus (Nov 4, 2009)

Looks like H. arizonensis to me.  They also have that crescent on the carapace.


----------



## tarzan2day (Nov 5, 2009)

Those are totally H. arizonensis. unless you live in the desert it will be virtually impossible to breed them.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 5, 2009)

H. laoticus said:


> Looks like H. arizonensis to me.  They also have that crescent on the carapace.


A _Hadrurus_ is going to look like a _Hadrurus_. That "crescent" on the carapace? Sounds like the genus to me.



tarzan2day said:


> Those are totally H. arizonensis. unless you live in the desert it will be virtually impossible to breed them.


Yes, because _Hadrurus arizonensis_ is that pale...Oh wait, no, it's not that pale. I didn't know it was virtually impossible to breed them, I wonder where the captive breed scorplings keep coming from :? 

Okay, now that I've alienated the resident experts on this thread.

Todd, those are clearly of the genus _Hadrurus_. They are very much not mature, as I can tell by the size comparison of your hand beneath them...and the fact that they have no adult color for any species of the genus _Hadrurus_. As far as them being _H. arizonensis_ as a couple have guessed, that is a very slight possibility as _H. arizonensis_ have a dark carapace from parturition and it gets darker as they get older. _Pallidus_ is a trinomial of _H. arizonensis_, or if you'd rather, a subspecies. I'm going to say that, although the legs are pale enough, your scorps are not _H. obscurus_ because the carapace of _H. obscurus_ is very dark. As it stands, I'm going to say that they are in fact the trinomial, _Hadrurus arizonensis pallidus_. Yes, species of the genus _Hadrurus_ are not easy to breed but it has been done and there is photographic evidence and documentation of this for any sceptic who may try to tell you otherwise. The real task is getting them to molt from one instar to the next...No, living in the desert doesn't help breed or raise this species as they are obligate burrowers and build massive labyrinths so as to raise the RH when they are in their burrow - this is a species that does like and NEED humidity (suggestion: false bottom so that they can choose their humidity by burrowing). Humidity helps with molting but not too much, hence the false bottom suggestion so that the surface stays dry but the earth underneath is humid. 4" minimum for substrate - don't plan on moving your enclosures around too much. For the sake of keeping them from eating each other, I recommend housing them separately until mating time (some have success with communal _Hadrurus_ setups, but most fail and with only two, it's better safe than sorry). You are correct on your sexing, congratulations, it's a pair! Best of luck Todd.

Cheers,
R.S.


----------



## H. laoticus (Nov 5, 2009)

I think tarzan2day meant to say that you can breed them, but it's very difficult to raise them to adulthood.  Otherwise he's wrong lol

I also mentioned the crescent to get rid of H. obscurus pictured here:
http://bugguide.net/images/cache/IL...HNZWHVZGLRRWH3HIL8ZIH8ZHL5ZHL2ZHLCHSLEZLL.jpg


----------



## rasputin (Nov 5, 2009)

H. laoticus said:


> I think tarzan2day meant to say that you can breed them, but it's very difficult to raise them to adulthood.  Otherwise he's wrong lol


No, he was pretty clear:


tarzan2day said:


> ...*unless you live in the desert it will be virtually impossible to breed them.*





H. laoticus said:


> I also mentioned the crescent to get rid of H. obscurus pictured here:
> bugguide.garbage


Yeah, the bugguide is a bunch of crap most of the time. Didn't know they had that on there (haven't been there in ages).


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 5, 2009)

Haha, ..well as far as raising babies goes, I've read all about how hard it is to raise the babies.  I want to try it and is the basic reason I bought these.  I've been a little interested in them for over 20 years but never did buy any, I see them in the stores often now.  I'm going to assume the problem people have in raising them is the same as the problem people have raising Parabuthus transvaalicus which I haven't had a prob with.

OK well, I want to mess around with this a little more if anybody else wants to.  The dark band does have a crescent shape.  They do look like pallidus to me so far but were labeled H. obscurus in the store and "from the Mojave Desert" so I want to look a little harder.  I'm not sure which "trichobothria" to look for at the base of the moveable finger on the chela though.  The male is mature, the pic makes them look small some how, not 100% on the female though.


bugguide.net:

"H. obscurus is related to H. spadix by lacking the 3 accessory trichobothria(compared to arizonensis that has three at the base of the moveable finger on the chela). It also has the darkend pigment extending into the interocular crescent but not to the anterior margin. Many specimens have a faint pale strip extending along the dorsal midline. A *pale* variety (obscurus) has carapace markings that form a "V" pattern that "covers" the eyes instead of a rounded crescent situated somewhat behind the median eyes. This one is known only from California from near Hollister and Fresno and down the Mojave Desert to north of Calexico."


----------



## rasputin (Nov 5, 2009)

Todd,
You've brought up an interesting point, there was a thread about this earlier this year on the ATS board click here

Also, here's some info that may help from identification to molting and breeding issues:

Soleglad, M. E. 1976. The taxonomy of the genus Hadrurus based on chela trichobothria (Scorpionida :
Vejovidae). J. Arachnol. 3:113-134

Hadley, N. F. 1970, Water Relations Of The Desert Scorpion, Hadrurus Arizonensis. J. Exp. Biol. S3. 547-558

Francke, O.F. and Prendini, L. 2008. Phylogeny and classification of the giant hairy scorpions, Hadrurus Thorell (Iuridae Thorell): A reappraisal. Systematics and Biodiversity 6(2): 205-223.

CH4: _Phylogeny of the "hirsutus" group of the genus  Hadrurus Thorell, 1876 based on morphology and mitochondrial DNA (Scorpiones: Iuridae)._ Scorpions 2001 In Memoriam Gary A. Polis
Edited by Victor Fet and Paul A. Selden Published by the British Arachnological Society, August 2001 Pg 5 of the PDF will really help.

Eran Gefen, Cuong Ung, and Allen G. Gibbs. Partitioning of transpiratory water loss of the desert scorpion, Hadrurus arizonensis (Iuridae). J. Ins. Phys. V55, I6, June 2009, PP 544-548  (membership required)


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 5, 2009)

Good dig, thanks.  The trichobothria pdf is what will help me the most.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 5, 2009)

Anytime, glad I can help. _H. arizonensis_ is my favorite species and one I'm doing my own research on.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 6, 2009)

I'm feeling more confident they are the pale form of H. obscurus.  I've got a magnifier, an eyepiece I can hold with some forceps.  I was able to look at the inside of the chela and from what I could see, it corresponds with fig 25 in this pdf :  http://www.americanarachnology.org/JoA_free/JoA_v3_n2/JoA_v3_p113.pdf  I'm going to try and get a scan of the inside of the chela later.

I don't like diagrams, it's probably because I'm not good at getting info from them.  Why don't they use REAL macro pictures and point at features on the picture?, instead of having an artist looking at the feature, drawing the feature, then labeling the drawing....  now I'm thinking they are arizonensis again, going to try and scan now.

I just can't get the inside of the chela flat enough against the glass, it's not working since the inside of the chela isn't flat.   ...oh well.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 6, 2009)

Look around for tweezers with the rubber sleeves over them (Bean Farm sells them *bottom of page). You get a second person involved to take up close pictures and then you gently hold your scorp and, oh so gently, grab the palps with the tweezers to turn them so you can photograph them and capture the detail (if the other person is a better scorp handler then have them assume that role.

I hear ya on the drawings. Rich Ayrey from AZSCORPION.COM just documented a new species of Vaejovidae in southern AZ and he used full color photos in the documentation along with the drawings so you knew what you were looking at, it put a smile on my face.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 6, 2009)

I can scan or take a pic very easily by myself, I have a method for all that.  It's my camera, it just won't take close-ups that well, almost though.  I may try to take a pic through that eye-piece though, that's worked before.


----------



## Jeremy Huff (Nov 6, 2009)

That is H.a.pallidus, no doubt about it.  There are some cross H.a.a and H.a.p that look like obscurus.  H. obscurus look like spadix except it has the slight cresent.  I have also noticed most specimens have a light colored line bisecting the tergites.

If you want to image trichs, the best way is under UV.  They are much easier to see.

Jeremy


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 6, 2009)

"slight crescent", what are you referring to, the dark around the eyes?  Do you have pics of what you are referring to?  It's strange to me that there aren't more pics of the differences out there.  And the "pale" form of obcurus ..no pics anywhere?, it's weird to me.  Good idea with the BL, I'll try it.


----------



## Jeremy Huff (Nov 6, 2009)

http://research.amnh.org/users/lorenzo/PPT/SWvorh_2007.htm

Slide 11 and 14 is H. obscurus.  The second from the type locality.


----------



## Jeremy Huff (Nov 6, 2009)

bottom left on 14 is obscurus and arizonensis is above it


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 6, 2009)

Thanks for the pics!  Did you mean slide 13 and not 14?, I didn't see much in 14.  Also, "the crescent", is it the dark around the eyes you are talking about?  Also, have you ever come across the more rare "pale" form of obscurus?  How can I rule out the pale form of obscurus without looking at the trichs?  I could've been a victim of marketing or somebody might have made a mistake in IDing these, which I think is the case.  I paid $16 each.  They were labeled as "rare" and as obscurus from the Mojave.  I've read there are other forms around the Mojave but the "pale" form is the only thing making me wonder.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 6, 2009)

that settles it


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 6, 2009)

OK, best to go with pallidus then.  Anybody want to answer my other questions there in my last posts?  Seriously, IMO, we need to go with real pictures instead of diagrams.  I can count 9 trichos in a row in the area referred to in that pdf with pics I just took.  Am I counting the right ones?  I was finally able to get pics with my camera.  Some hairs are tiny, some large, some in-between...  Why not use real pics in these research papers/pdfs?  MAN that's frustrating!  The trichobothria count seems to help a lot but the pdf mentions "variability, "not always"...  The diagrams are used to express the ideal case specimen".  Why not take a pic of the "ideal specimen"?  That research took a lot of work, but there seems to be a lot of overlap, getting a little gray in areas but that's prob the nature of nature being narrowed down, trying to categorize everything so hard.  Anyway, I'm going to post some pics later just so people can take a look.  Anybody wanting to take a stab at a count when I post pics, go for it.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 6, 2009)

I just read more about trichobothria and didn't know that trichobothria are not the "tapered" setae, but have the same diameter along their length.  Is that true?  If that's the case, I don't see any in the row referred to in the diagram in my pics, I only see tapered setae.  Pics later.  I'm also going to take pics of the other one and post them both if something warrants it.  Just something to look at, maybe something to refer to later if nothing else.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 6, 2009)

Jeeeez, OK, I think these pics were worth the work.  It's something interesting to look at and I like digging, taking the extra step.  I want to focus on this a little more, curiosity is enough, why close the case so soon(?)  Let's look at pics, think about it more.  I'm looking at the trichobrothria pattern that people can refer to on pages 119 and 120 here: http://www.americanarachnology.org/JoA_free/JoA_v3_n2/JoA_v3_p113.pdf  My question is, Are the small hairs you see there normal setae? or are they trichobothria?  They look like normal, tapered setae to me and not trichos, according to the descrip of trichos I read.  What do you think?  If they are normal setae, it is not pallidus ..according to the research given in the thread.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 6, 2009)

Sorry, I did want to respond earlier but I've been trying to give my mind a little rest so I can be on the ball for stuff like this. I take it that I'm looking at the internal view of the chela? I'm going to say that this is _H.a.p_ based on the following note I made from the key. I will steal a pic from your photobucket and hilight the trichobothrium for you and re-post it in a few (you'll have to be patient, I stared at those pix until I went crosseyed comparing them to the keys).

On the key, fig 18-21 are of _H.a.a_ (_H.a.p_ has one more trichobothrium), fig 22-25 & 28 are used for H.o; fig 28 is actually how you separate _H.s_ from _H.o_ by chela from an internal view.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 6, 2009)

Yeah, go for it.  I count 7 to around 10 personally, and there is even a tiny "11" possibly, I went cross-eyed too.  I've anticipated what you might mark, only makes sense.  But I still wonder if what we are looking at are trichos or normal setae.  We want to think we "know" but there are other people out there that have made the research their life.  I try not to let "wanting to be right" get in the way though I would rather these be the "pale" variety of obscurus I admit.  I emailed the producer of the research paper, Michael and linked my images to the email.  I don't know if he is too busy to respond but we might hear from him too.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 6, 2009)

Your count over 7 is very wrong, read table 2 - it's on the 13th page of the pdf. I am looking at the internal part of the chela, correct?


----------



## rasputin (Nov 6, 2009)

Compare to diagram 21, PP 120 (PP 8 on the PDF) and table 2, PP 125 (PP 13 on the PDF). I know it may seem like it's crooked but cross reference it to diagrams 5, 9, 13, 17, 25 & 28 and come back to me.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

I forgot to add that the pic is taken at an extreme enough angle that the bottom dot you see is actually supposed to be the bottom of the chela according to the diagram - you've got to really be paying attention to the key to notice that - I was going to draw lines to show this but forgot, sorry.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 7, 2009)

"very wrong".. that's not a productive approach, just let me know what you think and show me.  People seem to be afraid to be wrong.  Sure, it's prob pallidus, it's not a contest.  I just want to ID this thing the best I can but I'm not convinced enough.  Nobody has answered my other questions either.  The "crescent", what is that?  I don't understand why nobody answers that.  I haven't heard from the person I bought these from, I'm trying to get locality info, at least to the county.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

Galapoheros said:


> "very wrong".. that's not a productive approach, just let me know what you think and show me.


I didn't mean that as an attack, calm down man - no need to be so defensive. :?

It has been shown, I'll do the other angles of the series as well if you'd like.

I don't know if the guy that you bought them from collected them himself or not but if he didn't and they were truly _H.o_ then you would have paid a lot more - because he would have paid a lot more.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 7, 2009)

Yes, that is a pattern I saw too.  But from the def of trichobothria, it made me wonder which of these are normal setae or are they all trichobothria?  Are all "hairs" on scorps trichobothria?, do they not have setae?..like Ts?


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 7, 2009)

No I'm just making a point, we don't know for sure what's right yet.  No, the guy didn't collect them, he got them from somebody esle.  He hasn't contacted me yet about local info.  I told him that the county is enough, ..but nothing yet.

lol ...the crescent!  Still, nobody has answered(?) ..anybody?


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

Scorpions do have setae, setae are just hairs, generically speaking. A hairy scorpion will be covered in setae. Trichobothrium are setae, specialized setae.

Here's some info from the glossary that will help (gotta love having a glossary of scorp terms around)(a good one here: http://www.vaejovidae.com/Glossary.htm):

*Seta* - A socketed, chitinous hair or bristle found on the body and appendages of scorpions. Setae vary considerably in thickness, shape, and length. Most are innervated and serve as tactile receptors or chemoreceptors.

*Trichobothrium* - A thin, willowy sensory seta arising from a (usually) large, circular socket on the surface of the pedipalpal cuticle. The trichobothrium is a highly sensitive hair that is easily moved by air-borne vibrations, allowing it to be used to detect aerial prey, such as moths. Trichobothria are located only on the pedipalpal femur, patella, and tibia (chela palm + fixed finger).


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 7, 2009)

Yes, thanks, good info.  Now my wonder is, "Are these that I see, and you have marked normal setae, or are they trichobothria, the structure that makes the pattern that Michael says is characteristic of a hadrurus species?"  My hunch is that they are what we are looking for, but they are very "tapered" in my pics, like I have read normal setae are.  But also, I see that all larger, thicker trichobrothria are tapered ..at the end at least.  So this is making me unsure.  To me, the diagrams imply we should be seeing something more obvious than what we see in my pics ....just my hunch right now.

lol, the crescent hahaha, what are we talking about here!, still nothing.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

This is from http://library.thinkquest.org/27858/prey_predators_parasites.htm

There had been a classification of sensory hairs in 1964, into 4 main categories (excluding the trichobothria) :

TYPE 1 : Thin, about 0.2 mm long, not visible to the naked eye ; found widely over the body, covering the telson extensively.

TYPE 2 : Thin, about 1 mm long, barely visible to the naked eye ; found in all parts but mainly covering the pectines, intersegmental membranes of the measoma, pedipalps, telson and legs.

TYPE 3 : Only about 5-6 in number, 0.5 to 1 mm long, invisible to the naked eye ; found only on the dorsal side of the legs.

TYPE 4 : Coarse, curved and spiny, 1-1.5 mm long, covering the tarsi of the legs. 
The type 1 hairs have been reported to be thermal receptors and the type 3 hairs are the humidity and tactile receoptors. These hairs are in fact the main instruments of navigation scorpions have. 

Reference: Abushama, F.T. 1964. On the behaviour and sensory physiology of the scorpion Lieurus quinsquestriatus (H&E). Animal Behavior 12(1):140-53.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 7, 2009)

OK, more good info there, it says "excluding trichobothria", so if I can see them with "the naked eye" then they are trichobothria(?) according to that info.  haha, that's assuming 20/20 vision, lol I'm getting older.  Seems like many of the ones I was looking at and that you marked might be one mil or less and very hard to see with the naked eye even if I were 13.  If so they would not be trichos in my pics.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

Galapoheros said:


> OK, more good info there, it says "excluding trichobothria", so if I can see them with "the naked eye" then they are trichobothria(?) according to that info.  haha, that's assuming 20/20 vision, lol I'm getting older.  Seems like many of the ones I was looking at and that you marked might be one mil or less and very hard to see with the naked eye even if I were 13.  If so they would not be trichos in my pics.


With this species, yes. You won't exactly be able to see the hairs in all species though.

Also, don't have an aneurysm dwelling on the "crescent" as it is shared. Remember on page one when I first posted about that conversation on ATSHQ...Read the two links I left from that post in the following quote:



rasputin said:


> Todd,
> You've brought up an interesting point, there was a thread about this earlier this year on the ATS board click here
> 
> Also, here's some info that may help...identification...:
> ...


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 7, 2009)

Oh so that's the only reference, ..that thread, haha.  Why didn't anybody say so sooner , I thought it might be more documented.  That other thing was 19 pages long, will get to it later.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

Galapoheros said:


> Oh so that's the only reference, ..that thread, haha.  Why didn't anybody say so sooner , I thought it might be more documented.  That other thing was 19 pages long, will get to it later.


Unfortunately, I haven't been able to track down the actual documentation for _H.o_ but that 19pg paper actually goes through the morphological differences between species of _Hadrurus_ - this is where I got the info that led to me saying to quit worrying about the crescent.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 7, 2009)

OK, now I know it doesn't have a lot of backing so far, simple enough, thanks.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

You're totally gonna hate me for this...You wanted the documentation...Here's the original documentation of this species by Williams 1970...It's a 72pg PDF  Knock yourself out:

WILLIAMS, S.C. 1970. A systematic revision of the giant hairy scorpion genus Hadrurus. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences 87, 1–62.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

And you'll hate me some more...Williams' revision of the species in 1980...A 142pg PDF  :

WILLIAMS, S.C. 1980. Scorpions of Baja California, Mexico and adjacent islands. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences 135, 1–127.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 7, 2009)

Williams did one in '76 but I can't find it right now.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 7, 2009)

lol I don't want to hate you, sup with that?  I haven't looked at those pdfs yet, I just got an email.  OK, any doubt is out of my head now.  Some of you knew the ID and I hope people pardon my hammering out some details, it's just that I've seen so many ID mistakes made from not taking a closer look, that I've gotten more skeptical lately.  I learned a lot though, thanks for the posts. I just got this info in from a profession/specialist.  

"Based on your six photos, it appears this is Hadrurus a. arizonensis,
pale form commonly found in California."  

He also mentioned the "crescent" feature.

Man those pdfs are huge, good to know they are there!  My cheap dsl was able to handle them though.


----------



## Hentzi (Nov 8, 2009)

Nice pale Arizonensis, mine are all like a dark straw color i know the pallidus is a pale form


----------



## rasputin (Nov 8, 2009)

Galapoheros said:


> "Based on your six photos, it appears this is Hadrurus a. arizonensis,
> pale form commonly found in California."


So, Michiel said it's H.a.a "pale form" not H.a.pallidus? You did email Michiel out in the Netherlands, right? Not a Michael in the U.S.? And that thread on the ATSHQ board was a conversation amongst "profession/specialists" and a couple ams.

The _Hardudus arizonensis_ "pale form" is _Hadrurus arizonensis pallidus_, they are synonymous. <--I'm putting this out there as documented fact beyond question so nobody gets confused. Michiel and I never disagree on anything pertaining to scorps but this is something like a Freudian slip because there is no documented "pale form from California" that is not _H.a.p_

Rich Ayery can be quoted as saying: "_Hadrurus arizonensis pallidus_ is a color morph of _Hadrurus arizonensis_." Rich Ayery, if you don't recognize the name, recently documented a new species of Vaejovidae in southern Arizona and that documentation is in this months issue of Dr. Victor Fet's, Euscorpius.

Rich aside, with exception to a few setbacks, I've actually been working on some R&D on _Hadrurus arizonensis_ for a few years but I don't claim to be a "profession/specialists," I'm just a man with a passion for scorpions that goes back 18yrs, with 7yrs collecting and almost 2yrs on the boards.


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 8, 2009)

No, it wasn't the Netherlands guy.  Yeah, he's really into it too!  I emailed the one that wrote that paper on Hadrurus trichobothria, I wanted to go to the source.  And no, he never said it "wasn't" pallidus, seems like a nice person.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 8, 2009)

Michael Soleglad?


----------



## Galapoheros (Nov 9, 2009)

It's possible he wouldn't want me to post his comments from an email, very informal, so I was trying to avoid typing his name but no big deal, I was being too careful I think.  Yeah exposing some background like you did in a previous post sure helps a lot.  But even so, I've seen very experienced people make a fairly fundamental mistakes before.  Because most of us are strangers to each other on the net, and depending on the topic, I think it's best to be a little skeptical, dig a little more.  I should set up my profile myself, I never have done it.  I was just now wondering, does a person have to earn the title "scorpiologist" to be considered a "professional" in the academic world?  I've heard some "enthusiasts"(some people hate that word!) call themselves "experts" and not professionals, that would make some sense if that's the case.


----------



## rasputin (Nov 9, 2009)

Interesting that you bring up such a point/question - the answer is another slew of questions but for the sake of keeping it concise...Who taught the first teacher to teach?

I too talked to Soleglad and don't believe that he would mind that we post his words to put the matter to official rest:



			
				Michael Soleglad said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, you are both correct. Yes, the pale form of H. arizonensis found in California was broken off into a subspecies, H. a. pallidus, by Williams (1970). So you are correct. However, in 2001, Fet et al. (I have attached the paper) concluded that this pale form is only a color phase based on ZERO differences in 16s DNA analysis from dark forms from Arizona. So, the name is now H. a. arizonensis, being distinguished from Williams' (1970) Baja subspecies H. a. austrinus ---I.e., pallidus having been synonymized.
> 
> Also pointed out in this paper is that coloration and its patterns found on the anterior area of the carapace and the mesosoma are NOT important phylogenetically, ONLY the pattern that occurs in the interocular area is consistent and follows species level diagnostics --- which is consistent with the DNA result --- note, both dark and pale forms of H. a. arizonensis have the same crescent pattern.
> 
> Michael


I uploaded the attached PDF to my Google Documents and made it available for download, it's out of the 2001 edition of Scorpions, in Memoriam Gary A. Polis: 
Phylogeny of the "hirstus" group of the genus _Hadrurus_ Thorell, 1876 based on morphology and mitochondrial DNA (Scorpiones: Iuridae)


----------

