# centipede need ID, please



## 西行寺 幽々子 (May 16, 2009)

just get two centipede be caught from southwest of china, please tell me the ID
first 
8CM now , looks a adult size, i think can't grow very biger than this size






head






triangle stomatal, i think it is a Scolopendra






terminal leg, have seven spines






the 20th leg not have a tarsal spine 






i guess it is a Scolopendra subspinipes japonica, but can't sure

second
very small, just 5-6cm, is it a Geophilomorpha sp or a Craterostigmomorpha sp?


















all the pede from this part of china 






PS: how to keep a Scolopendra subcrustalis, i just get two, but don't know what environment they need, like humidity, pad material, please tell me too
 thanks


----------



## peterbourbon (May 16, 2009)

Hi,

as discussed i guess it's something leaning towards _S. subspinipes japonica_, but distribution area sounds strange though i wouldn't wonder if distribution also covers some parts of China. I will have a closer look later on.  

Regards,
Turgut


----------



## Androctonus_bic (May 16, 2009)

I Can't say anything about the first pede (Looks like scolopendra genus for me) but acording with this website it not looks like a japonica to me.

http://www.scolopendra.be/scolopendra_more.php?specie_id=80

About the other extrange pede, for me it is a geophilomorpha because acordin of the two sp. of Craterostigmus it doens't have 15 pair of leggs and doesen't has 21 terguites ( some of them subdivided). Distribution range is extrange. But we have to recognice that, this head looks like Craterostigmus sp.

Cheers
Carles


----------



## peterbourbon (May 16, 2009)

Hey,

i know distribution is the biggest doubt i actually have, but i'm really not sure how many specimen Koch and Attems saw in past and if this subspecies is finally endemic to Japan or not. Maybe it's even not valid, because it's almost impossible to find adequate descriptions of _S.s. japonica_ that was formerly described as _S. japonica_ and AFAIK retransferred to subspecies-status of _S. subspinipes_ later on by Attems himself. But i'm not sure.

In the paper _"Ergebnisse einer zoologischen Forschungsreise in den Mullukken und Borneo"_ by Attems, 1897 he describes a speciman of _S. japonica_ found in Borneo.

I saw exactly this speciman with my own eyes, preserved in alcohole, deposited in the natural Senckenberg-museum in Frankfurt and supposed it to be labeled wrong, since it turned out as a "normal"  young subspinipes-nominate. But good i remember this issue again, i will re-check this speciman.

I don't know what Attems saw later on in his description for "S.s. japonica" since he describes it having "thick terminal legs" though exactly his preserved speciman had very slender and subspinipes-typical terminal legs.

This is a very complicated issue, because _S. subspinipes japonica_ and _S. multidens_ are strongly related and don't differ that much, but in distribution and headplate-coloration. In my opinion this is not enough to distinguish subspecies of Scolopendromorpha since we don't talk about different continents like the strong relation between "Cormocephalus" (mostly old-world species) and "Hemiscolopendra" (almost pure new-world-species) that can be definitely seen as different genera, mainly because of distribution.

_S.multidens_ was transferred from subspinipes-subspecies-status to own species-status by Chao & Chang, because they saw multidens-males lack "appendices" in "genital channel" (in opposite to all subspinipes).
I suppose they did not examine _S. s. japonica_, because they don't provide new information about the subspecies. Who knows? Maybe japonica is only a color variation and smaller growing species in multidens since the taxonomical elements don't differ that much?

To make a long story short (& sorry for writing so much stuff) i think the speciman shown in this thread is something multidens-esque. It lacks tarsal spine on 20th legs and also on terminal legs (what makes it impossible to be S. calcarata which is surely distributed in the same area, besides spines on ventral prefemur)...since i personally think this whole issue about lacking tarsal spines on 20th legs is a big misinterpretation in myriapodology - i guess it's a local variety thing...and also thickness of terminal legs is a misinterpretation-prone-feature, cause we actually examined _S. cingulata var. obscuripes_ from Egypt that have very slender legs.

Nevertheless: Based on size and coloration i would say it's not a _S. multidens _and tend to _S. s. japonica_, just giving the pede a name. (and yeah, it's very annoying the subspecies name is based on a specific distribution area) 

Regards
Turgut


----------



## 西行寺 幽々子 (May 17, 2009)

thanks for reply
  i have talk with Mr Turgut and show many macro photos to him, i agree his conclusion, i think i need keep it some time , to see what size it will grow, if it grow very soon, and be very big, it will be a S. multidens , if not grow anymore, maybe it is really a S. sub.japonica , so far the sign for it is Scolopendra cf. subspinipes japonica


----------



## Androctonus_bic (May 17, 2009)

Interesting post... 

( Just a silly taxonomic question)

Why Scolopendra *cf.* subspinipes japonica? why colorform? it is a sp.

Why *Sc*. subspinipes sometimes? 

Are that black concepts well write? 

Pardon my ignorance.

Cheers
Carles


----------



## peterbourbon (May 17, 2009)

Hi,

"Sc." is just a hobby-mistyping, "S." is scientifically correct if you know what genus you are refering to.

"cf" means "conferre" (Latin) and could be translated as "comparabale to". It is used if you are not 100% sure with your identification.

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Androctonus_bic (May 18, 2009)

Cf....conferre= comparable to.  

It is good to know it. 

I don't know why I thought cf. was syn. of var. So That is the reason I didn't undertand sometimes the taxonomy classification.

Other thing:

Var. and ssp. are syn. in mycroobiology, here in zoology there is a different thing right? Ssp. is over of var., isn't it?

Sorry I'm starting in taxonomy...

Cheers
Carles


----------



## krabbelspinne (May 18, 2009)

ssp. = subspecies and is a valid taxonomical notation under species
example: Scolopendra subspinipes mutilans
(Scolopendra - genus, subspinipes - species, mutilans - subspecies)

var. = variation is a non-valid notation given for subgroups, colour variation or origin...
example: Ethmostigmus trigonopodus (var.) yellow leg
(Ethmostigmus - genus, trigonopodus - species, yellow leg - variation)

For differentiation from subspecies to variation, the short term "var." or "variation" should be used to clearly point out that it is not a subspecies.

So, described in the correct way, Scolopendra heros castaneiceps is Scolopendra heros var. castaneiceps!!!


----------



## Androctonus_bic (May 19, 2009)

Ok, thanks!

So Var. doesn't have any taxonomyc value... Just hobby value.

Cheers
Carles


----------



## peterbourbon (May 19, 2009)

Androctonus_bic said:


> So Var. doesn't have any taxonomyc value... Just hobby value.


I don't know if this is right since there are varieties described in paper and literature. And i'm personally not sure if it's taxonomically possible to invent a variety-name (with "var." prefix) and force others to use that name without publishing it.

edit, btw: Refering to ICZN a variety (hence infrasubspecific name) is not regulated. I suppose that means: If you want to describe a new variety today and want to follow the standards of ICZN, you would rather describe it as a subspecies (or even put it to the nominate / another valid subspecies).
Nevertheless i'm not sure if something officially described as "Scolopendra cingulata var. obscuriceps" in past could be called "Scolopendra cingulata var. cooldarkpededude" today. "not regulated" can mean anything. 


Regards
Turgut


----------

