# scolopendra gigantea post-molt pics & analysis



## szappan (Aug 2, 2009)

Good news!  Last Friday (July 24th) I woke up to a freshly molted sc. gigantea.  Premolt it was 25cm and while I didn't take any post molt measurements, it didn't really grow much, if at all.  Still, I'm just happy for a successful molt.

There was some worry for the next few days though, as it took an exceedingly long time to harden up afterwards – almost a full week!   I don't have air conditioning so during the day it gets up to about 30°C and at night it's in the low 20s.  The terrarium it's in now has plenty of ventilation and the substrate is also not overtly moist.  Really, I have no explanation for it.  However, when I first received the specimen, I noticed that there was a "kink" on it's head plate, so it's very likely that it's taken a long time to harden before.



So anyways, here are the pics!  (hides removed for photographing).


















































The "Doom Sexing Method" didn't quite work out as well as with my alternans since the exoskeleton was a bit fragile and partially fell apart making things difficult.  That said, while not 100% certain, I'm still thinking that it's a female because there's no apparent triangular shaped web spinner.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 2, 2009)

Awe maaaan, only 25cm and your going to keep it   That's awesome!  lol in the 5th pic, it looks like it's checking to see if it's done yet.  I bet that thing at 25cm is amazing to see in person, it's hard to catch size like that with a pic.  Congrats!


----------



## dougle (Aug 4, 2009)

*Giants*

I want a collection of these giants , they are awsome.


----------



## Androctonus_bic (Aug 4, 2009)

Ok; giving apart if this is a gigantea or noto ), can you explain how can I difference a female and a male using your method? Can I Believe in this metod for sex pedes?

Sorry like always I'm sceptic untill some body show me the opposite. 

Cheers
Carles


----------



## peterbourbon (Aug 4, 2009)

Androctonus_bic said:


> Ok; giving apart if this is a gigantea or noto )


It's not.  

Nice speciman btw. :clap: 

Regards,
Turgut


----------



## recluse (Aug 4, 2009)

Nice pics man. BEAUTIFUL.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 5, 2009)

I think Szappan was using Latin to say, "another gigantic scolopendra...", not that he was using a sci name.  So, robusta?  gigantea, robusta, it all means big haha.  Anyway, so what's the latest taxo on these things?


----------



## szappan (Aug 5, 2009)

Hello everyone and thanks for the compliments on the pictures / specimen.   

*Regarding the species:*
The person that sold it to me originally told it to me as a sc. gigantea, but later wrote to say that it was now a sc. galapagoensis.  It changes every few years I guess... YEARS ago I bought a "sc. viridicornis", but now it's a "gigantea dark-morph".

But for me, I usually go by what Rowland Shelley wrote in this thread, particularly key is post #6 where he mentions the spines on the prefemur, which is exactly what this species has.  If this has now been revised, please let me know where to get that info because I'd love to read it.

Now, with that all said, I'm far from an expert and regardless if it's a gigantea or a galapagoensis, I'm still very happy! 

*Regarding the sexing method:*

It's not anything I came up with, it's actually a sexing method that "Doom" came up with and first reported on here.

In this thread we compare the inflated exoskeletons of two sc. alternans.

The male's exoskeleton will show a web-spinning organ which appears as a denser pointed triangular shaped appendage on the exoskeleton.  The female's genitalia will, in addition to the absence of this spinning organ, may _possibly_ have four darker spots, but this part isn't conclusive.

Obviously the results still need to be double-checked with actual mating experiments, but I do believe that this is a step in the right direction and the method we need to move towards.  I mean, what else could that triangular-shaped appendage be?  :?  And we've had too many casualties the "old fashioned" way.


----------



## peterbourbon (Aug 5, 2009)

Hi,

if this is the SouthWest-Peruvian centipede that was formerly sold as "S. gigantea robusta" then it's actually the formerly known "Scolopendra gigantea weyrauchi" which has been synonymized with _S. galapagoensis_ by R. Shelley mainly due to its distribution and dorsoapical spines on prefemur and femur as far as I remember correctly. The paper:

_Shelley R.M., Kiser S.B. (2000) "Neotype designation and a diagnostic account for the centipede, Scolopendra gigantea L.,1758, with an account of S. galapagoensis Bollman 1889 (Chilopoda Scolopendromorpha Scolopendridae)" Tropical Zoology 13_

Maybe Shelley focused on the basic question in the thread if this centipede is _S. angulata_ or not. That's way easier to exclude than the admittedly confusing thing with _S.g. weyrauchi_.

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Androctonus_bic (Aug 6, 2009)

He he he...:clap: 

We had the same discusion about the same pede in the past.
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=155135

But at the end there wasn't any valid conclusion, just word in front of another word.

Shelley's paper help us a lot to stat to "des-mythificate" S. gigantea "robusta" concept.

Thanks Turgut.
Carles


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 6, 2009)

I forgot about that recent thread, I think there are a lot older ones too(?)  Great pics of the pede.  This taxo stuff never ends, really good up to date info, ...it will get changed to something else later haha:wall:


----------



## szappan (Aug 6, 2009)

Thanks for the help Turgut!  :worship: 
I found that paper you mentioned in your post, ironically enough in a FANTASTIC thread by Steven... which really should be a sticky.

It's sort of strange to think "I've got a sc. galapagoensis".  It's just a shame I can't rename this thread to "scolopendra galapagoensis post-molt pics & analysis".


----------

