# Plz respond asap!



## ruckaisawesome (Jul 13, 2012)

Can I take out the molt of my centipede? I want to use it as a display.. Will it cause pede to not grow as big? Plz respond as soon as possible before my centipede decides to eat it!

---------- Post added 07-13-2012 at 08:49 PM ----------

anyone?? I have some dead crickets too.. Can I replace it with that?


----------



## Aviara (Jul 13, 2012)

I'm not that experienced with centipedes, but I believe it would be fine. I don't even know that you would notice a difference in growth if you took it, versus if you had left it in the enclosure for the centipede to consume. However, I don't think giving it the dead crickets would be a good idea, as it would be abnormal for centipedes to consume prey immediately post-molt. The best thing to do, again in my inexperienced opinion, would be to take the molt for your purposes, let the centipede recover from molting as you normally do, and then continue on with your usual care routine.


----------



## ruckaisawesome (Jul 13, 2012)

thank you!


----------



## GiantVinegaroon (Jul 13, 2012)

I've heard centipedes eat their molts....it may be a good idea to leave it


----------



## ScarecrowGirl (Jul 14, 2012)

Should'a left it, depending on the size of the pede that could have been the last meal for a while, mine never leave any bits of their molts behind, I only know when they molt after I see them and they look a little squishy and ghostly.


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 14, 2012)

Never ever remove their molt, it is supposed to be eaten or they wouldn't do it. It is their way of reclaimiming the nutrients to harden their exoskeleton. Bad idea ever. Search posts before doing something bad.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 14, 2012)

There are many inverts that normally eat their own exuvium that have done just as well when they've missed out on one. There are also many inverts that don't eat the exuvium; were it really such a disadvantage nearly all the arachnids would be extinct. All the scutigerid centipedes would also be extinct following this line of reasoning. If you have a use for it, it's okay to take it out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ruckaisawesome (Jul 14, 2012)

Dont worry, I didnt remove it... I was gonna but then didnt feel like disturbing the pede which was right on top of it. Oh, he ate it btw


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 14, 2012)

@E A, Do you not believe it's detrimental to take away a centipedes molt?


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 14, 2012)

Have you ever taken an exuvium from a centipede Jason? My answer was based on firsthand experience rather than belief.

---------- Post added 07-14-2012 at 05:41 PM ----------




J Morningstar said:


> It is their way of reclaimiming the nutrients to harden their exoskeleton.


 This sentence shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the development of the exoskeleton and the process by which it sclerotizes. If the nutrients aren't incorporated into the new exoskeleton before the animal molts they can't be added later.


----------



## Galapoheros (Jul 14, 2012)

I've done if a few times also, doesn't seem to be a big deal.  But I have replaced it with smashed newly molted feeder and they have eaten that instead.  But yeah I've had the same exp, doesn't look like it's a big deal if the don't eat it.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Jul 14, 2012)

Elytra and Antenna said:


> This sentence shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the development of the exoskeleton and the process by which it sclerotizes. If the nutrients aren't incorporated into the new exoskeleton before the animal molts they can't be added later.


Can you expound on this?  My understanding is that the purpose of eating the cast off molt was to expand(or rather maintain) the newly enlarged exoskeleton before complete sclerotization.  It is, more or less, a filler.  Is this incorrect?


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 14, 2012)

I realize you have now always made me look the fool, E A, but would you say it was allright to remove the shed material because it was not nessarry to help them recover from the molt? Or is this just you again trying to make me seem like an idiot, with no experience? Wouldn't it be benificial to the animal if it was allowed to take natures course...
(Can you expound on this? My understanding is that the purpose of eating the cast off molt was to expand(or rather maintain) the newly enlarged exoskeleton before complete sclerotization. It is, more or less, a filler. Is this incorrect?) is this not true?


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 14, 2012)

zonbonzovi said:


> Can you expound on this?  My understanding is that the purpose of eating the cast off molt was to expand(or rather maintain) the newly enlarged exoskeleton before complete sclerotization.  It is, more or less, a filler.  Is this incorrect?


Where did you read that? Why would centipedes (and only certain centipedes at that) require an unusual method of expanding the exoskeleton with ground up pieces of the old exoskeleton? How would that work quickly enough before the exoskeleton sclerotized? Please post your reference. You can find countless references to 'normal' ecdysis on the web.

---------- Post added 07-15-2012 at 12:03 AM ----------




J Morningstar said:


> I realize you have now always made me look the fool, ...


 Please just stick to debating the facts rather than name calling and forced questions like #9. I'm not trying to win your war of opinion, just expressing what I know to be true in my experience.

---------- Post added 07-15-2012 at 12:25 AM ----------




J Morningstar said:


> Or is this just you again trying to make me seem like an idiot, with no experience?


 No, I just know that you haven't done it or your answer wouldn't be counter to what actually occurs. I'm not trying to make you look that way, just explaining why I know your answer is uninformed.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Jul 14, 2012)

Elytra and Antenna said:


> Where did you read that? Why would centipedes (and only certain centipedes at that) require an unusual method of expanding the exoskeleton with ground up pieces of the old exoskeleton? How would that work quickly enough before the exoskeleton sclerotized? Please post your reference. You can find countless references to 'normal' ecdysis on the web.


We're speaking specifically of ecdysis wherein the the animal consumes the entire exoskeleton.  Not all molting animals do this so I'm trying to determine why Scolopendrids, in particular, do.  Do you know why?  I'm merely guessing because the specific answer has never been made clear in anything I've yet read on the subject.  The onus is on you to define 'normal'.  If you're going to insist that other folks cite their references, don't you think you should cite something other than "personal experience"?


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 14, 2012)

zonbonzovi said:


> If you're going to insist that other folks cite their references, don't you think you should cite something other than "personal experience"?


 Part of the problem is you're confusing two entirely different pieces of the conversation. 1. Whether or not removing the molt has a detrimental effect on the results of the molt and 2. your physical and Jason's nutrient bases ecdysis theories and their lack of support.  1. The experience part is having taken away molts purposefully and not purposefully from giant centipedes and observing no detrimental effect. 2. I told you you could find various sources describing ecdysis with a simple search using any search engine that describe the use of fluids and sometimes air in the process. The 'normal' molting process is not something obscure and hard to find like your bits of exoskeleton and Jason's nutrient theories. I'm not 100% sure those theories don't exist somewhere but I'm guessing they're different ideas you each came up with without really putting much thought into it. Remember that many invertebrates do not eat the exuvium and many that do only do so after the exoskeleton has completely formed or after the exoskeleton has sclerotized.

---------- Post added 07-15-2012 at 02:03 AM ----------




zonbonzovi said:


> Not all molting animals do this so I'm trying to determine why Scolopendrids, in particular, do.  Do you know why?


 Why does one scolopendrid have 21 pairs of legs and other 23? There are not scientific explanations for everything in all of creation. The answer is likely because they do. There are likely some nutrients conserved but obviously not enough to matter or there wouldn't be so many arthropods that don't bother.


----------



## Galapoheros (Jul 14, 2012)

On a side note, I've been wondering if the instinct to eat it might primarily be to simply get rid of it.  Could it attract scavenger inverts that might harm the soft centipede?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SDCPs (Jul 15, 2012)

E&A

I guess the general train of thought is: "why would a centipede eat its exoskeleton if it didn't get something of value from it?" So most of us generally assume that it helps them recover from a molt. I guess this is the part we need you to explain, is it just such a small benefit that its not necessary?

I have taken the molts of crawfish before for display and they kept on trucking. But they also enjoy eating them. So do millipedes. I guess cockroaches do too since I never find their molts. What I'm saying is that none of the pets I've kept that do molt leave the molts behind. So although this is not a huge selection, and many common spiders do not eat their molts as you've been saying (probably because they just don't have the right mouthparts? Or their exos are so thin it's not really worth it)...basically, it looks to me that most of these critters derive something from their old exoskeletons. I need you to confirm exactly what if anything at all!

Forgive the lack of scientific references. Thanks for your response my friend

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 15, 2012)

SDCPs said:


> I guess this is the part we need you to explain, is it just such a small benefit that its not necessary?


The original poster asked if it was okay to take one exuvium from his centipede and the answer is yes, it's not a problem. You haven't kept many different roaches as Blaberus normally litter the cage with piles of uneaten exuvium and many species only eat the old exoskeletons days later (they don't eat their own, just what's lying around) because they are confined to a cage. Also pill millipedes don't eat their molts as well as a number of millipedes in other orders.


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 15, 2012)

Allright, though my statement may have been made soley through what I have witnessed in my 25 years of animal keeping, my college bio courses, and 10 years of keeping at least 1 or more centipedes at all times, yes it was just an observation. I've thought about the importance of this for about 8  years now. They all, every molt, without exception, ate their molt. I did assume (which is the crux of the matter I have gathered) that, if this held true, that most likely the reclaimed nutrients through the eating of the molt that would help them in the days following. Allowing the centipede to harden again and do so more efficentily. It seemed a very educated observation. And no, I never did disturb one or ever try to remove a molt and observe what happened, so I do not have that information for comparison. If my advice seemed uneducated, my apology.
 Galapoheros, could be to get rid of the evidence they are vounerable? An be like an appitizer if found nearby?


----------



## Aviara (Jul 15, 2012)

Just to point out, with full knowledge that the world of invertebrates is unique from the world of vertebrates, the Rhacodactylus ciliatus species, or the crested gecko, also consumes their shed skin. Unlike invertebrates, these geckos have very elastic skin and grow gradually, not in bursts in post-molt periods. They do so simply to recycle their skin and for convenience, but the process is not crucial to survival. 

I believe it is possible that centipedes also consume their shed skin to recycle the nutrients, as well as to remove organic matter that may attract pests, but that the behavior is not crucial to molting. As I pointed it previously, some of the true spiders will consume extra webbing. This is mentioned on p. 57 of the Tarantula Keeper's Guide, and elsewhere, and is an example of "recycling" behavior in an organism much closer to centipedes than a gecko. The true spiders consume the extra silk because it is a waste of rich nutrients to leave it, but the action is not crucial to their survival.

I do not know whether the nutrients from a centipede's molt are necessary for the molting process. I do know that there are many examples in nature of organisms simply recycling extra nutrients once they are done with them. Many mammals will consume the placenta after birth for the same reason. Perhaps the pattern of recycling is simply repeating itself here.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 15, 2012)

J Morningstar said:


> Allright, though my statement may have been made soley through what I have witnessed in my 25 years of animal keeping, my college bio courses, and 10 years of keeping at least 1 or more centipedes at all times, yes it was just an observation.


But not one minute of experience with the actual question but your answer wasn't "I don't think it's a good idea though I've never done it" it was this:


J Morningstar said:


> Never ever remove their molt, it is supposed to be eaten or they wouldn't do it. It is their way of reclaimiming the nutrients to harden their exoskeleton. Bad idea ever. Search posts before doing something bad.


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 15, 2012)

Valid point, my observations are not facts, nor did I have the first hand knowledge to back it up. Sometimes if something has worked for me I want to share that for I think it may help others in the future, but stating erroneous unsubstantiated things is wrong.


----------



## Anonymity82 (Jul 16, 2012)

J Morningstar said:


> Bad idea ever. Search posts before doing something bad.


Haha! Love it. Maybe use it for my signature?


----------



## Galapoheros (Jul 16, 2012)

njnolan1 said:


> Haha! Love it. Maybe use it for my signature?


lol, yeah it does kind of have a ring to it, there's a funny analogy there somewhere, just can't think of it atm, maybe something like, go to school before you do surgery, way to go JM haha!  I know off topic I suppose but, dead thread walking anyway.  ...well I don't know I thought of something but I think most people wouldn't be interested enough to do it.  That would be, having a group of pedes, taking the molt away from half and leaving the other half with theirs and see what the results would be, if any.  Hard to do I know, you'd have to catch them molting, keeping them all in delis eyeballing ones that are premolt all the time.  I've gotten good at it, I could do it but I'm not so interested.


----------



## SDCPs (Jul 16, 2012)

I've only keep one species of cockroach, you probably know which 
Pill millipedes are so highly specialized and fragile, but REALLY cool looking though! Have you ever had success keeping the Madagascar species?



Galapoheros said:


> having a group of pedes, taking the molt away from half and leaving the other half with theirs and see what the results would be, if any.  Hard to do I know, you'd have to catch them molting, keeping them all in delis eyeballing ones that are premolt all the time.


Already done perhaps:



Elytra and Antenna said:


> The experience part is having taken away molts purposefully and not purposefully from giant centipedes and observing no detrimental effect.


As to the question regarding nutrients obtained from the exoskeleton, Shura Sigling, a German millipede (not centipede, but perhaps centipedes behave this way for the same reasons) enthusiast and author of the "Millipedes" professional breeders series, writes:



			
				Shura Sigling said:
			
		

> Before the old exoskeleton is shed the calcium salts in the layer beneath, which are needed for the development of the new skin, are absorbed and temporarily stored in fatty tissues and the liver...Eventually, the old cuticula bursts open in the area between the head and the head shield, and the head and the antennae will be pulled out from the old skin...The millipede will recycle the valuable calcium carbonate salts contained in its shed skin (exuva) by ingesting it.


May I be so bold as to offer a conclusion?:

If you are an idealist you might as well leave the molt in. However, centipedes do have a thin exoskeleton compared to millipedes and easily obtain calcium from the exoskeletons of their prey, perhaps leaving them in a position--as shown by experience--where denying the organism the benefit  its exuva (LOL, complex words give one an edge) seems in no way harmful and should not interrupt the molting process.


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 16, 2012)

njnolan1 said:


> Haha! Love it. Maybe use it for my signature?


As long as it's not just to make fun of me. I have a developmental disorder which makes it very hard for me to understand emotional or lack there of  people in general. I never understand some of the people here (as we can see) but I am trying...


----------



## Galapoheros (Jul 16, 2012)

SDCPs said:


> Already done perhaps:
> 
> Originally Posted by Elytra and Antenna
> "The experience part is having taken away molts purposefully and not purposefully from giant centipedes and observing no detrimental effect."
> ...


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 16, 2012)

Even if it was only marginally helpful, I would not, nor intend to stop what seems to be the natural order of the organisms life cycle. If it was unimportant and not merely instinctual I would think you'd find them left over from time to time..But again just a theory.


----------



## voldemort (Jul 17, 2012)

Have kept and still keeping local pedes (from the Philippines), and all consume their shed exoskeleton. I also thought of taking some of the sheds (especially a bulky S. morsitan). Haven't done it yet but sure am enjoying reading this thread.

Mike


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 17, 2012)

J Morningstar said:


> Even if it was only marginally helpful, I would not, nor intend to stop what seems to be the natural order of the organisms life cycle.


 I'm guessing that means you will no longer be keeping invertebrates (or specifically centipedes?) in captivity since pulling them from the environment and placing them in a box where they feed on prey species they would likely never encounter in nature are far greater disturbances to the natural order than one missed exoskeleton (they're bound to miss a molt in nature now and then when disturbed). I think it's a great thing to study and enjoy Earth's creatures but it's your choice of course.


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 17, 2012)

Elytra and Antenna said:


> I'm guessing that means you will no longer be keeping invertebrates (or specifically centipedes?) in captivity since pulling them from the environment and placing them in a box where they feed on prey species they would likely never encounter in nature are far greater disturbances to the natural order than one missed exoskeleton (they're bound to miss a molt in nature now and then when disturbed). I think it's a great thing to study and enjoy Earth's creatures but it's your choice of course.


Even someone with limited intelligence could tell I was trying to make the statement that some keepers try to make the setting as close to the animals natural environment as possible, (without adding the predators and dangers therein) so that the life of the kept could be as healthy and successful as possible. And trying as little to experiment on them or disturb them once established in their "new homes". You sarcasm is not appreciated, nor helpful to anyone here. I apologize to everyone for bringing down the tone of this post.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 17, 2012)

J Morningstar said:


> Even someone with limited intelligence ...


 Why do you always have to resort to name calling?


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 17, 2012)

I didn't call you a name or specify at all, it was a statement in response to your statement. If it helps, I regret I questioned your I.Q.. I simply do not see the point to incite a discouraging tone and clearly take things out of context when I, although strongly influenced by my observations, am always open to everyone's opinion, no matter how rude or self assured, as long as it's not rude to me or others. I wish to learn here, contribute and grow as a person. You are the only person here in nearly 10 years who treats me like you do, nor have I had nothing but constructive and good times here, other than your posts. I do not understand your biting unconstructive, confusing sarcasm, and you know it.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Jul 17, 2012)

J Morningstar said:


> I didn't call you a name or specify at all, it was a statement in response to your statement. If it helps, I regret I questioned your I.Q.. I simply do not see the point to incite a discouraging tone and clearly take things out of context when I, although strongly influenced by my observations, am always open to everyone's opinion, no matter how rude or self assured, as long as it's not rude to me or others. I wish to learn here, contribute and grow as a person. You are the only person here in nearly 10 years who treats me like you do, nor have I had nothing but constructive and good times here, other than your posts. I do not understand your biting unconstructive, confusing sarcasm, and you know it.


 You really don't understand that your entire post is full of rude comments, unconstructive, and unrelated to the topic at hand? I'm sure many people do not bother you here because they fear your angry response to contradiction of your opinion.


----------



## Travis K (Jul 17, 2012)

This has actually been an interesting thread given the lack of interesting threads on AB as of the last 12 months or so, but your bickering is rather juvenile.  I was surprised to see it from the two of you.

As for the actual discussion I fall on EA's side of the fence.  I really like the idea of removing the molt and leaving a prekilled roach in there with it though.  I think shed exos of a large pede would be great looking in a shadow box.


----------



## zonbonzovi (Jul 17, 2012)

Let's not allow what could be a fruitful discussion to devolve into a display of personal enmities.  Please confine those to PMs, please

I was incorrect in my hasty, initial assumption...centipedes and as far as I have learned, all animals that rely on passive tracheal breathing inflate the newly molted body via that phenomenon.  The consumption of the molt is thought (Lewis uses "probably") to be an efficient means of reclaiming "phenolic-rich protein"(_Biology of Centipedes_, Lewis).  Thought to be...there is still room for hypothesizing.  Lewis cites Blower as researching the effects of these protein molecules, termed prosclerotin, as being a precursor to sclerotin.  I think it reasonable to presume that while this prosclerotin may not have any initial effect on the present molt, it is a useful building block in the following molt(http://jcs.biologists.org/content/s3-92/18/141.short).  As Gala mentioned, we would have to compare the makeup of exoskeletons wherein the molt was removed vs. molt consumed to determine the effect.

Since I'm paraphrasing here and not a trained biologist, I could be off track.  Please do amend if you think this is the case.


----------



## J Morningstar (Jul 17, 2012)

Zonbonzovi, Thank you for your eloquence. I have always tried to be polite and helpful to everyone here, and did try to keep this in PM's, I just felt attacked and insulted several times. I apologize for any misconduct. I have an emotional disorder akin to Asburgers which prevents me from understanding the nuances of some peoples emotions and expressions, I realize this is my failing but have never had issue with another board member. Done. 
Travis K: I hate when this happens but I really simply don't understand people like EA so it always goes bad. I am a Minister, have counseled many and am respected even more in my community, I apologize you had to suffer through that.
Z., Yes, I had too, read articles that pointed to the observations pointed to in Lewis's statement. I know it is  a thought. This and my personal experience are what I based my initial statement on. But the argument of offering a prekilled unless as soft as the shed, I am not sure this would be as easily metabolised, but again speculation. But to afford the broods needed, take blood samples from over 20 or so centipedes and have that big a control group, then have all other factors coincide would be very hard if not impossible to do a through analysis in the usual scientific manner. I don't even know if you could get blood samples without killing them. I have no knowledge in that respect. But since it is of little importance to anyone but us here, I doubt this experiment will happen any time soon.


----------



## Greenjewls (Jul 18, 2012)

I remember watching a nature program once, and the narrator said something like "the centipede must eat his entire shed skin to plump his body before his new skin hardens."  It is an unqualified and unexplained statement, but I think it includes a warning that sticks with people.  I was left with the impression that a centipede needs to eat the shed for its good health.  But like most television programs on invertebrates, you can't take it as gospel.  The truth is, centipedes like to eat, it's what they love most.  They even eat their own eggs. The question isn't why do they eat their exoskeleton, it's why wouldn't they?  Let's say they don't eat for a week pre-molt, they aren't going to eat prey for a week post-molt, and in the middle they find themselves sitting on a pile of free food... of course they will eat it.  In the wild, there are no other guaranteed meals.  They might not survive without this free meal in the wild.  Is it important in captivity, when nutrients are always readily available?  Probably not.  In a controlled experiment, I am sure the group of centipedes allowed to eat the molt would eventually grow bigger than a deprived group but simply because of a greater food intake.


----------



## Galapoheros (Jul 18, 2012)

The fact that their jaws are hard enough to eat it right after the molt, even though the exuvia is soft, supports they evolved to eat it for some reason.  There are also centipede eating snakes in some areas.  So it may also keep it's scent down at lower levels if they eat it, helping it stay hidden from predators.


----------



## Greenjewls (Aug 2, 2012)

Galapoheros said:


> The fact that their jaws are hard enough to eat it right after the molt, even though the exuvia is soft, supports they evolved to eat it for some reason.  There are also centipede eating snakes in some areas.  So it may also keep it's scent down at lower levels if they eat it, helping it stay hidden from predators.


Very good points.  Also, do you think many of the hitchhiking mites are eliminated before they can get off the shed skin and back onto the centipede?


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Aug 3, 2012)

Greenjewls said:


> Very good points.  Also, do you think many of the hitchhiking mites are eliminated before they can get off the shed skin and back onto the centipede?


 Unfortunately the mites are more likely to get an easy path up the mouthpards than to be consumed. 
                                There doesn't have to be a reason for everything. 
However, a guess based on species that do and do not eat their molts across the arthropod spectrum would be they risk nothing by eating the molt. Arthropods that molt out in the open such as house centipedes risk more by sticking around and being discovered than the meager reward of a trace of minor nutrients. Of course there are exceptions.

---------- Post added 08-03-2012 at 01:27 PM ----------




Galapoheros said:


> The fact that their jaws are hard enough to eat it right after the molt, even though the exuvia is soft, supports they evolved to eat it for some reason.


No, it doesn't. The 'fact' would only support your theory if you had evidence that any species does not eat the molt only because it has softer mandibles. There's no reason to believe house centipedes have softer mouthparts. Beetles have much harder mouthparts following a molt than centipedes and they do not eat the final instar or pupal exuvium. Many crustaceans have softer mouthparts but they molt in secret and simply wait till the mouthparts harden to eat the exuvium.


----------



## Galapoheros (Aug 3, 2012)

Elytra and Antenna said:


> Unfortunately the mites are more likely to get an easy path up the mouthpards than to be consumed.
> There doesn't have to be a reason for everything.
> However, a guess based on species that do and do not eat their molts across the arthropod spectrum would be they risk nothing by eating the molt. Arthropods that molt out in the open such as house centipedes risk more by sticking around and being discovered than the meager reward of a trace of minor nutrients. Of course there are exceptions.
> 
> ...


Yeah a study would have to compare the hardness of mandibles compared to other arthropods right after a molt, that'd be interesting.  But how do you know beetles have harder mouth parts right after a molt than centipedes do?  I wonder if anybody has ever looked into this kind of thing.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Aug 3, 2012)

Most of the beetles I keep have fully or mostly sclerotized mandibles prior to eclosion signified by coloration. Color is not a perfect indicator of much but it does tend to be reliable in indicating the hardness of the exoskeleton when the final coloration is black or dark. This is much harder to see on centipedes because of their cryptic molting pattern and the small size of the mouthparts.


----------



## Metasolpuga (Aug 4, 2012)

It would definitely be safer to leave the molt to the centipede. From what I've read the molt is consumed as to provide the centipede with a quick meal before its exoskeleton hardens. They are very cool to look at for sure!


----------

