# C.Gracilis(cuban) or C.gracilis(florida)?



## Omelskitot (May 18, 2011)

can anyone identify if this is florida or cuban morph?? tnx in advance


----------



## gromgrom (May 18, 2011)

there are no cuban "morphs", just varieties. there are many many morphs, and to determine if its cuban is apparently nearly impossible without a microscope or something. Michel will know, hes the one who told me the above basically.


----------



## Michiel (May 18, 2011)

I can't tell you, because I don't know it


----------



## Nomadinexile (May 18, 2011)

I don't think there is a way to tell.   As far as I'm aware there hasn't been evolutionary changes in separate habitats.   They are genetically the exact same.   So you shouldn't be able to tell unless you are in cuba and pick them up off the ground, or someone trustworthy says they did.


----------



## gromgrom (May 18, 2011)

Nomadinexile said:


> I don't think there is a way to tell.   As far as I'm aware there hasn't been evolutionary changes in separate habitats.   They are genetically the exact same.   So you shouldn't be able to tell unless you are in cuba and pick them up off the ground, or someone trustworthy says they did.


well from reports cuban ones are MUCH more venomous and some are parthogenic? 

also, damnit michel! Thought you knew! lol


----------



## catfishrod69 (May 18, 2011)

looks like a florida to me...i had both and the cubans were tanish colored, and called Centruroides guanensis


----------



## Nomadinexile (May 18, 2011)

gromgrom said:


> well from reports cuban ones are MUCH more venomous and some are parthogenic?
> 
> also, damnit michel! Thought you knew! lol


Yes, I've heard the venom difference before grom, but what does that have to do with visually id'ing it?  :razz:   Outwardly, they should look exactly the same.  Of course their can be color variations across habitats, but that also happens within habitats!   



catfishrod69 said:


> looks like a florida to me...i had both and the cubans were tanish colored, and called Centruroides guanensis


That's a different species catfish!


----------



## gromgrom (May 18, 2011)

Nomadinexile said:


> Yes, I've heard the venom difference before grom, but what does that have to do with visually id'ing it?  :razz:   Outwardly, they should look exactly the same.  Of course their can be color variations across habitats, but that also happens within habitats!


I mean that the Cuban variety is reported to have much more potent venom and well as the rumor to be parthogenic or something, but be visually the same. 

So the best way to test it is to get stung. :clap:


----------



## Nomadinexile (May 18, 2011)

gromgrom said:


> I mean that the Cuban variety is reported to have much more potent venom and well as the rumor to be parthogenic or something, but be visually the same.
> 
> So the best way to test it is to get stung. :clap:


     I see!    Are you volunteering then?   :razz:

As for the parthenogenesis, that should be for both populations or neither.


----------



## gromgrom (May 18, 2011)

Nomadinexile said:


> I see!    Are you volunteering then?   :razz:
> 
> As for the parthenogenesis, that should be for both populations or neither.


some actual "scientific paper" stated this. 

and nah, i'll pass


----------



## Kris-wIth-a-K (May 18, 2011)

yup its FL


----------



## gromgrom (May 18, 2011)

Kris-wIth-a-K said:


> yup its FL


Can you share with us how you came to this conclusion?


----------



## Nomadinexile (May 18, 2011)

gromgrom said:


> some actual "scientific paper" stated this.
> 
> and nah, i'll pass


Right.  But that paper didn't say that only Cubans do this, only that they found it in the Cuban population.   Without testing a wide population of Florida, you would have to assume that Partho applies with them as well.   If it does not, then they are different species by definition I believe.   



Kris-wIth-a-K said:


> yup its FL


I'm going to second grom here.   What makes you rule out Cubans or El Salvadorians, etc.???


----------



## Ecstasy (May 18, 2011)

catfishrod69 said:


> looks like a florida to me...i had both and the cubans were tanish colored, and called Centruroides guanensis


I actually have a pair of Centruroides guanensis and they're two totally different scorpions. They don't even remotely look like gracilis, I can take pictures if needed.

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

Actually, I remember Sam having posted pictures of the guanensis when he was selling them, this is what a guanensis looks like:


----------



## Galapoheros (May 18, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymorphism_(biology)  As far as I can tell, "variety" usually refers to the same species that have the same feature in common in a population, it's diff than the meaning of the word morph.  Say there is one species that live on two diff islands, the population on one is generally darker, on the other island they are lighter, those would be two diff varieties.  I think an example of a morph would be when a few Tiger salamander larvae or Spadefoot toad tadpoles have the genetic ability to develop large heads and mouths to facilitate cannibalism when food and puddles start to dry up, while others don't have that genetic feature, not expressed anyway.  Are the ones in Cuba generally darker, or lighter?  Whichever, I think then you'd call a Cuban variety or the Florida variety.  To me, "variety" is used a lot more in a hobby, kind of ignored in the science world.  I don't know much about those scorpions, just trying to get a better handle on the terms variety and morph.


----------



## gromgrom (May 18, 2011)

they're varieties/populations, as they look the same. but according to reports the cuban population/varities are much more venomous and have been reported to have given birth without mating. 

note: i cannot say for sure if theyre a variety or a population. 

note note: Dont know how much truth there is to it. Could end up being like sculpts.

notenoteedit:

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

I'll be looking through those papers... this class is so boring I have nothing better to do.

http://www.sea-entomologia.org/Publicaciones/RevistaIbericaAracnologia/RIA09/R09-016-141.pdf 

gogo translators


----------



## catfishrod69 (May 18, 2011)

so your saying that there are a cuban bark, and a florida bark that look the same? if so i would just call it a florida bark, cause the cuba barks i had even though, were a diff species, looked diff, and would be stupid to call 2 scorpions that look identical different...but was just what im thinking





Nomadinexile said:


> Yes, I've heard the venom difference before grom, but what does that have to do with visually id'ing it?  :razz:   Outwardly, they should look exactly the same.  Of course their can be color variations across habitats, but that also happens within habitats!
> 
> 
> 
> That's a different species catfish!


----------



## AzJohn (May 18, 2011)

catfishrod69 said:


> so your saying that there are a cuban bark, and a florida bark that look the same? if so i would just call it a florida bark, cause the cuba barks i had even though, were a diff species, looked diff, and would be stupid to call 2 scorpions that look identical different...but was just what im thinking


I wouldn't call them florida bark or cuban bark I'd use the scientific names. Bark scorpion is more of a discription of lifestyle and overall apearence than anything else. Their are several gunus that can be considered bark scorpions. Their are at least 3 species of Centruroides in Florida. The one species we are talking about is C gracilis. C gracilis has populations in Florida, Cuba, and Central America. They are the same species and should be nearly impossible to tell the difference. I have C gracilis from Central America and Florida. If I didn't keep them in labled containers I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.


----------



## Michiel (May 19, 2011)

gromgrom said:


> well from reports cuban ones are MUCH more venomous and some are parthogenic?
> 
> also, damnit michel! Thought you knew! lol


The problem with answering these kind of questions is that you need experience or comparison material from the cuban and other populations and I don't have that material, nor have I experience in keeping them 

But, there are more knowledgeable people here I think  Btw, my name is Michiel, not Michel....I am NOT French 

@ Nomad, 

PS. Being able to reproduce parthenogenetically alone is not a character in species definition. Most parthenogenetic scorpions have sexual and parthenogenetic populations: Tityus metuendus, Tityus colombianus (a sexual and a parthenogenetic population in the same country), Tityus neblina, T.trivittatus, L.australasiae has a parthenogenetic population in the Philippines and a sexual one in Australia. H.hottentotta has sexual populations in several African countries. etc etc...So it is not impossible that the population from Cuba is parthenogenetic and the Florida population isn't....


----------



## Omelskitot (May 19, 2011)

lol cant understand anything hahaha :wall:


----------



## gromgrom (May 19, 2011)

Michiel said:


> The problem with answering these kind of questions is that you need experience or comparison material from the cuban and other populations and I don't have that material, nor have I experience in keeping them
> 
> But, there are more knowledgeable people here I think  Btw, my name is Michiel, not Michel....I am NOT French
> 
> ...


My bad on the name. It's how we spell Michael, minus the a, I didnt double check


----------



## skinheaddave (May 19, 2011)

This is one of those cases where it raises some interesting questions and so few answers might be gleaned from what is available:

First off, some background.  Centruroides is tough to do morphologically on the whole.  Key features that consistently differ between species are hard to find and often seem to be polymorphic within a species rather than diagnostic of species.  Often it comes down to proportions or multiple, more qualitative, features.  

As a side-note, this leads to a word of caution for those who want to draw conclusions from hobby specimens.  In order to get anywhere with this genus you will often need to examine large amounts of material with known collection locales.  The biggest issue with Centruroides when it comes to morphology is the effects of size on proportion.  You may find two populations -- one large and one small -- and take proportions and come to some conclusion.  If, however, you then look at males that mature an instar earlier in the large population you may find they are near identical to males in the smaller population.  If you plot this ratio on a graph you may find a continuum in place of a true divide .. and the culprit will be size affecting ratios.

The other key concepts are those of isolation and genetic drift.  Most people have at least a little handle on the way selective pressures might lead to change over time (whether you believe it or not, unless you were home-schooled you should have at least had a chapter in a textbook somewhere).  It should be noted, however, that selective pressures are not the only path to evolution and speciation.  If you take two populations and reduce or remove entirely gene flow between them, chance will start to play a significant role on those genes on which selective pressure doesn't have a strong effect.  Genes will tend to diverge and fixate .. purely by chance.  So if having one or two granules on some part of some segment doesn't have a strong selective effect (those granules aren't used for stridulation, for example) then two populations with reduced gene flow might fixate on one and two granules respectively. 

Of course if there is continued gene flow betweent the two populations, then it will act to negate the effects of genetic drift.  The degree of mitigation will depend on the degree of gene flow.  Depending on how you feel about such matters, when gene flow becomes far enough reduced you may be tempted to call the two populations "subspecies" or you might argue that they are divergent species at the beginning of their divergence and that there remains a small margin of hybridization.  

So let's look at Florida/Cuba.  This is a very interesting area of study because there are two species of scorpion shared between the two countries.  C.guanensis and C.gracilis.  Both are relatively large bark scorpions with similar morphology, habits etc.  Perhaps significantly, their distribution in Florida seems to be something of a patchwork with strong localized populations of one or the other but seemingly never/rarely both together.  It is entirely possible that they are so close in their niche occupation that they are competative.  

I've never looked at C.gracilis from both populations but I have seen a few Cuban C.guanensis and, not surprisingly, they are quite similar but not identical to the FL populations of C.guanensis that are larger and out there on the keys.  There are, however, some C.guanensis in FL that start to stray a bit and might be mistaken for C.hentzi given a casual glance.  C.gracilis also seem to be variable within FL to some degree.  I've certainly seen those collected from mainland FL that differ obviously and superficially in colouration, size etc. as compared to those I've observed in the Keys and Dry Tortugas.  

The question really comes down to one of gene flow.  It is indisputable that there will be some gene flow between the two populations.  Scorpions do raft and hitch rides with boats etc.  There will be at the very least a decent amount of gene flow from Cuba to the US with refugee boats.  Is this gene flow enough to maintain a single, relatively uniform, species across the two land masses?  Likely not .. but who knows.  Is it the case that one species has established itself in either area relatively recently (from an evolutionary standpoint) and, though divergent, there may still readily interbreed?  Are we, in fact, dealing with different species that are simply morphologically conserved?  A good way to go about poking this quesiton would be using molecular techniques to estimate gene flow between populations.  

The problem in putting this all together, of course, is that the US and Cuba have .. frosty ... relations.  It isn't as simple even as researchers wanting to look at something like P.boreus across the US/Canada border (also tricky but ultimately doable, I suspect).  The number of cuban specimens in US collections is paltry and the reverse is, I suspect, also true.  There is(was?) some work along these lines being done but it is a large undertaking with several potential barriers and we shall see what the end result is in time.  If estimates of gene flow can be gotten for both species then it would be interesting to compare C.guanensis to C.gracilis.  One would expect similar levels given their relatively distribution here (I don't know about the Cuba side) and their similarity in size, habits etc.  If the rates were found to be significantly different then you'd have a truly great mystery on your hands .. one that would likely yield some greater insight into the world around us.      

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Nomadinexile (May 19, 2011)

Michiel said:


> @ Nomad,
> 
> PS. Being able to reproduce parthenogenetically alone is not a character in species definition. Most parthenogenetic scorpions have sexual and parthenogenetic populations: Tityus metuendus, Tityus colombianus (a sexual and a parthenogenetic population in the same country), Tityus neblina, T.trivittatus, L.australasiae has a parthenogenetic population in the Philippines and a sexual one in Australia. H.hottentotta has sexual populations in several African countries. etc etc...So it is not impossible that the population from Cuba is parthenogenetic and the Florida population isn't....


Thanks for info!   I understand and agree with the above.   What I am arguing here is a little different from that though, and I would love to hear your (and dave's) opinion on this, as I'm not 100%.   

What I am arguing, is that because Parthenogeneticism is controlled through genetics (right?), that if a species is Parthenogenetic in any of its ranges, then it must be able genetically, to do so in the other ranges if the habitat changes and the need arises.   If this ability does not exist in all ranges, then their must 2 different species in the conversation, because the Genetics are not the same.   (right?)

I am aware however, that this is difficult to study.   I would guess that there has been however, a parthenogetic birthing in Florida by C. gracilis.  If it has been observed in Cuba, then the same possibility must exist in the florida populations.   All it should take is a bad winter, hot summer, forest cut down, something like that, to trigger it.   

Am I way off base here?


----------



## Kris-wIth-a-K (May 19, 2011)

Cuba and FL have basically the same Climate. So Sp dont have to really adapt to each other. If it was as dramatic climate change such as Cuba to Arizona then yes things would be differently adapted. I think you are just overthinking things.


----------



## Nomadinexile (May 19, 2011)

Kris, if you are responding to me:

If it's exactly the same (or close), then why did Parthenogetic trait express itself in Cuba, but not Florida?    That trait has to be expressable in other populations, or their genes aren't the same as I understand it, though I am waiting for answers..


----------



## skinheaddave (May 19, 2011)

Nomadinexile said:


> because Parthenogeneticism is controlled through genetics (right?)


Yes.  No.  Maybe so.  

Let's assume for the moment, though, that it is since this makes for the most simple approach and allows us to touch on gene flow once again.

The first thing we need to realize is that gene flow is like a faucet, not a switch.  Yes, it can be turned entirely on (small population in very small region with good interbreeding) or entirely off (two flightless bird populations on different, distant, islands).  There are also inbetween states, though.  For example, nearby islands may show enough rafting etc. that while the two populations are divergent to some degree, there is sufficient gene flow that the populations do not become either fixated or reproductively isolated.  

Now, in simplest terms, "species" is defined based in part on reproductive capability. If two populations can and do mate and produce fertile offspring, they are generally considered a species.  If two populations can but don't mate (for example, due to a recent geographic separation) then they are often considered subspecies.  They may be divergent but they are reproductively isolated based on external, not genetic, criteria.  Subspecies is a difficult taxa, though, because unless that barrier is removed, the long-term prospects of those two populations is to drift and fixate and ultimately become reproductively isolated and separate species.  

This is all simple text-book stuff and  it does get drastically more complicated than that .. but for our purposes it will do.  One thing to note is that all members of one species don't have to interbreed with all other members of that same species.  Certainly when you are talking about massive ranges, it is quite possible that the frog, for example, at one end of the range will never meet and mate with one frog at the other end of the range.  As a result, the frogs at one extreme may develop a call that is disperate from that of the frogs at the other end .. yet each one is close enough to its neighbour that there is no reproductive isolation within the population as a whole -- yet the two extremes would be reproductively isolated if the middle were removed.  This sort of thing happens all the time with inverts (where a corn field can represent a massive range) and will often lead to speciation.  

All this so far is based on sexual populations.  Once you add in parthenogenesis you change the rules.  You certainly can't define species that reproduce entirely asexually based on their mating habits .. they don't have them.  With populations that can reproduce in both fashions it is perhaps a bit more conventional insofar as you can still argue from the standpoint of reproductive isolation.

Now, remember that not all features themselves will lead to reproductive isolation.  Selective pressures, for example, may create a situation where animals lower on a mountain slope tend to be lighter whereas those up higher tend to be darker to absorb more heat.  They may still be the same species, though .. there may be constant gene flow from top to bottom but selective pressures result in better survival for one colouration or the other and this, in turn, leads to most animals in either extreme of the range having one or t'other colouration and the animals in the middle tending to be somewhere inbetween (or a mix of two dichotomous states, depending on the underlying genetics).  

So now let's look at C.gracilis.  It is entirely possible that one population has developed the ability to reproduce asexually but has maintained its ability to reproduce sexually as well.  It may still have some gene flow back-and-forth with another population that does not have this ability.  It may simply be the case that the genes resulting from the mutation that allowed one popluation to reproduce asexually has never made it over to the other population.  It may be the case that even if an asexual animal is rafted over, any progeny which reproduce sexually lose the benefits of the mutation in light of some common genetics held by the other population.  So perhaps there is a genetic "switch" that is turned on which allows for asexual reproduction but the other population also has a gene which prevents the syntehsis of some hormone that is also needed .. even those with the "asexual" gene would not be able to produce asexually.  

Now, whether such a situation will eventually lead to an entirely asexual population which ends up being reproductively isolated .. who knows.  There are numerous possibilities.  In short, though, it is quite possible for two populations to exist which we consider to be of the same "species" and between which there is significant gene flow .. yet some traits are divergent, including mating schemes.  

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## AzJohn (May 19, 2011)

Nomadinexile said:


> Kris, if you are responding to me:
> 
> If it's exactly the same (or close), then why did Parthenogetic trait express itself in Cuba, but not Florida?    That trait has to be expressable in other populations, or their genes aren't the same as I understand it, though I am waiting for answers..


I wouldn't consider parthenogenisis a trait of the Cuban species. From what i understand is that it occured once in a labratory setting. Does that make it a trait of the species. Take some of the other instances of documented parthenogenisis. If i keep a tityus 10 degrees cooler than it would ever be in the wild and it produces a parthenogenic brood, does that make the species parthenogenic? I can see how parthenogenisis that is the result of climate change would be very useful to a species, but if it takes lab conditions to produce a certain outcome is it considered a trait of the species? If the species never produces parthenogenically in the wild is it a trait?


----------



## catfishrod69 (May 19, 2011)

ok i see..thanks...




AzJohn said:


> I wouldn't call them florida bark or cuban bark I'd use the scientific names. Bark scorpion is more of a discription of lifestyle and overall apearence than anything else. Their are several gunus that can be considered bark scorpions. Their are at least 3 species of Centruroides in Florida. The one species we are talking about is C gracilis. C gracilis has populations in Florida, Cuba, and Central America. They are the same species and should be nearly impossible to tell the difference. I have C gracilis from Central America and Florida. If I didn't keep them in labled containers I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.


----------



## gromgrom (May 19, 2011)

AzJohn said:


> I wouldn't consider parthenogenisis a trait of the Cuban species. From what i understand is that it occured once in a labratory setting. Does that make it a trait of the species. Take some of the other instances of documented parthenogenisis. If i keep a tityus 10 degrees cooler than it would ever be in the wild and it produces a parthenogenic brood, does that make the species parthenogenic? I can see how parthenogenisis that is the result of climate change would be very useful to a species, but if it takes lab conditions to produce a certain outcome is it considered a trait of the species? If the species never produces parthenogenically in the wild is it a trait?


I think if we can reproduce that ability ourselves, maybe. It would be interesting if we could get some asexual+sexual populations going in the hobby . Pipedream?


----------



## Michiel (May 20, 2011)

Nomadinexile said:


> Thanks for info!   I understand and agree with the above.   What I am arguing here is a little different from that though, and I would love to hear your (and dave's) opinion on this, as I'm not 100%.
> 
> What I am arguing, is that because Parthenogeneticism is controlled through genetics (right?), that if a species is Parthenogenetic in any of its ranges, then it must be able genetically, to do so in the other ranges if the habitat changes and the need arises.   If this ability does not exist in all ranges, then their must 2 different species in the conversation, because the Genetics are not the same.   (right?)
> 
> ...


I get you now. Basically, yes, if a species from site A reproduces parthenogenetically, the same species from site B should be able to do the same, because if they are same species, they should have inherited the same ability. Habitat destruction, introduction into a new area, lack of males, temperature and food intake manipulation (in the lab) are a couple of examples of possible triggers of parthenogenetic reproduction. 

Try to get Lourenco's paper on the life cycle of Tityus neblina. Interesting paper....


----------



## skinheaddave (May 20, 2011)

Michiel said:


> I get you now. Basically, yes, if a species from site A reproduces parthenogenetically, the same species from site B should be able to do the same, because if they are same species,


Since this directly contradicts what I have said, would you care to comment on my thoughts and suggest where your interpretation differs?  I'd hate to think that all that time typing was an utter waste and nobody is bothering to even read it.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Michiel (May 21, 2011)

Hi Dave,

what I meant in my last post is that theoretically speaking, both populations _should be _able to reproduce parthenogenetically physiologically, but that specimens from one population are triggered to reproduce parthenogenetically and others aren't. 
I.e. in Colombia you have two populations of Tityus colombianus, on in the North of the country and one in the South. One of the populations reproduces sexually, and the other parthenogenetically. I _suspect/ assume _that the specimens from the sexual population are theoretically able to do the same, if properly triggered (climate fluctuations, human disturbance of the habitat, lack of males etc). If not, that would indicate that the parthenogenetic population picked up this trait somewhere down the line of evolution and have adapted to a certain situation, that the sexual population didn't...

The interesting thing about the Tityus neblina paper is that males and females where brought to the lab and where mated...A couple of females where separated from the rest and where kept at lower temps and they received food only once in three weeks, instead of weekly. 
The latter specimens, these separated females, reproduced parthenogenetically while the former reproduced sexually. Maybe I am drawing the wrong conclusions, but this means that the females adapted surprisingly quickly to colder temps and lower food intake (within the span of the research), and reproduced parthenogenetically. I suspect these females where already able to do so physiologically, because such an adaption normally would take much longer????

I hope to have clarified what I meant earlier....if not, please ask....I read articles and I form an opinion, I am not a parthenogenesis expert  lol

Cheers, Michiel


----------



## Nomadinexile (May 21, 2011)

Dave,

I read everything you wrote 3x.   I have to say this is part of why I love AB.  You all remind me of how little I really know!   I spend a lot of time around people who can barely form a complete sentence, so this is good reminder that I'm not that smart.  (ego check)   

I have a lot of questions and comments, but it is so much to chew on, I want to do it later when I have formed a more complete thought.   

~r


----------



## GartenSpinnen (May 21, 2011)

Ecstasy said:


> I actually have a pair of Centruroides guanensis and they're two totally different scorpions. They don't even remotely look like gracilis, I can take pictures if needed.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------
> 
> Actually, I remember Sam having posted pictures of the guanensis when he was selling them, this is what a guanensis looks like:


Wow! Those are perdy 

I want to get me a few!

I used to keep the FL variety for quite some time. They are nice scorps, very colourful after molt. Man I miss my Centruroides


----------



## skinheaddave (May 21, 2011)

Michiel,

Indeed I am sure there are situations where the entire species is capable of parthenogenesis but only certain environmental factors bring it about.

This, however, is not a guarantee that that is the case in all situations.  A common garden experiment would be the way to go about determining whether or not this was the case .. as you might well imagine, this sort of work is not being done.  

On the broader point, while it is true that populations of a species must be linked by gene flow, it is not true that species must be genetically uniform.  It is obvious that this is not the case individual-to-individual but it is also the case that the proportions of various alleles in different populations may differ drastically and that some alleles may be entirely absent from some populations.  In the case of parthenogenesis, any population that developed obligate parthenogeneisis would quickly diverge into its own species .. but as long as it is faculative and gene flow is maintained with other popluations, there may be populations with all individuals being capable of parthenogenesis, some with a mix or some where no individual is capapble.    

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Sarcastro (May 23, 2011)

Maybe we're over thinking and over analyzing the question.
Has anyone thought of Iteroparous brooding? this can be mistaken for parthenogenesis.


----------



## Michiel (May 24, 2011)

Sarcastro said:


> Maybe we're over thinking and over analyzing the question.
> Has anyone thought of Iteroparous brooding? this can be mistaken for parthenogenesis.


Most people here know the difference between parthenogenetic and iteroparous reproduction. The OP was asking about differences between populations of scorpions and parthenogenesis and afterwards a discussion about parthenogenesis took place. Then you come around telling us we should consider iteroparity. Thanks for the suggestion, but I fail to see the relevance here and I don't think this has anything to do with over thinking or over analyzing


----------



## Sarcastro (May 24, 2011)

Michiel said:


> Most people here know the difference between parthenogenetic and iteroparous reproduction. The OP was asking about differences between populations of scorpions and parthenogenesis and afterwards a discussion about parthenogenesis took place. Then you come around telling us we should consider iteroparity. Thanks for the suggestion, but I fail to see the relevance here and I don't think this has anything to do with over thinking or over analyzing


The statements I made we're just that, two separate statements. One for the question asked about "Cuban" "Florida" and the other for the discussion referring to reproduction. That is why they were separated by line spaces and not one continuous statement. I do not know why there was such a problem with my post, but to take a condescending and elitist tone and tell someone that their post means nothing is down right rude and uncalled for.


----------



## Michiel (May 24, 2011)

Sarcastro said:


> The statements I made we're just that, two separate statements. One for the question asked about "Cuban" "Florida" and the other for the discussion referring to reproduction. That is why they were separated by line spaces and not one continuous statement. I do not know why there was such a problem with my post, but to take a condescending and elitist tone and tell someone that their post means nothing is down right rude and uncalled for.


Wait a minute. I said that I don't see the relevance of your post given the discussion that took place...I did not say your post means nothing etc etc, that is just the way you experience it. I merely corrected you. 
That you find this condescending and think I have an elitist tone, says more about you, than about me. I think you can't handle feedback, parthenogenesis just has nothing to do with iteroparity, other than that they are both ways of reproduction, and you become angry when some one says this to you? And this makes the person that gives feedback (in this case me) automatically condescending and an elitist? 


I am not out for a dispute or something, but what you did was joining the conversation (no problem, this is a forum intended for these interactions), and you said something that totally has nothing do to with it.....What good is the remark:"maybe we are over thinking, over analyzing the question"? Who are you to ask or suggest this? After all this is a complicated subject. Imagine, two doctors are discussing pathology of a patient, difficult symptoms, hard to diagnose, and then a third comes a long: "Hey aren't you guys over thinking the question or over analyzing it?" Maybe it is the patients' foot instead of it's hand.  How would you think these two doctors would respond....

Greetings from a rude, arrogant and obnoxious elitist!


----------



## AzJohn (May 24, 2011)

Sarcastro said:


> Maybe we're over thinking and over analyzing the question.
> Has anyone thought of Iteroparous brooding? this can be mistaken for parthenogenesis.


Iteroparous is often mistaken for parthenogenisis. In this case however the parthenogenic birth report is documentedand comes from a well respected scientist. That's what makes this species so cool. You have three different populations that could be developing into different species. Each one has different characteristics. For instance the Central Americam population is considered medically significant while the Florida popullation isn't. The Cuban population is possibly parthenogenic while the others are probably not. I'm very interested in this topic, we don't get as many topics likee this as I'd like.


----------



## Sarcastro (May 24, 2011)

AzJohn said:


> I'm very interested in this topic, we don't get as many topics likee this as I'd like.


I would agree. It is a very interesting topic


----------



## Michiel (May 24, 2011)

Sarcastro said:


> I would agree. It is a very interesting topic


Can you respond to what I wrote please? It is kind of RUDE and CONDESCENDING when you would not reply.... LOL


----------



## Sarcastro (May 24, 2011)

Michiel said:


> Can you respond to what I wrote please? It is kind of RUDE and CONDESCENDING when you would not reply.... LOL


If you would like to discuss our grievance lets do it in messaging and not fill this discussion with a dispute.the boards have seen to much of this.

thread discussion: ENGLISH TRANSLATION
ORIGINAL: http://www.sea-entomologia.org/Publicaciones/RevistaIbericaAracnologia/RIA09/R09-016-141.pdf

First registry of parthenogenesis in Centruroides gracilis (Latreille, 1804) (Scorpiones: Buthidae) Rolando Teruel Summary: Two cases of parthenogeneses observed in Centruroides are reported gracilis (Latreille, 1804) coming from the city of Santiago of Cuba. These represent the first registries of the occurrence of this reproductive strategy in this species of Buthidae. Key words: Scorpiones, Buthidae, Centruroides, parthenogenesis, Cuba. First record of parthenogenesis in Centruroides gracilis (Latreille 1804) (Scorpiones: Buthidae) Abstract: Two record of parthenogenesis plows herein given for Centruroides gracilis (Latreille 1804) from Santiago of Cuba City. These plows the first record of the occurrence of this reproductive strategy in this species of Buthidae. Key words: Scorpiones, Buthidae, Centruroides, parthenogenesis, Cuba. Introduction Between the species of American scorpions with ampler geographic distribution gracilis is without Centruroides doubts (Latreille 1804), knowing within the American continent established populations in Cuba, the USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela (Arms, 1988; Arms & Maes, 2000; Fet & Lowe, 2000; González-Sponga, 1996; Hoffmann, 1932; KovaÍík, 1998; Lourenço & Méndez, 1984; Sissom & Lourenço, 1987; Unpublished Teruel, 1997 []; Teruel & Stockwell, 2003). This scorpion exhibits sinantrópicos habits markedly, being in great abundance as much in cities and towns occupying the interior of the houses and the areas abiertas like waste baskets and barren lots (Teruel, 1997 [unpublished]) and thanks to which it has been introduced accidentally by the man in sites very separated from his natural area of distribution, like Canary Islands (Arms & Báez, 1988) and western Africa (Belfield, 1956). As far as its reproductive ecology, its postembryonic development and mating in captivity they have been studied by Arms & Hernandez (1981) and Francke & Jones (1982), but until the present has not registered the occurrence of parthenogenesis in this scorpion. Recently two cases of parthenogeneses have been observed that represent the first observations of the occurrence of this phenomenon in C. gracilis, whose details and meaning are discussed in the present note. Material and methods In captivity, the units were maintained in capsules of Petri of 50? 150 mm of diameter, in direct dependency as large as each scorpion. It was used as substrate paper of humid filter and the proportionate food ad libitum exclusively consisted of nymphs and adults of cockroaches (American Periplaneta, P. australasiae, germanic Blattella and Pycnoscellus surinamensis). The units are deposited in the personal collection of the author (RTO). Results First case: A youthful female of C. gracilis was captured in Caymans (western suburbs of the city of Santiago of Cuba) the 13 of January of 1988 by the author, brought to the laboratory and maintained it lives in captivity. This individual realised its last ecdisis by the end of October of that own year and having itself maintained isolated without contact with other scorpions, a litter of 19 larvae give birth the 15 of December of 1989 that realised his first dumb one to the six days (21 of December). As they became independent from the mother (who died 20 days after the childbirth), separated and they were maintained individually in capsules of Petri; 15 of them realised his the second dumb between the 3 of February and 9 of March of 1990 (the other four nymphs I died before carrying out this ecdisis). Only three nymphs II did his third and fourth ecdisis (of the 6-20 of April of 1990 and of the 3 of May to the 2 of June of 1990, respectively) and two of them carried out their villa and sixth dumb (17 of July to the 10 of August of 1990 and 3 of September from 1990 to the 13 of June of 1991, respectively), after which they emerged like adult females. The duration in days of each ninfal stage was the following one: nymph I (44-78), nymph II (34-56), nymph III (45-57), nymph IV (52-69) and nymph V (48-276); the complete subadult period lasted 262 and 514 days in cases both studied. Both females died in captivity few days after to have reached the adultez.

NOTE: In this case the female was a young adult and wild caught


----------



## Michiel (May 24, 2011)

I hope you understand the feedback I gave you and I do not want to continue via messaging, thank you.


----------

