# Centruroides bicolor



## Mr. Mordax (May 14, 2008)

That's right.  I got three second-instars that arrived today (one's a third-instar now; he decided to molt during unpacking).

For reference, the jars are ~3/4 of an inch across.

The fatty:











The not-so-fatty: (second pic clickable for zoom)







And the molter.  5:57 PM






6:03 PM






6:34 PM






6:50 PM






As of 7:45 PM, the last one has its body out and is flipped over, and is just working the metasoma out.


----------



## Mr. Mordax (May 14, 2008)

Update: 7:58 and the metasoma is out!


----------



## cjm1991 (May 14, 2008)

Very nice Scorps! The not-so fatty is a beaut!


----------



## radicaldementia (May 14, 2008)

hahaha I also have 3 of those arriving tomorrow, after seeing your pictures ahhhhh I can't wait :drool: 

They are a beautiful species, I can't wait for them grow up (and hopefully breed  )


----------



## skinheaddave (May 14, 2008)

It will be nice to see what these grow up to be like.  Do you know what the parents looked like and/or what part of the range they originally came from?

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## ~Abyss~ (May 15, 2008)

IF they got them from Raul he posted a picture of the adults. I dont know if these are the parents.


----------



## Mr. Mordax (May 15, 2008)

^I believe that is one of the parents.  I have no idea what part of the range they came from (although I found out they're from the same part of Costa Rica I visited in '04).

I have every ambition to breed these as well -- fingers crossed I have at least one male and female in the three!


----------



## radicaldementia (May 15, 2008)

Mine just arrived, looks like one of them molted on the way 













The molter, ready for action!






For now, I'm not keeping them in very extravagant setups, just the container they came in with some coco-fiber and a little cardboard hide.  But I'm working on making some nice little containers that are more deserving for such a beautiful species.






Well we each have a 75% chance of getting at least one male and one female, and combined we have a 94% chance, so I think those are pretty good odds


----------



## inverts (May 15, 2008)

Congratulations on the new additions. Best of luck with future breeding.


----------



## talljosh003 (May 17, 2008)

geeze i've never seen a scorp that small, beautiful none the less


----------



## Raan_Jodus (May 17, 2008)

that adult looks disturbingly like my Margaritatus Morenoi.  Upon googling some info and finding a thread on the Venom List, I'm not the only one that has seen the close similarities.







One day I'll need to get some new pictures, I don't see my remaining one very often, he has his log he likes to hide under alot.  I doubt I'll have much luck finding him a woman before he bites it too.

Anyway, you can see the similarities I'm sure.  The tail on mine is a little darker, but damn I never noticed how similar C.M.M was to C.B.


----------



## EAD063 (May 17, 2008)

Hey Raan,

Yes, it seems that you are correct. IheatM and myself were talking a few days ago, I've sent him many pictures of the specimens I have and we have basically confirmed it.   No C bicolor, just really pretty C. marg like this.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p9/ead063/Centruroides/100_0967.jpg

But anyways, it is still a great species.  I have adults, sub adults and slings.... very pretty as you can see from my link.


----------



## skinheaddave (May 17, 2008)

Check your pectine counts and denticle rows on the fixed finger.

I'm not going to check any other papers -- unfortunately I just don't have the time right now.  Quick glance at Franke and Stockwell gives you:

C.bicolor: pectines (27-28M/23-28F), nine primary rows of denticles on fixed finger.
C.margaritatus: pectines (26-34M/24-33F), eight primary rows of denticles on fixed finger.

Take the usual disclaimer with this genus that it is poorly sorted and the literature is not complete -- add on that I have only looked at one document and I have about a half dozen more that may be of some use in this issue.  That being said, if you have 8 primary denticle rows and a pectine count of 33/34 then you can be pretty sure it isn't bicolor.

As stated, I have more stuff that may help.  Give me a shout via email/PM/facebook if you haven't gotten it sorted by this upcomming Saturday.  I will be back from NY by then.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Raan_Jodus (May 17, 2008)

still beautiful species.  You won't be too disappointed with em regardless.  I wish I could get more, one day I might try.  I've found they aren't quite as social as some other bark scorps, the two i had tended to stick to a side of the tank on their own.  Pretty sure I've never seen them share a hide, but they weren't hostile at all.

if yours come out with colours like those other pictures, damn i'll be jealous.

I'm somewhat curious if i were to breed these Morenoi with a regular C. Marg...would it be more of a hybrid or would some carry the Morenoi genes as dominant?  I've always been a little afraid to try to breed them with a common C. Marg.


----------



## Mr. Mordax (May 17, 2008)

Thanks for the comments, everyone.  Yes, I'd heard that I may have wound up with some expensive _C. margaritatus_, and as beautiful as they are, the only new scorpion I was very interested in getting was _C. bicolor_.  SHD, thanks as always for your insight -- I'll see if I can't get one of these guys under the scope at work.


----------



## Mr. Mordax (May 18, 2008)

I managed to get some shots of the denticles on the moveable finger -- do you know anything about the counts regarding that, Dave?

Scaled 70%:






Cropped to show denticles, original size:






I count eight rows.

If this turns out to be the wrong species, what do you (the people reading this thread) suggest?  The sale went great and the dealer has many positive reviews, so I'm not really sure what to make of this.


----------



## skinheaddave (May 18, 2008)

Mike,

Read Wagner 197x re: Centruroides from Yucatan for the dangers of using moveable finger counts.  I'd suggest sticking to fixed finger even though the two do mesh to some degree.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Mr. Mordax (May 18, 2008)

Luckily for me, the one I photographed earlier molted as soon as it arrived.  After some careful manipulation of my camera and a hand lens (I really need to get a good macro lens):






I think I can count seven rows -- does that mean I'm missing some and the count is eight?


----------



## skinheaddave (May 18, 2008)

Most likely you are missing a short apical row or the two basal rows are partially fused.  Anyhow, it definitely won't be 9 rows so you can count out C.bicolor -- at least according to Franke/Stockwell.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## EAD063 (May 19, 2008)

skinheaddave said:


> Most likely you are missing a short apical row or the two basal rows are partially fused.  Anyhow, it definitely won't be 9 rows so you can count out C.bicolor -- at least according to Franke/Stockwell.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave


Good info on the denticle count Dave.  It was pretty evident they were C marg. from the start and that confirms it.  I've kept many of these as some of their identifying traits are the males chela being as large as the chela patella and the elongated telson.  Out of all of the C bicolor pictures I have saved, it seems they posses this too, which made it a hard comparison until you provided that information.

Take care,
Ed


----------



## skinheaddave (May 23, 2008)

EAD063 said:


> It was pretty evident they were C marg. from the start and that confirms it.


Was it that obvious?  There is so much overlap in terms of colouration etc. and their structure is so similar that most would, I imagine, be indistinguishable from pictures.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## EAD063 (May 24, 2008)

skinheaddave said:


> Was it that obvious?  There is so much overlap in terms of colouration etc. and their structure is so similar that most would, I imagine, be indistinguishable from pictures.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave


Hey Dave,

It was obvious that they were not C bicolor as I've seen 50+ pictures of C bicolor and none that I have seen have shown such orange coloration.  Also like I have said, I have kept these pretty C marg for a while now and am quite familar with how they look. (Remember a picture of the adult was posted along with the FS ad.)  But as far as coloration in Centruroides, especially this particular group, your are correct, it is HIGHLY variable.

But because C bicolor is somewhat restricted to a few regions, I would have my doubts that there is much, or any variation in their colors.  Species like C margaritatus however (and gracilis for that matter) span through some very differnt habitats through Mexico, Central America and into South America and have many differnt colorforms along the way.

Personally I am quite happy that this debate was between C marg and C bicolor.  Now if it was between C marg, C nigramanus, C chiapanensis and C exilimanus, then we would have been in for some head sratching. 

Dave, I am writing a SOTM for June on the Diversity of the genus Centruroides with special regards to C marg, C gracilis and (hopefully if I can find the info) C infamatus.  I will send you a PM when I am finished and its posted, I'm sure you will enjoy the read. 

Ed


----------



## EAD063 (May 24, 2008)

IHeart,

Just wanted to give you a heads up my friend.  When your specimen are older, C marg. has a fused row on the fixed finger which is not counted in the total denticle count.  So when they are older you may look at them and count 9 rows and say "Well maybe they are C bicolor then".

This threw Brandon and I for a loop when we were first trying to confirm that they were in fact C marg.

Ed


----------



## skinheaddave (May 24, 2008)

EAD063 said:


> But because C bicolor is somewhat restricted to a few regions, I would have my doubts that there is much, or any variation in their colors.


Well, having seen 50+ pictures (assuming this represents a fairly diverse series of pictures and not 50 of one specimen or captive bred population or whatnot) then you should have a fairly good idea.  That being said, I am pretty sure I remember seeing a picture of C.bicolor that would easily be mistaken for C.margaritatus.  I can't find it now, so it may have been a C.margaritatus mistaken for C.bicolor.  

Anyhow, I look forward to your SOTM.  

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## EAD063 (May 24, 2008)

skinheaddave said:


> Well, having seen 50+ pictures (assuming this represents a fairly diverse series of pictures and not 50 of one specimen or captive bred population or whatnot) then you should have a fairly good idea.  That being said, I am pretty sure I remember seeing a picture of C.bicolor that would easily be mistaken for C.margaritatus.  I can't find it now, so it may have been a C.margaritatus mistaken for C.bicolor.
> 
> Anyhow, I look forward to your SOTM.
> 
> ...


Hey Dave,

It has been said that C nigrimanus males look very similar to C bicolor.  This could cause some confusion as C nigrimanus and C margaritatus are both endemic to Honduras.  It has been suggested by entomoligists that all Centruroides specimen from Central and South America should be accompanied by a label of locality.

Like you, I have seen many pictures of specimen that could go either way.  Those that cannot be readily distinguished, in my opinion, I wouuld attribute to the margaritatus, nigrimanus, chiapanensis group.  I have also seen some limbatus that look pretty close to C bicolor.

The pictures I have seen are many differnt pictures of specimen, all taken in the wild.  I was set to study abroad in Costa Rica for 30 days before the trip fell through due to lack of interest. (People seemed to think Europe was the better program)  So in prepaeration for the trip I dug up everything I could about C bicolor and was paying particular attention to locale data.

But a simple way to find 10-20 pictures quickly would simply be going to photosharing websites and finding pictures that tourists have taken.

scorpion, followed by any country usually gives you some good results.

Quite primitive... but we must remember that we are a minority. To 99% of the world a scorpion is a scorpion.

Ed


----------



## EAD063 (May 24, 2008)

Quick Search 

"scorpion, costa rica" - and these links are just the first 2 pages.

Notice none are labeled with any species name, so they would not show up in searches.

Hope this helps a few people in the future.

Ed

C limbatus

http://flickr.com/photos/mcnelismedia/2234267010/

http://flickr.com/photos/bravenewtraveler/602451930/

http://flickr.com/photos/kondensatorn/516669748/

C bicolor

http://flickr.com/photos/gtothev/320273259/

http://flickr.com/photos/7721020@N04/452896001/ - shortly after molt it appears


C margaritatus 

http://flickr.com/photos/55879379@N00/527872165/

http://flickr.com/photos/dejeuxx/2218959009/

http://flickr.com/photos/90382355@N00/454436264/

http://flickr.com/photos/tway76/2269913774/


----------



## skinheaddave (May 24, 2008)

Doesn't the fact that none are labeled with species name sort of render them useless?  Where you have a locality given, that helps to some degree -- but clumping them into bicolor and margaritatus camps based on looks and then using that to justify that the species look distinct is circular in nature.

Even where a locality is given, you have to consider the posibility that one or the other species has a wider range than published or that the found specimen is a transplant.  With vehicles moving all around the country and Centruroides being as they are, it is not at all inconcievable that the odd species turns up outside of its range.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## EAD063 (May 24, 2008)

Dave,

Like I said, I can admit to seeing a fair share of pictures that were a coin toss... but a good amount are in one way or another identifiable.

You are correct that few amateur published pictures have locale data to occommpany them.  But that holds true also with preserved specimens in museum banks.  In fact, that is one of the most frustrating matter in higher taxonomy of Centruroides. (As stated in various publications)

As far as "grouping them into clumps", do any of the species I've provied pictures for look incorrect?  Of course in scientific classification, looking at a picture will not suffice... but thats definently not my objective here, and I'm pretty sure you, as well as anyone reading this read, realizes that. As far as what I posted, yes I'd say C marg., limbatus and bicolor are all distinct species based on appearence.  Unless you can provide some other information that I'm not aware, I'd say my "clumps" are pretty accurate.

If you see any differences in the pictures provided that would justify your opposition to them, please let me, and anyone reading the thread know.  There are a lot of people who enjoy adding the the confusion, and I sure am not trying to be one.


----------



## skinheaddave (May 24, 2008)

> http://flickr.com/photos/mcnelismedia/2234267010/


Based on its location in the album, this one comes from the Nosara river.  Based on locality alone, that would suggest C.margaritatus.  



> http://flickr.com/photos/kondensatorn/516669748/


According to the tags, this one comes from just outside of the range of C.limbatus.  That being said, it "looks" like one and it is not too far to imagine that the published range is not entirely correct.



> http://flickr.com/photos/gtothev/320273259/


First off, this looks very similar to one of the margaritatus pictures in Viquez's book on the scorpions of Costa Rica.  Secondly, the set of pictures comes from Ocotal, which is well outside of the C.bicolor range and well inside the C.margaritatus range.  Could this be C.bicolor as you stated?  Yes.  If I had to wager, though, I would say it was C.margaritatus.

So that is 3/9 where locality would tend to suggest other than your ID.  I'm not saying your ID is wrong -- you could have nailed each one.  I'm also not suggesting that everything is known about these species, that the published ranges are perfect or even that the three species are all valid and that their relationships are well documented (actually, the opposite is quite true).

All I am saying is that this "it looks like ..." is not a particularly valid method of ID, particularly with these species.  This is especially true when no locality is given.  Even the denticles/pectine method has its flaws (hence my repeated disclaimers in all matters Centruroides).  

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Fire Starter (Feb 27, 2009)

how many months is the gestation period of C.Bicolor? i have a gravid female, already 2 weeks after mating? how many slings can they produce?


----------



## rd_07 (Mar 3, 2009)

Fire Starter said:


> how many months is the gestation period of C.Bicolor? i have a gravid female, already 2 weeks after mating? how many slings can they produce?


mine only took 2months and 13days






[/URL] [/IMG]


----------



## rd_07 (Mar 3, 2009)

my friend who has 8i c.bicolor had 69 slings
i'll start counting with mine once they start to crawl down


----------



## Nungunugu (Mar 3, 2009)

@ rd_07 I think your C.bicolor is a C.margaritatus. Could I be right?


----------



## rd_07 (Mar 3, 2009)

Nungunugu said:


> @ rd_07 I think your C.bicolor is a C.margaritatus. Could I be right?


its a bicolor
isaw a margaritatus and its a bit tan in color

mine used to be like this

http://s124.photobucket.com/albums/p9/ead063/Centruroides/?action=view&current=100_0967.jpg

just became darker when she got gravid


got some not really good pics here
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=34010&page=190


----------



## ~Abyss~ (Mar 3, 2009)

There are C. margaritatus (bicolor morphs).


----------

