# San Diego scorpion ID PLEASE!



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

found a few of these guys in San Diego, i was wondering if anyone kno what species they are? size is around 2.5"-3"

with nice fat tail


----------



## GideonSmith08 (Jul 21, 2009)

V. spinigerus?


----------



## Michiel (Jul 21, 2009)

I think it is some kind of Vaejovid, no clue on the species though. I am not into North American scorps...


----------



## K3jser (Jul 21, 2009)

GideonSmith08 said:


> V. spinigerus?


You mean H.spinigerus

looks like either a Hoffmanius sp or Vaejovis sp. 

Local US scorps aint my stronger side..


----------



## pandinus (Jul 21, 2009)

As stated recently in other threads the genus vaejovis is a taxonomic nightmare right now, so the best you are going to be able to get right now and especially without close examination by an expert i "Vaejovis sp." there's no gurantee that all the ones you have are even necessarily the same species.



John


----------



## Nomadinexile (Jul 21, 2009)

*Congrats!*

hey j!  according to ksp's state checklist here:

http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/scorpiones/states.html

There are over 51 scorpions in the FAMILY Vajovidae in California.
*They only list 6 Vaejovis sp. of the GENUS in California 

Click on the Genus' highlighted in blue and it takes you to 4 different list broken down by Families? :?    But however it is broken down, it takes you to the one you click on!  

That page will have each species broken down a bit.  Often by county or region it's found in.  I looked at the vaejovis sp. for a sec for you, and it seems to me V. confusus or V. puritanus would be your best place to start looking from that genus, but I would also look at some of the other closely related genus' unless someone reliable like pandinus or tober or ?? on here says that that is a def. a vaejovis.  At which point you wouldn't have many to look through!  But really, knocking it down to county really helps you narrow the search. 

*Caveat, not all scorpions are known to us, let alone all scorpion distributions!  But I have found this page to be really accurate for texas species, so give it a shot!

Oh, if you read the most recent description (the species announcement to science), you can sometimes get ideas.  You may be able to tell be pictures too if you can narrow it down some!  Hope this helps, if you need any other ideas j, let me know.  Good work!  ryan


----------



## Zach Valois (Jul 21, 2009)

These are definitely what is being called V. puritanus. We collected large samples of these from all over the coastal and southern scrub/foothills of CA.
New cladistic analyses will be out soon...

The intense fuscous markings really define this animal.


----------



## Zach Valois (Jul 21, 2009)

Yep, V. puritanus...


----------



## K3jser (Jul 21, 2009)

Zach Valois said:


> Yep, V. puritanus...


Yeah H.puritanus is a good guess.. chould be it..


----------



## Zach Valois (Jul 21, 2009)

OK. These are what a lot of people HAVE been calling V. puritanus. I am looking at some Baja confirmed V. puritanus and these are definitely different.

And, for the time being, I still consider them in the genus Vaejovis.


----------



## Zach Valois (Jul 21, 2009)

Soleglad and Fet (2008) do note geographical races of this species. Noting variation in coloration, and fuscosity/granulation....

hmmm....still looking..


----------



## K3jser (Jul 21, 2009)

Zach Valois said:


> OK. These are what a lot of people HAVE been calling V. puritanus. I am looking at some Baja confirmed V. puritanus and these are definitely different.
> 
> And, for the time being, I still consider them in the genus Vaejovis.


So when taxomonical changes are made and 2 new genus are made, you just keep on with the old names? instead of accepting it and use the orginal names.. its allmost a year ago the changes was made.. i doubt they will be changed back any soon if that ever happens..


----------



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

it's Serradigitus joshuaensis

and i also caught one Pseudouroctonus williamsi 

thanks for all the help everyone


----------



## H. laoticus (Jul 21, 2009)

man, I need to go to San Diego and get me a few of those!
I only live like 1hr 30mins away


----------



## Thongy (Jul 21, 2009)

Those are sick haha, you should take me there. ;D


----------



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

Thongy said:


> Those are sick haha, you should take me there. ;D


pm me your number, i'll text you when we go again (soon). i went with 2 other members on this board the last time.


----------



## Zach Valois (Jul 21, 2009)

K3jser said:


> So when taxomonical changes are made and 2 new genus are made, you just keep on with the old names? instead of accepting it and use the orginal names.. its allmost a year ago the changes was made.. i doubt they will be changed back any soon if that ever happens..


Ok, so...The genera described by Soleglad and Fet (2008) may in fact remain valid, I'm sure that at least some of them are indeed good and will remain so. To avoid further complication, I choose to hold off on my acknowledgment of those genera until a thorough CLADISTIC analysis is presented..which is in the works by Prendini et al. Once the new work by the REVSYS project is published, at that point I will draw my conclusions on what to accept. ICZN states that you do not have to accept taxonomic conclusions if you feel the study is not accurate for whatever reasons. As I said, much of their work may be good (if not all of it), but I will remain in following previous classifications until I see the new cladistic analysis. Do not take it as a direct attack on their work or the authors themselves, I simply want to avoid complication by comparing the two separate analyses before accepting major taxonomic changes. I also feel that a stronger molecular based analysis done by very well trained cladists will yield a stronger conclusion, this again, does not fully question the new genera, rather the phylogenetic construction of such.

As far as V. puritanus is concerned, Williams described several taxa from Baja in association with V. puritanus and then later synonymized them, claiming that they were "geographical races" or variants (I forget exactly how he termed it). That seems to be the case for now. According to phylogenetic species concept, if these "geographical races" are diagnosable, then they can be considered "species". So, with this said it looks like what was shown in the photos above are indeed what is taxonomically considered V. puritanus, or what I may consider "Vaejovis puritanus complex". This, along with V. confusus, obviously merit further species level revision. This then begs the question......does cladistics fail at the species level?....

KyuZo,

What scorpion specimens are you referring to? The ones pictured, or another series?...Same locale?...


----------



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

here is one that look like the ones in my pictures above:
http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/scorpiones/s_joshuaensisGL.jpg

and here is picture of one that look like one that i also caught, i didn't post a picture for this one:
http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/scorpiones/matt1.jpg


----------



## Zach Valois (Jul 21, 2009)

For whatever reason, the photos did not link.

The ones you pictured in this thread are indeed what is taxonomically (currently) considered V. puritanus. David Sissom also agrees.


----------



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

I went here:
http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/scorpiones/states.html

then search for Serradigitus joshuaensis and Pseudouroctonus williamsi


----------



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

Zach Valois said:


> For whatever reason, the photos did not link.
> 
> The ones you pictured in this thread are indeed what is taxonomically (currently) considered V. puritanus. David Sissom also agrees.


I also did a search under the name V. puritanus and I agree that it's also the same thing that i caught.


----------



## Zach Valois (Jul 21, 2009)

Of course we cannot try to identify anything with out photos of what you have (i.e. your conclusion of of P. williamsi).

If you are confusing S. joshuaensis with what you have pictured, here are some basic differential characters.

What you have pictured has intense fuscous markings on the dorsum (with S. joshuaensis lacks), scalloping in the fingers [presumable males] (with S. joshuaensis lacks, no distinct terminating denticle on the chelal fingers and no subacular bump or tooth (S. joshuaensis has both). There are also distinct pectinal differences, and of course morphometric (e.g. look at metasomal segments 1 in both photos of yours and S. joshuaensis) and trichobothrial characters, and a few other things that separate Vaejovis from Serradigitus.
I have collected in San Diego several times, collecting what mirrors yours specimens. It is an easy confusion from photos though.


----------



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

Zach Valois said:


> Of course we cannot try to identify anything with out photos of what you have (i.e. your conclusion of of P. williamsi).
> 
> If you are confusing S. joshuaensis with what you have pictured, here are some basic differential characters.
> 
> ...


ok, give me a second, i'll get you a picture or 2.


----------



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

ok, here ya go


----------



## Zach Valois (Jul 21, 2009)

Man that is a sexy little scorpion. Most definitely a little Pseudouroctonus, not comfertable on placing a name just yet.

You be sure to let me know if you ever will part with one!


----------



## KyuZo (Jul 21, 2009)

Zach Valois said:


> Man that is a sexy little scorpion. Most definitely a little Pseudouroctonus, not comfertable on placing a name just yet.
> 
> You be sure to let me know if you ever will part with one!


lol, thanks. I know what you mean.  this guy is definitely special.


----------



## H. laoticus (Jul 21, 2009)

seriously, they look awesome


----------



## alacran619 (Jul 22, 2009)

My goal is to find one of those next time we go.  Definitely the find of the night.


----------



## neubii18 (Jan 27, 2010)

Where do you find it?I live in Oceanside about 30 min from you.I have been looking for scorps for a couple of years now unsuccessfuply.please pm me and tell me where you found it. thanks!


----------



## SixShot666 (Jan 27, 2010)

Look like some Vaejovis sp. :?


----------



## Nomadinexile (Jan 27, 2010)

Someone needs to get us some of these!

Pseudouroctonus minimus
Pseudouroctonus minimus castaneus


----------

