# An interesting find



## Draiman (Mar 4, 2010)

I went hiking in the jungle today (disturbed secondary forest, not far from human habitation), and quite incredibly, found a large-ish 5.5-6" Scolopendromorph centipede _climbing a tree_! It was a bit of a struggle capturing it because I had nothing with me and didn't really want to risk a bite from something unidentified, but I eventually coaxed it into a water bottle.

As you will see in the photos below, its first few pairs of legs are a much deeper red than the others. The terminal legs are also very long. It is a slender centipede, even more so than my _Scolopendra subspinipes mutilans_ of similar size. Any ideas as to what this centipede could be? I have my own opinions, but I'd like to know what you think.


----------



## Androctonus_bic (Mar 4, 2010)

For me this pede looks like more close to "Malasyan jewel" than a mutilans... 
So... wait for experts.

Cheers 
Carles


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 4, 2010)

Hi,

it's no S.s.mutilans (for sure).

I guess it's another _S. subspinipes subspinipes_ colorform (and Thailand has impressive color variations as well).

A picture from ventral side of terminal legs could help to reveal the truth.

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 4, 2010)

Androctonus_bic said:


> For me this pede looks like more close to "Malasyan jewel" than a mutilans...
> 
> Cheers
> Carles


Right on, Carles! The first name that came into my head when I saw this animal strolling up the tree was "Malaysian Jewel". It resembles that centipede in many ways, though none of them taxonomically, since I am not a systematist. Just a gut feeling of mine 

And I wasn't associating this centipede with _S. subspinipes mutilans_, I was just mentioning how slender it is in comparison with that species, because mutilans are known to be quite slender and lightly-built. 

And one more thing - I just went to look at this guy again and realised that my camera really screwed up the colors. The true color of its body, to my eyes, is a greenish-purpleish brown, not the solid brown as seen in the photos. This won't help with identification, but I just thought I'd clarify.


----------



## Draiman (Mar 4, 2010)

I wonder about its resemblance to Scolopendra sp. "Malaysian Jewel" because of physical similarities, as well as the following:

- This specimen is extremely high-strung, very skittish and very, very fast. In fact, about 15 minutes ago while I was checking on it it nearly escaped! Turgut mentioned this exact same characteristic in an earlier post regarding the Malaysian Jewels.

- It was found and collected near the base of a tree in some very dry substrate covered in bone-dry palm leaf litter. Turgut also mentioned that the "Malaysian Jewel" centipedes seem to prefer drier habitats.

I am in no way suggesting that this centipede I have is a Malaysian Jewel, due to certain striking differences (for instance, Malaysian Jewels have white/pale antennae, whereas this one has blue-grey antennae). But could it be something closely related? Just a thought, don't laugh at me for it.


----------



## Draiman (Mar 4, 2010)

Here's a comparison:

This is a photo of the terminal spines of one of a _S. subspinipes subspinipes_ from Java, Indonesia:







And the mystery pede:







If you look carefully you notice the mystery centipede has at least 4 spines.


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 4, 2010)

Draiman said:


> - This specimen is extremely high-strung, very skittish and very, very fast. In fact, about 15 minutes ago while I was checking on it it nearly escaped! Turgut mentioned this exact same characteristic in an earlier post regarding the Malaysian Jewels.


Yeah. And the same super-nervous behaviour can be seen in a lot of S. subspinipes subspinipes from Thailand (I once had to deal with such a crazy creature).



Draiman said:


> - It was found and collected near the base of a tree in some very dry substrate covered in bone-dry palm leaf litter. Turgut also mentioned that the "Malaysian Jewel" centipedes seem to prefer drier habitats.


Nono. You just have to be careful with humidity regulation in your own enclosures, cause this one needs very cool temperatures, combined with high humidity. (The "Megaphobema mesomelas-problem").
This can result in too wet substrate, cause you have no possibility to use heat for drying out the substrate here and then.



> I am in no way suggesting that this centipede I have is a Malaysian Jewel, due to certain striking differences (for instance, Malaysian Jewels have white/pale antennae, whereas this one has blue-grey antennae). But could it be something closely related? Just a thought, don't laugh at me for it.


The truth is sometimes bitter, but "Malaysian Jewel" is just a hobby dream that got out of control somewhere in past. It's a very beautiful pede, but that doesn't justify a separate taxonomical status. 
I trust the cladistics - though it's sometimes hard to stand.

Hence if you only judged by habitational preferences then your pede wouldn't be related to Jewels.

P.S.: S. subspinipes has 1-5 medial and dorsomedial spines (together). So it's still in the range.

Regards,
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 4, 2010)

peterbourbon said:


> Yeah. And the same super-nervous behaviour can be seen in a lot of S. subspinipes subspinipes from Thailand (I once had to deal with such a crazy creature).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, alright. _Scolopendra subspinipes subspinipes_ it is then. Hardly surprising actually, considering my location.

I do have one more question though, regarding the Malaysian jewels. What is your opinion on this bit of information, Turgut?



clockworkorange said:


> Hi Carles,
> 
> I understand your doubts as I have finished my project about a month ago and that all data are still unpublished. You are right on a point: as far as the current published knowledge goes, this species of Scolopendra is more closely related to Scolopendra subspinipes than to any other species. It belongs to the same clade. However, on the type specimen I sampled from the state of Perak, Malaysia, the genetic signature I obtained from a 813bp fragment of the gene COI (Cytochrome oxydase subunit I) presents a pairwise difference of 15.7% compared to the signature of Scolopendra subspinipes dehaani sampled in the province of Guangxi in southern China. *To give an idea of the genetic difference between both groups, it is commonly accepted that COI pairwise differences at species level is 3 to 7% among arthropods.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Draiman (Mar 4, 2010)

And the mystery deepens...

Here is a picture posted by *clockworkorange* of an unidentified centipede he received:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o316/armani68700/DSCN0865.jpg

It looks almost identical to the centipede I have, from antennae to terminal legs.

Thereafter, he posted this, in reference to that specimen:



clockworkorange said:


> By the way, I just come back from the lab (1 am a saturday nite...) *and the mystery centipede with black body and orange legs has a DNA that seems to react differently than scolopendra subspinipes dehaani and sc. sub. subspinipes*... Mmmm... *so that means that it's not closely related to these*... If anybody knows what species it is, I'd be very happy to hear about it! I didn't start morphometrics yet as i m raher busy with other specimens...
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Mika


:?


----------



## zonbonzovi (Mar 4, 2010)

That is an interesting placement of the prefemoral spines(although, I'm just a novice when it comes to morphological features).  

Slightly off-topic:

when counting antennomore segments, is the basal segment attaching antennomores to headplate included in the count?


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 4, 2010)

Hi,

DNA-studies have been made on different centipedes to confirm or disprove cladistical and phylogenetical theories.
A lot of great papers have been published meanwhile. So I must confirm DNA-studies have brought phylogeny to a different 
level (not necessarily a higher one).
Though modern technology can add a lot more value to better understanding, you should be aware of the fact that
classical morphological taxonomy should be supported by DNA-studies, implying that genetic research is a value to add,
not a standalone-feature.

I must say that, because we are simply running dry on classical taxonomists, while DNA-technology seems to be a more
fancy way to go for a lot of researchers, demanding to find THE answer with just a fingerprint, without 
having practice in classical taxonomy and hence not knowing the morphological differences.

In my opinion cladistics and phylogenetic trees are worthless without morphological characters.
DNA-studies may sometimes reveal better ways of interpreting morphological characters to weight the results.
They can add information to plesiomorphic characters or apomorphies/synapomorphies.

I therefore say that the best way is a symbiosis of Linnaean taxonomy and DNA-research - both parties should
work together and publish good results.

S. subspinipes is a masked species, i.e. it is difficult to sort all the species out, because they have shown a
high degree of adaptation, isolation of populations and on the other hand introduction to different parts of the
world. DNA-studies may help to understand the relations, but still it is - in my opinion - not feasable to distinct
a species just by a fingerprint before checking the morphological characters.

Even in millipedes some species have been considered as cryptic after some people had a real close look and found very small
but constant morphological differences.

Linnaean taxonomy also enables researchers to easily identify specimen in the field - an opportunity you shouldn't miss.

If you look hard and focus your work on different anatomical parts it may be possible to find constant 
morphological differences taxonomists have overseen until yet.

Linnaean taxonomy is a model of understanding - the same way DNA-studies are.

As all the modern things are always considered a better way to go, I judge from a different point of view, 
because my tools are (and always will be) based on Linnaean taxonomy (as we have enough DNA-researchers right now). There's still a lot of work waiting for classical taxonomists.

So - from my model's point of view - this centipede is considered as Scolopendra subspinipes 
(as far as I can see from the pics, of course. I can only go sure when I see the pede on my own table).

If someone is willing to work on a DNA-analysis of genus Scolopendra, I'd welcome him/her.
As long as this study is not published, I can only trust on the material that is officially available in journals 
and has been through a peer review.

Respect to people working on that stuff and posting things on arachnoboards, but I like to focus on officially released
papers to put more detail and impact to the whole stuff.

I really hope this information hasn't got lost meanwhile.
It may be worth to be published. Then we'll see - and maybe it could add value to the morphological characters.

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Galapoheros (Mar 4, 2010)

A lot of great info there Turgut, wish I had that kind of energy.  I remember a few pedes being sold in the US that looked a lot like, just a few though.  Somebody bought them here under the hobby name "Malaysian J"s.  Some had the blue legs in back, others had legs that were all red.


----------



## Draiman (Mar 4, 2010)

zonbonzovi said:


> That is an interesting placement of the prefemoral spines (although, I'm just a novice when it comes to morphological features).


How so? 



Galapoheros said:


> A lot of great info there Turgut, wish I had that kind of energy.


I second that. Turgut you really are a huge asset to the centipede hobby. 



Galapoheros said:


> I remember a few pedes being sold in the US that looked a lot like, just a few though.  Somebody bought them here under the hobby name "Malaysian J"s.  Some had the blue legs in back, others had legs that were all red.


I am now of the opinion that this centipede I collected is really a Malaysian Jewel. Apparently when they lose legs the red legs molt out blue. We'll see what happens with this one when it molts.


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 5, 2010)

Draiman said:


> I am now of the opinion that this centipede I collected is really a Malaysian Jewel. Apparently when they lose legs the red legs molt out blue. We'll see what happens with this one when it molts.


"Malaysian Jewel" is just a hobby name for this certain centipede (we all know) collected exactly in the Cameron Highlands, nowhere else (not in Singapore and even not in the lowlands of Malaysia where the "cherry reds" dominate).

It can come with some blue legs or sometimes only with red legs.
Morphologically there is no such "Malaysian Jewel" - and your pede is definitely not.

The "proof": If it was a Malaysian Jewel it would be already dead.
Have you ever thought about the fact why we only have a few in the hobby? 
It may be a little bit more rare, but the main reason are the temperatures.
If bug hunters descent from the highlands and prepare the centipedes for an import, they usually die, cause Malaysia mainland is simply too hot.

Your centipede resembles a little bit more the Thailand flamelegs (that are actually S. subspinipes subspinipes).

Then we have to ask a serious question: What is a "Malaysian Jewel"? How do you define it? Morphologically all specimen I examined are nothing but a S. subspinipes subspinipes with sizes reaching the BL of S.s. dehaani (That doesn't matter, there are very big nominate subspinipes out there, depends on location).

If you want to use the name "Malaysian Jewel", then it should come along with all of the following facts:

1) Collected in the Cameron Highlands
2) Resembles morphologically S. subspinipes subspinipes, sometimes dehaani (but I consider this as a morphological abnormity - most of them have 2 ventro-lateral spines on the terminal legs, only few have not).
3) Black/dark body 
4) White antenna
5) Deep red legs, usually with blue terminals and often 19th/20th legpairs as well.

Your centipede neither matches location (even not the special quasi-unique climate in the Cameron Highlands) nor has white antenna.

Don't be sad, it's nevertheless a very beautiful morph that is *not* common in the hobby.

Hence "Malaysian Jewel" refers to an isolated subspinipes-population with a different colorform ("ecological pressure") found in the Cameron Highlands (from all we actually know. DNA-research may reveal different things - as isolated populations may develop and change from the ancestor in a certain amount of time).
Everything else is something different, not a Malaysian Jewel.
If we called your centipede a "Malaysian Jewel" (we could do that, depends on the personal definition you prefer) then a lot of other pedes would be "Malaysian Jewel" as well - until we don't know what we are talking about in near future. 
I must admit, this would add a lot of confusion.

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 5, 2010)

Guess I was a bit presumptious and overzealous there, once again thank you for the clarification and invaluable information Turgut. 

Btw - what would you suspect this centipede is then? Possibly the same as what I have? Note dark antenna:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o316/armani68700/DSCN0865.jpg

Also, I ran a google search for the Thai centipede you mentioned and didn't come up with anything. Do you happen to have a picture of one you could post? Just curious, since Thailand and Singapore are 1,565 kilometres apart. Of course, this centipede or specific colorform that I have collected may also occur in Malaysia, thus linking the Singapore population with those in Thailand, but presently we don't know that.

*EDIT:*

Photographic evidence that Turgut is correct, and that this centipede is most likely nothing more than a pretty color form of _Scolopendra subspinipes subspinipes_:







Plus a photo of him/her chowing down on a superworm:


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 5, 2010)

Hey,

please provide some photos from the *under*side of the terminals (the side doesn't help too much). Just flip the pede. Thanks. 

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 6, 2010)

peterbourbon said:


> Hey,
> 
> please provide some photos from the *under*side of the terminals (the side doesn't help too much). Just flip the pede. Thanks.
> 
> ...


I'll try, but if it escapes it'll be your fault!


----------



## Draiman (Mar 6, 2010)

Just found this thread:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=124282

Considering I collected this centipede on a tree, and its physical resemblance to those centipedes depicted in that thread, should I house it as an arboreal? Every night I see it climbing the tank lid and even hanging from it, without fail. I have not had any other centipede climb so frequently or regularly.


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 6, 2010)

Hi,

it may be somehow arboreal, could have something to do with the long terminal legs. Give it a try.

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 6, 2010)

peterbourbon said:


> Hi,
> 
> it may be somehow arboreal, could have something to do with the long terminal legs. Give it a try.
> 
> ...


Interesting, will do.

I also noticed that you identified those tree-dwelling centipedes as _S. multidens_. Are these photos of any help?

Antenna with 18 segments:







Tarsal spur (or not?) on 20th leg?







I'll get the ventral shots of the terminal leg spines (and any other photos you may require for positive identification) later tonight, when I rehouse the centipede.


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 6, 2010)

Hi,

I am not sure of my past ID of the Malaysian flamelegs, cause time has passed by, a lot of other specimen came up meanwhile - and I have another theory:

S. multidens have way thicker terminal legs though they haven't been IDed in past through terminal legs.

While S. multidens *always* lack tarsal spines on 20th legs, S. subspinipes usually have those tarsal spines. "Usually" means that some populations may lack this tarsal spine which makes this taxonomical character obsolete (in my opinion).

There is only *ONE* certain way to find out if a pede is S. multidens or S. subspinipes subspinipes - and only if you have a male. *S. multidens* males lack gonopods while S. subspinipes subspinipes males have good noticable gonopods - which makes it necessary to analyze genital region and justifies S. multidens as a clearly distinguished different species.

My passed by flameleg was a female - that's why I never found it out on those specimen.

I consider number of antenna segments as a "range-specific" character. It doesn't matter if your centipede has one more segment (or even two).
This taxonomical character is forced by strong variation and regeneration.
It's more important to have a look at sparsely hirsute antenna segments, but - again - in S. subspinipes or most of the related species (except S. spinosissima) they all have a constant number of 6 sparsely hirstute basal antenna segments (like your speciman as well).

Regards,
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 6, 2010)

peterbourbon said:


> There is only *ONE* certain way to find out if a pede is S. multidens or S. subspinipes subspinipes - and only if you have a male. *S. multidens* males lack gonopods while S. subspinipes subspinipes males have good noticable gonopods - which makes it necessary to analyze genital region and justifies S. multidens as a clearly distinguished different species.


Unfortunately I do not have access to a carbon dioxide device, nor anything I could use to anaesthesize the centipede, so the only possible way for me to examine its genital area would be to take a look at the exuvium once it molts, but like you said in a previous post in another thread, we don't know whether gonopods and etc are left behind in the molts. I'll still try though, because if gonopods are present then it of course must be _S. subspinipes subspinipes_. If there are no gonopods present then I guess we still would not be able to come to a clear conclusion, but oh well.

Would a photo of the ventral side of the centipede's terminal legs still be useful for identification now?

P.S. - What is the (known) geographical distribution of _S. multidens_? I've always thought they shared a similar range with _S. subspinipes mutilans_ - southern China, South Korea, Japan, Ryukyu Islands etc. Do they even range into Thailand and West Malaysia, let alone Singapore?


----------



## Draiman (Mar 6, 2010)

peterbourbon said:


> While S. multidens *always lack* tarsal spines on 20th legs, S. subspinipes usually have those tarsal spines. "Usually" means that some populations may lack this tarsal spine which makes this taxonomical character obsolete (in my opinion).


_Scolopendra multidens_ - *"Trunk legs 1-19 with a tarsal spine, but 20 without. Prefemur of terminal legs with 2-3 ventrolateral, 2 ventromedial, and 2 dorsomedial spines. Prefemur spur with 3 spines."*

_Scolopendra subspinipes subspinipes_ - *"Trunk legs 1-20 with a tarsal spine. Prefemur of terminal legs with 2 ventrolateral, 1 or 2 ventromedial and 1-3 dorsomedial spines. Prefemur spur with 2 spines."*

My specimen has a prefemur spur with 3 spines:







*EDIT:* My centipede has *exactly* 2 ventrolateral, 2 ventromedial and 2 dorsomedial spines. I'll post the picture later, but this means it could easily still be _S. multidens_ (especially given the 3-spined prefemoral spur)...

*EDIT2:* *NO* tarsal spine on 20th legs. Pictures coming ASAP.


----------



## Draiman (Mar 7, 2010)

I don't mean to question your authority on this topic Turgut, but:



peterbourbon said:


> S. subspinipes usually have those tarsal spines. *"Usually" means that some populations may lack this tarsal spine* which makes this taxonomical character obsolete (in my opinion).


Have you examined _S. subspinipes subspinipes_ specimens that lacked the tarsal spine on their 20th pair of legs? If not, how can you be *sure* of the above statement (quoted in bold)? And if you cannot be sure, and it is merely an assumption you made, then how can we assume that my specimen belongs to one of those aforementioned _S. subspinipes subspinipes_ populations that apparently lack the tarsal spine, since we don't have definitive information?

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just bringing up what I think is a valid point.


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 7, 2010)

Draiman said:


> Have you examined _S. subspinipes subspinipes_ specimens that lacked the tarsal spine on their 20th pair of legs? If not, how can you be *sure* of the above statement (quoted in bold)?


No, I haven't examined any S. subspinipes in my whole life - that's why I post it here.

This is a quite variable character in some species and you may encounter subspinipes who lack those spines (maybe only on one side, maybe on both sides).

I guess you don't have the slightest idea how variable S. subspinipes (+ related species) are (or maybe have the idea, but don't seem to realize).

Maybe this pede is a yet undescribed species, closely related to S. subspinipes (but that would make it necessary to start a detailed and structured analysis under a binocular) - nevertheless S. multidens has a different structure of terminal legs - and again:
Genital region must be analyzed, else you won't come to a conclusion.
In literature you can only find unsatisfying statements about S. subspinipes and related species, or at least poor statements compared to their variability.

Please show me a picture of the terminal leg ventral side (I wanna see the pic with my own eyes) - it's worth the effort.

Regarding the key: It's incomplete and is only helpful if you need a quick overview. The complete descriptions include the variability in specimen.
And that's the reason why S. subspinipes is no fun.

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 7, 2010)

peterbourbon said:


> I guess you don't have the slightest idea how variable S. subspinipes (+ related species) are (or maybe have the idea, but don't seem to realize).


I am certainly no taxonomist, and I have only had experience with S. s. mutilans and *four* () specimens of S. subspinipes subspinipes; so indeed, I don't know, nor have any real way of knowing, how variable the Scolopendra subspinipes species-complex is. 

Sorry if I offended you...



peterbourbon said:


> Genital region must be analyzed, else you won't come to a conclusion.
> In literature you can only find unsatisfying statements about S. subspinipes and related species, or at least poor statements compared to their variability.


So unless I find and collect another specimen and send it to you for examination, we will not be able to definitively identify this centipede. Oh well, I guess that's too bad then.



peterbourbon said:


> Please show me a picture of the terminal leg ventral side (I wanna see the pic with my own eyes) - it's worth the effort.


Will do.


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 7, 2010)

Draiman said:


> Sorry if I offended you...


Don't mind. I only wanted to point out that I witnessed the variability.
I liked it to be more constant, but those subspinipes are a taxonomical pain, unfortunately.

As far as I know even Shelley pointed out in his Haiti-paper that examination of subspinipes is a life-time work - and that there are probably no taxonomists who could unravel the whole thing (imagine the amount of material from X locations you have to examine and the time you need to get an idea of all the variabilities).

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 7, 2010)

peterbourbon said:


> Don't mind. I only wanted to point out that I witnessed the variability.
> I liked it to be more constant, but those subspinipes are a taxonomical pain, unfortunately.
> 
> As far as I know even Shelley pointed out in his Haiti-paper that examination of subspinipes is a life-time work - and that there are probably no taxonomists who could unravel the whole thing (imagine the amount of material from X locations you have to examine and the time you need to get an idea of all the variabilities).
> ...


Indeed, we tend to classify animals under the strict presence or absence of certain morphological features, but clearly nature is a lot more variable than that, especially with arthropods. Heck, even us humans demonstrate plenty of variability!

Anyway, here's the (poor) shot of the ventral side of the terminals. Best I could do!

I do notice that the coxopleural ends are single-spined, and for S. multidens there are supposed to be 3 spines, right?


----------



## peterbourbon (Mar 7, 2010)

Hi,

alright - that's why I wanted to see a pic:

This pede has 2 ventral spines (a bit in ventro-lateral position), 2 medial spines and 2 dorso-medial spines.
Well in the range of S. subspinipes subspinipes.

Coxopleural process in S. multidens with 3 spines.
Coxopleural process in S. subspinipes subspinipes usually with 2 spines and rarely with 1 or 3.

Regards
Turgut


----------



## Draiman (Mar 7, 2010)

peterbourbon said:


> Hi,
> 
> alright - that's why I wanted to see a pic:
> 
> ...


Yeah. I think all the evidence now points in the direction of S. subspinipes subspinipes, agreed? I'll label it that for now, at least tentatively, until/unless I collect another specimen. I plan to visit the area again in mid-March, and hopefully I'll have good news for you when you return in April 

Oh and once again, thanks for all the help.


----------

