C. exilicauda vs. C. sculpturatus

[CID143ti]

Hello. I been observing this forum for a while and I have concluded there are some very knowledgeable, experienced, and friendly members that are willing to share information. With that said; is C. sculpturatus a synonym for C. exilicauda or is C. sculpturatus a separate species? I’ve heard and read conflicting arguments and articles. From what I understand, C. exilicauda was once described as C. sculpturatus, but the scientific name was later changed to the current C. exilicauda. I’ve also heard that C. sculpturatus is a species that is very similar but only found in the Baja California area. Which explanation is correct or is there another explanation that I haven’t heard? I've always used C. exilicauda to describe what is commonly called the Arizona Bark Scorpion; I guess I just have personal curiosity about what happened to the C. sculpturatus name. Any information will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

W. Smith

 

[skinheaddave]

C.sculpturatus is a synonym and ought not to be used.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[CID143ti]

Thanks, I was assuming that it was a synonym. Was C. exilicauda originally described as C. sculpturatus? If so, why the change?

W. Smith

 

[skinheaddave]

I'm not exactly sure, but I can hazard a guess. Usualy revisions of this sort occur because of one of two scenarios:

a) The species is named two different things by two different people in two different areas, times or even around the same time/place but without knowledge of each other. Both publish. Either both are adopted or the later designation is adopted. Later on they find out that someone was first or that two different names exist. They take the first one as being valid.

b) The species displays some sort of variation and is thought to be two different species. It is described as such and then later the error is discovered and the one name is adopted while all others are discarded.

Based on the general uniformity of C.exilicauda, I'd have to guess that the first scenario was the most likely. Now, there are other possible scenarios, but those two are the ones you'll run into most.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[XOskeletonRED]

I have read both of the above listed, which Skinheaddave has kindly mentioned, as well as others. Most notably, because of frequency of use, I have heard that C. sculpturatus was an incorrect name which was unfitting to the official description of the scorpion and was discarded, while a new name, which better suited the traits of the scorpion, was idealized and put into use. On most of the research documents I have read, it refers to the C. exilicauda as "Formerly C. sculpturatus" in the instances that they mention it at all, which would usually (out of common sense) lead me to believe a little farther away from the explanation of having been two descriptions which were unknowing of each other, but rather that, formally, they were all refered to as sculpturatus, and another question came about later in time of why the description was unfitting to the scorpion's true title. Therefore leading to more studies to accomplish a better suited name for the scorpion in question. Considering I have heard of the name C. exilicauda being used prior to the official deconstruction of the name sculpturatus, I could debate on it with myself and lose either way. *lol* In this instance, it's this guy's word against that guy's word on all the documents, so all I can say for fact, is about it's officially being refered to as C. exilicauda in today's findings.


adios,
edw. :?

 

[Reitz]

I was told that C. sculpturatus is an existing name for some other invert, so it was changed to prevent confusion.

Chris

 

[CID143ti]

Thanks for the replies. I was just a little curious why it was changed. I remember the literature that I had access to when I was young described it as C. sculpturatus. It was mentioned in a juvenile book discussing Northern American scorpions. After some further research I discovered that it has several synonyms or alternate descriptions.

W. Smith