How do scorpions tend to be classified: looking for expert answer

[skips]

So, there are always threads posted on different parts of the board that claim to possibly have hybrids. Generally any member of the same genus can reproduce, though usually with sterile offspring. This would only make sense of the scorpions were classified by the repoductive isolation (or biological species) concept. If taxonomic classification were based off morphology alone, then it is conceivable that many species not even in the same genus could reproduce. So, how is classification usually done?

Also, if hybrids are common enough, how common enough is it to have reproductively active offspring? Thanks!

 

[skips]

Really? Nobody?

 

[Nomadinexile]

Well sorry, but you wanted an expert. But since you haven't found one, I will give you my two cents anyway. I don't know everything but I have read a little bit, mostly on here. 1. I have seen a couple of the threads, and in some it was later ruled out as a possibility. Maybe in others it hasn't. But I don't believe your sentence below where you say "generally any of the same genus......". From everything I have read, that is a stretch at best, probably just wrong. 2. I have not heard of viable offspring ever being produced. Not saying it can't happen, but I haven't heard of it. 3. I don't know what you mean by "how is classification usually done?" That could mean a lot of things. Could you elaborate? Oh, and I don't think they are that common. Not as common as they are in threads anyway!

Any experts?

So, there are always threads posted on different parts of the board that claim to possibly have hybrids. Generally any member of the same genus can reproduce, though usually with sterile offspring. This would only make sense of the scorpions were classified by the repoductive isolation (or biological species) concept. If taxonomic classification were based off morphology alone, then it is conceivable that many species not even in the same genus could reproduce. So, how is classification usually done?

Also, if hybrids are common enough, how common enough is it to have reproductively active offspring? Thanks!

 

[Aztek]

How can we know how many can reproduce if there aren't any?:?

 

[Nomadinexile]

Because all the "experts" say so. Doesn't mean it's right. But it is the general concensus that they would be unable to do so. I have only heard of a few specimens making it to adulthood. And they have all been infertile so far. Doesn't mean it's not possible. But no one has done it, and I haven't yet heard a good argument claiming it is even possible. But again, I am not an expert on this. I have only READ what others have seen and done with this. That's why.

How can we know how many can reproduce if there aren't any?:?

 

[Aztek]

You've heard of a couple hybrids?
Because I was certain there was only one confirmed.

 

[Michiel]

What do you mean with " how is classifcation usually done", can you specify that? Hybridization between populations can occur.
you should read Scorpions of Brazil from Wilson Lourenco, there is quite some information about this topic in there. For instance, the species Tityus bahiensis has a southern population, a northern population and there was a " in between zone". These populations differed in morphometrics. In this zone, Lourenco thought there was a hybrid subspecies, so there used to be two subspecies: Tityus bahiensis bahiensis and Tityus bahiensis eickstedtae. The latter is now raised to species status, Tityus eickstedtae.

Another publication that deals with hybridization is the paper of Kovarik wherein he synonymizes Tityus ythieri with Tityus magnimanus. One of the reasons of synonymization was the fact that there was offspring that could reproduce. This paper can be found on the net, so have a go at it.

 

[Nomadinexile]

15 January, 2009
Tityus ythieri has been synonymized with Tityus magnimanus
Frantisek Kovarik and co-workers (2009) has studied Tityus ythieri Lourenco, 2007 and Tityus magnimanus Pocock, 1897. Based on morphological, chromosomal and mitochondial DNA studies and hybridization studies, they conclude that these two species are the same.

From:

http://scorpion-files.blogspot.com/2009/01/tityus-ythieri-has-been-synonymized.html

So they are the same species, not producing hybrids. That is just correction of identification/classification error. It has nothing to do with hybridization.

As far as the book, I am still looking for it.

 

[Nomadinexile]

So I have found something describing hybridization. Looking at DNA nonetheless. So I believe it is possible. But you do have to recognize that for every 100 mentions of hybridization 99 of them are based on guesses and conjecture, or just plain misidentification/classification errors. I do doubt, even if some people on here know otherwise, that they would be apt to share that information as it is a generally frowned upon act. It may be more possible and likely than we think, but there is a lot more questions than answers right now. People are still flipping species in and out of genus', and some of those were originally described eons ago. Good luck though.

 

[skips]

Well sorry, but you wanted an expert. But since you haven't found one, I will give you my two cents anyway. I don't know everything but I have read a little bit, mostly on here. 1. I have seen a couple of the threads, and in some it was later ruled out as a possibility. Maybe in others it hasn't. But I don't believe your sentence below where you say "generally any of the same genus......". From everything I have read, that is a stretch at best, probably just wrong. 2. I have not heard of viable offspring ever being produced. Not saying it can't happen, but I haven't heard of it. 3. I don't know what you mean by "how is classification usually done?" That could mean a lot of things. Could you elaborate? Oh, and I don't think they are that common. Not as common as they are in threads anyway!

Any experts?

maybe experts was the wrong wording. I do that frequently when I type things up fast. I meant anybody that could support their claim with hard evidence. "how classification is usually done" meaning that classification methods can be based off completely different concepts. One might by reproductive isolation, one might classify a species purely by morphological characteristics. As for the any member of the same genus comment, that is true depending on the classification method. lions and tigers can reproduce, so can dogs and wolves. In fact, I could list several examples of invertebrates or even vertebrates that are known to hybridize inter generically and are still fertile in a good deal of cases. I site what is know as the jeffersonion complex between jefferson salamanders and i beleive tiger salamanders and a type of spotted salamander. As a general rule there are rare and less rare ways that an orgnism with an odd number of chromosomes (this, in short is what causes sterility) can return to a fertile even numbered and reproductive state. other examples are the hybridization of clams, fish, and polar bear/grizzly hybrids. Dont even get started on plants.

For example, how do you think they classify dinosaurs? obviously they dont know that they cant reproduce so they do it morphologically. That is what classical taxonomy was based on. Even genetic evidence in theory doesnt tell you whether organisms could reproduce. By "genetic evidence" in this case I mean looking at gene sequences and seeing how much they overlap. Genetic markers would be pretty elucidating.

How can we know how many can reproduce if there aren't any?:?

stick them in a tank and see if the produce offspring. do this over the course of 100 years of studies and you've got a species. That's the crude way of looking at it.

Also, genetic markers tell you with relative certainty whether interbreeding has occured between population. Slice and dice the DNA and look for specific similarities in banding patterns of genes.

What do you mean with " how is classifcation usually done", can you specify that? Hybridization between populations can occur.
you should read Scorpions of Brazil from Wilson Lourenco, there is quite some information about this topic in there. For instance, the species Tityus bahiensis has a southern population, a northern population and there was a " in between zone". These populations differed in morphometrics. In this zone, Lourenco thought there was a hybrid subspecies, so there used to be two subspecies: Tityus bahiensis bahiensis and Tityus bahiensis eickstedtae. The latter is now raised to species status, Tityus eickstedtae.

Another publication that deals with hybridization is the paper of Kovarik wherein he synonymizes Tityus ythieri with Tityus magnimanus. One of the reasons of synonymization was the fact that there was offspring that could reproduce. This paper can be found on the net, so have a go at it.

Technically depending on the classification method if two populations can interbreed they are generally considered subspecies, not true species. Thansk for the papers!

So, to be more specific. If a species is characterized by molecular evidence I'd be more confident of reproductive isolation. If, however, most classifications were based on allometries (morphometrics) i'd be less confident in the assumption that they dont interbreed.

 

[Aztek]

but no one has done it yet.
So we don't know.

 

[Nomadinexile]

The dna mapping has just begun with scorpions, and will take a long time to sort out. There is no standard way of classifying scorpions. Almost all descriptions seem to have been done with different methods. The taxonomy of scorpions is a mess partly because of this. Almost all classification that I am aware of has focused on physical features. Species always seem to come down to a dimple here, teslon is __mm, etc, etc. There is DNA mapping going on with some species in some locations, but this is the exception not the rule, and most of us don't have access to these studies.
But since you are interested in genetics, I will tell you to keep your ears open for an Aphonopelma DNA study (coming out this year I believe), that is going to blow people away.

*As far as scorpion genetics go,... we are just arriving. But you also have to remember how far we have to go. They just discovered H. nepalinesis in Nepal. I have found undescribed scorpions in Austin, TX, (inside of city limits!), and I also found one in the desert a few hours away. To pretend like we have any clue about scorpions and their genetics and distributions is just silly right now. There is not nearly enough known right now....

*Because invert crossbreeding is less of a moral issue amongst european breeders(this isn't clearly stated, It's less looked down on there, or so I have been told. ), you may find more info and discussion about it on european sites.
From my experiences on here, people tend to try and shut down conversations about this kind of thing because the disagree with it. (I do to unless it is for science).

Good luck.

:
So, to be more specific. If a species is characterized by molecular evidence I'd be more confident of reproductive isolation. If, however, most classifications were based on allometries (morphometrics) i'd be less confident in the assumption that they dont interbreed.

 

[Nomadinexile]

That's not exactly true Aztek. there is a european species, they have mapped it's dna, that shows it is a hybrid between an african and european species that hybridized it's way into a species in a pretty short amount of time. (I want to say around 20-40 years) But i would need to look it back up to verify that. That's not the only one either. Just cause it doesn't pop up on AB doesn't mean it's not going on!

but no one has done it yet.
So we don't know.

 

[Aztek]

Where's the proof, son?

 

[Nomadinexile]

I'm still looking for more, but I found something else interesting I want to post, so this is what I have for now



http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118957463/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

[Nomadinexile]

This is a link to a thread on issue that will give you most of the info discussed on the general feelings towards it, and the known hobby cases of hybrids happening. (Which seems to be 1)

I think there is probably more info out there, and I may have some more time later to look around, but heck, you know how to search! I would also look on European sites, google scholar, etc. etc.



http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=104694&highlight=hybrids

 

[Nomadinexile]

You really should cut out that SON BS. It makes you look unintelligent and and it's rude. You know, (if you don't you should), full well that in the context of calling me son, that you are attempting to establish or show dominance towards me. Just like your outburst about me hogging "the glory" because I had read about the H. nepalinesis, it shows a lack of confidence and/or maturity, not dominance. You can't dominate me. ryan

That goes for everyone else too. It's rude.

Where's the proof, son?

 

[Aztek]

You mad....
First link don't work.
Second link mentions the 7 scorpions that attempted and the one ever confirmed hybridization.

 

[Michiel]

Thanks for explaining Nomadinexile I copied some text beneath, from which I draw the conclusion that there is hybridization, but maybe I understand it wrong. Btw,not everyone agrees with Kovarik Some authors consider T.ythieri a valid species. From this point of view, there is still hybridization of T.magnimanus with T.ythieri, and they produced fertile offspring.


Similar results were obtained from captive speci- mens directly descended from the holotype female and paratype male of T. ythieri. The two populations were interbreeding without any problems, and gravid and postnatal development of F1 hybrids ( T. magnimanus and T. ythieri, T. magnimanus x T. ythieri), and subsequent F2 hybrids in no way differed from those observed in captive T. magnimanus.

Thus, diagnostic morphological differences between T. ythieri and T. magnimanus do not exist; moreover, since the two easily hybridize and their offspring re- mains fertile, we suggest that T. ythieri is a synonym of T. magnimanus.

15 January, 2009
Tityus ythieri has been synonymized with Tityus magnimanus
Frantisek Kovarik and co-workers (2009) has studied Tityus ythieri Lourenco, 2007 and Tityus magnimanus Pocock, 1897. Based on morphological, chromosomal and mitochondial DNA studies and hybridization studies, they conclude that these two species are the same.

From:

http://scorpion-files.blogspot.com/2009/01/tityus-ythieri-has-been-synonymized.html

So they are the same species, not producing hybrids. That is just correction of identification/classification error. It has nothing to do with hybridization.

As far as the book, I am still looking for it.

 

[Nomadinexile]

Yeah, I lived on the street for 10 years man, and everywhere I have been, calling someone son is a step short of calling them the 5 letter word that starts with a b and describes a female dog. I don't have much in this world, but I still have my self respect. You ain't gonna urinate on my leg and not go to the pound.
So yeah, I am mad. You need to either A. grow up if you are just some little kid. or B. Use some sense before you go around throwing around dominant terms in reference to people on here. A lot of places that will get you hurt or even killed. You need to not call people son unless you have control, or else it is going to cause you problems one way or another. Not cool. Cut it out. thanks.

You mad....