Scolopendra sp. "White Legs" a form of sp. Galapagoensis?

[Jumbie Spider]

I came across an interesting post from `Terminal Legs`, that compared Scolopendra Gigantea with Scolopendra sp White Legs and Galapagoensis.
Using the scientific keys, they found that sp. White Legs more closely matched Galapagoensis, and they are calling it a form of Galapagoensis.

ペルビアンホワイトレッグとは何者なのか。

昨今、ペルビアンホワイトレッグがScolopendra gigantea なのか、そうではないのかネット上で議論になっているのを見かけます。Scolopendra giganteaといえば、大リンネが

terminal--legs-shopinfo-jp.translate.goog

Curious to hear the experts thoughts about this.

@Comatose @CHLee

 

[Mastigoproctus]

Terminal spines and structure have proven to be all but useless when IDing SA giants, and I can't say I trust it all that much on NA giants either. If it wasn't for the odd habits of the baby white legs in SA, I'd suggest that heros and white leg are infact closely related, however no DNA comparison of the 2 has been done.
I have a friend doing a phylogenetic study on NA pedes and I'm thinking I'll send him white leg DNA to compare with heros, galapagoensis and "Robusta" DNA, which is allegedly a orange galapagoensis with a tiny median keel similar to what true viridicornis have just much, much smaller and less pronounced. So maybe those results can shed a tad of light on things here, I'll post updates when I have them.

 

[Jumbie Spider]

Terminal spines and structure have proven to be all but useless when IDing SA giants, and I can't say I trust it all that much on NA giants either. If it wasn't for the odd habits of the baby white legs in SA, I'd suggest that heros and white leg are infact closely related, however no DNA comparison of the 2 has been done.
I have a friend doing a phylogenetic study on NA pedes and I'm thinking I'll send him white leg DNA to compare with heros, galapagoensis and "Robusta" DNA, which is allegedly a orange galapagoensis with a tiny median keel similar to what true viridicornis have just much, much smaller and less pronounced. So maybe those results can shed a tad of light on things here, I'll post updates when I have them.

Thanks for your input. Based on the article, which is based on the analysis by Shelley & Kiser (Neotype designation and a diagnostic account for the centipede Scolopendra gigantea L 1758 with an account of S galapagoensis Bollman 1889 Chilopoda) - a major difference was the antenna structure.

From the article by Shelley & Kiser
~~~~
The key anatomical features of these chilopods are the number of sparsely hirsute antennomeres and the number of legs with femoral spurs. Scolopendra gigantea has 7-10 sparsely hirsute antennomeres, proximal to those that are densely

hirsute, and usually numerous legs with femoral spurs. The latter number is highly variable and difficult to determine because most specimens are missing several legs, but it ranges as high as 15. Scolopendra galapagoensis, however, has from 4-7 sparsely hirsute antennomeres and only the first pair of legs with one femoral spur apiece.
~~~~

So the blogpost I linked, looked at these features specifically, and compared the real gigantea, galapagoensis, and white legs...

What they found, is the keys of galapagoensis matched the features found on sp White Legs.
Both the femoral spur and hirsute antennomeres description for galapagoensis from Shelley & Kiser's paper matches sp White Legs.

ペルビアンホワイトレッグとは何者なのか。

昨今、ペルビアンホワイトレッグがScolopendra gigantea なのか、そうではないのかネット上で議論になっているのを見かけます。Scolopendra giganteaといえば、大リンネが

terminal--legs-shopinfo-jp.translate.goog

The photo above is a Pervian white leg. There is a spine on the thigh of the first limb.

Not after the second limb. In other words, it matches the characteristics of Scolopendra galapagoensis .



I was able to confirm the thorns of the limbs. (For Venezuelan giants, the specimen becomes rigid and can be confirmed with the naked eye.)

We need to look at this in great detail, so we'll need to add it later.

2021.3.27 Fixed

Finally, the sparsely haired antennal segment ( here, for convenience, referred to as the sparsely haired antennal segment).
This is also written as the key to classify the two species.

The antennae at the 6th node from the root were the middle part where the sparse and dense antennal segments intersected.
With or without inclusion of hairless antennal segment

On the Pervian White leg, it is 5: 5 left and right or 6: 6 left and right.
In Venezuela Black it was 8: 8 or 9: 9 left and right.

The Pervian white leg seems to be close to Scolopendra galapagoensis in terms of the number of sparsely haired antennal nodes .
Combined with production area information, from Scolopendra gigantea
Rather Scolopendra galapagoensis close to has become a state, such as.


Also, unlike Chinese papers, this paper does not have a description of colors, making it difficult to make a judgment.
* Colors are not very useful for identification.


Including having a pair of bird spurs only on the thigh of the first step limb

Think of it as Scolopendra galapagoensis , but isn't it reasonable?

There are some imperfections in the photos in this article,
If I have a chance to see the number of individuals (Is it necessary to have at least 10?), I would like to mention it again.

From the above, Terminal Legs treats the Pervian white leg as Scolopendra galapagoensis　 .

And considering the geographical location, with what else is found there (i.e. different forms of galapagoensis), then wouldn't this be another variant of galapagoensis?

 

[Mastigoproctus]

Before I go into detail on the rest, I'd like you to look up if Rowland ever used any living specimens, specifically Galapagos island collected live specimens for this work (NOT PERUVIAN COLLECTED OR ECUADOR). Once you can conclude that yourself without taking my word for it, then I will elaborate further.

 

[Jumbie Spider]

Before I go into detail on the rest, I'd like you to look up if Rowland ever used any living specimens, specifically Galapagos island collected live specimens for this work (NOT PERUVIAN COLLECTED OR ECUADOR). Once you can conclude that yourself without taking my word for it, then I will elaborate further.

I am basing off the paper I referenced. It did study specimens from Galapagos:

Neotype designation and a diagnostic account for the centipede Scolopendra gigantea L 1758 with an account of S galapagoensis Bollman 1889 Chilopoda
...
GA, I. unknown GA, I. unknown GA, I. unknown GA, Isabela I. GA, Isabela I. GA, Isabela I. GA, Isabela I. GA, Isabela I. GA, Isabela I. GA, Baltra I. GA, Baltra I. GA, Baltra I. GA, Baltra I. GA, Beta I.
GA, Floreana I.
GA, Floreana I.
GA, San Cristobal I. GA, San Cristobal I. GA, San Cristobal I. GA, San Cristobal I. GA, San Cristobal I.
...

Distribution. Cocos Island, the Galápagos Islands, and the Pacific Coast of South America and the western slope of the Andes from central Ecuador to south- ern Peru (Fig. 7). In addition to the holotype and paratypes, specimens were exam- ined as follows...

So they took that into account. You can read the full PDF online to look at the entire reference list.

This thread is more about the similarities between sp White Legs and Galapagoensis.
More specifically, the detailed analysis including pictures and scientific reference used by "Terminal Legs"
ペルビアンホワイトレッグとは何者なのか。

 

[Comatose]

Thanks for your input. Based on the article, which is based on the analysis by Shelley & Kiser (Neotype designation and a diagnostic account for the centipede Scolopendra gigantea L 1758 with an account of S galapagoensis Bollman 1889 Chilopoda) - a major difference was the antenna structure.

From the article by Shelley & Kiser
~~~~
The key anatomical features of these chilopods are the number of sparsely hirsute antennomeres and the number of legs with femoral spurs. Scolopendra gigantea has 7-10 sparsely hirsute antennomeres, proximal to those that are densely

hirsute, and usually numerous legs with femoral spurs. The latter number is highly variable and difficult to determine because most specimens are missing several legs, but it ranges as high as 15. Scolopendra galapagoensis, however, has from 4-7 sparsely hirsute antennomeres and only the first pair of legs with one femoral spur apiece.
~~~~

So the blogpost I linked, looked at these features specifically, and compared the real gigantea, galapagoensis, and white legs...

What they found, is the keys of galapagoensis matched the features found on sp White Legs.
Both the femoral spur and hirsute antennomeres description for galapagoensis from Shelley & Kiser's paper matches sp White Legs.



And considering the geographical location, with what else is found there (i.e. different forms of galapagoensis), then wouldn't this be another variant of galapagoensis?

White legs shares more similarity with gigantea than galapagoensis in nearly every respect imo. The hirsute segment count the author above used is also incorrect. White legs generally has 8-9 segments, all three known galapagoensis morphotype groups have 5-6. The tooth plates are also similar, and white legs has a notch (sometimes called median keel) that’s very similar to gigantea on T21.

I wouldn’t be stunned if they all shared a recent common ancestor, but if I were going to bet I’d say that they represent 3 distinct species. As far as I know white legs is totally unknown to science, and has only been called gigantea in the hobby due to poorly interpreted descriptions and/or marketing.

 

[Jumbie Spider]

White legs shares more similarity with gigantea than galapagoensis in nearly every respect imo. The hirsute segment count the author above used is also incorrect. White legs generally has 8-9 segments, all three known galapagoensis morphotype groups have 5-6. The tooth plates are also similar, and white legs has a notch (sometimes called median keel) that’s very similar to gigantea on T21.

I wouldn’t be stunned if they all shared a recent common ancestor, but if I were going to bet I’d say that they represent 3 distinct species. As far as I know white legs is totally unknown to science, and has only been called gigantea in the hobby due to poorly interpreted descriptions and/or marketing.

Thanks for your input, really appreciate it
That's what I was wondering about, the author used some macro shots of the antenna but made claims that I wasn't so sure about.
But without anything to cross reference myself, it made me curious if he was right.

In addition to their observations about the antenna, they also cited observations about the presence of a spine on the thigh on the first limb:

The photo above is a Pervian white leg. There is a spine on the thigh of the first limb.

Not after the second limb. In other words, it matches the characteristics of Scolopendra galapagoensis .

I was able to confirm the thorns of the limbs. (For Venezuelan giants, the specimen becomes rigid and can be confirmed with the naked eye.)

Including having a pair of bird spurs only on the thigh of the first step limb

Think of it as Scolopendra galapagoensis , but isn't it reasonable?

Now, the Google translate could have butchered things a bit
But I am taking away that they mean that following the description of Galapagoensis, the spine is also a match - and also a differentiator of Gigantea.

I agree that they represent 3 distinct species, and there is clear scientific literature to differentiate Galapagoensis and Gigantea.

I just thought their analysis was fascinating (barring my ability to cross reference their findings myself), and considering the locality is nearby, seemed reasonable to me.

But taking your explanation into account, the antenna not being a differentiator kinda debunks their analysis.

Thanks!