- Joined
- Sep 23, 2005
- Messages
- 851
Is that a good indicator , if a scorpion has small claws it means they are more venomous.
Smaller claws, more venom?
- Thread starter Ewok
- Start date
snakeheaven89
Arachnopeon
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 32
that is the saying the smaller the claws the lmore potent and the bigger the claws the less potent. but in quite a few cases this is wrong
i hope i helped
Jonathan
i hope i helped
Jonathan
Palau,
It's a generalization but not a rule. Typically, "hot" (medically significant)scorps like buthids have thin, elongate "claws" whereas; species from genera such as Anuroctonus, Diplocentrus, Heterometrus, Uroctonus and Pandinus have large, heavy, robust chelae.
Luc
It's a generalization but not a rule. Typically, "hot" (medically significant)scorps like buthids have thin, elongate "claws" whereas; species from genera such as Anuroctonus, Diplocentrus, Heterometrus, Uroctonus and Pandinus have large, heavy, robust chelae.
Luc
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 448
I was always told that as a kid but the more I see the size of the claws dosen't matter as much
It's simply a generalization. Generally, as the members of the family Buthidae are accepted as being the majority of the world's most potentially dangerous scorpion species, it's generally true but by no means, a rule set in stone.
Luc
Luc
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,071
Definitely agree there. Some buthids that I know of have relatively bulbus chela.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2005
- Messages
- 771
Typically it is wise to assume that a powerful metasoma indicates a more potent venom e.g. Androctonus or Parabuthus sp.
Think about it, naturally if a scorpion has thin, and thus weaker chelae, it will most likely rely on it's venom potency, or even amount of venom injected, to subdue prey. Whereas species with huge and powerful chela, such as members of Pandinus and Heterometrus sp have a much weaker venom and rely on their pincers to capture prey.
An obvious exception to the "rule" is the "Deathstalker" (Leiurus quinquestriatus), as it's common name suggests it is a scorpion with a very potent venom and although it follows the rule in regards to thin chela, it doesn't typically have a noticably powerful cauda or large vesicle, like say, a Parabuthus transvaalicus. Though it is considerably more potent than Parabuthus transvaalicus.
So in that respect, caution is always advised. As somebody mentioned previously, treating ALL buthids with respect is advisable. There is potential with ANY venom to have an adverse reaction, even with the milder variety.
Think about it, naturally if a scorpion has thin, and thus weaker chelae, it will most likely rely on it's venom potency, or even amount of venom injected, to subdue prey. Whereas species with huge and powerful chela, such as members of Pandinus and Heterometrus sp have a much weaker venom and rely on their pincers to capture prey.
An obvious exception to the "rule" is the "Deathstalker" (Leiurus quinquestriatus), as it's common name suggests it is a scorpion with a very potent venom and although it follows the rule in regards to thin chela, it doesn't typically have a noticably powerful cauda or large vesicle, like say, a Parabuthus transvaalicus. Though it is considerably more potent than Parabuthus transvaalicus.
So in that respect, caution is always advised. As somebody mentioned previously, treating ALL buthids with respect is advisable. There is potential with ANY venom to have an adverse reaction, even with the milder variety.