Why are large arachnids and centipedes so understudied?

[CladeArthropoda]

Large, mostly ground dwelling, predatory arthropods, the kind that are most represented in the pet hobby, are extremely understudied. I mean in terms of things like biodiversity, ecology, species richness, biogeography, genetic sequencing, population studies, etc.

For example. Most ecological studies on spiders focus on araneids, salticids, lycosids, etc. Tarantulas appear much less frequently. Centipedes are rarely featured in general, but when they do appear its mostly lithobiomorphs and geophilomorphs, and very rarely scolopendromorphs. Scorpions are rarely featured as well, and vinegaroons, solifugids and amblypygids are practically never featured at all. Of course all these taxa have some studies focusing on them specifically, but they have way less compared to other arthropod taxa, and they are rarely if ever featured in broad meta analysis of many different taxa.

Like, there are studies on the global biodiversity trends of ants, butterflies, and odonates, yet none for scorpions, centipedes, or tarantulas, despite the latter groups having way fewer species so you would think it would actually be easier to sample them all.

Why is this? Are 2,500 scorpions harder to map out than 22,000 ants?

 

[Ultum4Spiderz]

Large, mostly ground dwelling, predatory arthropods, the kind that are most represented in the pet hobby, are extremely understudied. I mean in terms of things like biodiversity, ecology, species richness, biogeography, genetic sequencing, population studies, etc.

For example. Most ecological studies on spiders focus on araneids, salticids, lycosids, etc. Tarantulas appear much less frequently. Centipedes are rarely featured in general, but when they do appear its mostly lithobiomorphs and geophilomorphs, and very rarely scolopendromorphs. Scorpions are rarely featured as well, and vinegaroons, solifugids and amblypygids are practically never featured at all. Of course all these taxa have some studies focusing on them specifically, but they have way less compared to other arthropod taxa, and they are rarely if ever featured in broad meta analysis of many different taxa.

Like, there are studies on the global biodiversity trends of ants, butterflies, and odonates, yet none for scorpions, centipedes, or tarantulas, despite the latter groups having way fewer species so you would think it would actually be easier to sample them all.

Why is this? Are 2,500 scorpions harder to map out than 22,000 ants?

There aren’t many specialists who study them unlike cats and dogs which have massive industry’s and vets etc who care for them. My parents thought I was crazy for buying 50 plus spiders back when I had a larger collection so they are misunderstood animals.

Misunderstood tarantulas???

what are your stories about these misunderstood animals? And conversations with people who got no clue in the world 🌎 about tarantulas. Today I had a counseling meeting we’re an intern or someone was there. They asked about my spiders and this guy had the strangest questions. I know they are...

arachnoboards.com

 

[CladeArthropoda]

There aren’t many specialists who study them unlike cats and dogs which have massive industry’s and vets etc who care for them. My parents thought I was crazy for buying 50 plus spiders back when I had a larger collection so they are misunderstood animals.

Misunderstood tarantulas???

what are your stories about these misunderstood animals? And conversations with people who got no clue in the world 🌎 about tarantulas. Today I had a counseling meeting we’re an intern or someone was there. They asked about my spiders and this guy had the strangest questions. I know they are...

arachnoboards.com

I'm not so much comparing them to cats and dogs as pets. I'm comparing them to various insect taxa that are considered more important for biodiversity, conservation, etc.

For example, there is a website called antmaps that maps the distribution of every single ant species with millions of records. Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) have had every single one of their species assessed by the iucn. And various insect taxa are also commonly subjects of ecological, genetic, biogeographic, etc studies. Such as bees, hoverflies, butterflies, ants, dragonflies, certain beetles, etc.

My question is why do arachnids and centipedes get no such attention?

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

I'm not so much comparing them to cats and dogs as pets. I'm comparing them to various insect taxa that are considered more important for biodiversity, conservation, etc.

For example, there is a website called antmaps that maps the distribution of every single ant species with millions of records. Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) have had every single one of their species assessed by the iucn. And various insect taxa are also commonly subjects of ecological, genetic, biogeographic, etc studies. Such as bees, hoverflies, butterflies, ants, dragonflies, certain beetles, etc.

My question is why do arachnids and centipedes get no such attention?

I'm sure there are many reasons, but typically the terrestrial arthropod groups that are studied the most frequently are the ones that are easiest to find with predictable seasonal activity and/ or have the most impact on agriculture. It also helps when the group has a quick lifespan and reproduces readily in captivity.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

I'm sure there are many reasons, but typically the terrestrial arthropod groups that are studied the most frequently are the ones that are easiest to find with predictable seasonal activity and/ or have the most impact on agriculture. It also helps when the group has a quick lifespan and reproduces readily in captivity.

And yet, vertebrates are the most studied animals and their life cycles are generally slow. These large arachnids have reproductive habits more akin to vertebrates than to most pterygote insects in some ways.

 

[AphonopelmaTX]

And yet, vertebrates are the most studied animals and their life cycles are generally slow. These large arachnids have reproductive habits more akin to vertebrates than to most pterygote insects in some ways.

You could probably ask the same question about the vertebrate groups which would have the same answer. Why are <insert a fish, mammal, bird, reptile, etc. group here> studied while <insert a different fish, mammal, bird, reptile, etc. group here> are not?

 

[CladeArthropoda]

You could probably ask the same question about the vertebrate groups which would have the same answer. Why are <insert a fish, mammal, bird, reptile, etc. group here> studied while <insert a different fish, mammal, bird, reptile, etc. group here> are not?

But there's the thing. ALL vert groups are much more studied than these arachnids.

The trend is clear. Vertebrates > insects > arachnids

 

[that1ocelot]

I think as AphonopelmaTX alluded to, the practical application of studying say, Amblypygi, is non-existent.

There's arguments to be made that every family has something special about them - amblypygi are inherently resistant to fungi, scorpions make their nifty venom, uropygi have their acidic spray etc

Until these traits have practical applications I don't think studies will be common. You see it now with scorpions, a significant amount of studies looking at their venom as well as fluorescence. These aren't appealing animals unfortunately - public support to study cute lil fish or vertebrates will always be more significant than big scary arachnids

 

[CladeArthropoda]

I think as AphonopelmaTX alluded to, the practical application of studying say, Amblypygi, is non-existent.

There's arguments to be made that every family has something special about them - amblypygi are inherently resistant to fungi, scorpions make their nifty venom, uropygi have their acidic spray etc

Until these traits have practical applications I don't think studies will be common. You see it now with scorpions, a significant amount of studies looking at their venom as well as fluorescence. These aren't appealing animals unfortunately - public support to study cute lil fish or vertebrates will always be more significant than big scary arachnids

What could possibly be the practical purpose of studying odonates, for comparison then?

As for appeal, well don't arachnids have that "cool" factor to them? People get tattoos of scorpions and stuff. Heck, this very hobby existing is proof of this.

 

[Glorfindel]

with all the strange research the government spends tons of money on!
makes you wonder why not put some of it to good and benificial research to.

 

[The Snark]

@CladeArthropoda Understudied. Senkenberg gives a textbook example. Multiply it's staff and funding ten times, or 50. Maybe reduce the 10 year plus wait time for them to get around to my undescribed suspected heteropoda. At the rate the world is going human extinction will come long before a firm understand of the majority of ecosystems.

 

[CladeArthropoda]

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of what I refer to.

https://www.csbj.org/article/S2001-0370(24)00347-7/fulltext

This is a study about carbohydrate enzymes in arthropods. Cool, right?

Non insect arthropods seem to be highly under sampled in general. There is only 5 centipedes, only one of which is a scolopendromorph (Rhysida). None of the giant species featured. The arachnids only are represented by some mites and spiders. No non-mite or non-spider arachnids are there. And for that matter, many major spider taxa are unrepresented too, including tarantulas. Crustaceans are poorly sampled too, but lets keep this focused on arachnids and centipedes.

 

[Brewser]

Common Occurence
Unstudied and Misunderstood and Mistreated

 

[CladeArthropoda]

Common Occurence
Unstudied and Misunderstood and Mistreated

Like, the most globally well assessed, recorded and mapped out terrestrial arthropod taxa are ants, odonates, and butterflies. Some assume that these automatically make good surrogates for terrestrial arthropods in general.

Butterflies are both highly mobile and have specialized plant based diets. Tarantulas, scorpions, etc are the complete opposite. They are much poorer at dispersal, and are generalist predators. Odonates are predators, but their ecology is entirely different from these ground based predators, and their aquatic larvae also makes their ecology too different. Ants aren't a good fit either, since colony dynamics and they also often have specialized ties to plants.

The over all priorities when it comes to assessing terrestrial arthropods tends to be on highly mobile, flying insects, and usually herbivorous ones at that (see also the focus on bees, hoverflies, and certain beetles). No concern is given to ground dwelling carnivores, nor to detritivores like cockroaches and millipedes.

Why is all this?