Scorpion pictures

freeman wrote:

one massive group. what conditions do you keep them under? i'd like to see some more pics and how about young ones - do they canibalize?

The tank is very long so they have plenty of room as is the box(10 I think in there)
I only had 2 young and they were wild caught and I kept them seperate,both died .All my pictures of them are similiar to what I posted in this thread.I kept them like most desert species except I made it a little bit more humid for the Pakistani sp(O.fuscipes).

Thanks Mike!

More pics for freeman
Pakistani


Baby Israely


Jordan Ortho feeding

Scott's only here to make me jealous....

cool i join them into a group too but not until they are mature.

Rasputin wrote:

Scott's only here to make me jealous....

You got me Benny!!

freeman wrote:

cool i join them into a group too but not until they are mature.

Great!

Scott Land wrote:

Rasputin wrote:

Scott's only here to make me jealous....

You got me Benny!!

click on my insectgeeks banner and rummage through my new pix. I'm being lazy right now so I'll post them on the forums later.

Rasputin wrote:

Scott Land wrote:

Rasputin wrote:

Scott's only here to make me jealous....

You got me Benny!!

click on my insectgeeks banner and rummage through my new pix. I'm being lazy right now so I'll post them on the forums later.

Very cool! I like the look of the U.mordax you got from Isaac.I had one from Darren but it was kind of plain looking.

Scott Land wrote:

Very cool! I like the look of the U.mordax you got from Isaac.I had one from Darren but it was kind of plain looking.

they are such awesome scorps thus far. I got them yesterday

Rasputin wrote:

Scott Land wrote:

Very cool! I like the look of the U.mordax you got from Isaac.I had one from Darren but it was kind of plain looking.

they are such awesome scorps thus far. I got them yesterday

Good luck!!

Scott Land wrote:

Good luck!!

thanx, having them here makes it easier to do some research of my own and hopefully I'll be able to produce broods in the future. now it's off to the grocery for some stuffs for the house and then I'll try and clear my head and actually focus on doing things over here and on the scorpopedia - my mind's been on vacation and I haven't really gotten anything done for a few wks

cool. that tank you got your s.negebensus in is huge! id love to keep 100's of b.jacks in one of those......

Rasputin wrote:

Scott Land wrote:

Good luck!!

thanx, having them here makes it easier to do some research of my own and hopefully I'll be able to produce broods in the future. now it's off to the grocery for some stuffs for the house and then I'll try and clear my head and actually focus on doing things over here and on the scorpopedia - my mind's been on vacation and I haven't really gotten anything done for a few wks

GET BACK TO WORK!!

scorpion111 wrote:

cool. that tank you got your s.negebensus in is huge! id love to keep 100's of b.jacks in one of those......

Thanks! but the tank can hold a bunch of tiny Orthochirus but I doubt you could put a bunch of big ole B.jacks in it.

Scott Land wrote:

GET BACK TO WORK!!

I'm working on it. I've been distracted this eve and I'm trying to find something new on Tityus tenuimanus & Tityus floridanus. I figure I would have found something recent. T. floridanus is a jr. synonym of T. dasyurus and T. tenuimanus is a jr. synonym of Buthus atlantis but they're american sp that aren't listed in the u.s.

Rasputin wrote:

Scott Land wrote:

GET BACK TO WORK!!

I'm working on it. I've been distracted this eve and I'm trying to find something new on Tityus tenuimanus & Tityus floridanus. I figure I would have found something recent. T. floridanus is a jr. synonym of T. dasyurus and T. tenuimanus is a jr. synonym of Buthus atlantis but they're american sp that aren't listed in the u.s.

Just messing with you!
You should shoot Tom/Tityus on VL he is a scorpiologist who studys nothing but Tityus.As far as being US species I have never heard of any native Tityus sp. and Buthus atlantis is a valid species from Morrocco/North Africa.

Scott Land wrote:

Just messing with you!
You should shoot Tom/Tityus on VL he is a scorpiologist who studys nothing but Tityus.As far as being US species I have never heard of any native Tityus sp. and Buthus atlantis is a valid species from Morrocco/North Africa.

T. flaridanus is from key west, florida and T. tenuimanus is from buena vista lake, california

http://fulltext10.fcla.edu/DLData/SN/SN00154040/0067_003/98p00684.pdf

Rasputin wrote:

Scott Land wrote:

Just messing with you!
You should shoot Tom/Tityus on VL he is a scorpiologist who studys nothing but Tityus.As far as being US species I have never heard of any native Tityus sp. and Buthus atlantis is a valid species from Morrocco/North Africa.

T. flaridanus is from key west, florida and T. tenuimanus is from buena vista lake, california

http://fulltext10.fcla.edu/DLData/SN/SN00154040/0067_003/98p00684.pdf

Prime examples of shoddy work by incompetent wannabe scientists it sounds like to me .

Scott Land wrote:

Prime examples of shoddy work by incompetent wannabe scientists it sounds like to me .

it's Lourenco and Francke circa 1986

Rasputin wrote:

Scott Land wrote:

Prime examples of shoddy work by incompetent wannabe scientists it sounds like to me .

it's Lourenco and Francke circa 1986

I'm talking about the original description,Lourenco and others couldn't find any evidence they(Tityus or Buthus/Tityus) existed in the US and figured something went screwy like mislabled locals and such.

Scott Land wrote:

I'm talking about the original description,Lourenco and others couldn't find any evidence they(Tityus or Buthus/Tityus) existed in the US and figured something went screwy like mislabled locals and such.

yeah, but nobody has taken a second look since 1984 (yeah, I initially said 1986) - I'm just curious as to the what Koch and Banks may have been thinking when they named them and why no more specimens were collected and if anybody has been able to find anything or written anything since the article was published in '84. it's something that caught my attention and is now stuck in my head where I place things like the chupacabra, big foot, aliens and poltergeists except it's more believable

Rasputin wrote:

Scott Land wrote:

I'm talking about the original description,Lourenco and others couldn't find any evidence they(Tityus or Buthus/Tityus) existed in the US and figured something went screwy like mislabled locals and such.

yeah, but nobody has taken a second look since 1984 (yeah, I initially said 1986) - I'm just curious as to the what Koch and Banks may have been thinking when they named them and why no more specimens were collected and if anybody has been able to find anything or written anything since the article was published in '84. it's something that caught my attention and is now stuck in my head where I place things like the chupacabra, big foot, aliens and poltergeists

From what I gathered is they were simply mislabled and the descriptions were not well done etc..,when they were taken a look at in '84 the mistakes were found and there was know need to look further.You should write Lourenco or even Sissom(Kari McWest works under him)he(Sissom) was mentined in the paper.Sorry I am being vague but it is late and I am tired .But basically it is a dead end.

Scott Land wrote:

From what I gathered is they were simply mislabled and the descriptions were not well done etc..,when they were taken a look at in '84 the mistakes were found and there was know need to look further.You should write Lourenco or even Sissom(Kari McWest works under him)he(Sissom) was mentined in the paper.Sorry I am being vague but it is late and I am tired .But basically it is a dead end.

I understand that

the question that still remains is: is it possible that the re-described scorpions exist in the locations that they were initially found?

Rasputin wrote:

Scott Land wrote:

From what I gathered is they were simply mislabled and the descriptions were not well done etc..,when they were taken a look at in '84 the mistakes were found and there was know need to look further.You should write Lourenco or even Sissom(Kari McWest works under him)he(Sissom) was mentined in the paper.Sorry I am being vague but it is late and I am tired .But basically it is a dead end.

I understand that

the question that still remains is: is it possible that the re-described scorpions exist in the locations that they were initially found?

It basically says in the paper no,one is from Puerto Rico and other islands of the caribean(the one supposedly found in Florida),the other one supposedly found in California(Buthus atlantis) is actually from Morrocco .
I'm heading off to bed,catch you later!

Scott Land wrote:

It basically says in the paper no,one is from Puerto Rico and other islands of the caribean(the one supposedly found in Florida),the other one supposedly found in California(Buthus atlantis) is actually from Morrocco .
I'm heading off to bed,catch you later!

I. maculatus has been found in florida and california but there have not been any noted sightings in years but it's possible that they may still exist in small groups - I'm just saying. hope this off topic conversation didn't irk you