Howdy,
I have been busy writing an article or three on scorpions, especially regarding all the hoopla with the systematics of the order, and continuing my old episodic adventure of The Scorpions of the US.

Next stop (hopefully in time for Luc's Texas trip): Family Diplocentridae.

Just as a primer, the family Diplocentridae was sucked-up and into the Scorpionidae by Soleglad and Fet (2003), a move with which I disagree (to be discussed a bit).
The family is represented in the US by the genus Diplocentrus with the following five species:
Diplocentrus diablo South Texas
D. lindo Trans-Pecos Texas
D. peloncillensis SW New Mexico/SE Arizona
D. spitzeri SC Arizona
D. whitei Big Bend region of Trans-Pecos Texas.

I will briefly discuss their natural history and identifications. I'll also have a photo or two for the on-line Forum when we get that situated. Which leads to the following request: Does anyone out there have photos of "diplos" they'd like to share?

Cheers!

Kari,
Many thanks. Looking forward to some great reading!
Rhys

Hello,

yes thats just what i wanted to hear! Although i'm still not sure on where i stand with the Diplocentridae issue. Anuroctonus transfered into Chactidae is another i'm still trying to completely understand. I can't get enough articles. I find myself reading them and the famous books in association with the late Gary. A. Polis on my lunch breaks. Some works from Tom Prentice are some Theraphosid favorites coming to mind. And i defently plan on asking Joe Bigelow personally about his book progress. I hope i can get some good information (i.g. observations/field study methods/experiance?) and photos at this years conferance, in relation to scorpions and Theraphosids! It will be nice to get out of the intermountain desert for a change.
Although i must note for personal reasons i do not plan on collecting much if anything. Just maybe a few scorpions.
The interlibrary loan system is something i'm still trying to fully grasp aswell.
Some papers i get easily,and some are seemingly impossible to track down. And my local library dosn't even know what a interlibray loan system is. I can access them at the university but it is quite a long way away. But i'll find a way.

Keep us posted Mr. McWest, Thanks


Zach Valois


Zach

Hello Kari,

Sounds great. As you know I have four of the five species. Time allowing I'd be happy to take and send some photos.

Hey y'all, this is for Zach, for he poses some great questions.

That whole Soleglad & Fet "revision" has divided the scorpion systematics world into 2 camps, and it is a sad thing. If you are familiar with systematics, cladistics, and all that jazz, then I suggest you thoroughly read, examine, fine-tooth-comb, their lengthy treatise on the status of the Order Scorpiones. And then read Prendini & Wheeler's explanation on why it is all bunk.

If you are well-versed in that stuff, then you will quickly recognize the flaws in the methods presented, and Prendini & Wheeler explain in great detail the reasons for turning the clock back to the order's previous status. If not, then after a 20-minute session with someone who does know all that stuff you will come out of that meeting thinking (or screaming out loud) "What were they thinking???"

I have been writing a review of Prendini & Wheeler's paper, but it is turning out to be no easy task! (In keeping it concise without pulling out my hair!)

I know some things that are unpublished that will validate at least some of Prendini & Wheeler's points, but, of course, I can't tell you (Lorenzo would have my hide.) In other words, some of S&F's findings are disproven.

As for obtaining articles, many have been converted to .pdf and are available on-line. I know that at least The American Museum of Natural History has back issues on-line at http://library.amnh.org/, as does The Journal of Arachnology at http://americanarachnology.org/JOA_online.html .
Publications by the California Academy of Sciences http://www.calacademy.org/research/scipubs/ are not yet available on-line but can be ordered.

Most of the time the primary author of a paper will gladly send you reprints. I have everyone's (OK, nearly) email addresses so I might be able to help you there. The only thing is that most authors don't send these out to "just anyone" so a professed interest in getting in the field of scorpion taxonomy is a big plus.

There are a couple of bibliographies on-line as well, or if you want to find a particular article or articles by a particular author, drop me a line and I will see what I can do to either find it or... something.

And, as Darrin is well aware, there is a "call for specimens" out for scorpions of the intermountain west (actually, about everywhere!). Prendini and David Sissom, among others (including your truly ) are involved in a complete and thorough revision of the scorpion family Vaejovidae, but also including Hadrurus and Anuroctonus. In that respect, we need live specimens to pickle for DNA sequencing. And since you're in Utah (hint hint)....

OK take care and I hope this helps you out!

kari

Hello,

Soleglad & Fet recent "revision" is indeed lengthly. I will have to get my new desktop going to finish the downloading process. This contrasting paper by Prendini & Wheeler sounds very interesting. Solelgad & Fet sure seemed to do alot of changes, i would have expected more cautious work with such serious suggestions.
Other than promising results mentioned with DNA analysis, are trichobothrial patterns still commenly used as a keying method?

thanks
Zach

Zach wrote: "Other than promising results mentioned with DNA analysis, are trichobothrial patterns still commonly used as a keying method?"

Most definitely! But there are some trichobothrial patterns that could be just minor aberrations, such as neobothriotaxy in the Vaejovis nitidulus group and Franckeus, in which too many other characters outweigh the importance of the angle of 2 or 3 trichobothria. And there are many other characters that show relationship, but the DNA analyses will prove whether or not some characters are plesiomorphic or not.

First and foremost, I do not claim to be a good cladist. Get that out on the table right now. But I do know a good analysis and mistakes when I see them, and S&F 2003 has many.

Zach also wrote earlier: "Anuroctonus transferred into Chactidae is another i'm still trying to completely understand."

OK, with Anuroctonus and its inclusion in the family Chactidae, and the splitting of Iuridae into Iuridae and Caraboctonidae, one of the characters for the Iuridae is an enlarged darkened tooth on the internal margin of the movable finger of the chelicerae (a synapomorphy for the family Iuridae: a unique character shared by all members in a monophyletic group). Anuroctonus has been tossed around a bit because it exhibits this tooth only in juveniles, but it has other characters that keep it in Iuridae, plus characters that place it into Vaejovidae or Chactidae. What DNA sequencing will prove is where it needs to be by a computer analysis of where certain genes lie, if I understand that part correctly. What I can tell you is that has already been done and I know the result. What I can't tell you is the result.

Why they figured to transfer it into Chactidae is beyond me!

Cladistic analysis is also a fine-art science as long as the characters are evaluated properly, which is where some studies get into trouble by overweighing certain characters.

Again, all this will come to light when I finish pulling my hair out working on the article that helps explain the two papers in question (S&F 2003, and P&W 2005). I'm hoping to get it done in time for The Forum after this one coming. By then you won't be able to tell me from Darrin! Well, OK, I'll be the short one.
kari

Hi, Kari!

Ewwww, I hate the word "cladist"! Why can't they just be called a "phylogeneticist" instead?

My take on the two papers is that they are simply competing hypotheses. Interpret the data as you see fit.

OK, "phylogeneticist"...whatever...it's all the same (i.e., I don't disagree with you one bit)

As for your take???? Come on, you just don't want to choose sides because that's what it is in the end, and all of these guys I consider my friends (well, I din't know Wheeler...).

Ummm, no, phylogeneticist and cladist are NOT the same... believe it or not, cladists have a pretty different philosophy that is largely parsimony-based, and if you think that's the route to go, that works for me! I think of a phylogeneticist as one that is open to all forms of phylogeny reconstruction (to include parsimony, of course, but to include statistical approaches such as maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference, too). But at the end of the day, who cares! I certainly don't (but there have been some pretty fierce debates over these different methods... you should read some of the older issues of Systematic Zoology... they are literally bar brawls on paper!!!) There are some systematists that adamantly support one method and will only use that single method... I see nothing wrong with that. I just like to play with all the methods, and when they all converge on the same answer, even better!

And again, as for the higher level systematics of scorpions, I am more in agreement with Lorenzo's work, too, but they are simply competing hypotheses. It really doesn't need to be more than that! More people probably support Prendini's hypothesis, but if there wasn't any contention, science would be boring... and if it's going to be boring, I don't want to do it anymore.

Three days 'til graduation!!!!!

All great points you got there, Dr. Hendrixson (I can't help but laugh when I say that!), which is probably why YOU have fud after your name and all I have is a mess after mine.

At any rate, put the way you have sooooo eloquently, I'd have to agree with you.

Tanx.
kj

Kari,

I'll also supply a few photos of various Diplocentrus spp. in my collection.

Cheers,
Luc

A'ight,

So what other scorpion-related articles are in the works? Considering the number of knowledgeable scorpion enthusiasts about, the Forum should be packed with scorp-related articles this time 'round.

Later,
Luc