Hisserdude

Three of my males have matured, and looks like my females are very close behind! Such a beautiful species, hopefully I'll get a good amount of offspring from them!

Welcome to the hobby, and the forum!

I'd ask @Ty Randall if he has them available, he typically sells them at the lowest price point anywhere.

Yeah, unfortunately the interest just isn't there yet for Orthopterans.

IME no isopods other than Helleria and similar spp. actually need a nutrition rich substrate, so long as whatever substrate you give them is topped with leaf litter, and offer supplemental foods regularly, (they get all the nutrients they need from both of those). Only more millipede-like species like Helleria that primarily feed on rotten wood and such actually highly benefit from a nutrient rich substrate. And for lots of non-burrowers, a nutrient rich substrate is completely useless considering it'll be covered in frass anyways in a generation or two.

I cultured mine on plain coconut coir, a third of the substrate moist, two thirds dry. High ventilation, lots of leaf litter and some bark hides. They absolutely exploded within several months and I had hundreds in no time, a very easy species.

I have Ceuthophilus gracilipes gracilipes available, and occasionally have other camel crickets available as well. Other than the vendors you mentioned, no one in the US seems to consistently breed or sell non-feeder orthopterans.

Welcome to the forum and the wonderful hobby of roach keeping. 😄

Looks to me like they're G.portentosa and P.vanwaerebeki hybrids of some sort. Because they're hybrids, the coloration is naturally very variable and random, attempts to fully isolate any one type of coloration will take a while and require stringent line breeding.

Yeah just a bit... 😅 Working on another about the hobby stock "Ergaula pilosa", which are not actually pilosa... Though that one's a bit harder because we're still not sure what Ergaula sp. they actually ARE.

The problem is Periplaneta are just too prolific and too protein hungry to be good tankmates for much else. I think some have had success with Porcellionides pruinosus as CUCs for these, and of course springtails. But other roaches will probably just be eaten by the Periplaneta. You can find videos of Periplaneta americana online attacking and eating live crickets.

Welcome back to another episode of what I'm gonna start calling: "Old Hobby Stock Roach IDs Were Made Waaaay Too Hastily and We're All Paying For it Now"! 🙃😂 Well, turns out the old hobby stock of Hemiblabera "tenebricosa" (sometimes erroneously labeled as "H.brunneri" in Europe) is in fact, not tenebricosa, and is likely H.roseni... And the US hobby JUST got some real H.tenebricosa into culture for the first time in decades. 😄 First off, let's start with what REAL H.tenebricosa look like. H.tenebricosa's type locality is in the Dominican Republic, however populations have long been documented in the FL Keys as well (though it seems their range there has shrunk in recent decades). They are one of the largest of the described Hemiblabera, and max out at around 32mms in length for males, 46mm for females. They are also fairly colorful, with red abdominal spotting/striping on adults, males especially. Below are pictures of the Holotype male from the Dominican Republic, as well as a pair of live individuals recently collected by friends of mine from FL. Holotype H.tenebricosa male ©CSF Female (top) & male (bottom) tenebricosa from Monroe County, FL ©Junkai Wang Adult female H.tenebricosa "Monroe County" (bits of a H.roseni "Cuba" female visible in some pics) ©Alan Jeon Adult male H.tenebricosa "Monroe County" ©Alan Jeon Now onto the old hobby stock of Hemiblabera "tenebricosa". The only locality data we have for this stock is "Cuba", which is interesting because no described Hemiblabera have formally been documented from Cuba. This stock has also long been mislabeled as H.brunneri in European collections, however that species is WAY smaller, more colorful, and seemingly restricted to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. So they're not brunneri. Now, morphologically this species is very close to tenebricosa, so that previous ID is understandable. However, they are significantly larger than true H.tenebricosa, maxing out at around 40mm for males, 53mm for females. They also have different, duller coloration, and differ in some morphological features as well (they're more granulated in texture, have a slightly different tegmina shape, etc.). So, they're not actually H.tenebricosa either. Now, I went through and found the descriptions or at least images of the holotypes of every Hemiblabera species, and I'm pretty confident I've found the correct ID for this old hobby stock; Hemiblabera roseni! 😁 They match the old hobby stock almost perfectly, from the granulated/tubercle covered exoskeleton, tegmina shape, and the coloration. One inconsistency is that the known range for roseni is in the Bahamas, however Cuba is very close to the Bahamas, so it seems likely their range would naturally extend there as well. The other, bigger issue is size; the largest recorded roseni female is only 41mms long, so a similar size to true tenebricosa, not quite as large as the hobby stock Hemiblabera, which can max out at 53mm. However, this could merely be due to the hobby stock being from Cuba, rather than the type locality of the Bahamas. Perhaps this species evolved to be larger on Cuba as a result of it being a much larger island in general, probably with more food availability than much of the Bahamas. None of the other described Hemiblabera spp. match the hobby stock much at all in description, H.roseni seems to be the closest possible match. Here's the original description for H.roseni, (translated from German): "Dorsum shagreened, d. H. covered with small warts of various sizes and densities. Head completely covered by pronotum. Interocular distance scarcely noticeably narrower than the distance between the ocellar spots. Interocular area maroon, demarcated below by a tan transverse band which is widest in the middle and connects the two antennal bases. The two ocellar spots are joined by a chestnut-brown transverse band that bulges downwards and becomes a little more indistinct in the middle. Eyes yellowish grey, curved. The third segment of the antennae about twice shorter than the first. Pronotum roughly semicircular, slightly projecting at anterior end; the posterior edge truncated transversely, slightly concave; the latero-caudal corners drawn backwards and noticeably overhanging the middle of the posterior border of the pronotum (Fig. 1). The edge of the pronotum has a fine hem all around, which becomes more indistinct at the posterior edge; laterally above the sides of the head, the rim is slightly bent upwards, but finely grooved transversely in the vicinity of the latero-caudal corners. Disc of the pronotum with indistinct lyre-shaped markings composed of impressions and smooth, non-chagrined stripes. ground color of the pronotum black-brown, with a yellow marginal band along the anterior margin; the marginal fascia is widest laterally over the sides of the head, gradually narrowing further caudally, then disappearing near the latero-caudal corners. Underside of the pronotum yellowish, with stiff, protruding hairs above the head. Elytra black-brown, lighter in the marginal field; they are abbreviated and generally in the form of a parallelogram (Fig. 1). The sutural margins overlap slightly and are about the same length as the costal margins. The distal margins oblique, sigmoidal: the disto-sutural corners obtuse, rounded. Hind wings rudimentary. Upper abdomen blackish-brown with reddish-brown transverse striations: one reddish-brown stripe along proximal edge of each segment; the first abdominal segments have incomplete transverse stripes, d. H. these lack the middle part and only consist of 2 separate side parts. The latero-caudal corners of the tergites moderately protruded backwards, pointed. Last tergite transversal, with slightly rounded distal margin, shallowly incised in the middle; the distal part of the tergite slightly curved upwards. Cerci broad, flattened, not reaching the distal border of the last tergite. abdomen underside smooth, not shagreened; coloring similar to that of the upper side, only lighter. The last sternite is large, symmetrical, with shallow indentations on each side near Cerci. Legs brown, caudal metatarsi a little shorter than other tarsal segments combined. Pulvilles present, Arolian absent. Body length - 41 mm; prontum length - 14 mm; the greatest prouotum width - 22.5 mm; elytra length - 12 mm; the greatest width of the elytra - 14 mm. Times unknown. Type: Bahamas, 1908, coll. N. Rosén. In the Museum of the Entomology Department of the Zoological Institute of Lund University. In addition to the type, there is another example: Female, Bahamas, 108, coll. N. Rosén. This female was probably caught with the type; it is smaller than the type specimen and the corresponding body measurements are as follows: body length - 34.5 mm; pronotum length - 12.5 mm; the greatest width of the pronotum - 20 mm; elytra length - 10 mm; the greatest width of the elytra - 12.5 mm. The new species can be distinguished from the other Hemiblabera species as follows: H.granulata Saussure. and H.capucina Saussure. are much smaller and with lateral elytra not in contact above the dorsum; H.brunneri (Sauss) has trigonal elytra and their inner margin is at most half as long as the costal margin; H.pabulator Rhen & Heb. differs in the different coloration and shape of the pronotum (the latero-caudal corners do not reach further back than the middle of the posterior border of the pronotum); in H.tenebricosa Rehn & Heb. the latero-caudal corners of the pronotum also do not extend posteriorly than the middle of its posterior margin, and the disto-sutural corners of the elytra are square (obtuse in roseni). The new species is the closest to H.tenebricosa, and at a cursory glance one might assume that one is dealing with this species. But the above differences seem to justify the creation of the new species. Rehn & Hebard (1927: 273) also reported a female of H.tenebricosa from the Bahama Islands, although this species is only endemic to the Dominican Republic. The authors mentioned wanting to explain this find with introduction, but one cannot simply dismiss the suspicion that in this case it might not be a question of tenebricosa, but of the roseni described here. I name the new species after the collector, Dr. N. Rosen". Line drawing of the H.roseni holotype Male H.roseni "Cuba" Female H.roseni "Cuba" H.roseni "Cuba" VS H.tenebricosa "Monroe County" males ©Alan Jeon H.roseni "Cuba" VS H.tenebricosa "Monroe County" females ©Alan Jeon H.roseni "Cuba" female abdomen ©Alan Jeon H.tenebricosa "Monroe County" female abdomen ©Alan Jeon True H.brunneri for comparison, just 'cause. Adult male (L) and nymph (R) ©Wenhua Lu So quite obviously, there's a significant difference between the old hobby stock of "H.tenebricosa" and true H.tenebricosa, as we can see here. And based on the description of H.roseni, that seems to be the most probable ID for the old hobby stock (and obviously, H.brunneri belongs nowhere in this equation). As a result of these findings, the proper course of action for hobbyists right now IMO would be to relabel all old hobby stock of Hemiblabera "tenebricosa" (sometimes erroneously labeled "H.brunneri" in Europe) to Hemiblabera roseni "Cuba" (the locality technically being optional). You can throw a cf. before the species name if you want, I won't judge. While the name Hemiblabera tenebricosa should only be used for the obviously true H.tenebricosa from Florida that have just now entered the hobby and aren't cultured by more than half a dozen people at the time of writing this. And the name Hemiblabera brunneri should not be used for anything in the hobby, because true H.brunneri are not in culture yet, period. Well, that does it for today's roach taxonomy ranting. 😂 Thanks for reading, hope everyone enjoyed, stay safe, and I'll see you all next time! 😉

It's unfortunately kinda hard to tell what this is without photos. She may have been partially cannibalized on by her tankmates after molting, the "worm like" things you say could just be internal organs twitching, or she may have Phorid fly maggots eating her corpse (regardless of range or time of year phorids have knack for getting into collections).

THANK YOU for this! I've used multiple feeds containing DL Methionine in it, and was confused as to why people said it was toxic, considering I noticed no ill effects whatsoever! Makes sense now.

Yes this stock came from Hawaii late last year. Along with some Melanozosteria soror.

Thanks, can't wait to see adults!

Yusssss

I will say, though I haven't tried it myself, my buddy @Bmaines96 has kept and bred Therea spp. without leaf litter, says it makes very little difference to his colonies whether he offers leaf litter or not, they mainly just eat the dog food, fruits and veggies he supplies them with. Yeah coconut fiber or something similar is definitely the better substrate choice for most "sand" roaches. But yeah Polyphaga saussurei are parthenogenetic, which is pretty dang cool.

Yeah I don't like substrate-less setups lol, I always use substrate for everything (except assassin bug nymphs).

OK, so Gromphadorhina portentosa (or more likely, "portentosa" hybrids). Yeah a year is pretty excessive in terms of waiting for offspring, how warm are you keeping them? Hissers need good heat to breed consistently in the 75-85F° range, and the females appreciate good airflow while gestating their broods as well.

What species are we talking about here?

This might be an odd recommendation, but Neostylopyga rhombifolia (Harlequin Roaches). I've found they are great for handling and super chill compared to like, every other Blattid I've kept. They never try bolting out of their enclosure IME, and are pretty fun to hold and interact with. Plus they're beautiful, and the Chinese hobby stock I have is quite hardy too.

Discoids are routinely bred without substrate, ivories like substrate though, not sure about death's heads.

They're perfectly fine with being split by sex, and males will actually be less aggressive towards each other without females to fight over. As long as they have other members of their species, they're fine, regardless of the sex. Also, asexual reproduction has never to my knowledge been recorded in hissers. The females can however retain sperm for very long times, in fact one mating might be all their need to produce broods for the remainder of their lives, which may be where that rumor of parthenogenesis comes from.

Well my move got postponed, I'll be here for the next 5 months at least. 😅 In terms of other good pet suggestions, Therea spp. (Domino, Orange Domino and Question Mark) roaches are amazing and easy to breed. Polyphaga saussurei is also a really nice species, one of my first pet roaches, quite large as adults, and good for handling when mature (also, parthenogenetic!). If you have access to lots of rotting wood, the various Panesthiinae species that have entered the US hobby lately are cool and among the easiest of roaches to keep, literally just give them a deep rotten wood substrate, keep humid, minimally ventilated, and offer supplemental foods regularly. They breed at room temps or warmer, super simple. (I'm partial to Panesthia angustipennis cognata myself, their nymphs are so pretty).