Jump to content

Blaberus "peruvianus"


Zephyr
 Share

Recommended Posts

The scientific name isn't official yet apparently but this is what I received them as. The males resemble mini B. giganteus while the females look like the hybrid "fuscas". The consistency in male coloration (out of about 20 males, all of them had the exact same pronotum margins and tegmina markings) leads me to believe that whatever these are, they are pure.

Without further ado:

2e3ydxl.jpg

Male.

2wmnz9g.jpg

Female, male, and nymphs. The male has a piece of substrate on his wings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha hah ha ha ha.... Oh Lord, help them with what they think they know, so that they figure out what they really don't. :/

I have some of these that were also obtained from Double D's. Although I am somewhat skeptical of their authenticity, they are however quite different from the cultures I have of B. fusca, B. giganteus, and "European" B. craniifer. As Zephyr mentioned, they appear as a smaller version of B. giganteus. Does anyone else have any suggestions regarding this strain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you 100% sure they are not just a smaller B. giganteus? You know any roach can come in cultures that are somewhat larger or smaller than someone elses culture..... For example, the Kansas City Zoo has had some B.giganteus in the past that were so large it was not believable, and at the same thime there are some people with giganteus cultures that are significantly smaller (maybe by 2 cm) than what they had. I also see in my own culture of any species that when they have been too crowded for too long they are consistantly smaller (you have to consider individual husbandry techniques are a factor too) they way I keep them.

I would compare the genitalia to other Blaberus to be certain.... and post some photos on this forum if you can!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have considered them being Blaberus giganteus, but I raised these since they were about 1" to adulthood and I've offered them a banquet of food items (my standard roach mix including dog food, fish pellets, ferret food, parrot food, etc, as well as plenty of fruits/veggies, primarily apple, eggplant, cucumber, banana, and citrus) so I doubt they're small due to nutrition causes. The enclosure is very spacious as well; a 16 quart sterilite bin, but of course, all the roaches prefer to collect under a piece of egg crate on one side of the tank lol.

The subadult nymphs also don't have the red wing pads that B. giganteus subadults have. They're far more durable; I haven't had any adults die after molting, unlike with B. giganteus. I may be able to get some genitalia pics up today or sometime this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have considered them being Blaberus giganteus, but I raised these since they were about 1" to adulthood and I've offered them a banquet of food items (my standard roach mix including dog food, fish pellets, ferret food, parrot food, etc, as well as plenty of fruits/veggies, primarily apple, eggplant, cucumber, banana, and citrus) so I doubt they're small due to nutrition causes. The enclosure is very spacious as well; a 16 quart sterilite bin, but of course, all the roaches prefer to collect under a piece of egg crate on one side of the tank lol.

The subadult nymphs also don't have the red wing pads that B. giganteus subadults have. They're far more durable; I haven't had any adults die after molting, unlike with B. giganteus. I may be able to get some genitalia pics up today or sometime this week.

My Blaberus "peruvianus?" are maintained in a 10 gallon aquarium with rough sides to allow climbing. The adults are actually a bit shorter and somewhat thinner width-wise than my B. craniifer. The shape of the pronotal "shield" is less ovate that those of B. giganteus, B. craniifer, or B. fusca although the markings on the pronotum are consistent with most members of the Giganteus Group. A photo alone can easily be confused with the Mexican strain of B. craniifer however, the tegminal coloring of Blaberus "peruvianus?" is considerably lighter. The nymphs also have darker wing pads as Zephyr mentioned earlier. Regardless of what species/subspecies these are, they definitely are different from the other familiar Blaberids currently in culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just an update, a genitalia dissection has shown these to not be Blaberus giganteus, nor are they Blaberus craniifer (although there's some similarity here!)

Soon I will be dissecting some B. fusca and B. craniifer "European" and seeing if they are all the same or different.

My hypothesis is that they will be distinct from B. fusca and the same as the B. craniifer "European", and if this is correct, then B. craniifer "European" is in fact not B. craniifer in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its never been clear to me what these "european" b. Craniifer are. Anyone know any history or anything about these.

Do not get me started. lol

They are supposedly a strain of Blaberus craniifer from the mainland that have brown wings. Apparently they were originally called Blaberus trapezoideus but eventually Dr. Louis Roth combined them with Blaberus craniifer due to genitalia similarities. However, recent examination of the genitalia (which myself and another forum member are doing) combined with observable anatomical and behavioral differences may suggest that this combination should be undone and the two kept placed as separate species.

Presently in Europe Blaberus fusca and Blaberus "peruvianus" are grouped as mere strains of brown wing craniifer. The problem with this is that there are many different species (or possibly just strains) that could be placed into the species "Blaberus craniifer" and then allowed to cross (If this one has brown wings and this one has black ones, as long as they're the same species it's not a bad thing to let them cross, right? :P) which eliminates the original species/ color strains and further clouds our understanding of Blaberus sp. taxonomy.

With further research and documentation I intend to help dispel the school of thought that Blaberus craniifer is a catch-all species, and that these variations actually indicate separate species with close common ancestry.

**Coincidentally, a good counter-argument for this is that the "Blaberus craniifer" of various wing colorations can mate and produce fertile hybrids, defining them biologically as one species. However, my counter-counter-argument is that Blaberus discoidalis and Blaberus boliviensis can also hybridize and make fertile hybrids, so why are these maintained as separate species? I am unsure of the natural ranges of each form of "Blaberus craniifer 'brown wings'" however, seeing as the Black wings strain is native solely to the Florida Keys (and possibly some other islands in the Caribbean, I am unsure of this as well) and only introduced on the mainland, then the only reason that the black wings strain and brown wings strains would ever mix is in captivity or in the wild where the black wings strain has been introduced. Hence, they are separated by vicarience in the wild naturally and would not mate otherwise. So, like Blaberus boliviensis and Blaberus discoidalis, they should still be considered separate species technically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear friends,

it is along time ago, that I was actually writing my opinion in this board. But I hav eto do it.

I have written to Zephyr, what I am thinking about your discussion of Bl. craniifer. Well in the taxonomy you have first observation the holotyp of a species, if you are not shure, if it this species or not. Well done, I done it, because at the present I have to write a paper of Blaberus and their identification, which kind of species which we have got in culture. It is not easy, because of the great variation into this genus.

Anything what I can tell you is, that the European craniifer is confirmed with the real holotyp of the Bl. craniifer and this type has shown pale wings! The black morph, and nothing else it is, a colour morph ore may a subspecies or a local variation is also a craniifer.

Well done, I can offer to your: if you would like to be shure I will help with the identification. Anything what I need are 4 male and 2 females, (sometimes are 2 to 1) preserved in alcohol (70% isopopyl) and well labled. And I will help you. For the custems you hab eto declear it as scientific material (and that is it, nothing else) and is not for comercial prupose.

And may we found a end with the diffusion calling of the different species, if we have on key.

best reagrds

Ingo Fritzsche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear friends,

it is along time ago, that I was actually writing my opinion in this board. But I hav eto do it.

I have written to Zephyr, what I am thinking about your discussion of Bl. craniifer. Well in the taxonomy you have first observation the holotyp of a species, if you are not shure, if it this species or not. Well done, I done it, because at the present I have to write a paper of Blaberus and their identification, which kind of species which we have got in culture. It is not easy, because of the great variation into this genus.

Anything what I can tell you is, that the European craniifer is confirmed with the real holotyp of the Bl. craniifer and this type has shown pale wings! The black morph, and nothing else it is, a colour morph ore may a subspecies or a local variation is also a craniifer.

Well done, I can offer to your: if you would like to be shure I will help with the identification. Anything what I need are 4 male and 2 females, (sometimes are 2 to 1) preserved in alcohol (70% isopopyl) and well labled. And I will help you. For the custems you hab eto declear it as scientific material (and that is it, nothing else) and is not for comercial prupose.

And may we found a end with the diffusion calling of the different species, if we have on key.

best reagrds

Ingo Fritzsche

I would like to note that the holotype for Gromphadorhina portentosa has coloration resembling Princisia vanwaerebeki, and the two readily cross and produce viable hybrids. The same is true for Gromphadorhina oblongonata and Princisia vanwaerebeki. If they can all mate (and will do so readily) and produce fertile hybrids, why are they not considered one whole species? In fact, Princisia is a separate genus! There are many more similarities between G. portentosa and P. vanwaerebeki than there are between the "races" of B. craniifer, and yet they are maintained as separate species. It seems like either this has been overlooked or it has been noticed but disregarded...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note: the coloration of the hissers has not the systematic relevance. it is the shape and form of the pronotum first. and this differs in your examples very well.

And of course, may we find some other morphological parts, which can make a differens in the genus Blaberus easier as up to day and it was overlooked all the years. That is the reason, why I am still working on it and asked for your help.

best reagards

Ingo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't molecular techniques help solve/settle this?

Yes it would but it doesn't seem anyone with access to the equipment would ever bother with this.

As for European craniifer being a color morph of the same species...? I chuckled at that honestly. Without real scientific evidence I disagree; an opinion (this goes for mine as well) is worthless without proof. Show us the proof that you have that they are the same species and then we can have a better conversation about it. Until then European craniifer is just a hybrid roach with little in common to the true Blaberus craniifer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

A few more dissections may re-group the European craniifer into the same species as B. peruvianus... :P

I'm curious as I am currently writing my Hybrid Problems page on my website. What has become of the dissections? Has there been proof that the European version is Blaberus peruvianus or is it still an unknown?

Also Kyle do you still have that link to the old cross-breeding studies for Blaberus? I wanted to link it into my site but I can't find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious as I am currently writing my Hybrid Problems page on my website. What has become of the dissections? Has there been proof that the European version is Blaberus peruvianus or is it still an unknown?

Also Kyle do you still have that link to the old cross-breeding studies for Blaberus? I wanted to link it into my site but I can't find it.

I should be able to find the hybrid studies for Blaberus, but it's buried under a bunch of other bookmarks! :P

From a discussion with several knowledgeable enthusiasts we are inclined to believe that the peruvianus are at the very least a subspecies of fusca (which, in actuality, it would be the other way around since fusca appears to be a nomen nudum.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the peruvianus is the holotype of that branch of the giganteus group and not fusca huh? Does their range overlap? They could just be geographically isolated groups of the same animal.

Ps I found the study and linked it to my site. Interestingly it doesn't include the most questionable animal, B. fusca, unless they used a different name back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the peruvianus is the holotype of that branch of the giganteus group and not fusca huh? Does their range overlap? They could just be geographically isolated groups of the same animal.

Ps I found the study and linked it to my site. Interestingly it doesn't include the most questionable animal, B. fusca, unless they used a different name back then.

I'm certain you'd be hard-pressed to find accurate range maps for either, especially when so little is known about either. If they are geographically isolated, then the very least they should be rewarded is subspecies status. Coincidentally I find this highly unfair since there are all the lovely Gromphadorhina-Princisia species out there based on smaller details like pronotum shape...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...