Jump to content

No Pycnoscelus nigra males?

Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...

This is not a well-documented species, but I know because, according to Kyle at www.roachcrossing.com, his population is parthenogenic. In the wild, there very well may be bisexual strains, as found in P. surinamensis in certain areas. I don't know. However, for the purpose of the hobby, it's best to simply say that they are an all-female population, as this is what's been documented and what is available to us.

If the captive population WAS bisexual, the females might mature without wings, as seen in P. femapterus, or have shorter wings which do not cover the entire abdomen, as seen in bisexual P. surinamensis strains (this may also be the case for P. striatus; I'm not sure). Basically, Pynoscelus sp. are documented to be sexually dimorphic when bisexual and so we may assume that our P. nigra are not bisexual as males and mating altogether do not appear to be present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parthenogenic P. surinamensis populations apparently produce a male on occasion. He is sterile and so he cannot reproduce, thus retaining the asexual nature of reproduction. Apparently, in areas other than the US, P. surinamensis reproduce sexually. I'm not sure if bisexual strains can reproduce parthenogenically, but I do know that P. surinamensis originated from parthenogenic P. indicus females.

I believe all P. surinamensis females are winged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, so the Surinam Roach are about the same as P. indicus? I think full winged male Pycnoscelus femapterus can fly, I have some that seem to be able to but I do not let them.

In a way, yes, they are "about the same". They're a "daughter species", which I think is really interesting evolutionarily speaking.

I'll probably be acquiring some P. femapterus soon, I'd love to see some males fly. My P. surinamensis sort of jump and flutter their wings like chickens when they try to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is an old post, but I want people who may read it in the future to get accurate information.

To my best understanding, there are no bisexually reproductive strains of Pycnoscelus surinamensis in existence. When such strains are referred to, it is my understanding that Pycnoscelus indicus, the incredibly similar species which P. surinamensis emerged from (parthenogenic females of P. indicus "created" P. surinamensis), is actually being referred to.

Taxonomy, man :D

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.

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.

  • Create New...