Jump to content

Over the Ocean

Recommended Posts



A short introduction of myself, first I am lucky to have a new discussion platform. 

I think we do not have any active cockroach keeper forum anymore in Europe,

our last german forum died 10 years ago. I actual work on a new cockroach keeper 

forum in german language, it is already online but not active until yet.  Maybe there

is one in CZ and/or Poland but if then not in a language I speak or can even read.


Also of interest for me is to get informations about cockroach species we do not have

or never had in culture in Europe. 


My love for cockroaches was born 2004 at a little terraristic stock market, where I have seen the lovely Gromphadorhina 

grandidieri (even under this name, by the way in Europe they are usually named Princisia vanwaerebeki "Black & White"; essedentially

G.grandidieri at this time was named for what now is G.portentosa "Black") and giant G.portentosa.

Before that I knew what a cockroach is, but I never conciously ever had seen one.

I cared for my first tarantulas since a few years, and after buying my first one or

two pet roach species I passed over to get cockroaches for feeder use, too.


Temporary I cared for more than 80 species of cockroaches, this had been a bit too much.

Actually I have 30 species here, basically I planed not more than 30 again, but this number

inevitable will get some shift I think.


I will post a list of my cockroach species another time.


Greetings, Marco




  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes..., the ever growing number of species in a collection.... 
What's your decision tree when it comes to limiting the collection? Only rare species? Size, locality, difficulty in keeping? 

And thanks for the pictures you showed here! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


One plan to get the number of roach species low is that I don´t collect f.e. 

all abailable Blaberus spp., one is enough (the lovely Black Wings) or instead 

of all availble hisser species only Aeluropoda insignis (they do not hiss that

much, so I recently purchased Elliptorhina davidi ). 

I have no specialisation like I  have for my tarantulas, my roach species are rare, 

good feeders or I simply like them for any reason.


Greetings, Marco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here an actual list of the cockroach species I have in culture:


Aeluropoda insignis 
Archimandrita sp. "Panama, Cerro Chucanti"
Balta notulata
Blaberus craniifer "Black Wings"
Blaptica dubia
Decoralampra fulgencioi
Dorylea orini
Elliptorhina davidi
Eurycotis decipiens 
Gyna caffrorum
Gyna centurio
Gyna lurida
Hemithyrsocera palliata
Hormetica sp. "Kolumbien"
Lucihormetica grossei
Macropanesthia rhinoceros
Melanozosteria nitida (Thailand, Surat Thani, Khao Sok National Park)
Morphna dotata
Morphna maculata 
Nauphoeta cinerea
Panchlora nivea
Panesthia angustipennis angustipennis
Panesthia angustipennis brevipennis
Panesthia angustipennis cognata
Paranauphoeta formosana
Paratemnopteryx couloniana
Phoetalia pallida
Pseudoglomeris pygmaea
Pseudoglomeris magnifica 
Pseudomops septentrionalis
Simandoa conserfariam
Symploce pallens
Therea regularis
Thorax porcellana

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum, hope you enjoy it here! :D (By the way, "Corydidarum pygmaea" are now called Perisphaerus pygmaeus, the name was changed back last year in a revision). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Marco Sonnenscheisse said:

Ok thank you I did not know, is this for certain? I ask because the new genus Pseudoglomeris instead of Corydidarum has been controversial discussed and not been accepted. 

As far as I know Pseudoglomeris is broadly accepted as a replacement name for Corydidarum, the only controversy I've heard of is whether or not the species in Glomerexis should have been moved to Pseudoglomeris, (and the proposed solution for that problem is to make Glomerexis a subgenus of Pseudoglomeris). You can read about the changes in this paper

Anyway, pygmaeus was moved back to Perisphaerus in the latest paper, which makes sense, now Perisphaerus is the only known genus of cockroach that can curl up into balls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For more clarification:

The synonymy among Corydidarum, Pseudoglomeris and Trichoblattta requires a clarification. Since Princis’ (1964) catalogue, Bey-Bienko (1969) and Anisyutkin (2003) described species under Trichoblatta, whilst earlier taxonomists (Brunner 1893, Shelford 1907, Hanitsch 1924) described species under Pseudoglomeris, which was not listed as a synonym of Trichoblatta by Princis (1964). These species should obviously be included in one genus, and these authors’ views of Trichoblatta and Pseudoglomeris overlap. We compared the original descriptions of these genera, and examined the photos of the type specimens of the type species, namely, Perisphaeria glomeris Saussure in MNHN (on loan from MHNG) and Perisphaeria sericea Saussure in MHNG: they fall into one genus. Therefore, Trichoblatta is synonymized with Pseudoglomeris. The name Corydidarum, now popular on the Internet, was proposed by Brunner (1865). Leaving only a citation, Brunner (1865) assigned Corydidarum to Perisphaeria sericea Saussure; thus, Corydidarum and Trichoblatta are objective synonyms. Brunner (1865) did not describe the genus, and no longer used this name in his subsequent works. The name Corydidarum is absent from any other taxonomic works, i.e. it has never been formally used; therefore, it is undesired to use this name hereafter. Glomerexis differs from Pseudoglomeris in apterous (Bey-Bienko 1938) or brachypterous male (Wang & Che 2011). Bey-Bienko (1938) distinguishes between these genera by wing-morph only, and did not suggest any other differences. However, wing-morph alone is insufficient for the generic diagnosis. The males of two brachypterous species, Ps. angustifolia and Ps. semisulcata, which resemble the apterous Ps. tibetana, differ from those of other Pseudoglomeris species: tiny ocellar spots and tiny typical carina lobe (like the females), and virga sclerite absent. We do not consider the former two differences to be of generic diagnosis, since these characters are also neoteny, and it is normal for the brachypterous males to exhibit neoteny, given that the apterous females are all neotenic. In comparison, the absence of virga sclerite can be a significant character that can be used to distinguish between genera, but we do not do so because no other significant differences can support the division. Nonetheless, Glomerexis may be regarded as a subgenus of Pseudoglomeris, if the male of Ps. tibetana, the type species of Glomerexis, lacks the virga sclerite, too. This is likely true but requires an investigation. If the male genitalia of Ps. tibetana fall into the normal morphology of Pseudoglomeris, on the contrary, a new subgenus should be established based on Ps. angustifolia or Ps. semisulcata. Judging from current evidence, we synonymize Glomerexis with Pseudoglomeris, but it is premature to propose a subgenus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...

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...