This   level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Arthropods Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article implies that C. exilicauda and C. sculpturatus are synonymous. Is this the consensus among arachnologists? I see that Valdez-Cruz et al. report that their results "strongly support the conclusion that C. exilicauda and C. sculpturatus are in fact two distinct species of scorpions". ^[1] Gdr 07:51:18, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

1. ^ Valdez-Cruz NA, Davila S, Licea A, Corona M, Zamudio FZ, Garcia-Valdes J, Boyer L, Possani LD. Biochemical, genetic and physiological characterization of venom components from two species of scorpions: Centruroides exilicauda Wood and Centruroides sculpturatus Ewing. Biochimie. 2004 Jun;86(6):387-96.

Hi,

Yes, Centruroides sculpturatus (the 'sculptured scorpion', a fitting name if you've observed them with any real frequency, as they sometimes seem as if they were 'chiseled' out of the wood they are on...) is the deprecated name for Centruroides exilicauda. On a side note, exilicauda is Latin for 'slender tail' (exili, and 'cauda'). Also, the original Genus name was to be Centrurus (IIRC), however that was already taken in the nomenclature, hence, Centruroides (roughly means "like centrurus" or thereabouts).

I have some pics and a little more info on my page at www.exilicauda.com, including a caresheet if you, like myself, happen to have vast numbers of them.

HTH,

Jason Berry -- http://www.netspionage.com/jmb_ns_pubkey.asc

The section about venom contradicts itself? ″Two recorded fatalities have occurred in the state of Arizona since 1968; the number of victims stung each year in Arizona is estimated to be in the thousands. In Mexico, more than 100,000 people are stung annually, and during a peak period in the 1980s, the bark scorpion claimed up to 800 lives there.[4]″
Sengstudent ( talk) 16:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Where's the contradiction? Arizona isn't part of Mexico. 136.62.254.174 ( talk) 16:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I have spent the past hour trawling for data that supports anything exponentially close to 800 scorpion deaths annually anywhere in North America. This figure pops up in a few well-meaning articles I found online, but none bring a single fact to the table other than, "800-1000 deaths annually in Mexico from Scorpion stings," with no source documentation to be found. 800-1000 annually would be an epidemic. Out of reported stings in neighboring Arizona, 90% are managed on-site, and only .20% result in major effects. Arizona experiences less than 1 average annual scorpion sting fatality. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5440315/)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have edited the page to remove the sentence claiming that hundreds per year have died of scorpion stings in Mexico. 24.251.181.216 ( talk) 02:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arizona bark scorpion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702060625/http://www.pharmacy.arizona.edu/outreach/poison/scorpions.php to http://www.pharmacy.arizona.edu/outreach/poison/scorpions.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply