Scientific name
Armadillidium pulchellum
Armadillidium pulchellum is a small marbled woodlouse that can be difficult to identify. The BMIG particularly recommends avoiding confusion with a juvenile A. pictum. [1]
Origin
The BMIG documents it in Great Britain and Ireland, especially in some coastal or upland grassy habitats. This regional synthesis does not exhaust its European distribution. [1]
- Small Armadillidium
- Natural-history profile
- Grassy habitats
Identification and regional ecology; missing husbandry data explicitly retained.
At a glance
A small marbled Armadillidium, not to be confused with a juvenile A. pictum. Natural-history profile, without a validated captive protocol [1][2].
| DOCUMENTED SIZE | Up to 5 mm Body length in the British synthesis [1]. |
|---|---|
| LIFESPAN | To be documented No supported individual lifespan in the selected sources. |
| LIFESTYLE | Low vegetation Observed beneath stones and vegetation mats [1]. |
Adult size
Up to 5 mm in body length in the British synthesis. [1]
Lifespan
Individual lifespan is not established by the selected documents; no numerical value is extrapolated.
Lifestyle
Observed beneath stones and low vegetation, particularly in calcareous settings; the shelters described do not allow an exclusively underground life to be concluded. [1]
Housing
NATURAL HABITAT
Stones and moss — Coastal or upland grassy habitats in British records; no captive protocol established [1].
No captive setup prescribed: no sufficiently complete long-term husbandry reference was adopted.
Care parameters
CAPTIVE HUSBANDRY
Not established — The identification references do not determine a husbandry temperature.
Humidity
Natural environment — Stones, moss and low vegetation: field observations, not a humidity target [1].
Temperature
No verified breeding range in the source collection. The selected sources do not allow a species-specific husbandry temperature to be proposed.
Humidity and ventilation
No percentage instruction; document the microhabitat actually observed. Examine substrate beneath shelters and record the enclosure’s actual conditions.
Feeding
DIETARY DATA
No captive ration or calcium dose specific to this species is established in the selected references [1][2].
Scope of this profile
Identification and regional ecology; missing husbandry data explicitly retained.
Identification using several clues
According to Gregory and Richards, the rear corner of the first thoracic segment appears truncated in pulchellum, and a small opening remains visible when the animal rolls up. These characters distinguish it from pictum. [2] They must be examined in clear views without repeatedly provoking the animal to close. An impression of small size or an attractive colour does not constitute reliable identification.
Interpreting litter and supports
The BMIG synthesis mentions stones, moss and vegetation mats; it presents rotten wood as a much less usual support than in pictum. [1] For a useful observation, record cover type and contact between shelter and ground. Do not reduce the record to the name of an administrative area: exposure and support structure explain more about what was actually encountered.
Substrate, ventilation and diet
The selected references describe free-living animals. They do not demonstrate a captive substrate recipe, a precise calcium addition or the value of a commercial food for pulchellum. Another species’ ration therefore cannot be presented here as validated. Before any breeding project, seek an account of an identified colony, with several generations and described conditions.
Humidity and temperature: retaining context
An exposed grassy site can contain protected shelters very different from ambient air. Natural presence therefore does not authorise drying an enclosure or choosing a temperature from regional weather. The proposed records distinguish ambient conditions, ground contact and the observation support. Without repeatable measurement, an apparently precise value would give unjustified confidence.
Reproduction and small sizes
The source collection used provides neither brood size nor a maturity age usable in captivity. A photograph of a tiny animal does not prove a recent birth either: the species’ maximum size is already small. [1] If a series of observations is made, retain identification uncertainty and the search method so changes in visibility do not become false demographic results.
Monitoring, limits and precautions
A natural-history log can combine an overview of the site, shelter details and animal photographs. Replacing supports preserves microhabitat continuity and makes observations less disruptive. This profile does not demonstrate the existence of an available captive lineage. It helps recognise a species and identify open questions, without promising a ready-to-apply breeding protocol.
Checklist
- Document identification and its reliability.
- Describe the microhabitat and observation context.
- Do not extrapolate a husbandry protocol from another species.
Observations to record
- Manual natural-history log
- Photographs and identification criteria
- Context of repeated observations
The app provides individual animal records. Check which features are available for your animal in the released version.
Sources
Document-based overview; not a substitute for veterinary advice.