I learned a lot by reading this. If you haven't ever read this article and you're serious about T's, I HIGHLY recommend reading it.
I'm still practicing my visual detection techniques.
If you have any side-by-side comarison photos of male/female epigastric furrows, or just individual photos (no comparison necessary) please feel free to post them.
You can also submit photos of unsexed individuals, for the rest of us to see if we can help. Remember, the photos have to be clear, and well lit close ups of the epigastric furrow and surrounding setae/fusillae, in order for us to ventrally sex.
Thanks, and I hope this thread is of great help to us all! _________________ -Neshan W. Sarkisian
B 4 α Q RU/16 Q T Π ???
"I just cant <EDIT> without a roach in my mouth"
-Cacoseraph
sexing and sight identifiny pokies...
Female on left, Male on right. _________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Francisco, looks like you have 2 males and 3 females.
This is what I think (and I'm 99% sure of 5, 4, 3, and 2. But the Pmet1 pictures aren't very good, so I'm about 75% sure on that one):
Pmet5 is definitely a male.
Pmet4 is a female.
Pmet3 is a female.
Pmet2 is definitely a male.
Pmet1 looks like a female, but the pictures are at an angle, so it's harder to tell. This is the best picture:
_________________ -Neshan W. Sarkisian
B 4 α Q RU/16 Q T Π ???
"I just cant <EDIT> without a roach in my mouth"
-Cacoseraph
On 5, the epiandrous fussillae are really obvious. See the dark arch over the light spot just above the epigastric furrow?
That's a sure sign of a male.
Females don't have the fussillae.
If you look at #4, you will see that she has one continuous color, both anterior and posterior of the epigastric furrow. This is a female.
If anyone wants to chime in with their opinions, please do. This is a good learning experience for everyone. _________________ -Neshan W. Sarkisian
B 4 α Q RU/16 Q T Π ???
"I just cant <EDIT> without a roach in my mouth"
-Cacoseraph
sorry neshan only sufusca , metallica and tigirs are exceptions to the rule of vent sexing.....conventional vent techniques don't work for these species..let me find the paper and ill post it....
look at #4 again, there is clearly a bell beginning to show on top of the epigastric furrow, indicating its a male...at this age continuous color isn't a sexual que for this particular species...by the time they reach 3" plus, color can be a que but by that time the bell or lack of it will be prodominatly visible....also feeling is a good indication at 2"s or above...a lump will indicate male and a lack of it female..which is opposite in G.pulchras where the female posses the lump on the furrow and the male does not...
anyways hope that helps.. _________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
sorry neshan only sufusca , metallica and tigirs are exceptions to the rule of vent sexing.....conventional vent techniques don't work for these species..let me find the paper and ill post it....
look at #4 again, there is clearly a bell beginning to show on top of the epigastric furrow, indicating its a male...at this age continuous color isn't a sexual que for this particular species...by the time they reach 3" plus, color can be a que but by that time the bell or lack of it will be prodominatly visible....also feeling is a good indication at 2"s or above...a lump will indicate male and a lack of it female..which is opposite in G.pulchras where the female posses the lump on the furrow and the male does not...
anyways hope that helps..
That's an interesting point. There are definitely a few exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't tell the sex by looking for fussillae.
I wasn't aware that P. metallica was one of the exceptions. Thanks.
Also, the "lump" technique isn't established as a foolproof method, like the fussillae method is. There are many who disagree with it entirely.
The best method, is to just wait, and let them grow _________________ -Neshan W. Sarkisian
B 4 α Q RU/16 Q T Π ???
"I just cant <EDIT> without a roach in my mouth"
-Cacoseraph
true ::lol::...that's really the only full proof way..buts who's that patient... _________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
P. metallica, P. miranda and P. tigrinawesseli all have bilobed (two "peaks") and fused (connected at the base) spermathecae, as opposed to the remaining Poecilotheria which have unilobed (one "peak) spermathecae. It is not unlikely that they start with bilobed spermatheca as this is a plesiomorph state, which then will fuse to become the typical triangular spermatheca with increasing maturity (ontogenesis). On the other hand what you are seeing could just as well be the male accesory organs that in small slings can be mistaken for a budding spermatheca.
You will have to wait to be sure ;-) _________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
correct ventral sexing operates on exactly the same principle as correct molt sexing, that is looking for the presence or absence of an actual ~organ.
when molt sexing you look for spermethecae and/or bursa copulatrix. if present, female. in a sense, you can only confirm females from molt sexing, as not seeing the organ doesn't necesarily mean it is not there... just that you can't see it. but... it is not *too* much of a bad assumption at all to assume that on a larger spider if you can't see s/bc then it is probably a male.
when vsexing you are looking for the presence or absence of epiandrous fusilae. these are ~micro spinnerets that only males have and are used to make sperm webs. only males have these and males always have them (~mutants not withstanding). here is the rub... they are tiny. TINY. i don't look for the individual EF... i look for the field of different looking "hair" that they make. so in essence you can only confirm males from EF sexing.... if you don't see the EF it doesn't necesarily mean they are not there... only that you can't see them.
there is NO ambiguity in whether the presence of EF indicate a male (or maybe a hermaphrodite). where i see the ambiguity lying is:
1) not knowing what and where to look for
2) not having perfect focus in the correct spot in pictures
3) using a jpeg image format to post pictures that otherwise would be good enough
1) when i hear ANYTHING other than EF being discussed for vsexing i am immediately cautious. EF is the only thing i know of that has such clearly defined parameters. it must be on males and it must be in quite a specific area. a *possible* secondary test can be made for increased sclerotization of the epigastric furrow (which indicates female)... but i would consider it at best a secondary confirmation.
2) as i said, individual EF are absolutely tiny. even the ~characteristic change of the gnap of the setae indicating EF is pretty subtle. if the camera is not focused extremely well AT THE EXACT RIGHT SPOT or if there is container material between the spider and the lens the important part of the image can not contain enough data to be useful.
3) jpeg picture format was built by pornagraphers to have a fairly nice looking image with a fairly small file size. it is a compression format. it is inherently lossy, to some degree. when a 2MB 2024x1536 image file is cooked down to a 40kb 400x300 image there is going to be a quite insane loss of actual image data. the result is only a like, approximation of the original... and all fine detail is lost. that would be the same fine detail you need to look at to successfully EF sex _________________
Quote:
There may be people who like centipedes. I have seen people handling tarantulas and scorpions, but never a centipede handler. I would regard such a person with deep suspicion...Now what sort of man or woman or monster would stroke a centipede on its underbelly "And here is my big good centipede." If such a man exists, I say kill him without more ado. He is a traitor to the human race.
While there is a lot of truth to what you say there, a picture does not HAVE to be perfect in order to be easily aware of the presence or lack of the EF.
Just my opinion on the subject.
It might depend on the species that you are thinking about.
In some, it's much easier and obvious to tell than in others.
We must take that into consideration.
For instance, M. robustum is known (IIRC) as being one of the more difficult ones to ventrally sex using the EF method.
However, I have always found some other species to be pretty easy, even with an almost blurry picture. _________________ -Neshan W. Sarkisian
B 4 α Q RU/16 Q T Π ???
"I just cant <EDIT> without a roach in my mouth"
-Cacoseraph
you can always hook me up with another female frisco.... _________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
While there is a lot of truth to what you say there, a picture does not HAVE to be perfect in order to be easily aware of the presence or lack of the EF.
Just my opinion on the subject.
It might depend on the species that you are thinking about.
In some, it's much easier and obvious to tell than in others.
We must take that into consideration.
For instance, M. robustum is known (IIRC) as being one of the more difficult ones to ventrally sex using the EF method.
However, I have always found some other species to be pretty easy, even with an almost blurry picture.
well, i mean for really obvious species and individuals, sure... but it is easy to say your picture must be clear and in focus all the time rather than make this big complicated list of exceptions =P
i need to get one of those self lighted super magnifiers that get mentioned with regards to vsexing, for sure. _________________
Quote:
There may be people who like centipedes. I have seen people handling tarantulas and scorpions, but never a centipede handler. I would regard such a person with deep suspicion...Now what sort of man or woman or monster would stroke a centipede on its underbelly "And here is my big good centipede." If such a man exists, I say kill him without more ado. He is a traitor to the human race.
andrew always the old skooler.... though i agree with you, i also think characteristic que identification also can be accurate..its only major flaws would be pic quality and size of the specimen but this can be elevated with picking up the specimen and flipping it over...even though some genus-es are easier than others using this method. i can only imagine with enough work, it can almost be as accurate as EF...
we have progressed some since the invention of the light ::lol::....... _________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
well, i have problems with any method that isn't tied to organ existence checks
i mean... i *just* recently started to get the idea of how to sex off chelicerae.... but compared to an existance check a relative comparison is WAY more fuzzy and prone to error
but... what i do think is that several relative comparison checks that all point to the same sex is a better guess than 50/50 for sure. ::lol::... and if you are consistantly wrong more often than right... keep guessing the same way and just switch your answer heh
_________________
Quote:
There may be people who like centipedes. I have seen people handling tarantulas and scorpions, but never a centipede handler. I would regard such a person with deep suspicion...Now what sort of man or woman or monster would stroke a centipede on its underbelly "And here is my big good centipede." If such a man exists, I say kill him without more ado. He is a traitor to the human race.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
though i agree with you, i also think characteristic que identification also can be accurate..its only major flaws would be pic quality and size of the specimen but this can be elevated with picking up the specimen and flipping it over...even though some genus-es are easier than others using this method. i can only imagine with enough work, it can almost be as accurate as EF...
