G. pulchra gender confirmation?

[xhexdx]

Well, this would actually be good, because I want it to be male. I had it lined up for a trade, but now it fell through because we believe it's a female.

Are you just saying this to go against the grain? Do you have any pics that look like my "pseudo-spermathecae"? I'd really like to know what it really is..

I mean I wanted to trade it, but I still wouldn't be disappointed if it was female.

I said it because I think it's a male.

B. vagans male accessory organs:

This may help. Heres a spermathecae from a ~2.5" specimen

Has this specimen grown large enough to confirm female with a larger molt? Specifically, development of the uterus externus?

You also have to remember that mine is at 100X magnification.

Spermathecae requiring a 100x magnification on a 2.5" molt sounds pretty unlikely to me.

 

[Link]

Dang.. I think it could be a male. I thought the "spermathecae" on mine were a bit tiny. I might just have to wait for the next molt to know for sure.

 

[Link]

I don't know... I took compared my ventral shots to several other ones in the sexing section, and ventrally it looks female.. I don't see any epiandrous fusillae, and the little bald spot that younger males tend to have right above the epigastric furrow is gone too. The top two pics are mine. I retook, so you have more than one capture.

Below, known female:

Below, known male:

 

[xhexdx]

Do you have any idea how big the spiders are you're comparing to?

 

[rustym3talh3ad]

ventrally it looks like a female, i just took a picture of mine which is WAY smaller than yours and i see nothing that resembles male on either of them see below

yes i know the fangs look red but i can assure you it molted 9 days ago, i accidentally lifted its hide while it was mid molt, gently put the hide back down and then recorded the molt date. but if u zoom in on this pic it doesnt give me any impression of being a male, and yours looks similar. i guess just wait for the next molt and see, thats what im doing lol.

 

[Link]

Do you have any idea how big the spiders are you're comparing to?

The one on top is definitely about the same size as mine based on the hand in comparison to the spider, and the one on bottom might be one molt smaller, but it's close. The picture said 3" on the bottom one. I tried not to pick out ones that were really small or really big.

 

[xhexdx]

Ok, I stand corrected on one count for sure, maybe two.

If it is in fact male, those are called male accessory organs, not gonopores. The gonopore is more of a small flap between the two accessory organs. You can actually see the gonopore in the pictures I quoted from Ms.X earlier in this thread.

Ms.X did some searching through ATS and came up with these links:

http://www.atshq.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13243&highlight=pulchra+spermathecae&page=2

http://www.atshq.org/forum/showthread.php?p=58626#post58626

Because I haven't found any pics of male pulchra gonopores to compare to, it's difficult for me to maintain my original thought of it being male. Talon's pic does in fact look female based on the shape of the 'spermathecae', and that I believe I can see the uterus externus in his picture as well.

Link, a closer picture would be great. I still feel like they should be larger and more easily identifiable in a specimen that size, but I could certainly be wrong.

 

[MichiganReptiles]

I would agree that ventrally it looks female. Now that I have a male and a female G. pulchra (and they look nothing alike ventrally) I can say that with confidence.

Looking at the exuvium though.. wow, there's more to consider than I originally thought.

 

[Link]

Here's my original photo, focused on the "horns".

In this picture, I focused on the "flap", and not on the horns.

In this one, I zoomed to 100x on a "horn".

I mean, I totally think it's female after comparing it to all those other ventral shots, but hey I could be wrong. I want to try to eliminate the doubt.

Joe, in reference to both of us noting the small size of the organs, perhaps T's of the same age don't always have the same size reproductive organs? Maybe some develop a little slower? This is certainly true in humans. I looked at those photos of the male accessory organs in the thread you linked, and they look way different. There appears to be three separate elements in the male "pseudo-spermathecae", and in the female they are one contiguous piece. In mine they are also one contiguous piece.

 

[billopelma]

In this picture, I focused on the "flap", and not on the horns.

The translucent area I outlined (from the first pic) is the flap, if anything. The way the pics are I can't tell if that's just glare/reflection or a flap in front of the spermathecea, see if it moves when prodded. The solid looking area I think you're referring to in the second pic would just be the front edge of the bursa copulatrix.
I don't believe pulchra males even have accessory organs, though I could be mistaken. Someone (Joe?) should start compiling a list of known species that have them, I can add that A. seemani and N. chromatus do.
My first ever post here on AB was a question about this very subject, at a time where an extensive search yielded nothing. Now there is a wealth of info here and on other sites, though it get's easily lost among 'bad' info...
This is a good one a lot of people here somehow miss; http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=84086

Here's a pic from a dry female pulchra exuvium for comparison, the relevent items stand out a bit more... That's a common pin for size comparison.

There appears to be three separate elements in the male "pseudo-spermathecae"...

For males of any T species there will always be a (single) gonopore in the center, which is an opening as opposed to a protuberance. However the pair of accessory organs are specific to certain species only and the majority don't have them.


Bill

 

[Link]

Mine is also a dry specimen. It looks out of focus, because my camera isn't really designed to take pictures looking into the eyepiece of a microscope.

The area you highlighted, Bill, does not move when prodded. It appears to just be part of the floor of the molt.

 

[elportoed]

Here's my original photo, focused on the "horns".

If you would take another picture similar to the above, but turn the molt 180 deg, may be it can give us a better look of what's going on.

 

[Boanerges]

This what the G. pulcrha male that I posted looked like under a microscope:

 

[Link]

okay a new picture.

One side is out of focus, because there is a wrinkle, but the other side is in focus.

I think I can see the edge of the flap in this picture on the right. Also, the molt is now upside down.

 

[lordddelgado]

Help about gender

Help guys, anyone who can determine the gender of my B. Emilia...

:?