# Curious what others think



## xhexdx (May 4, 2010)

Please list your gender guess for these three, and how long you've been in the hobby.

Just curious.


----------



## endoflove (May 4, 2010)

hobby for 1.5 years guess is female on the left one and other 2 are males  im not the best at this but its a start


----------



## Mack&Cass (May 4, 2010)

The one on the left looks female, the other two are male.
I've been in the hobby for just over 3 years, Cass is over 1 year now. We both agreed.
Mackenzie


----------



## super-pede (May 4, 2010)

all female.Been keeping inverts for 10 years;tarantulas for 6 years.terrible at sexing T's.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 4, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Please list your gender guess for these three, and how long you've been in the hobby.
> 
> Just curious.


Joe, I know you just have to know what these are in terms of sex. I'm curious to why you ask. Knowing you, theres a reason behind the madness.


----------



## gromgrom (May 4, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Joe, I know you just have to know what these are in terms of sex. I'm curious to why you ask. Knowing you, theres a reason behind the madness.


i know he's trying to find smart kiddies out there,

they look like OBT's to me, and mine is the size of the middle one give or take. mine looks male at that size. an experienced local hobbyist says it looks male, but hes also never seen an OBT of that size.

i have no input.


----------



## Redneck (May 4, 2010)

I would agree.. Female on the left.. The one to the right is a male.. The one on top looks like a male to.. But I am not certain..

I have been keeping tarantulas since August of last year..

*Edit* Yeah.. I cant be certain on the one on top.. Its at a bad angle for me to even throw a guess out there.. 

Also.. They dont look like OBTs.. P. rufilata? Or some kind of pokie..


----------



## ZergFront (May 4, 2010)

They all look male to my eyes(I have all slings and juvies, no adults so please take this as a best guess on what I've read/seen in pics, etc). The one at the bottom just looks like a very hefty male. I'm judging this on booklung spacing and the small dot in the middle.

 Let us know the results. I really want to find out if I'm getting hot or cold on this sexing ventrally, please. 

 EDIT : If those are L.violaceopes you might just have at least one hater again, Joe. ;P


----------



## Kirsten (May 4, 2010)

I'm going to say male for all three.


----------



## Ms.X (May 4, 2010)

I have been a keeper for 16 years, but have only been seriously into the hobby for the last 2 or so.  I say male to all three based on the very obvious epiandrous fusilae 'dot' present along the furrow.


----------



## Endagr8 (May 4, 2010)

All three look male to me. 

They're _L. violaceopes_, right? "Subadult males can be easily sexed by the epigynal fusillae method."

I have been in the hobby for four years.


----------



## moose35 (May 4, 2010)

Endagr8 said:


> All three look male to me.
> 
> They're _L. violaceopes_, right? "Subadult males can be easily sexed by the epigynal fusillae method.".


agree 100%....species and sex
been in hobby about 3 days


   moose


----------



## xhexdx (May 4, 2010)

Moose - you're a riot. :}

That's enough answers for me, thanks.

They are indeed 3 males, and are L. violaceopes.  I can probably post a larger version of that picture if anyone is interested in a closer look at the guy on the left.

Talon - my point was to show how some species make it very easy to sex ventrally. 

Endagr8 must have read my mind.


----------



## ZergFront (May 4, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Moose - you're a riot. :}
> 
> That's enough answers for me, thanks.
> 
> ...


 That comforts me some. I have 2 spiders of this species. Not big enough yet for me to really see anything and they hate light but hopefully later I could sex them. Likely both male. :rollseyes:


----------



## moose35 (May 4, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Endagr8 must have read my mind.


or the containers....


       moose


----------



## cacoseraph (May 4, 2010)

you know... the stuff i am looking at when i sex, i need a decent grade magnifier to see... even on adult tarantulas... irl.  that's to be sure.  i can indeed guess on any picture... but it is just guessing


... i am not really sure what ppl are looking at when they sex off of crappy jpegs.  it is not what i am looking for, i can tell you that much


oh, but the dot!  lol... the EF don't have to make a dot, nor are they the only thing that makes dots


further, just cuz you don't see evidence of EF (which i am still not really sure how everyone is magically seeing...) doesn't mean the spider is a girl


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 4, 2010)

Not fair, I didn't even get to answer.  Nice l.v.'s Joe, where and why did you get 3 males? Are you trying to breed a big mean gal or something?  

Anyways, not sure if this is important or not but I have been in the hobby for just under 2 years.


----------



## moose35 (May 4, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> you know... the stuff i am looking at when i sex, i need a decent grade magnifier to see... even on adult tarantulas... irl.  that's to be sure.  i can indeed guess on any picture... but it is just guessing
> 
> 
> ... i am not really sure what ppl are looking at when they sex off of crappy jpegs.  it is not what i am looking for, i can tell you that much
> ...


with this species you can(usually) go by ventral color.
i don't normally particpate in sexing threads. but i was able to see the name on the front of the container.(haha i cheated)
so i was pretty sure of the species . and usually with this species the females are dark on the bottom where males look a bit "green"


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 4, 2010)

Caco, this sp. is really easy to sex ventrally.  Not only do they lack the coloration of a female at that size they also have that "dot" you are referring too.


----------



## xhexdx (May 4, 2010)

ZergFront said:


> That comforts me some. I have 2 spiders of this species. Not big enough yet for me to really see anything and they hate light but hopefully later I could sex them. Likely both male. :rollseyes:


Just go in the room at night with a flashlight, they'll be out.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 4, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Just go in the room at night with a flashlight, they'll be out.


I love creeping on my tarantulas at night.  Usually get to see the burrowers.


----------



## Mack&Cass (May 4, 2010)

I can see now how the one on the left is a male looking at it really closely. Well, we were close! Hope you have some females for those boys 

Cass


----------



## xhexdx (May 4, 2010)

moose35 said:


> or the containers....
> 
> 
> moose


I was more referring to the reason for the thread, but yeah, I suppose you're right.

Although only one of them is in a cup labeled correctly. :}


----------



## cacoseraph (May 4, 2010)

"usually" + sexing = bad

dot + sexing = bad



i'm not saying ventral sexing can't be done. i am pretty good at it... it just can't be done for general species via crappy pics and i just can't seem to get more than like 1% of readers to get that. and yes, i actually really do know what i am doing 

obviously some species are sexually dimorphic / dichromatic but... jeezy peezy that whole dot thing drives me nuts.  no one has dragged up any threads with females with dots recently?


----------



## xhexdx (May 4, 2010)

Mack&Cass said:


> I can see now how the one on the left is a male looking at it really closely. Well, we were close! Hope you have some females for those boys
> 
> Cass


I have zero females, but Ms.X has one.  Hopefully the largest of the three (I now have 5 males) is penultimate and will molt at a good time.

That, and there are plenty of people around with females who are dying for males, so hopefully I'll make good use of them.


----------



## xhexdx (May 4, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> no one has dragged up any threads with females with dots recently?


If any of these three molt female, I'll be sure to post it here.


----------



## Ms.X (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I have zero females, but Ms.X has one.


And she is ready NOW!  Tell that big guy to hurry it up already


----------



## moose35 (May 5, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> "usually" + sexing = bad
> 
> dot + sexing = bad
> 
> ...


i never mentioned "dot"
i said color..and the "almost" was just in case there is an oddball specimen of the species

  moose


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Moose - you're a riot. :}
> Talon - my point was to show how some species make it very easy to sex ventrally.


If that is the case than to make it more of a valid point you would have to post a picture of alot of different species. Than people would see which ones are easier to sex since now they have a visual of all of them in one place to compare.

Trivia for you....
Now the detail about the dot does have its faults. Can you name the one specie that the dot like pattern makes it a female?


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> If that is the case than to make it more of a valid point you would have to post a picture of alot of different species. Than people would see which ones are easier to sex since now they have a visual of all of them in one place to compare.


Maybe, but I don't have tons of spiders sitting in deli cups I can just snap shots of. 



TalonAWD said:


> Now the detail about the dot does have its faults. Can you name the one specie that the dot like pattern makes it a female?


Not offhand, no.  Maybe someone else will, so don't give it away here.

However, the word 'species' is both singular and plural. ()


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Maybe, but I don't have tons of spiders sitting in deli cups I can just snap shots of.


You don't have to have them alive and in front of you, just a photo record of many to post up. similar to what I have been doing for a number of years lol.



xhexdx said:


> Not offhand, no.  Maybe someone else will, so don't give it away here.


Ok lets let it ride for a while to see which one gets it. To answer your other question, I have 10 years experience.




xhexdx said:


> However, the word 'species' is both singular and plural. ()


Oh and I was in a hurry to give you a hard time with the trivia question that I forgot to place the "S" at the end.


----------



## Ms.X (May 5, 2010)

Penultimate male _L. violaceopes _'dot'










The above were taken about 5 mins before he popped for his ultimate molt


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> You don't have to have them alive and in front of you, just a photo record of many to post up. similar to what I have been doing for a number of years lol.


That's true, but this was spur-of-the-moment.  Most of the pictures I try to take are dorsal pics or something that captures the spider's beauty; they're rarely ventral shots.

Oh well.


----------



## Redneck (May 5, 2010)

Well I feel like a retard.. Not because I guessed wrong on the sex of one.. But hey.. It had to be a P. rufi in that dang cup.. :wall: :8o

I know its not a P. rufi. in the cup.. I am saying I feel a bit goofy since I thought it was..


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

Actually, the other labeled cup was from a MM P. rufilata I received a couple hours earlier.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

Redneck said:


> Well I feel like a retard.. Not because I guessed wrong on the sex of one.. But hey.. It had to be a P. rufi in that dang cup.. :wall: :8o
> 
> I know its not a P. rufi. in the cup.. I am saying I feel a bit goofy since I thought it was..


It's all good man, everyone makes mistakes.  It's hard to know what sp. it is if you have never kept it.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> That's true, but this was spur-of-the-moment.  Most of the pictures I try to take are dorsal pics or something that captures the spider's beauty; they're rarely ventral shots.
> 
> Oh well.


I do it all. Funny, amazing, dorsal, ventral, molt sizing , molt sexxing and everything else that deals with T's.  I had to buy an extra 1TB External HDD just to have room for all of the pictures I take. I'm addicted and can't bare to get rid of alot of them

And to make it even worst, I'm moving up to making movies of alot of things I see.


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

You're definitely more into the photography side of it than I am.  I will say, you take some excellent pics though.  The backlighting technique is great for molt sexing.


----------



## Redneck (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Actually, the other labeled cup was from a MM P. rufilata I received a couple hours earlier.


But we are not trying to sex what was in the cup before.. 
Nor was I trying to ID it either.. 
But hey.. I will take that.. LoL.. 
I can see in the past.. Oh yea!



Protectyaaaneck said:


> It's all good man, everyone makes mistakes.  It's hard to know what sp. it is if you have never kept it.


Yeah.. I know it happens.. but I still feel a bit goofy.. I wasnt positive.. So I should have just shushed up... LoL..


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> You're definitely more into the photography side of it than I am.  I will say, you take some excellent pics though.  The backlighting technique is great for molt sexing.


Thank you, Joe. I'm a finatic with the camera. It started with my Car and every modification I did. Had to document it all.

And before it gets lost in the pages...

Trivia Question.
*What's the one species that a Dot like pattern makes it a Female?*


----------



## Redneck (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Thank you, Joe. I'm a finatic with the camera. It started with my Car and every modification I did. Had to document it all.
> 
> And before it gets lost in the pages...
> 
> ...


Is it that coballa one that just laid an egg sac for you? I am not sure of the exact name.. The female has a "dot" right?


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

Without searching...M. cabocla?  Is that how it's spelled?


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

Redneck said:


> Is it that coballa one that just laid an egg sac for you? I am not sure of the exact name.. The female has a "dot" right?


Maraca cabocla is the new species and no it does not have a Dot like pattern.

The answer to the question is a tarantula that is quite common to the hobby and has been for a very long time.

The M. cabocla male ventral shot. I only got one shot of his underside and since this is a new species in the hobby, I don't have any other shots as he was killed by the female. I still have his body. maybe I'll look at it and if its still good enough, I'll take pictures. (Thanks for the idea!)


----------



## Redneck (May 5, 2010)

Edit.. Nevermind... I was wrong.. LoL..


----------



## Mack&Cass (May 5, 2010)

L. parahybana!

That's my guess as I've seen a lot of male-looking female Lps with the spermathecae shots to back it up.

Cass


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

Thanks again RedNeck!!! Now i have one more piece of info to add to the data I'm collecting on this species.

The male M. cabocla does not have the dot like pattern 

*WARNING EXPLICIT PICTURE*


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

Mack&Cass said:


> L. parahybana!
> 
> That's my guess as I've seen a lot of male-looking female Lps with the spermathecae shots to back it up.
> 
> Cass


Nope. The female LP has a like a lip looking design to the ventral. This makes it look like a dot. What I'm referring to is an actual color pattern that makes it look like a dot, which is similar to males of many species.


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> The male M. cabocla does not have the dot like pattern.


The _mature male_ of this species doesn't.  Get a pic of an immature male for comparison. 

I'm going to bed, I'll check up here tomorrow.  G'night.


----------



## Redneck (May 5, 2010)

I guess I have to wait for someone else to post the answer.. Google fails me.. LoL!


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> The _mature male_ of this species doesn't.  Get a pic of an immature male for comparison.
> 
> I'm going to bed, I'll check up here tomorrow.  G'night.


Thats the problem. Theres only one person in the US to have an immature male. I'll see if he can get me a shot.
If not I got to wait for one of the slings I have to grow up to be able to document it properly....

That could be a while

G'night Joe. See U tomorrow, hopefully with the answer...


----------



## Mack&Cass (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Nope. The female LP has a like a lip looking design to the ventral. This makes it look like a dot. What I'm referring to is an actual color pattern that makes it look like a dot, which is similar to males of many species.


Damn. I don't know then. Perhaps I will do a bit of looking around tonight.

Cass


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> G'night Joe. See U tomorrow, hopefully with the answer...


I'm not researching it, so it won't be me with the answer. ;P


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I'm not researching it, so it won't be me with the answer. ;P


Don't you like a challenge?  You know i do


----------



## Endagr8 (May 5, 2010)

moose35 said:


> agree 100%....species and sex
> been in hobby about 3 days
> 
> 
> moose


ROFL. 



Protectyaaaneck said:


> Not only do they lack the coloration of a female at that size they also have that "dot" you are referring too.


According to this, "Contrary to _Cyriopagopus schioedtei_, this species is difficult to sex by coloration in juveniles and subadults. Before sexual maturity, both sexes will be a purplish-brown coloration. Subadult males, however, do tend to have a more fuzzy yellow setation."


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

Endagr8 said:


> Subadult males, however, do tend to have a more fuzzy yellow setation."


EXACTLY what I'm talking about.   Thanks man.


----------



## Endagr8 (May 5, 2010)

Protectyaaaneck said:


> EXACTLY what I'm talking about.   Thanks man.


NP. 

It'd be interesting if someone could post a shot of an immature female so we could compare the degree of that fuzzy, yellow setation on immature males and females.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

Endagr8 said:


> NP.
> 
> It'd be interesting if someone could post a shot of an immature female so we could compare the degree of that fuzzy, yellow setation on immature males and females.


Hang on, I think I have one.  Let me look around.


----------



## Ms.X (May 5, 2010)

immature female _L. violaceopes_


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

Okay, I found a couple pics of my old females I traded away.


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> That's true, but this was spur-of-the-moment.  Most of the pictures I try to take are dorsal pics or something that captures the spider's beauty; they're rarely ventral shots.
> 
> Oh well.


Joe, I've seen tons of threads that you have either started or contributed to that have ventral shots especially for the purpose of sexing using the 'dot' method. Wouldn't a number of your ventral shots of your various Poecilotheria species make good candidates for this comparison study? But now you're saying you don't have any.... :?


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

That pokie thread and the pictures you're referring to was more of a 'does anyone else have any input on this?' kind of thread, because I wasn't 100% on what I was seeing.  Some of the pokie pics were of specimens that were ~1".

I suppose, now that they have grown and I've been able to check out molts, etc., that you're right.  I hadn't thought of it.  Maybe I'll dig those pics up and post them, or just link the thread.  Thanks for reminding me.

I also never said I didn't have any, I said I rarely take ventral shots.


----------



## cacoseraph (May 5, 2010)

i am pretty sure the damned dot every one seems so concerned about IS NOT 100% POSITIVELY CORRELATED WITH EF. therefore, using it to sex is... well, kinda dumb.

i mean, we TWO methods that depend on physical "organs" of one type or another. why not use them?  oh that's right, cuz they are hard or inconvenient and ppl only like easy stuff, even if it is not, you know, right all the time 

A. versicolor is one that has a crazy looking dot that doesn't mean a blessed thing


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (May 5, 2010)

It's not out of laziness to take an educated guess on the gender of your t based on the ventral shot it's out of convenience when a molt isn't available. It's a skill to develop. To be honest, there are some people that are excellent at ventral sexing. One guy has been right 100% of the time on mine and has taught me several techniques used for getting an id. The dot is honestly pretty tell tale with many species which apparently is what Joe was trying to demonstrate. The three in the pic were quite honestly obvious males and I've been in the hobby less than a year. Not all species are like this one though but like I said, there are more than just that sign to look for.


----------



## cacoseraph (May 5, 2010)

did you read all of my posts?


i am almost perfect at ventral sexing... i do know how it works.  and that stupid dot really doesn't have much to do with it   i have seen plenty of males lacking it and plenty of females possessing it.  so... it doesn't really seem all that great of thing to look at


what you are ACTUALLY supposed to be looking for is a field of almost microscopic spinnerets/spigots called epiandrous fusilae.  sometimes they affect the nap of the setae they are located in/around but not always. sometimes setae on a female has a nap that some ppl think look males.  when *i* ventrally sex i need about 10x magnification in real life to actually know that i am seeing EF.  so... i am not sure what everyone is looking for in a highly stepped on JPEG.


JPEG is actually the WORST format you can use for this type of thing.  jpeg was developed to store small file size pictures of naked ladies.  so it is INTENSELY compressive.  that means it doesn't actually store all the "structures" in a pic, it stores computer respresentations of them, which are inherently very "lossy". that is, they are WELL known for not preserving the actual details that were in the original scene.


so, crappy pics through the glass are a joke   you are not actually looking at the things that all the articles written by the ppl who actually know what they are doing tell you to look for.

it honestly boggles my mind 


oh, i've been in the hobby for about 7 years... but i reckon that is about 70 years in normal person time


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> i am pretty sure the damned dot every one seems so concerned about IS NOT 100% POSITIVELY CORRELATED WITH EF. therefore, using it to sex is... well, kinda dumb.
> 
> i mean, we TWO methods that depend on physical "organs" of one type or another. why not use them?  oh that's right, cuz they are hard or inconvenient and ppl only like easy stuff, even if it is not, you know, right all the time
> 
> A. versicolor is one that has a crazy looking dot that doesn't mean a blessed thing


Hey man, I'd gladly look at an exuvium if that's what I'm presented with, but we weren't, we were presented wtih 3 ventral shots that we were asked to sex. Just becuase you don't think they can be sexed by the dot doensn't mean that they can't.  Like I said before this sp. is very much different than other sp. and is easy to not only sex by the dot in the EF area but by the ventral coloration.  

Joe never asked for anyone to pull out their magnifying glasses.  He only asked to look at these VENTRAL photos and guess a sex.  You are very adamant about not sexing via the dot, but really how often is it wrong by someone who knows what they are looking for?  I know it's not a 100% guarantee but it's still a good quick sexing method if you don't have a microscope or magnifying glass or a decent molt to be looking at.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> i am almost perfect at ventral sexing... i do know how it works.  and that stupid dot really doesn't have much to do with it   i have seen plenty of males lacking it and plenty of females possessing it.  so... it doesn't really seem all that great of thing to look at


Is this with trues or tarantulas?


----------



## cacoseraph (May 5, 2010)

er, no it is not


a good sexing method should be right what... AT LEAST 95% of the time. the dot method is probably slightly better than 5050.   but really, even if it is 75% effective, which i am not going to stipulate... but even if it was... it is STILL WRONG 25% OF THE TIME



i don't even know why i bother.  i have almost never been wrong sexing ventrally in real life. i know what i am doing.  but ppl insist on clinging to this stupid wrong way of doing things


i mean, jesus, females can have dots in some species... it is just a way their hair is lying



also, this is a sexually dichromatic species... the stupid dots are not necessary.




lol, you know what some of the dots are?  reflections of light from the flash.  awesomeness incarnate.  GL sexing with that


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

Ohh well, we have different opinions when it comes to this subject.  I'll agree though that sexing ventrally by a picture over the internet isn't the best idea.  I'll disagree about the method only being 50/50.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> lol, you know what some of the dots are?  reflections of light from the flash.  awesomeness incarnate.  GL sexing with that


It's easy to distinguish a reflection from the actual T.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

So........

*cacoseraph* Answer my Trivia question.

*What's the one species that a Dot like pattern makes it a Female? *


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

Let me state my .02 cents on the Famous "DOT" theory.

*cacoseraph* has some points. A little agressive about it but I'll give him credit. 

I still want the answer to my Trivia because its a valid point and would go great with the "Dot" being male theory not always being the case. So lets here it people

Now regarding the DOT Theory.

Although the majority of tarantula species do exhibit the dot pattern with males, many times its experience that helps correctly identify it as a male. The reason being that the pattern can vary between species. Either small or large, round or semicircle. Ventral sexing, and I have said this 100's of time, is never a definative resource in determining the sex of a T. Yes it gets you close enough but an inexperienced person would botch it up too easily. Specimens like the LP exhibit a patttern that can be mistaken for the dot in females. And as stated with my Trivia question there is one species that this method backfires and the Dot like pattern is very distinctive. With this particular specimen its experience that plays a good part in getting it right because it goes against all principles behind the famous DOT theory. After knowing it, it becomes pretty easy to sex them. With that being said, experience would lead one to look for more clues other than the dot. Like curved furrow/straight furrow. Spacing of book lungs. Hair area above slit design (if it looks "boxy"). the direction in which the hairs face above the spigastic furrow and etc.
With experience one would be able to use all the context clues to help get the determination of sex. One would not solely rely on the famous DOT.

And it does not matter if you have 1 year experience, 7 years experience or 10 years experience. If one focused on the subject of just sexing and studied it extensively along with many tries at sexing with different specimens, they can become really good at it in one year or even less. So the thing about years experience does not make anyone a true expert. Much like the number of posts does not reflect your knowlegde of the forums topics.

With me, I like to ventral sex using a high megapixel digital camera but always get a backup with a microscopic image of the exuviae.  With picture taking I take 25 shots with different lights, angles etc to get the best possible determination.

If someone posts a "Sex me" picture, they are looking for instant satisfaction. Nothing wrong with that. But it should always be remembered that its not 100%. And that is what should be protrayed with a thread like this. Not whos better or who has the title as the "Expert"


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

Just to throw this out there, I wasn't trying to create any kind of 'who's better' or 'who's an expert' mentality with this thread.

I'm still waiting for some pictures (or threads) where the spider sexed ventrally as male because of the 'dot' ended up being female.  I mean, if it's so common, there should be threads all over the place, right? :?

Let me find some ventral shots of males that I have taken, since I was reminded that I have a few floating around on the boards.


----------



## Kirsten (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> ...experience would lead one to look for more clues other than the dot. Like curved furrow/straight furrow. Spacing of book lungs. Hair area above slit design (if it looks "boxy"). the direction in which the hairs face above the spigastic furrow and etc.
> With experience one would be able to use all the context clues to help get the determination of sex. One would not solely rely on the famous DOT.
> "


This is how I try do it,including the ones above. (not that anyone cares)


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

H. incei male:







Female:







Size reference (my hands measure at 7.25"):







It should also be noted that I never did sex any of my trio of incei by molt, only ventrally.  Needless to say, I have one mature male, one female carrying a sac, and another female who should be dropping within the week.

P. rufilata:








I have the following mature males in my possession at this time:

P. rufilata
M. balfouri
C. ritae
A. geniculata
P. murinus x2
G. rosea
H. gigas

I will try to get ventral shots and post them tonight, but no promises.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Just to throw this out there, I wasn't trying to create any kind of 'who's better' or 'who's an expert' mentality with this thread.
> 
> I'm still waiting for some pictures (or threads) where the spider sexed ventrally as male because of the 'dot' ended up being female.  I mean, if it's so common, there should be threads all over the place, right? :?
> 
> Let me find some ventral shots of males that I have taken, since I was reminded that I have a few floating around on the boards.


If soneone can post the answer to my Trivia, I can post a picture where Even I got fooled with sexing this species becuase of the dot making it female theory for this specimen.

Unless people say "I give up" I can't post the answer. I especially would like the experienced to answer it.
And *xhexdx* I figured of all people you would try to answer it being that you always point out the faults of others (No offense). I figured you would love to be right on this one and so thats why I posted it. A challenge if you will.
I thought it would be great to show you (and others) that not all specimens can follow the rules that most people go by when ventral sexxing.


----------



## xhexdx (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> I thought it would be great to show you (and others) that not all specimens can follow the rules that most people go by.


Sounds like the basic rules of science in general to me.

Talon, I'll do some quick research and get back to you.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Talon, I'll do some quick research and get back to you.


Looking foward to it!


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 5, 2010)

How about a hint? Is it an arboreal, burrower or terrestrial sp.?


----------



## thedude (May 5, 2010)

Protectyaaaneck said:


> How about a hint? Is it an arboreal, burrower or terrestrial sp.?


I think it's E. murinus? I ventrally sexed mine as male (so did a few others on the boards) and it turned out female. I can try finding the pics if anyone needs me to


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

thedude said:


> I think it's E. murinus? I ventrally sexed mine as male (so did a few others on the boards) and it turned out female. I can try finding the pics if anyone needs me to


Go ahead and post the pics. It would still be within topic. 

Nope. Not the answer.


----------



## DDaake (May 5, 2010)

I'm gonna guess Australian T's. I personally have a hard time with my phlogius sp's.

Just a guess.

D


----------



## thedude (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Go ahead and post the pics. It would still be within topic.
> 
> Nope. Not the answer.


here's the thread anyway. 
http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=110375

Sorry for the crappy pics (i remembered them being slightly better at the time.. -_-)

everyone said male, but it was molt confirmed female


----------



## cacoseraph (May 5, 2010)

A. versicolor are extremely confusing to the average hobbyist for vsexing. cuz everyone is... doing it wrong.  they look normal to me with a proper picture or in hand


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> A. versicolor are extremely confusing to the average hobbyist for vsexing. cuz everyone is... doing it wrong.  they look normal to me with a proper picture or in hand


Easy 4 u?


----------



## thedude (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Easy 4 u?


female? :?


----------



## billopelma (May 5, 2010)

> What's the one species that a Dot like pattern makes it a Female?


L. parahybana is one that can be confusing in this regard. There's also another that's name is escaping me that has a white center in the fringe of setae along the epigastric furrow that can be misleading in bad pics.

Bill


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

billopelma said:


> L. parahybana is one that can be confusing in this regard. There's also another that's name is escaping me that has a white center in the fringe of setae along the epigastric furrow that can be misleading in bad pics.
> 
> Bill


Take a look at post #71. I specifically address the L. parahybana.

Thats not it.


----------



## cacoseraph (May 5, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Easy 4 u?


those are nice pics of a spider, but not even remotely close to what one needs to genuinely sex off of EF

for example, a week or two ago i took 25 pics of my one tarantula, some with a 10x mag in addition (or multiplication, still haven't looked it up =P ) to the 3x optical zoom on my camera.  the spot to look for is tiny and my depth of field approaches zero.


like, i really don't know how i can explain it any better.  i am looking for stuff THROUGH A 10X MAGNIFYING GLASS or a 13-30X picture when i vsex... not some crazy ol' full body picture 

if i can get some good pics i will try to make a thread. i only have one tarantula right now, so i can't do much in the way of comparisons =P


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> those are nice pics of a spider, but not even remotely close to what one needs to genuinely sex off of EF
> 
> for example, a week or two ago i took 25 pics of my one tarantula, some with a 10x mag in addition (or multiplication, still haven't looked it up =P ) to the 3x optical zoom on my camera.  the spot to look for is tiny and my depth of field approaches zero.
> 
> ...


I only posted that pic as a whole because they look different but in fact its the same tarantula. I directed it to you because you protrayed this species to be very easy to you. (was messing with you really) Yes female (aswering thedude's question)

 I understand what you are saying and yes thats what most people should do when they take pictures. I agree with you 100%. Though I post full body shots of the ventral when I'm looking at the pics on my PC digitally, I magnify it and cut out all parts except the epigastic furrow. That way I can maximize the viewing experience and limit the picture to show ONLY what is important. And as I stated earlier in this thread, I always back it up with a microscopic picture also digitally photographed.

I actually show part of my process with computers and digital pictures in one of my sexing tutorials on my YouTube channel.


----------



## cacoseraph (May 5, 2010)

versicolor suck to do in pics... they are too shiny and queer things up =P

that's pretty much the way to go to have any hope... shoot at your highest quality settings and then just crap crop down to the important bits 


oh, and mmmmmm microscope pics


----------



## TalonAWD (May 5, 2010)

cacoseraph said:


> oh, and mmmmmm microscope pics


Just for you 

Avicularia Versicolor


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 6, 2010)

I did a bit of searching and still have no clue.  I'm gonna guess n. chromatus.  I'm proably completely off but who cares lol!  Still can't wait to hear the answer.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

I never claimed to be the search police captain, either.

A. geniculata.


----------



## JC (May 6, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> A. geniculata.


He's getting better...


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (May 6, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I never claimed to be the search police captain, either.
> 
> A. geniculata.


Hope for your sake this is correct otherwise you're only always right... sometimes.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

x Mr Awesome x said:


> Hope for your sake this is correct otherwise you're only always right... sometimes.


Actually, I'd still be right, regardless.  Says JC.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 6, 2010)

I'm seriously doubting those two other quotes as well.  lol


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Just click the arrows, it'll take you to the post he quoted.


----------



## JC (May 6, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Just click the arrows, it'll take you to the post he quoted.


What arrows?


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Good job, glad you figured it out. :}  What's with the semicolon?


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 6, 2010)

<<<<<Feels like a noob. LOL  
Never knew about those arrows.  

Easy to see thru <edit> now.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 6, 2010)

You little bum!!! You are correct!
The Acanthoscurria geniculata female has a semi circle pattern that resembles the dot right above the epigastic furrow.

Heres your prize.
Female 1







Female 2







Heres the male. they have a smooth area with no dot making this species kinda backwards in the ventral sexing department.







Now heres a male that got me beat untill i had him in my hands. I bought him as female because of the pattern but what it really was, that he was missing hairs. I kept him because the seller made an honest mistake.







Thank you *xhexdx* for playing along. it was quite entertaining. Till next time.... I will be back!!!!


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Protectyaaaneck said:


> <<<<<Feels like a noob. LOL
> Never knew about those arrows.
> 
> Easy to see thru B.S. now.


Yep.  Generally speaking, no arrows = fake quote.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Talon, I happen to have a breeding pair of genics.  I'm going to have to take some pics tonight and post them.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 6, 2010)

Nice Job Joe. Was that a guess or did you actually do some research? lol

Nevermind, just saw you have a breeding pair.  








cheater.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

I ran one search through this forum.  Found it in ~1 minute.

Yesterday I spent about 5 mins casually looking and didn't find anything though.  Today, I used the search since Talon was egging me on. :}


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 6, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I ran one search through this forum.  Found it in ~1 minute.


keywords ?


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (May 6, 2010)

To the OP,
 Sorry to break the celebration up a bit but I was wondering was the second part of the two part question originally asked to determine if there were a correlation between experience and the ability to ventrally sex skillfully? Oh and congrats on a still flawless reputation!


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

To the last poster:

It was to make a point that you don't need lots of experience or time in the hobby to be able to ventrally sex some species, such as L. violaceopes.


----------



## JC (May 6, 2010)

x Mr Awesome x said:


> To the OP,
> Sorry to break the celebration up a bit but I was wondering was the second part of the two part question originally asked to determine if there were a correlation between experience and the ability to ventrally sex skillfully? Oh and congrats on a still flawless reputation!


EEeeeevil...

(just keep editing Joe.)


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

JC said:


> (just keep editing Joe.)


Lol                 !


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

x Mr Awesome x said:


> To the OP,
> Sorry to break the celebration up a bit but I was wondering was the second part of the two part question originally asked to determine if there were a correlation between experience and the ability to ventrally sex skillfully? Oh and congrats on a still flawless reputation!


By the way, here's where I answered that question the first time:



xhexdx said:


> Talon - my point was to show how some species make it very easy to sex ventrally.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Ah, but that's *my* secret.


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (May 6, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> By the way, here's where I answered that question the first time:


Originally Posted by xhexdx  
Talon - my point was to show how some species make it very easy to sex ventrally.


Yes but that still didn't explain the cause for the second part of your original question which was how long you've been in the hobby. I'm surprised that since it was your intention to ask it you seemed to not want answer why until now. Oh well. Here's what I think is interesting. In your case you've apparently gotten worse at all of this ventral sexing stuff.

10-15-2009, 05:28 PM


xhexdx said:


> I can do 1" pokies ventrally without issue.



5-5-2010, 06:02 AM


xhexdx said:


> That pokie thread and the pictures you're referring to was more of a 'does anyone else have any input on this?' kind of thread, because I wasn't 100% on what I was seeing.  Some of the pokie pics were of specimens that were ~1".



So explain this to me Joe. I know you're correct no matter what but I sure would like to understand better how you went from ventrally sexing 1" with ease to needing to recruit the help of others to sex those same one inchers when they suddenly became too much for you to handle.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Ah good, someone digging through my posts.

First of all, sorry I wasn't clear enough for you with the original response to Talon.  Thanks for playing along.

Second, and I guess I should have just linked this thread as an answer to your initial question regarding pokies, instead of trying to remember why I started it:

7/31/2009:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=159558



xhexdx said:


> Alright, so I haven't really got this dorsal sexing thing down yet, and I hear so many people say that it's easier to dorsally sex a pokie than to ventrally sex one.


This thread was started *before* my claim to be able to sex small pokies ventrally (10/15/2009).

For what it's worth, I still stink at dorsal sexing and never even try, but I still maintain that pokies are pretty easy for me to sex ventrally at 1" or so, but the only species I've done this with so far are subfusca, miranda, and formosa.

I've ventrally sexed rufilata and regalis larger than 1".

I should also add that the pokies I've sexed in this way are in my own collection; they weren't sexed off of 'sex my spider' threads.

If you'd like, I can begin a thread in The Watering Hole specifically to dissect your last post in the P. metallica thread.  We can go back and forth all you want.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 6, 2010)

Joe, my p. smithi is about about 1.25" and I'm 90% sure it's a female.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Protectyaaaneck said:


> Joe, my p. smithi is about about 1.25" and I'm 90% sure it's a female.


Send her to me and I'll ventrally sex her for you. 

Are you sexing it at that size ventrally or dorsally?


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 6, 2010)

x Mr Awesome x said:


> So explain this to me Joe. I know you're correct no matter what but I sure would like to understand better how you went from ventrally sexing 1" with ease to needing to recruit the help of others to sex those same one inchers when they suddenly became too much for you to handle.


Pics of a T that small over the internet, unless they are great macro shots, are very unreliable.  Much easier to sex 1" specimens when they are right in front of you.


----------



## Protectyaaaneck (May 6, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Send her to me and I'll ventrally sex her for you.
> 
> Are you sexing it at that size ventrally or dorsally?


Ventrally, and I should have said more like 99%-100% sure.  I can almost guarantee that it's a female but I'd like to wait at least 1 more molt to be positively certain.  Until then it remains 0.0.1 in my books.


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (May 6, 2010)

All I wanted was an explanation or two and I got that. Thanks Joe. I hope you understand that I hold you to a higher standard than most especially considering that you are outwardly very sure of yourself and also very quick to correct others or criticize. The questions I had that pertain to this thread were answered. As per my final response to you in this thread

HERE
 I'd be delighted if you could respond in detail to those questions concerning your personality and method. You can start a thread if you want or PM. I don't think it has to be publicized but I'll leave it up to you to do what you think is best. Seriously. I'm open to either.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Ok, *TalonAWD*, which is which?













Please, only Talon answer this for now.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 6, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Ok, *TalonAWD*, which is which?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you asking if they are male/female?


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Yes            .


----------



## TalonAWD (May 6, 2010)

First one is a female.
With the second one, the ventral is not straight. Its angled a bit. I need to see the book lung orientation to get a better chance at sexing. But from the angle it looks kinda female.

In both pictures its cut a little short. I know that the focus is on the epigastic furrow but as I stated earlier, I use more than just the epigastic furrow view to determine sex.

This is fun!


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

See, I thought you were saying females had the dot, males didn't.  You didn't say anything about furrow shape/size, book lung orientation, or any of that other stuff.

That being said, you should be able to tell me what they are based on dot or no dot.

Also, where's the semicircle in the pic you say is female?  You said in an earlier post that females have a semicircle pattern that resembles the dot.

I have to run out for a while, I'll be back in a couple hours.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 6, 2010)

Ok this is going to be one long post! Hopefully its clearer this time for everyone.



xhexdx said:


> See, I thought you were saying females had the dot, males didn't.  You didn't say anything about furrow shape/size, book lung orientation, or any of that other stuff.
> 
> That being said, you should be able to tell me what they are based on dot or no dot.


Let me repost post #71. I explained how I feel about the "Dot Theory"



TalonAWD said:


> *Let me state my .02 cents on the Famous "DOT" theory.
> 
> Although the majority of tarantula species do exhibit the dot pattern with males, many times its experience that helps correctly identify it as a male. The reason being that the pattern can vary between species. Either small or large, round or semicircle. Ventral sexing, and I have said this 100's of time, is never a definative resource in determining the sex of a T. Yes it gets you close enough but an inexperienced person would botch it up too easily. Specimens like the LP exhibit a patttern that can be mistaken for the dot in females. And as stated with my Trivia question there is one species that this method backfires and the Dot like pattern is very distinctive. With this particular specimen its experience that plays a good part in getting it right because it goes against all principles behind the famous DOT theory. After knowing it, it becomes pretty easy to sex them. With that being said, experience would lead one to look for more clues other than the dot. Like curved furrow/straight furrow. Spacing of book lungs. Hair area above slit design (if it looks "boxy"). the direction in which the hairs face above the epigastric furrow and etc.
> With experience one would be able to use all the context clues to help get the determination of sex. One would not solely rely on the famous DOT.
> ...





xhexdx said:


> Also, where's the semicircle in the pic you say is female?  You said in an earlier post that females have a semicircle pattern that resembles the dot.
> .


When I was talking about the semicircle/dot pattern on a female, I was actually and only referring to the Acanthoscurria geniculata. but when I mentioned this infomation I had not yet mentioned the species I was referencing this to because I had the trivia question going just for you. So with that being said The pattern design on the AG female is a semicircle tannish color that when one looks at ventrally, resembles the Dot. With this species the Dot theory fails in that it does not indicate male. Its the opposite. But for the majority of the other species, the Dot can and would represent male.
Now there are some females that has the epigastic furrow show something that can be confused as a dot as is the case with the Lasiodora species. Right in the center of the furrow you can see what I refer to (personally) as an opening. Many would say Dot.

Basically how I sex is first look for the dot which would be easiest. Than focus on the book lung orientation, than the area above the furrow, Than of course the curvature of the epigastric furrow (if any).
With expereince of course this becomes second nature and one of those things that you would slap your hand against your forehead and say "Oh I see it now"

If you see a tiny "Dot" right in the center of the epigastric furrow, most would say "Male!" but to me it can fall into the catagory where its an opening (like I said my personal view of it) and that means female in some species.

Heres a LP which one would say male by seeing the dot looking thing right on the "Slit"  But its name is "Laily" Hmmm wait a minute...Thats a girls name!







Yonger LP. Again theres something right on the slit. Some would scream MALE. but she is the same spider. Look how cute "Laily" looked as a little girl







Laisodora klugi. Notice that the flash enhances  the center part on the slit. Again this would leave people 50/50. In this situation i take 25+ pictures with different settings and angles, put them on my computer and compare all of them. I also change the balance, sharpness etc and i have even used the "Invert" option on some photo programs to be able to see better. Basically theres more than one way to skin a cat 







In conclusion, Ventral sexing is never a definate science. Its mostly composed of opinions/experience in a particular species. Thats why sometimes you would get different "opinions" when the sex me thread arises. If one wants a definate, than they should learn to sex the exuviae. And thats why I created the Sexing tutorial series in my Youtube channel. (Go check them out people!) I always back it up (to myself) with a microscopic/high megapixel picture using my methods described in my tutorials.

I like intelligent discussions and I feel this thread has somewhat evolved into one.  And this would help many understand what is exactly the Dot theory from an experience person (yes me) and how it CAN AND CANNOT work all the time. I'm not claiming "Expert" because I am not, but I do feel I am good at it and that is due in part to the various techniques I use at my disposal. Thats what makes me experienced.

As in the link i will provide at the end of this post states....



> I must admit to having been fooled many times both by the spiders themselves and by my well-meaning colleagues or so called "experts", who claimed to have discovered some foolproof method of accurately determining the gender of individual tarantulas.
> 
> Well, if those techniques were indeed "foolproof", then I must be nobody's fool, since they have proven to be about as (but no more) accurate as flipping a coin. Heads is female, tails is male.



Heres the link where the above quote is found.

http://www.birdspiders.com/faq_sex.php




I hope this is much clearer now.


----------



## Ms.X (May 6, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> When I was talking about the semicircle/dot pattern on a female, I was actually and only referring to the Acanthoscurria geniculata.


Both of the photos that Joe posted are indeed _A. geniculata_.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 6, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> Both of the photos that Joe posted are indeed _A. geniculata_.


No where in Joes request did he ask me to state what species he was showing in those pictures. (He had asked for the sex)  If that had been the question I would have plainly said I do not know. But as for sex I think if you read the post before yours (the extra long post) you would see that I use a variety of methods to sex and not just "knowing" the species or genus. If one bases his/her experience on sexing on just Genus/species than the ability to sex ventrally would be flawed for someone who does not have the ability to use more than just the knowledge of the species. 

In lamens terms, Don't limit yourself.

I am here to inform and help others. Not to run anyone into the ground by trying to discredit anyones abilities. (something that one poster states Joe has a habit in doing)


----------



## moose35 (May 6, 2010)

wait....i think i'm lost now:?


               moose


----------



## Ms.X (May 6, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Are you asking if they are male/female?





xhexdx said:


> Yes.





TalonAWD said:


> First one is a female.
> With the second one, the ventral is not straight. Its angled a bit. I need to see the book lung orientation to get a better chance at sexing. But from the angle it looks kinda female.
> 
> In both pictures its cut a little short. I know that the focus is on the epigastic furrow but as I stated earlier, I use more than just the epigastic furrow view to determine sex.


Joe asked for gender, not genera/species.  That was quite clear.  The portion that you did not respond to:


xhexdx said:


> See, I thought you were saying females had the dot, males didn't.  You didn't say anything about furrow shape/size, book lung orientation, or any of that other stuff.
> 
> That being said, you should be able to tell me what they are based on dot or no dot.
> 
> Also, where's the semicircle in the pic you say is female?  You said in an earlier post that females have a semicircle pattern that resembles the dot.


He was bringing up your statement that _A. geniculata_ females will have a semi-circle in that region that may cause them to be mistaken for males.  You said that the first photo was female. He was asking that if you thought it was a female genic, where is the semi-circle you talked about?


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> When I was talking about the semicircle/dot pattern on a female, I was actually and only referring to the Acanthoscurria geniculata.


Um...



xhexdx said:


> Talon, I happen to have a breeding pair of genics.  I'm going to have to take some pics tonight and post them.


So my question remains, where is the semi-circle in the picture you believe is female?

Here is that picture, for your convenience:







Next post will address the pictures you posted.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

Actually, I don't have a whole lot to address regarding your pictures.  I see the 'dot' you're referring to with the parahybana and klugi, but there is still a pretty obvious slit that would indicate female and (in my opinion) take precedence over the 'dot' you're seeing.

As you've stated, it's better to use multiple approaches to determining gender based on ventrals.  However, that was still not the original purpose of this thread.

Wait...weren't we talking about genics being the backwards species, not parahybana? :?  How'd parahybana get mixed in?


----------



## TalonAWD (May 6, 2010)

OK let me make it simple.

 Lets say I only sex A. genics. And someone presents me with a picture of another spider. Because I only know genics, my ability to sex the other spider would decrease by alot.  This is called "Limited"

Now knowing that its a genic you would start to look for triats that makes the A. genic female and traits that make it a male. These traits would be SPECIFIC to that species alone. If you are lookingfor the triats than you will see them, obviously. Thats knowledge playing its part. 

Now trying to sex the other spider, which does not exhibit the qualities/traits of the A. genic, would be difficult due to ignorance or "No knowledge".

Now to answer your question (Ms. X and Joe)

If you look closely, you can see that the first picture that Joe posted is a straight on shot. Not knowing its a genic i use my other methods of sexing to determine the sex. I did not limit myself. But now knowing its a genic look at the picture again. You can infer that its most likely a juvie or small specimen. But it does has the semicircle. just really light. Heres his picture and again his picture with where the circle is.



xhexdx said:


>










If it had been me, I would set the picture up in a photo program and played with settings and/or take more pictures and/or enlarge it.

Now with the second one I clearly told him that the picture was not striaght on and I needed more to better my chances to ID the sex. I took a crack at it anyway.
* BUT*
Again i state, i use more than one method to sex. Had I limited my self to A. genics and not having other skill plus not knowing its a picture of the A. genic, there would be limitations. In this picture, now that I know its a genic, you can infer its a younger specimen by the light coloration of the ventral area. since its not straight on how can you ask about the semi circle?



xhexdx said:


>





*I will say it again in Lamens terms....

Don't limit yourself!!!*



.


----------



## Rick McJimsey (May 6, 2010)

What about this one, and why?


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> You can infer that its most likely a juvie or small specimen.


Um...



xhexdx said:


> Talon, I happen to have a *breeding pair *of genics.  I'm going to have to take some pics tonight and post them.


What hinted towards it being a juvie or small specimen? :?


----------



## TalonAWD (May 6, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Um...
> 
> 
> 
> What hinted towards it being a juvie or small specimen? :?


Joe, you are getting rediculous. If you cannot grasp what I'm saying after I posted it so simply than i can't help you. I'm not one to play childish games. I tried to help and inform and you try to disect it in a fashion that is so like you. 

I think I have made is so clear that I can sex and that the dot theory that you so fondly like to use as a sexing tool does not prove to be 100%. You got your answers, I humored you in your test.

Instead of trying to spend countless hours planning on how to discredit everyone except yourself, why don't you spend it on helping others and learning more to help others better themselves in this hobby.


----------



## Rick McJimsey (May 6, 2010)

I must have misinterpreted this post, sorry. 


TalonAWD said:


> I am here to inform and help others. Not to run anyone into the ground by trying to discredit anyones abilities.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

No, see, you're the one not getting it.

I post a thread asking for people to try and ventrally sex three spiders.

You proceed to tell everyone that the 'dot' method isn't always accurate, and is, in fact, reversed with a species in particular.

Once that species was identified, I posted pictures of male and female, asking you to sex them based on your theory about the dot.  Instead of sexing them, you pick them apart for not being good enough for you.  Then you post pictures of a _Lasiodora_, explaining again how the 'dot' theory isn't always right.

You are adding information into your posts that (to me) dig a deeper hole.  The comment about it being a juvie is ridiculous, especially considering I mentioned twice already that I was posting pictures of a *breeding pair* of genics.

I'm not discrediting you, you're doing it to yourself.  My pictures completely disprove the 'reverse dot' you've been speaking of, because the female didn't have one, and the male does.  Here's my wonderfully-edited version of the male's 'dot':







The original:







The mature male has an *obvious* dot, and the female has none.  At all.  What is being confused for the 'dot' in a lot of cases is the lip of the furrow.  Knowing that genic males don't have light-colored dots (like pokies and lampropelma do) is more of the key in correctly sexing them ventrally.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, Talon.  I just don't think your theory about the genic's 'reverse dot' is as sound as you think it is.

If you (or anyone else) would like to see the original shots, before cropping, I'd be happy to upload and embed them.


----------



## xhexdx (May 6, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> I think I have made is so clear that I can sex and that the dot theory that you so fondly like to use as a sexing tool does not prove to be 100%. You got your answers, I humored you in your test.


And I humored you in yours.  How can you issue a challenge to me, try to get me to say I give up, then start calling me ridiculous, etc., when I challenge you back?

I never said the dot method was 100%.  I said it's pretty simple to sex certain species using the dot method.  Show me a violaceopes female with a dot and I'll eat my words.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 6, 2010)

Mine was a trivia and I thought you found it as amusing as I did. Sorry to have hurt your feelings.

And again i will say that the dot theory is not 100%. That would also mean that me being experience can also get it wrong. I also stated that I ALWAYS back my ventral shots with a Microscopic shot.

I did not discredit my self because I was pretty clear. You took what you wanted and used it in a manner that suits your thread. 
I stick by my opinion on the theory because that theory is not going to help anyone. Theres only ONE way to accurately sex them with no doubts....molts. That theory is a guess. It does prove to be better than nothing but as *cacoseraph* stated its not efficient.

Your pictures were purposely geared towards discrediting me.  I also told you that the second picture was not clear. I still took a crack at it and it turned out to be wrong. So what, it still falls within me believing its a guess. To benefit yourself, you posted a skewed test which I clearly said was not clear but gave an answer. 

This prove your intentions as others have protrayed in you discrediting anyone that you do not agree with. And that is a horrible trait to have...so uncool

I can gladly erase all my posts so that your theory will be correct in YOUR thread.

I showed the LP's as examples how the picture of a dot can not always mean its a male due to the way a picture is taken. But you cannot grasp that because you want to hold on to the theory. That is how the LP got into the thread. 

I was not trying to put you down as I think you felt with me protraying my "Opinion" of the dot theory. Its not a sin to have an opinion. But God forbid if that opinion goes against your values. If you want the post erased say the word and consider it done. But I am not going to waste my time trying play the games you normally play with Robc and anyone else that may threaten your status.

To each their own. You are entitled to your own opinions and so am I.


----------



## xhexdx (May 7, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Your pictures were purposely geared towards discrediting me.  I also told you that the second picture was not clear. I still took a crack at it and it turned out to be wrong. So what, it still falls within me believing its a guess. To benefit yourself, you posted a skewed test which I clearly said was not clear but gave an answer.
> 
> You are entitled to your own opinions and so am I.


It's your opinion that my pictures were skewed towards discrediting you.  I sent them to two other people (one through aim, one through msn) who both had no trouble differentiating male from female.

Your very first post in this thread hinted that there was something behind my original post.  I have a feeling that you believe every post I make has some hidden meaning.  If you want to believe that, fine, but that's what it was that got you so defensive about this whole thing to begin with.

I never saw you say the 'dot' pic was female...maybe I missed it.  Either way, I never said you were wrong.

You want to keep repeating your claim that the dot method isn't 100%

*I never said it was!*  In fact, just a few posts ago, I agreed that it wasn't 100%!

Well, in so many words:



xhexdx said:


> As you've stated, it's better to use multiple approaches to determining gender based on ventrals.


I'll say it here though, so everyone can see it - *Ventral sexing solely by the 'dot' method is not 100%.  However, in certain species, it can be a very reliable indicator.*



TalonAWD said:


> But I am not going to waste my time trying play the games you normally play with Robc and anyone else that may threaten your status.


This part is actually funny.  Seems you have taken over as the 'Enclosure King', and you've been posting quite a few 'how-to' videos to boot.

You don't threaten my status.  I never claimed to have status.  I'm also not playing games.  I never played games with Robc or anyone else.  I have said many times that I am simply trying to correct misinformation.  On top of that, I *never* accused you of giving misinformation.

I'm sorry you think I'm attacking you.  I was merely trying to show that this 'reverse dot' theory of yours has its faults too.


----------



## TalonAWD (May 7, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> This part is actually funny.  Seems you have taken over as the 'Enclosure King', and you've been posting quite a few 'how-to' videos to boot.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you think I'm attacking you.  I was merely trying to show that this 'reverse dot' theory of yours has its faults too.


I'm not the enclosure king nor do I think it but I do love making them and sharing my ideas to fellow enthusiasts. The how to videos were to address the countless request on how i make them. Read my threads and you will see that I get the Q's. I get them in PM as well in 2 forums. From thise questions I make tutorials on enclosures. I enjoy making them and enjoy showing them off. Nothing wrong with that nor is an indication that I feel to be enclosure king. I'm not going to stop doing so because you do not agree. Its ok. To each their own and that is your own. I respect that.

I respect that you wanted to show me that there is faults in the reverse dot theory but I think you misunderstood what I was saying. There is no reverse dot theory. All i said was that the AG is the only female T that has a dot like pattern and I repeat the key word "pattern". One that is quite "distinctive" and I also stated that keyword. I also stated that with this T the method is in which it is displayed is reversed. I never said that the dot does not exist. Just that visually it looks backwards. Anyway that was my opinion and its OK if you don't see it the same.
Realistically, you answered the question correctly so you too saw what I was saying or at least I thought so. I mean really, how distinctive is the pattern on the AG female? Maybe enough for you to get it right the very first time? That is what made it a trivia question and I always thought trivia was supposed to be fun. 

Yes I do have an image of you as one to do things with intentions. It was kinda awkward to ask for people to sex T's for you and state theiir amount of experience. I thought you wanted to maybe pick off the noobs or something. Its not like you haven't done it before in the past. In any event my post was not geared towards making anyone look either superior or inferior. It was just a different angle in which I thought may be useful in determining the the sex of a t.
I even included a link that goes with my line of thought.

After all the title of this thread asks
"Curious what others think"
Well thats what I thought and i expressed it.

Edit:
Also My Enclosure Creations if you have not noticed are all terrestrial....Robc's are all Arboreals. We are not in competition. When I get a Q about how to make an arboreal design, I send them to the man who is better at that....RobC. Two different catagories.


----------



## xhexdx (May 7, 2010)

Ok, I understand that.  I still don't agree that genics have anything distinctive about them ventrally, but I only have my two adults to go by.  In my opinion, that's not enough for me personally to make much of an educated argument with.  Also, just a note -  you said you expressed what you thought.  Ok, but I asked what people thought about the gender of the spiders pictured.  Did you ever express what you thought regarding my original question?

My references to the vids and enclosures was in no means meant as an attack for making the vids or enclosures.  I have never had an interest in building elaborate enclosures, so I haven't watched those videos.  I never had a problem with Rob's enclosure videos either.

The sexing tutorials are great; I never had anything negative to say about them either.

In any case, I still want to apologize if I gave you the wrong impression or worded things harshly.  I don't start threads to lure people in; when I 'pick off' people, as you state, it's a response to their posts.

I'm ready to move on.  I have another 'trivia' question, if anyone is interested.  No traps, I promise.


----------



## Redneck (May 7, 2010)

What the heck.. I will play the trivia.. What do you got Joe?


----------



## x Mr Awesome x (May 7, 2010)

I almost shed a tear! Dudes! Great debate and wonderful points on everyone's end! Can we all go paintballing or something cool later? Joe, I noticed before you have a drumset, yes I've done my research, I think Steve has a guitar, and I play guitar and bass so I'll play synth so the bands not so one-sided, but yeah. Let's start a ska band. WHO'S GAME?!?!


----------



## xhexdx (May 7, 2010)

Redneck said:


> What the heck.. I will play the trivia.. What do you got Joe?


Hypothetical scenario:

I have a female B. vagans/S. rubronitens (for those of you who don't know, there has been debate as to whether some of the vagans in the hobby are actually vagans) who I bred to a male B. vagans/S. rubronitens.  She drops a sac, and viable offspring are produced.

Based on this information *alone*, how do I know what species both spiders really are?


----------



## Endagr8 (May 7, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> You little bum!!! You are correct!
> The Acanthoscurria geniculata female has a semi circle pattern that resembles the dot right above the epigastic furrow.


Females of this species are still rather easy to sex, and the dot you're referring to doesn't resemble epiandrous fusillae at all, IMO.

Also, I'm sure _A. geniculata_ can't be the only "exception."

I stopped reading the thread after that comment, so forgive me if this has been addressed.


----------



## Redneck (May 7, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Hypothetical scenario:
> 
> I have a female B. vagans/S. rubronitens (for those of you who don't know, there has been debate as to whether some of the vagans in the hobby are actually vagans) who I bred to a male B. vagans/S. rubronitens.  She drops a sac, and viable offspring are produced.
> 
> Based on this information *alone*, how do I know what species both spiders really are?


Taxonomy? 

I personally don't understand how one IDs tarantulas.. But don't the B. vagans & the S. rubronitens have different taxonomy?

Also hypothetically speaking is that even a possible scenario? If you breed a female of either SP. to a male of either SP. would she pretty much munch him? Being that he is from a completely different genera... (Hope thats right..)

Ahh! That leads us to what sp. both spiders really are.. 

Which brings us back to taxonomy.. (Something I really need to learn..)

Which brings me to.. The MM S. rubronitens dont have tibial hooks..
You can also check the spermathecae I believe.. 

Maybe I better do some more research.. Not just one source.. But I am going with this as my answer.. If I am wrong I will try again.. LoL..


----------



## xhexdx (May 7, 2010)

Redneck said:


> The MM S. rubronitens dont have tibial hooks.


Correct.  Good job.


----------



## thedude (May 7, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Correct.  Good job.


Can we have more trivia?!


----------



## xhexdx (May 7, 2010)

Name a species who doesn't rotate their sac.


----------



## Rick McJimsey (May 7, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Name a species who doesn't rotate their sac.


Heteroscodra maculata?
They make a hammock, right?
Ceratogyrus sp. make hammocks too, iirc.


----------



## Redneck (May 7, 2010)

Dang.. I cant find alot on this.. Nothng at all really.. Wrong keywords maybe?

I guess I will go with the P. murinus..


----------



## thedude (May 7, 2010)

Rick McJimsey said:


> Heteroscodra maculata?
> They make a hammock, right?
> Ceratogyrus sp. make hammocks too, iirc.





Redneck said:


> Dang.. I cant find alot on this.. Nothng at all really.. Wrong keywords maybe?
> 
> I guess I will go with the P. murinus..


I agree with both. But do all african T's make hammocks?


----------



## Rick McJimsey (May 7, 2010)

thedude said:


> I agree with both. But do all african T's make hammocks?


No, not all African T's make hammocks.


----------



## Ms.X (May 7, 2010)

Trivia?  

Who am 'eye'?


----------



## thedude (May 7, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> Trivia?
> 
> Who am 'eye'?


Don't know specifically what species.. but an avic?


----------



## Redneck (May 7, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> Trivia?
> 
> Who am 'eye'?


A. minatrix?

Joe whats the answer to your trivia question?


----------



## Ms.X (May 7, 2010)

Redneck said:


> A. minatrix?


You've got it half right Tommy 

Edit: didn't see you up there TD!


----------



## Redneck (May 7, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> You've got it half right Tommy


Is it the minatrix that is half way right or the avic that is half way right?


----------



## Mack&Cass (May 7, 2010)

Avicularia bicegoi

Cass


----------



## Ms.X (May 7, 2010)

Mack&Cass said:


> Avicularia bicegoi
> 
> Cass


Cass wins   That was quick...guess I need to come up with some better material for those who are smarter than the average bear :}


----------



## Redneck (May 7, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> Cass wins   That was quick...guess I need to come up with some better material for those who are smarter than the average bear :}


I actually would have never guessed A. bicegoi... The picture looks so much "redder".. LoL!


----------



## Mack&Cass (May 7, 2010)

Hooray! I like this game, haha.

Cass


----------



## MechaChiro (May 7, 2010)

*Confused T's*

I think they're all trannies


----------



## thedude (May 7, 2010)

Any other trivia Q's?


----------



## Endagr8 (May 7, 2010)

thedude said:


> Any other trivia Q's?


Name a genus of tarantula without scopula on leg IV. 

How about one that does not possess spermathecae?


----------



## thedude (May 7, 2010)

Endagr8 said:


> Name a genus of tarantula without scopula on leg IV.
> 
> How about one that does not possess spermathecae?


1st -  Agnostopelma. (google ftw! )

2nd - Sickius


----------



## Ms.X (May 7, 2010)

Endagr8 said:


> How about one that does not possess spermathecae?


I believe that Encyocratella and Sickius are the only two genera of theraphosidae that lack spermathecae.  I know that Encyocratella can produce a fertile sac after molting.


----------



## robd (May 8, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> I believe that Encyocratella and Sickius are the only two genera of theraphosidae that lack spermathecae.  I know that Encyocratella can produce a fertile sac after molting.



Wow, I didn't know that before. That's awesome. I need to look up Encyocratella. Based on all the price list scanning I've done I'd imagine they aren't in the hobby, though.


----------



## Mack&Cass (May 8, 2010)

Encyocratella olivecea are in the hobby, but they're not common. We're getting one this week though! Eep! I'm so excited. I also didn't know that they didn't have spermathecae, hopefully vent sexing them is easy.

Cass


----------



## Redneck (May 8, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Name a species who doesn't rotate their sac.


So.. Joe... Whats the answer to your trivia question?


----------



## xhexdx (May 8, 2010)

There are several species.  I have two in particular in mind, one has already been mentioned - P. murinus.

Keep guessing the others. I honestly don't know all of them, so it's a learning experience for all of us.


----------



## thedude (May 8, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> There are several species.  I have two in particular in mind, one has already been mentioned - P. murinus.
> 
> Keep guessing the others. I honestly don't know all of them, so it's a learning experience for all of us.


if i remember correctly, Citharischius crawshayi make the hammock aswell? I'm try to remember when AustinS. was breeding them (atleast i think that's who was)


----------



## xhexdx (May 8, 2010)

thedude said:


> if i remember correctly, Citharischius crawshayi make the hammock aswell? I'm try to remember when AustinS. was breeding them (atleast i think that's who was)


Correct   .


----------



## thedude (May 8, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Correct   .


woot!!


----------



## Roski (May 8, 2010)

+ _Thrigmopoeus truculentus, Monocentropus balfouri, _and all stromatopelmines for fixed/hammock egg sacs.

Edit: + _Catumiri _spp. (a NW that make semi-attached hammocks, iirc.)


----------

