# Sex me please-G. pulchra



## Snipes (Jun 2, 2010)

2.25-2.5" 40$ at a local store, a steal! I have an idea, but I'd like a few other pair of eyes.


----------



## MichiganReptiles (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm totally new at this but my guess is female


----------



## MichiganReptiles (Jun 3, 2010)

And what kind of camera do you have? I need one that good!


----------



## Scoolman (Jun 3, 2010)

I am going to have to say male, due to the shorter darker setae just above the epigastric forrow. Those are really nice shots.
I am seeing a lot of white tip setae, you sure its pulchra?


----------



## Ms.X (Jun 3, 2010)

My educated guess would be female, for the following reasons:

I have poorly edited this photo to highlight the half-moon shaped patch of hair just above the furrow.  When I see this very distinct shape, it leads me in the direction of thinking I am seeing a feminine shape:






To me, it also appears that there is a bulge right along the furrow, and to me this also indicates female.  

As always (and I know that the op is aware of this), the only accurate method of gender determination is examination of an exuvium.  This is only my personal opinion based on what I have seen.


----------



## Scoolman (Jun 3, 2010)

Here are a couple good links:
How to Ventrally Sex a Tarantula
Diagram of Ventral Sexing


----------



## madamwlf (Jun 3, 2010)

Either way, $40 is a still whether it is a male or female.


----------



## italian1x (Jun 3, 2010)

What pet shop did you get this one at? I also live around Seattle.


----------



## Ms.X (Jun 3, 2010)

Scoolman, just fyi, I have been a keeper for many years, and am not ignorant about information regarding ventral sexing.  I believe the op also has some decent experience.  I am not claiming that I am 100% positive that the op possesses a female, this is merely my guess, and I was giving my personal reasons.

Here are photos of 2 other _Grammostola_ species female ventral areas.  These specimens are part of my personal collection, and I assure you that they are indeed female.  I believe these photos clearly illustrate the half-moon patch that I discussed above.  I believe that you may be thinking of the triangular patch of setae in the same area that is characteristic of a male specimen.  It is usually quite a bit smaller in area in relation to the half-moon shaped patch of the females.  This will not be apparent in all males, but for a great deal of them, it is quite prominent.  As for the furrow bulge, I agree that in certain species, it can indeed be misleading as it can also be displayed by males.  

_G. pulchripes_ female:











_G. rosea_ rcf female (this girl also gave me a sac last year):


----------



## MichiganReptiles (Jun 3, 2010)

Ms.X said:


> Scoolman, just fyi, I have been a keeper for many years, and am not ignorant about information regarding ventral sexing.  I believe the op also has some decent experience.  I am not claiming that I am 100% positive that the op possesses a female, this is merely my guess, and I was giving my personal reasons.
> 
> Here are photos of 2 other _Grammostola_ species female ventral areas.  These specimens are part of my personal collection, and I assure you that they are indeed female.  I believe these photos clearly illustrate the half-moon patch that I discussed above.  As for the furrow bulge, I agree that in certain species, it can indeed be misleading as it can also be displayed by males.
> 
> ...


Could someone please tell me how you get such good pictures? Do I need a $1500 camera or just to learn how to better use my Cannon SX20? LOL


----------



## italian1x (Jun 3, 2010)

Im thinking female also based on the above post.


----------



## Snipes (Jun 3, 2010)

Camera body is a Sony A(greek alpha)200 and lens is a Minolta macro. It was also mounted on a tripod.
Pet store is A Place For Pets in Burien. Usually their prices are high, but this was one of those gems where they don't really know the true cost. I imagine maybe they got it in as a small sling and didn't change the price as it grew up . They have similarly sized pulchripes for 100+ :wall:
Pretty sure is a pulchra. I don't have the taxonomic notes to do positive ID, but it looks to be relatively freshly molted and it's a nice deep black. 
My first thought was female, since Grammy males seem easy to sex. I have two females a little larger, I was actually hoping for a male. There was no way to lose!


----------



## J.huff23 (Jun 3, 2010)

I say female as well.


----------



## TalonAWD (Jun 3, 2010)

Scoolman said:


> I am going to have to say male, due to the shorter darker setae just above the epigastric forrow. Those are really nice shots.


+1 I agree with you. Looks Male to me! 

The female of this species will not have the semi-circle (half-moon shape) Ms. X speaks of. On the contrary, this pattern usually indicates male in my opinion. 

Regardless if its male or female, that still is a great deal, especially being that you can get it locally (No shipping charges) Just get it. Male or female, they are worth alot more than the price you are seeing it for.

Heres a female ventral shot of my Grammostola pulchra.


----------



## Scoolman (Jun 3, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> +1 I agree with you. Looks Male to me!
> 
> The female of this species will not have the semi-circle (half-moon shape) Ms. X speaks of. On the contrary, this pattern usually indicates male.
> 
> Regardless if its male or female, that still is a great deal, especially being that you can get it locally (No shipping charges) Just get it. Male or female, they are worth a lot more than the price you are seeing it for.


Thanks for the confirmation.
And I agree definitely a great find regardless of gender. If only I could be that lucky.


----------



## TalonAWD (Jun 3, 2010)

Scoolman said:


> Thanks for the confirmation.
> And I agree definitely a great find regardless of gender. If only I could be that lucky.


No problem. Lucky is right..At that price, that would be the perfect opportunity for me to plan a breeding


----------



## Scoolman (Jun 3, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> No problem. Lucky is right..At that price, that would be the perfect opportunity for me to plan a breeding


I just spent a small fortune on a trio (2female, 1 male) G pulchra to begin my breeding. I decided I did not want to wait 6 years for my little ones to mature.


----------



## TalonAWD (Jun 3, 2010)

Scoolman said:


> I just spent a small fortune on a trio (2female, 1 male) G pulchra to begin my breeding. I decided I did not want to wait 6 years for my little ones to mature.


Well, I think you made an excellent investment lol. Yeah Instant satisfaction is always a great thing:worship:


----------



## TalonAWD (Jun 3, 2010)

MichReptiles said:


> Could someone please tell me how you get such good pictures? Do I need a $1500 camera or just to learn how to better use my Cannon SX20? LOL


No you do not need a $1500 camera. That camera (SX20) is a pretty good camera. What you need is good lighting and beleive me, plenty of shots. Don't think that one shot is enough. Sometimes i take many shots with different settings and angles to get that one pleasing shot. Over time you will get use to knowing which situations you would use to get the best shot.


----------



## Scoolman (Jun 3, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> Well, I think you made an excellent investment lol. Yeah Instant satisfaction is always a great thing:worship:


Yes, I think so too. 
Instant gratification in G pulchra terms of course.


----------



## MichiganReptiles (Jun 3, 2010)

TalonAWD said:


> No you do not need a $1500 camera. That camera (SX20) is a pretty good camera. What you need is good lighting and beleive me, plenty of shots. Don't think that one shot is enough. Sometimes i take many shots with different settings and angles to get that one pleasing shot. Over time you will get use to knowing which situations you would use to get the best shot.


Thanks. I am still learning all the different manual settings so hopefully I will get better at this.


----------



## xhexdx (Jun 3, 2010)

Scoolman, nice edit on your second post.

For the reasons already explained damn well by Ms.X, I'll go with female too.  I'd actually like to see a shot of this specimen from further back, to get a better view of everything in perspective.

Until then, or until a molt shot, I'll stick with female.

Talon - just because you see this in one spider (or do you have multiple specimens you have done research on, photographed, etc.?) does not make your observations law.  If you have a picture of a confirmed male pulchra to post for comparison, I'm sure we'd all love to see.

Hell, if _anyone_ has a ventral shot of a *confirmed* male to post for comparison, I'd be interested.


----------



## Scoolman (Jun 3, 2010)

I agree, I would like to see the specimen from a distance to get a better view.
I do not understand why the "half moon" shape would make this a female. Everything I have read says males have the characteristic "arch" above the epigastric furrow, due to the grouping of shorter fusulae. Does G pulchra not follow this general guideline?


----------



## xhexdx (Jun 3, 2010)

I'm still curious what makes the 'arch' male?

Everything I've seen is a very distinct triangle, rectangle, or circle.  No 'arch'.

The arch (also referred to as the 'lip') is, to me, a very good indicator of female.

I'm not saying I'm 100% on the pictured spider being female, but the spider looks more feminine than masculine to me.


----------



## Scoolman (Jun 4, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I'm still curious what makes the 'arch' male?
> 
> Everything I've seen is a very distinct triangle, rectangle, or circle.  No 'arch'.
> 
> ...


Check out the two links I posted and tell me what I am missing.


----------



## xhexdx (Jun 4, 2010)

Scoolman said:


> Check out the two links I posted and tell me what I am missing.


The first link; you're comparing a ventral shot of amost the entire spider to a ventral shot of only the furrow.  The differences in color are going to be *much* easier to spot from a picture as close as the OP's, which is why I requested a shot from further away.

The coloration itself in the OP's pictures should (in my opinion) not even be factored in to the sexing decision for that reason.

The second link is of _drawings_ dated back to 1964.  Not that tarantula ventrals have changed since then, but the methods we use and the sheer quantities of new species discovered since then certainly have.

Now, back to the first link again (since I can't seem to keep my focus :}).

If you look at the OP's picture and compare it to the pics of _males_ in your first link, you will see the difference in hair length and configuration above the furrow, inside the 'dot' we all seem to refer back to.

Notice the hair in the OP's picture is not like that.  It's uniform length and configuration all around the lip.

Female.

I can post H. incei comparison pics, but then the argument will be, "that's not the same species and therefore isn't valid".

Anyway, hopefully this explains it.  Sorry about the lack of technical terms - I'm terrible with them.

I'm going to bed.  I'll check back in tomorrow.

--Joe


----------



## Snipes (Jun 4, 2010)

I'll post a farther away pic when the light is better


----------



## BCscorp (Jun 4, 2010)

Im thinking male.


----------



## TalonAWD (Jun 4, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Talon - just because you see this in one spider (or do you have multiple specimens you have done research on, photographed, etc.?) does not make your observations law.


Dude,

I never said anything about law. Like yourself and all of the participants in this thread, its an observation and a guess to the best of our abilities. Theres only one sex for this specimen and it can only go one way or the other. If I'm wrong, thats ok. I was trying to help out the person posting his question. I even grabbed my pulchra as an example so that he can compare with the real deal. 
Either way I presented my reasons for my observation and I stick to it with no arguments as to why my observation is either right or wrong. 

I hope that is ok by your standards

To the OP. Just buy the specimen. If you really want a G. pulchra, Male or Female that is a great price.


----------



## Snipes (Jun 4, 2010)

Oh, he/she is already bought. Lol, I knows a good opportunity when I sees one ! I was thinking female, but now I am unsure and really glad I posted. It's really a win-win situation for me, as I was hoping for a boy, actually, but another female would be juuuust fine. I have two sisters that are an inch or so bigger, so the timing would hopefully be good if it's a boy!


----------



## xhexdx (Jun 4, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Hell, if _anyone_ has a ventral shot of a *confirmed* male to post for comparison, I'd be interested.


Thanks to JC for this:



JC said:


> Check out this link. The G.pulchras posted there are all male.





TalonAWD said:


> Like yourself and all of the participants in this thread, its an observation and a guess to the best of our abilities.


Yes, I agree. But...



TalonAWD said:


> The female of this species will not have the semi-circle (half-moon shape) Ms. X speaks of. On the contrary, this pattern usually indicates male.


This right here does not indicate an observation or guess.  You come across as what you say is 100% accurate and correct.  Nowhere in your post did I see you expressing that it was merely your opinion or a guess.  You're saying it like it's fact.

Hopefully this makes sense.  Throw in 'in my opinion/experience' and it changes the context of your post entirely. 

In my opinion, anyway. 

Unless, of course, you have a publication you can link that supports this.  If that's the case, I'd love to see it.


----------



## TalonAWD (Jun 4, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> Throw in 'in my opinion/experience' and it changes the context of your post entirely.


Check back my post. I edited it to say In my opinion. Thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## Snipes (Jun 4, 2010)

Okay, more shots


----------



## xhexdx (Jun 4, 2010)

Female.


----------



## MichiganReptiles (Jun 4, 2010)

See.. Should have just listened to me


----------



## Ms.X (Jun 4, 2010)

Based on the new photos, I stand by my original opinion (female).  Congratulations on the steal


----------



## billopelma (Jun 4, 2010)

A little late but...

A freshly molted male of about 4" dls, hadn't colored up yet so things were more contrasted and obvious. I posted it on the "sexing for dummies" thread over 3 years ago, he is presently still around and now mature... 









Here's a confirmed female at about 3" dls, not as clear a shot, unfortunately.
Pic was taken back in '05, she's presently not much over 4" dls and has been premolt since last summer. 
The 0.1 sling I picked up a year later is now about 5" and has been mated with the male. Pretty tough to figure who will be ready when with these...








Bill


----------



## xhexdx (Jun 5, 2010)

I'd be very interested to know what Scoolman and Talon think after the new pictures.


----------



## Kirsten (Jun 5, 2010)

Ms. X and Joe seem to determine sex the same way I do.  I sure do wish I could get the pokies down:?


----------



## Scoolman (Jun 7, 2010)

xhexdx said:


> I'd be very interested to know what Scoolman and Talon think after the new pictures.


After seeing the images from adistance I see female.


----------



## thespiderguy (Sep 12, 2012)

Have a female (based on molt) and she looks the same ventrally as the later pictures here of the G pulchras...


----------

