Brachypelma smithi male abdomen too small?

[Formerphobe]

ShadowX: can you get a closer picture of the male? Especially of the pedipalps? He appears to have some awfully long legs to be immature.
Did both male and female come from the same place? Have similar husbandry?

It's been my experience with the Brachypelma genus that if the males and females are fed and eat similarly, there is next to no discernible difference in abdomen size or leg length until after the male matures. Even previously plump freshly matured males may still have a fair sized abdomen until they have been mature for awhile and their decreased appetite takes its toll.

 

[ShadowX]

ShadowX: can you get a closer picture of the male? Especially of the pedipalps? He appears to have some awfully long legs to be immature.
Did both male and female come from the same place? Have similar husbandry?

It's been my experience with the Brachypelma genus that if the males and females are fed and eat similarly, there is next to no discernible difference in abdomen size or leg length until after the male matures. Even previously plump freshly matured males may still have a fair sized abdomen until they have been mature for awhile and their decreased appetite takes its toll.

Try to get pic ASAP
but i check it before , there's no sign that male mature yet..no hook and and pedipalps didn't change like mature male (I have MM Green Bottle Blue and Geniculata before).
I buy it in different place , Female two month ago and Male in last monday from different people.

 

[Formerphobe]

Try to get pic ASAP
but i check it before , there's no sign that male mature yet..no hook and and pedipalps didn't change like mature male (I have MM Green Bottle Blue and Geniculata before).
I buy it in different place , Female two month ago and Male in last monday from different people.

Could be the male just hasn't had all the groceries he wanted.

 

[ShadowX]

Could be the male just hasn't had all the groceries he wanted.

Lol... i have some pic while feeding last night.
if this not enough , will take another pic later

 

[Keith B]

thanks for answer..
I very relieved that he want to eat like never eat before..lol..
Last night , I feed male and he eat 3 small cricket and 1 Male adult dubia..

I didn't think from any of the pics that the male looked extra long-legged. It just gives that illusion a bit cause he was so thin. Didn't think he looked mature either. The new pics aren't ideal but they're enough to see he isn't mature yet. That's quite a big meal lol. He should definitely be fatter now. Could have fed him a little more gradually than that. He'll be more than fine on 4-6 crickets a month. If you're powerfeeding him to get him to maturity for breeding you could feed more, but it'll help to know when the female last molted if you do. If he matures and they mate, she will shed the insemination right out if she molts. You'll want her closer to post-molt than you would pre-molt for breeding.

 

[metallica]

---------- Post added 02-12-2014 at 12:57 PM ----------


Where in my answer did I write "males NEVER can be just as fat as females" ?...Can you show me in my reply that I suggested, implied, or specifically wrote that males could never be as fat? -- No, you can't, because I didn't.

I submit before you write a response that you actually read each word before you write someone's answer is a "load of junk"

I never said a "load of junk". But let me be more specific. In general sub adult males are IDENTICAL in weight/ built to sub adult females, including the abdomen. So yes your post was a load of bollocks.

 

[viper69]

But let me be more specific..

Listen guy, whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep better at night is fine by me. We differ in opinion and life experience, I really don't care, goodbye

 

[Wadew]

The palps on that male look large to me.......from what I can see.I agree Eddy the weights are no different in sub adults!

-Wade

 

[SuzukiSwift]

No he's definitely not mature yet, not even 100% sure he is male actually lol Easiest thing would be to have him ventrally sexed, if he's ever on the side of his enclosure get a pic and post it here, we can tell you if he is or not.

Agree with Metallica, males generally have the same size abdomens as females before maturity, you can tell they are male from sexing (of course) or from the 'legyness' (which is sometimes apparent and sometimes not) Their abdomens are smaller after maturity because of refusal of food etc. Although some mature males still pig it down, but most are thin lol

Those two brachys looks fantastic, I'd still sex the male though to be sure. Even if it turns out he's female you've scored haha Just get yourself another mature male and breed them both, possibility of two sacs there!

 

[advan]

However, I was only correcting metallica because being misquoted is inaccurate. Like I wrote above, I never said never, I wrote "generally".

Correcting someone when they are wrong, particularly when your own words are obviously there for all to read, is not arguing

You were not correcting Eddy. Your statement, even with the word generally, is incorrect.

 

[viper69]

You were not correcting Eddy. Your statement, even with the word generally, is incorrect.

Are you saying that until a male develops hooks, apart from a molt, there's generally no way to tell the difference between male and female based on their morphology (excluding sexual dimorphism, color etc)? Maybe I'm confused hahah

 

[Keith B]

Are you saying that until a male develops hooks, apart from a molt, there's generally no way to tell the difference between male and female based on their morphology (excluding sexual dimorphism, color etc)? Maybe I'm confused hahah

When they're both sub-adults it's really reaching, at best, to sex them on their physical appearance alone. A male and female are obvious once they mature, but it can really be a wild guess before that. A 2.5" brachy female, and a 2.5" brachy male are pretty well indecipherable. Once they're around 4" or so you'll be able to tell, but at that point the female is mature and beefs up, while the male stays gangly, so it's not considered sub-adult at that point.

 

[viper69]

When they're both sub-adults it's really reaching, at best, to sex them on their physical appearance alone. A male and female are obvious once they mature, but it can really be a wild guess before that. A 2.5" brachy female, and a 2.5" brachy male are pretty well indecipherable. Once they're around 4" or so you'll be able to tell, but at that point the female is mature and beefs up, while the male stays gangly, so it's not considered sub-adult at that point.

Oh, then it's the terminology that threw me. When I see gangly, I didn't know it was NOT considered sub-adult at that point. That changes things QUITE a bit then. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[MarkmD]

Very true it can be very hard to determine the sex of 2.5" T's especially (based on looks), as they reach 4-5" then vent sexing is very useful and quite accurate with a good eye or Pic, other than having a microscopic lense to see wether its M or F in earlier stages, best bet is wait till maturity or get info to sex yourself.

 

[Hobo]

Once they're around 4" or so you'll be able to tell, but at that point the female is mature and beefs up, while the male stays gangly, so it's not considered sub-adult at that point.

Until they mature, a male (aside from certain species that are sexually dimorphic or ones that start to display mature male colors a few molts before) will look nearly identical to a female of the same size. Of course, they will differ ventrally, but any other differences (if any) will be minuscule and barely detectable.

 

[Formerphobe]

What Hobo said. My 4+ inch B. smithi male could very easily pass as a female if one didn't squint at his crotch or molt sex him. I don't do ventral sexing as I have proven too inconsistent with it. But, multiple exuvia examinations over the past several years have confirmed my very pretty boy as all boy. From most other angles, he looks like a blocky, stocky B. smithi. His maturing molt will change that.

I recently sent off a 5+ inch immature male B. emilia who could have passed as a female had I not confirmed its sex via molt. I was rather disappointed that he was not a she. Comparing to other sac mates, he should mature at next molt with the telltale long legs, palpal emboli and tibial hooks. Even if they are hiding their first legs and pedipalps, the long legs at maturing molt will give them away almost every time.

 

[Keith B]

Until they mature, a male (aside from certain species that are sexually dimorphic or ones that start to display mature male colors a few molts before) will look nearly identical to a female of the same size. Of course, they will differ ventrally, but any other differences (if any) will be minuscule and barely detectable.

Right Hobo. By that what I meant is at around 4" is when the visual differences begin to gradually appear. The female will continue to gradually get stockier and those subtle/miniscule differences you mentioned start to show (coloration and wideness of the chelicera, thickness of the legs, etc.. all of which I still consider inconclusive). At 4" the differences will be ever so subtle, and by the time the female is 6" it gets a bit more obvious. Up until at least one sex matures they are utterly indiscernable, and still difficult to discern just by looking at them, which was the point I was making pertaining to the sub-adult argument. In the case of B. smithi specifically, and many others, it is well impossible to look at them from the top as sub-adults and say what sex they are.

---------- Post added 02-14-2014 at 03:29 PM ----------

Oh, then it's the terminology that threw me. When I see gangly, I didn't know it was NOT considered sub-adult at that point. That changes things QUITE a bit then. Thanks for the clarification.

Yea, when I say gangly, I just mean the legs seem long and thin. Both sexes look that way until the females mature into their legs (so it seems anyway). Really the ideal circumstance to use gangly is to describe a leggy mature male, but in this instance I was just saying the legs are skinny in sub-adults and that males never really get thick legs. It's more of a mature female thing. Just wanted to clear that up.

 

[MarkmD]

Yea, when I say gangly, I just mean the legs seem long and thin. Both sexes look that way until the females mature into their legs (so it seems anyway). Really the ideal circumstance to use gangly is to describe a leggy mature male, but in this instance I was just saying the legs are skinny in sub-adults and that males never really get thick legs. It's more of a mature female thing. Just wanted to clear that up.

Not really the case (Whats your basis on that?), what your saying is (females mature into thair legs?)

females can have fin legs but are still MF and MM usually are fin legged but the legs generally look longer as to thair body persona, Or was that what you were meaning?.

 

[Keith B]

Not really the case (Whats your basis on that?), what your saying is (females mature into thair legs?)

females can have fin legs but are still MF and MM usually are fin legged but the legs generally look longer as to thair body persona, Or was that what you were meaning?.

That's what I was kinda goofily getting at lol. It wasn't a totally serious statement. I wasn't quoting it as a reference, more like a joking statement from myself. Like human beings tend to have big ears as kids and tend to "grow into them", tarantula females are long-legged like males when growing up, but then they appear to bulk up in the body and the legs stop being so long in comparison, and moreso the more they grow. Don't take that comparison too seriously, btw. I know they're not anything like us lol. The legs seem to get a little thicker rather than longer, which is one of those subtle indications you can tell from appearance, but by that time, you're probably years into easy ventral sexing anyway. I guess I kinda ventured into the adult difference area of the conversation by accident when we were speaking of sub-adults there lol, but I had to use adults as a comparison for my sub-adult points.

---------- Post added 02-14-2014 at 08:54 PM ----------

Males are generally more slender and smaller even before maturity than females ESP the abdomen.

Also, note that I didn't mention anything about abdomen size with the subtle differences. Of course a mature female that's larger in overall body mass can have a larger abdomen, but when they're juveniles or sub-adults they are of very similar body mass and can retain the same amount of nutrition. There's no way you can tell the sex by the abdomen. Sorry Viper, you're kinda getting ganged on here, but I know you can take it with the best of us You should know better than to ever use the phrase "abdomen size" or anything similar on here in relation to sexing. Just asking for it, by golly gosh darn! haha.. You know we <3 you

 

[viper69]

Of course a mature female that's larger in overall body mass can have a larger abdomen, but when they're juveniles or sub-adults they are of very similar body mass and can retain the same amount of nutrition. There's no way you can tell the sex by the abdomen. Sorry Viper, you're kinda getting ganged on here, but I know you can take it with the best of us You should know better than to ever use the phrase "abdomen size" or anything similar on here in relation to sexing. Just asking for it, by golly gosh darn! haha.. You know we <3 you

First I never wrote one can or should sex a T by morphology (unless you own a male Singapore Blue like me UGH, ugly ugly). If I thought one could, I'd never have posted pics of my Ts molts, I'd have picked a gender and be done with it. I want to be clear on that.

Second, this misunderstanding stems from what I considered to be adult vs subadult. I've owned males, they are more slender, and they are gangly at least the ones on this planet Earth. However, they hadn't hooked out yet at that point, and so I thought they were still "sub-adult". I thought, if it isn't sexually mature, then it must be sub-adult. CLEARLY, that is NOT the case from what I read. SO, that's where my original comment comes from. It came from my internal definition of sub-adult, nothing more, nothing less. I've always found sub-adult to be a vague term too. Sub-adult to me, means the animal (whatever it is) hasn't reached adult size, and can't sexually reproduce.

Third, man, I don't care if I'm wrong. I could care less, unlike other people, what I DO care about is that I type out accurate information here. Some of you guys specifically cleared that after my reply to Advan's post, so I'm glad, thanks!