male or female?(2 spiders)

[Noexcuse4you]

Not sure whether you're serious or being a wise ass... I mean the little spot at the tip of the arrow that bisects the furrow. Do I also have to spell out what I think it could be? Thought it was just obvious enough that I wouldn't have to also circle it.
Granted it's a grainy photo and could be just a reflection or whatever. To declare it sexed as 100% anything based on that pic is pushing it to say the least...

Bill

By all means, spell out what you think it could be. Does his tarantula even remotely resemble the one I posted? No. If that is a male, then I'm the Queen of France.

 

[billopelma]

You really don't know what a gonopore is?...:? Not that that's what's in the picture but with that lack of detail it could be.
As for your picture, no base for comparison there as it's obviously a more developed specimen. I'm sure I could find a further developed female picture that looks quite different too. Not even saying your wrong calling it female, just the 100% part. Because your example is an obvious one doesn't make this one 100% just because it's different.
In my experience sexing juvenile poec's can be full of surprises, particularly with pictures...

Bill

 

[jayefbe]

You really don't know what a gonopore is?...:? Not that that's what's in the picture but with that lack of detail it could be.
As for your picture, no base for comparison there as it's obviously a more developed specimen. I'm sure I could find a further developed female picture that looks quite different too. Not even saying your wrong calling it female, just the 100% part. Because your example is an obvious one doesn't make this one 100% just because it's different.
In my experience sexing juvenile poec's can be full of surprises, particularly with pictures...

Bill

I gotta agree with this. When you compare the vent pic to every other pokie vent pic in this thread, the regalis' abdomen is practically bald. It looks like there could be the beginning of the little triangle surrounding the gonopore, but then again, it may not be. I'm gonna guess that once it molts it's going to be obvious just from looking at the vent (like all larger pokies), but I'm having a difficult time going either way on it.

 

[Noexcuse4you]

You really don't know what a gonopore is?...:? Not that that's what's in the picture but with that lack of detail it could be.
As for your picture, no base for comparison there as it's obviously a more developed specimen. I'm sure I could find a further developed female picture that looks quite different too. Not even saying your wrong calling it female, just the 100% part. Because your example is an obvious one doesn't make this one 100% just because it's different.
In my experience sexing juvenile poec's can be full of surprises, particularly with pictures...

Bill

I was actually being sarcastic. However, both males and females have gonopores so the fact that it has one is irrelevant.

 

[Noexcuse4you]

Here is a less "developed" specimen. Yes, this is an ornata. However, sexing regalis is exactly the same. The difference is obvious in the photos and even more obvious in-person using a flashlight.

Male

Female

 

[jayefbe]

Those pictures do make it painfully obvious that Pokies can be sexed ventrally very young. Thanks for posting them.

 

[Redneck]

Here is a less "developed" specimen. Yes, this is an ornata. However, sexing regalis is exactly the same. The difference is obvious in the photos and even more obvious in-person using a flashlight.

Male

Female

Ok I hate to ask this but what are yall looking at on these pictures.. I can see which one is male and female by the text above but I dont see the DOT on the male.. Am I just blindly over looking it??

 

[Noexcuse4you]

Ok I hate to ask this but what are yall looking at on these pictures.. I can see which one is male and female by the text above but I dont see the DOT on the male.. Am I just blindly over looking it??

I am looking at the bald spot outlined in blue.

 

[Redneck]

Oh ok thanks for pointing that out to me Noexcuse.. :worship:

 

[Tapahtyn]

This thread helps me a little seeing the difference, males usually have the small triangle and females bigger? If that is the case that makes it easier to tell, so Poecilotheria do you guys mostly tell by looking at patterns as well?

 

[Hobo]

So can P. irminia be similarly sexed at a young size, like 4th instar/2" mark? Because, if so, I've been taking pictures of mine and have noticed that two of them look consistantly different from each other ventrally. It's more obvious in pictures, and just barely noticeable in person, with a small fashlight.

I first thought it was just the lighting, the angle or my eyes and flashlight playing tricks on me(...it probably is), but reading this thread about sexing 2" pokies has got me thinking.
Anyway, I suppose it couldn't hurt to post em here for the OP, as it may help him with his P. irminia (or confuse him even further!;P )
If I had to guess I'd say the right was female.

 

[billopelma]

Originally Posted by Noexcuse4you
Here is a less "developed" specimen. Yes, this is an ornata. However, sexing regalis is exactly the same. The difference is obvious in the photos and even more obvious in-person using a flashlight.

P. ornata and rufilata are well known to be easily discernible at an early stage, regalis (and striata as another example) are not so much...

Again, I agree on where your going with this but... Would you sell the regalis-in-question as 100% guaranteed female based on that photo alone?
I wouldn't...

Originally Posted by Noexcuse4you
However, both males and females have gonopores so the fact that it has one is irrelevant.

I have always been lead to believe that only males have a gonopore.
Females have a gonoslit which comprises of an opening along most of the width of the epigastric furrow as opposed to the males comparatively tiny opening in the center.

Bill

 

[codykrr]

ok well this thread has become chalked full of new info on sexing pokies to me. im not the best at sexing pokies(obviously) but i will say between bill and kyle, you two have made his a great thread.

also i have noticed that it seems these 2 species are particularly tricky when it comes to ventral sexing. so im glad these are the 2 ive paired to make this thread. while im still unsure of sex of either(untill i can hopefully get a molt from them) im glad i made it.

now another question...bill what do you think of the P. irminia? what ould you say it is judging solely on he 2 pics ive posted?

 

[billopelma]

bill what do you think of the P. irminia?

Psalmo's are tricky anyway and going solely from those pic's is past what I'm comfortable judging by. Often pic's raise more questions than they answer. That and I've never kept P. irminia but my P. pulcher's were never easy even "live".
If I had to guess I'd lean ever so slightly toward female but there are still things there that could make me flip the other way. The 'lower lip' looks very pronounced as in female, however the top one is pretty well obscured and there is a vague hint of that "_/\_" under there in the shape and reflection. Also a bit of that "\\||//" angle on the fringe of setae along the same edge, not that that's really definitive. I'd want a better "look up her skirt before I'd buy her a drink", so to speak...

IMHO there wouldn't be a preponderance of evidence in a criminal trial for a guilty verdict (kinda like the OJ trial ), but it might fly in civil court .


Bill

 

[codykrr]

update! ive just spent the past hour watching and waiting for my P. regalis to molt. i retrieved the molt and can you guess what it is!!!!

 

[Redneck]

female??

 

[codykrr]

yup! but just for extra precautions im sending it off along with my C fasciatum molt.

 

[codykrr]

ok so as i stated the regalis molted out. soo im going to send off the molt. but in the mean time. here is yet another ventral pic of "it"

 

[codykrr]

so has anyone changed there minds?

 

[Noexcuse4you]

so has anyone changed there minds?

Nope.




.