spermateke pic of Poechiloteria

zarko

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
150
doese anyone have a pic of poechiloteria regalis and formosa.
i dont need a pic of a big spermateke.
i need to se the proporcion of spermateka to the buklangs. means bouth of organs on sam pic :)
my reglaises and rufis r about 5cm so i need to know how big spermatekas r gonna be. i can see some but i ma not sure is it 100%.
so ples dont be lazy if u have some :)
thanks a lot
 

zarko

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
150
here u r a pic of my poky spermateke...
at least i think its a proper one :)


do u agree that this is a female ?now she is about 5-6cm
 

zarko

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
150
o thanks a lot

what is your oppinion abot sex on my pic?
 

zarko

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
150
here r better pic of spermateke
regalis


and ruffilata

 
Last edited:

Lorgakor

Arachnomom
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
2,368
Hi Bill,
Could you tell me the legspan of the P. regalis in your picture?
Cheers,
Laura
 

billopelma

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
604
Hey all,

Zarko, just as you needed a picture with some size perspective, I have the same issue with yours, I can't tell the size of what I'm seeing. Poec spermathecae is very hard to see and can be nearly clear, particularly on smaller specimens. Then when you finally get a good view under a binocular microscope, it all but disappears when you take a photo, due to the lack of depth preception.
That and males of most tarantulas also have a little flap/hole, called a gonopore I think, that can be mistaken for a female flap. It's much smaller than the female item, but under magnification can look deceptivly big. I can't rule out that is what I'm seeing in your photos.
If the exuvium has dried and the spermathecae flap is stuck down to the epigastic fold, it can be almost invisible. Sometimes I use both backlighting and toplighting with a binocular microscope and still can't see it if it's stuck down. It needs to be wetted and lifted up and then dried again to get a good picture. I find that backlighting can be better for finding but
toplighting gives a little better depth for photos. If you kind of make an assumption as to where the flap should be and carefully poke around with a needle it will sudenly become visible when separated and lifted up.

Laura, that shot was taken some time ago and I'm not sure about the size, but I believe it was about 2 1/2 or 3". The shaft of the pin is about .015", if that helps. This translates to the width of the spermathecae being roughly equal to the thickness of a matchbook cover.


Bill
 

zarko

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
150
the pic r not very good but ill trie to explane who dose it feel under a binocular.
while the skin was wet there is a skin flap that i could shift with the point of the pin. it is on exact spot thatspermateca should be and it has ,above spermateka, two horn like structure.and if i remeber good i thinck males also have it.
ill drow u a thing i think is spermateca...
i know about their capabillity to disppear and better visibility when dried

thanks
here is a pic with directions
 

Lorgakor

Arachnomom
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
2,368
Laura, that shot was taken some time ago and I'm not sure about the size, but I believe it was about 2 1/2 or 3". The shaft of the pin is about .015", if that helps. This translates to the width of the spermathecae being roughly equal to the thickness of a matchbook cover.

Bill
Yes thank you Bill, that does help. I had alot of trouble with sexing my P. miranda, and I couldn't really get any answers as to whether or not pokie spermathecae was really supposed to be that small or if mine was in fact a male and I was just seeing things. The moult is approx. 4". The spermathecae was barely visible to the naked eye unless I bent the moult over my finger so that the structure stood up. When I used a little pocket microscope it helped a little but it was still very hard to see. These are the best pics I could get. I was just really surprised at how small it was. I'm still not conviced that it is a female, I'm hoping that it will be a little more developed with the next moult.

Sorry for the post hijack!:eek: But I'd love to get some more opinions on this one.



 

billopelma

Arachnolord
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
604
Definately female, one thing that really stands out is the distinctive 'forked' shape that is particular to P. miranda.

Bill
 

PhilR

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
201
Have a look at Chris Sainsbury's excellent sexing article here

Lots of excellent info :)
 

zarko

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
150
yep its exselent but it dosese not help with pokies cause they have smaller spermateke so i cna not make a diference between spermateke and epigestirc organ
see my pic above they r so inconclusive...
i thing rufillata shows uterus externus but again too small i think
 

Lorgakor

Arachnomom
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
2,368
Thank you, much appreciated! :) I'm very happy that this one is a female.
 
Top