when can a t be aged

[Fran]

Thats why Ventral sexing is not an 100% acurate method.

 

[xhexdx]

Thats why Ventral sexing is not an 100% acurate method.

:wall:

I'm curious, where was your disclaimer here, letting the guy know that you can't be 100% accurate with it?

Male

 

[shanebp]

Is it really necessary to complicate something so simple..

 

[Moltar]

Ha! You guys are funny arguing over such things.

The truth is that Ventral sexing is right 60% of the time, every time.




And yes, I ripped that off from the Sex Panther cologne slogan in Anchorman.

 

[Fran]

Is the love of picking on people that some have, moltar .

Tom the OP: The best is to wait for a molt

 

[smithi keeper]

OK, Well its clear size has more impact than age in the Tarantula game , so OK by age you cant say how early they can be sexed but by size they can be, I know you said 1/4 inch so anything over that you should be able to accurately sex them !

 

[Moltar]

In a nutshell, they are big enough to ventrally sex when they get big enough to ventrally sex. There's no rule.

 

[xhexdx]

In a nutshell, they are big enough to ventrally sex when they get big enough to ventrally sex. There's no rule.

That's pretty much the best way to explain it. Some species can be ventrally sexed at smaller sizes than others.

Is the love of picking on people that some have, moltar .

Tom the OP: The best is to wait for a molt

It's the love of underhanded comments that keep your posts coming, even when you have nothing relevant to this thread to say.

Here, Fran. Please explain these...

Girl (But do believe this is not the sexing place to post )

For males the dark triangle is a big give away. Probably one of the easiest species to ventrally sex IMO.

+ 1 ....

I think the ONLY thing that was clear here is that the tarantula is a FEMALE

Im not a friend of saying that something is 100% when I cant be 100% sure...But that picture is one of those that..you know

That's from this thread, take a look:

http://www.arachnoboards.com/ab/showthread.php?t=169007

Thats one of those males that you can see from Titan, one of Jupiters moon.

That last one is in reference to these pictures:

Picked up this new Tarantula today, looking for some confirmation on identification and sex.

Where I actually posted just before you:

That is 100% male.

Yet nowhere did you comment that ventral sexing isn't 100% accurate, since you yourself give the impression that you're 100% certain on its gender, as you've done in all the above quotes.

So, continue arguing about it if you want. I've made my point and have nothing further to add unless you have something of substance to contribute.

 

[smithi keeper]

well the particular sling i speaking of is about 3/4 of an inch id say and the only reason i think she is female is because i have two other slings that are of the same clutch, her brother/sisters and they are noticeably smaller than her .

 

[Fran]

So is sexing ventrally 100% accurate? No.

 

[xhexdx]

well the particular sling i speaking of is about 3/4 of an inch id say and the only reason i think she is female is because i have two other slings that are of the same clutch, her brother/sisters and they are noticeably smaller than her .

Generally speaking, males grow faster than females. Following this line of thinking, your larger smithi would be male, and the smaller ones would be females.

This is definitely not an accurate way to sex a spider, just something to make a guess from.

I wouldn't worry about trying to figure out its gender until it gets a bit larger anyway.

 

[Moltar]

well the particular sling i speaking of is about 3/4 of an inch id say and the only reason i think she is female is because i have two other slings that are of the same clutch, her brother/sisters and they are noticeably smaller than her .

From that bit of data alone I would draw the tentative conclusion that the larger specimen is probably a male. Males tend to grow faster than females and reach maturity before females of the same clutch. This is nature's way of trying to prevent inbreeding. This is just a possible indication and is not to be considered a solid rule.


Edit: Dang Joe, you type mucho too faster!

 

[Musicwolf]

So is sexing ventrally 100% accurate? No.

Yes it is, but not 100% of the time.

Sorry Fran, this time Joe is definitely correct - you're just missing the nuance in the English language I'm afraid. Now that that's cleared up - - I doubt that anyone will be able to sex that 3/4" sling without at the very least seeing it first hand. Pictures will not do in this case, and everyone will just be guessing.

 

[xhexdx]

Edit: Dang Joe, you type mucho too faster!

Sorry, Ethan.

I actually prefer stuff like this to the generic '+1' stuff though - it shows that there are several people who independently understand the concept, and can both put it into their own words to convey the same thing.

I think it's pretty neat that you and I essentially said the exact same thing.

 

[smithi keeper]

i guess ill have to wait the only other peace of info i can tell differences is that the smallest one in his little tub seems to be piling all his substrate up at an angle to the top of the tub kinda like it making a cave the others are not doing this and they are bigger is there any thoughts on behavioral activity showin which is most likely to be m/f

 

[xhexdx]

Nope .

 

[Fran]

Right. So let me get this straight.

Arachnologists, who are the first ones to tell you that the ventral sexing is not a method 100% accurate, are simply not knowing where to look at, right?

This is not a matter of language, this is a matter of understanding what 100% accuracy means.

The FACT that experienced people have been "tricked" at ventral sexing and have sexed specimens WRONG, is the proven fact that the ventral sexing method is not 100% accuarate. That is as clear as water.

An 100% accuarcy method is a method in which there are NO MISTAKE for errors, HENCE THE 100% RATE.

What does it matter than I, myself, have said before "thats a male" Using the ventral sexing method? It doesnt mean I couldnt be wrong. It doesnt mean Im stating that that answer is 100% accurate...

But Joe, like usually, loves to complicate things for the only purpose of create an stupid debate.And lately Im the target. Im ignoring him, so hopefully he will get tired of his tantrums and will start picking on someone different.
Thats how he works.

 

[Redneck]

I have to agree with Joe.

I have sexxed every pokie I have had, ventrally. I have be correct, everytime!

How do I know I was right? I confirmed it with a molt.

I have only ever had a problem sexxing L. parahybana, G. pulchra, S. calceatum, & one A. avicularia.

So, I normally wait to confirm every T, with a molt.

Confirming a Ts sex by molt IS the best way. However, sexxing a T ventrally, CAN be 100% accurate, IF one knows what they are looking for!

 

[jebbewocky]

Joe is saying that within specified parameters, ventral sexing is 100% accurate. He is making no claim for accuracy outside those parameters. If he were stating simply "ventral sexing is 100% accurate" that would be incorrect, but since he is stating "ventral sexing is 100% accurate, when conditions x and y are met" then that's a different statement.

 

[Fran]

Joe is saying that within specified parameters, ventral sexing is 100% accurate. He is making no claim for accuracy outside those parameters. If he were stating simply "ventral sexing is 100% accurate" that would be incorrect, but since he is stating "ventral sexing is 100% accurate, when conditions x and y are met" then that's a different statement.

I understand that, but then you cant say the method is 100% accurate since there are errors.

How do you explain then when people, experienced, that knows what to look for, simply get it wrong? What if the spider has setae on the EF that appears as a dark "patch" and in fact is a "blemish"?

How can you possibly call a sistem "100% accurate" if theres such a high margen for error?

That is like to say that withdrawal is an 100% accurate anticonceptive method, because : If such and such and such is met, then at that point is 100% accurate.

Do you see what I mean?