until they're mature, that's the only way, i'm afraid.

 

Well there is always ventral sexing, lol, jk, it's pretty difficult.

I'm sorry but you're just going to have to wait on it moulting.

Also, it's an Avicularia sp., there is no proper description for A. avicularia, and until that new paper comes out nothing is one in my eyes (cos, y'know, I totally get to decide these things). Anyone calling it A. avicularia is guessing, and probably/possibly wrong.

 

Well there is always ventral sexing, lol, jk, it's pretty difficult.

I'm sorry but you're just going to have to wait on it moulting.

Also, it's an Avicularia sp., there is no proper description for A. avicularia, and until that new paper comes out nothing is one in my eyes (cos, y'know, I totally get to decide these things). Anyone calling it A. avicularia is guessing, and probably/possibly wrong.

Arnt they now classified as Avicularia sp. 'Guyana'??? :whistling2:

 

I don't understand where this A. avicularia being non-existant comes from. Quite a few repeat it, and to me it seems one of those internet myths that gets repeated enough to become real.

The paper that is planned for release in 2013 was previewed with the following identified species of Avicularia:
avicularia, juruensis, purpurea, taunayi, variegata, velutina, rufa, aymara & 6 new ones.

 

I don't understand where this A. avicularia being non-existant comes from.

Ray Gabriel and other's work on the supposed holotype I believe. If anyone has access to the article I'd be indebted.

Gabriel, R., Gallon, R. C. & Smith, A. M. 2007. Examination of the Avicularia avicularia specimens from the Linnaean CollectionJournal of the British Tarantula Society, November 2007, Vol. 23 No. 1. pp. 22–30.

Quite a few repeat it, and to me it seems one of those internet myths that gets repeated enough to become real.

The paper that is planned for release in 2013 was previewed with the following identified species of Avicularia:
avicularia, juruensis, purpurea, taunayi, variegata, velutina, rufa, aymara & 6 new ones.

I know that paper recognises it as a species, and like I said, when it's published I'll accept it. Never said it was non-existent anyway, only that it cannot be identified. As I understand it there's currently no proper description of the species and no holotype unless someone has unearthed one while I wasn't looking (entirely possible).

 

A good way to tell is how fast the avic grows, your males will grow much quicker, being full grown within a year or two and have longer, skinnier leg types. Sometimes you can see hooks on the fist set of legs, sometimes not. If a mature male is reaching the end of his life, he won't be able to climb as well and will desperately look for a mate. Females will grow much slower and have a more bulky appearance, somewhat more fuzzier and much prettier. My predictions based on growing times have all been very accurate for my avics, as well as other species.

 

Toby, that article is always a good read and always leaves more questions than it answers.
From my understanding the holotype is completely wrong, that somehow there was a mix up and an African species substituted the American species. This could have happened in so many areas, and its quite likely that it occurred after Linnaeus's death. Perhaps a label fell off some specimens that lay in his house or when they were moved by his son. 6 years after Linnaeus's death (and that of his son) his widow sold the collection off, perhaps in transit or perhaps in the 5 year period before the collection was given a proper home.

However, Avicularia avicularia was also described by Latrielle, Ausserer, Cambridge and more recently Schmidt and Peters.

You can find the paper here:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...ushima_sim.pdf&ei=m6sZTo-hFseJhQeAiKXNBQ&usg=AFQjCNFHmGuYNEJTY5m__UNhg9iHJCQ-TQ

or you can read Craig McKay's translation here:
Caroline_Fukushima_english.pdf