Some Blotchies to Sex (got the pictures sussed)

[Jeff]

Here are some nigrolutea that have not been positively sexed yet. I would appreciate opinions from some of you guys who know what you're talking about. (you know who you are).

First, this is a known male owned by jasjmm27. Just including him for a reference. He is in the absolute UGLIEST point in the shed cycle. He is normally a great looking blotched, but looks dull and bland right now only because he is about to shed.

46 cm



Next is my newest. 39-40 cm (born 2012)




This is my presumed male. 43 cm (born 2012)



Lastly, my presumed female. 46+ cm (born 2012)



Please help!

[Jeff]

After looking at this post, NONE of the skinks look good in the pictures! Their colors are all amazing in person. I just didn't have good lighting to show them in phone pictures. If you can, ignore the lack of stunningness and just look at the things relevant to sexing.

[Lea]

Yes, Jeff, they are seriously unstunning and dull! Anyone else would be so embarrassed to post pictures of such a motley looking crew. Shame on you


Ok, off topic to the question about sexing, but, I can't help myself ... These blotched blueys are AWESOME!

[Lauriek]

Jeff, I don't know if I read this somewhere or someone once posted it here , but the theory is if the body is 'longer' and the tail 'shorter' (and I can't say by how much) then that skink has a greater possibility of being female. Having said that, picture #1 would be male. However I would like to see them at 3 years old. Would there be any difference, or has the body shape already been determined because of the sex.

The other 'theory' is head shape. The broader head shape, according to the reptile shop where I purchased Bliss, then the skink is female. They felt Bliss was female and four years later that has turned out to be correct but I think that just might be a fluke. I was given Barnum (formerly called Killer) and Bailey (formerly called Liz) and their previous owner was told (by the reptile shop where they were purchased) Killer was male and Liz was female. Nah. It was the other way around! Which was my suspicions anyway, before any mating was observed. Why? Partly because of her body shape and partly because of her nature.

[Scotts1au]

Jeff the last two sets of photos are the same for presumed male and female? Was going to comment but probably best to review the photos and make sure we are commenting on the right ones.

[Jeff]

Sorry Scott. I think I did screw it up. Not able to fix it at the moment, but will get it sussed tomoz for sure. Sorry for the fail.

[kl]

1st picture is the obvious known male, 2nd animal is male, 3rd is female (color is beautiful).

KL

[jasjmm27]

All pics, in order posted...
M
M
F
F
M
M
M
F

my thoughts...

[Kurt]

Not great at guessing sex so I'm not gonna try. Just wanted to say I'm very jealous of your collection. I hope one day I'll have half the collection you do.

[Richard.C]

*darn fone,only getting a third of each pic,there sizable for last years young,laurie the size of these is akin to wild 3 year olds i reckon,and this form of alpine is probably the trickiest blotch form to sex,males get pretty solid to,especially compared to lowland blotchies anyways

will jump on puter later for a look see

they look good jeff,so after a shed will look fantastic,its hard to show there beauty in pics

[Scotts1au]

In general,females will be longer than males of the same age, will tend to eat better and be generally more robust. They all look in great condition, one away to tell the sex is by their eating habits. Females will be at I the order of 25% or more heavier for the same body length. I would suggest that,if there is still some doubt as to the sex to observe their eating or to ramp up their feeding and observe whether they start to differentiate in shape. For what it is worth females should be a little on the heavy side to improve likelihood of reproductive success anyway.

Btw, I have the same problem with photos of them, never as good as real life.

[Richard.C]

first one you can see hemipenal buldging quite clearly,skinny tail solid head ,actually reminds me of sexing a lowlands male,im torn on the new one though,i think male,though it looks a bit like the big lass i got from scott,especially your pics in other thread,so not putting any money on it just yet,last one im leaning towards a lass

[kenn]

Nice one jeff!

[Jeff]

Thanks for all the comments and advice. I fixed the pictures. They were all correct except for the "presumed male" which is the third skink, (pictures #5 & #6). I had posted the pictures of the "presumed female" twice, so if you made a guess on that skink, it was off the wrong pictures. Sorry about that.

[Richard.C]

darn it jeff,will have to get on puter again,can only see front half of presumed make,love its amount of black on back and its blotching,head looks solid,especially the cheek /rear of head,but that can be subtle in less than year olds,so no guessing till i see rest of pic,you have some nice variety though

[Scotts1au]

My first thoughts are m,m,f,f but we will need to see some photos in a few months time to see how they develop. They are at a difficult stage to tell.

[Fatal_S]

My initial thoughts were also m, m, f, f. But given my record at sexing, they're probably end up being the complete opposite -.-'

[Jeff]

I'm really +95% sure on 1,3, & 4. Those are male, male, female. It's the new guy (skink #2) that I'm not as sure on. My impression is male, but I am not nearly as certain as I am on the others.

I have spent some time behavior sexing the others with the known male as well. I really am VERY sure on those.

[Richard.C]

2012-09-24 12.39.42.png

2012-09-10 09.36.48.png

the new one reminds me of this female from scott,the bigger one in the pic of 2,the smaller one is a juvie i got from scott,12 months younger

sub adult size can be trickiest time to sex them,especially if grown fast,as scott mentioned,differences can be subtle,much better to see in person ,unlike vic alpines and some nsw types,these male bluemountainsy type males can get pretty solid making sexing a little more involved than other forms

[Scotts1au]

I wouldn't write No. 2 off as being female just yet. I'm not sure what behaviours you have seen, but would be interesting to know. Some more gratuitous generalisations - males may be more inquisitive, and generally more nervous when being held (and wanting to walk in your hands), whereas females will settle quicker. When placed together, females will be first to the food bowl and more likely to eat while you are watching.

I just noticed that the 6th photo is actually of your second bluey :-) which looked female to me, but I assumed this was the 3rd one, if that makes sense. So I'm changing my mind to your second (most recent one) to be more female. I would like to see how it goes with a good feeding up :-).

So now M, F,M,F