Is it a boy or girl? Not good at this lol

[M3rKzZx]

Looks to be a male @Leemonkeyboy

View attachment 11333 I'm trying to figure it out myself for sure. Any help?

 

[Walter1]

View attachment 11333 I'm trying to figure it out myself for sure. Any help?

boy.

 

[Leemonkeyboy]

Thank you guys. I thought it was but wanted more experienced eyes to look. Your help is really appreciated.

 

[M3rKzZx]

No problem @Leemonkeyboy

 

[Walter1]

Thank you guys. I thought it was but wanted more experienced eyes to look. Your help is really appreciated.

You're welcome!

 

[Roadkill]

Sorry, ophidia's looks like a female, and Leemonkeyboy's is possibly a male, but that might just be optical illusion due to the colour pattern. The three rows of scales don't mean anything in and of themselves.

 

[M3rKzZx]

@Roadkill so your saying my red tegu is a female? The one that Ophidia posted on this is my tegu. Now am more confused first I was told female then male now female .-.

 

[Roadkill]

Sorry, hadn't followed the thread right to the beginning. Yes, M3rKzZx, yours appears to be a female. When it comes to expertise, some people know what they're talking about, some people think they know what they're talking about, and the challenge is in figuring out which is which. The thing people are looking for are a small group of scales roughly to either side of the cloaca, just slightly distal to the side margins. In males, on the inside of the skin, this is where they hemipenal retractor muscles attach to the integument and with age, as things begin to function and develop, the scales on the outside get thicker and become easily discernable to the touch, hence people call them beads, bumps, beebees, etc. However, even before this takes place, this point can be discerned because the scales at this attachment point are different between the males and females. Females will have nothing that noticeable, the scale rows appear normal and uninterrupted. In males, at this attachment point, the scalation is different, there is a small cluster of scales that look a little out of place, almost a circle or ring of scales. There is a post somewhere on this forum where someone once posted some excellent photos demonstrating this, I think it was dpjm, however forum search engines being what they are, it may not be the easiest to find.

 

[M3rKzZx]

I had bought a female for "hi m" barely three weeks ago my hopes were high of it actually being a male and from the replies leading to being a boy made it bigger now am going be in a hunt for a male but thanks I'll keep in search to find out more before making any more moves lol @Roadkill

 

[Walter1]

Sorry, hadn't followed the thread right to the beginning. Yes, M3rKzZx, yours appears to be a female. When it comes to expertise, some people know what they're talking about, some people think they know what they're talking about, and the challenge is in figuring out which is which. The thing people are looking for are a small group of scales roughly to either side of the cloaca, just slightly distal to the side margins. In males, on the inside of the skin, this is where they hemipenal retractor muscles attach to the integument and with age, as things begin to function and develop, the scales on the outside get thicker and become easily discernable to the touch, hence people call them beads, bumps, beebees, etc. However, even before this takes place, this point can be discerned because the scales at this attachment point are different between the males and females. Females will have nothing that noticeable, the scale rows appear normal and uninterrupted. In males, at this attachment point, the scalation is different, there is a small cluster of scales that look a little out of place, almost a circle or ring of scales. There is a post somewhere on this forum where someone once posted some excellent photos demonstrating this, I think it was dpjm, however forum search engines being what they are, it may not be the easiest to find.

Roadkill- Post 14 has a circle drawn around what appear to me to be the enlarged scales associated with the retractor muscles. You're thinking that those are not?

 

[Roadkill]

Not from what I see, no. However, I will also say that my experience with Salvator rufescens is quite limited compared to some of the other species, and it is possible that in S.rufescens we don't observe the same modification of the scales that we do in S.merianae. I think I see what you're looking at, and there is a very subtle hint of something there, and you are correct that this is the region it would be. I don't think in this case this is a male.

 

[Walter1]

Interesting.