# Poll: Sexing poll



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Since Nate did not allow us the benefit of dicsussing his "sexing" poll, only providing the information he wanted to get out and closing the topic, I have provided this thread as the topic for dicussion.

In reading Franks website and others I thought I saw that it states not ALL are sexually dimorphic?!?!?! I talked to Frank about this and he told me that possibly one in genus Pristobrycon and one species in genus Pygopristis are dimorphic? Where did you get that info that ALL piranhas are??!! Im confused.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I didnt want to start another debate, thats why I made it vote only.

I am only talking about Natts on my website and poll.

On one of Franks pages he lists very similar methods to sex reds as well.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

If it would be for voting only why would you present one side of a case and ask someone to make an educated decision!?!?! That doesnt seem like the way its supposed to work. Maybe thats how it works in *SuperNate* world, but not everyone elses.









That poll reminds me of a little kid when he gets his word in then covers his ears so he cant hear anyone else. Disgusting.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I said science determined them to be sexually dimorphic, but I am asking whether people think it is possible with my method is what I am really asking


----------



## bobme (Feb 17, 2003)

im sorry but i realy got confused in nate's polls :sad:


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

> That poll reminds me of a little kid when he gets his word in then covers his ears so he cant hear anyone else. Disgusting.


If someone doesnt know any better of course they will think "your way" makes sense. Nobody else is allowed to present a differing opinion! I hope your poll wins so you can puff out your chest and shake your fists in the air and yell "I told you Frank! I can do it!". Everyone says I can. Well good for you, Sir Nate.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

bobme said:


> im sorry but i realy got confused in nate's polls :sad:


Because it is pointless and is only there to puff up his own ego. It adds absolutely no value to this board or the discussion of the subject.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

do you think it is possible to sex Nattereri, that what I want to know your opinion.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

wtf Mike that is not what my poll is about, I just dont want another drawn out debate, whats your beef man?

you are not understanding what I set out to accomplish, its not about bragging rights, I just want to see what everybody thinks, how can I explain the science view other than a bunch of them determined its not possible. For people who dont know about the hobbist method I provided a link so they can see what I mean by that


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> do you think it is possible to sex Nattereri, that what I want to know your opinion.


 I dont know. I have never claimed to be an expert, scientist, etc, etc. The question at hand is not the issue. The way you went about doing it (with a poll where nobody can reply) is bitch. Plain and simple. Everyone here knows I tell it like it is.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

By reading all your other posts on this board I realize this will go nowhere so I am going to bow out of this pissing match. I hope you win your "poll". After you win you should save the URL (I will host it for free) then whenever someone asks you a question you can provide the link to their awe and amazement. Maybe you can pick up chicks that way....







Who knows?

/* Insert SIR Nates "last word" here.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

would you like to delete it and make another with open posts? If so let me know I will post it again open topic, however I was trying to avoid arguments, but if thats what you want so be it. I will just not respond to the threads, I am not going to trouble myself anymore with that BS


----------



## mdemers883 (Jan 9, 2003)

I really don't want to involve myself in the discussion, but I really don't feel that you can tell the sex of natt's by just looking at them and judging by behavior. I have no clue why you started that poll Nate, from what I started reading early yesterday it seemed like you were going to change for the better. It would be a good idea I think, it seems like you are running out of boards to post at really fast, looks like your welcome is starting to dwindle. Maybe u will turn over a new leaf, I have no clue.

Mark


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> On one of Franks pages he lists very similar methods to sex reds as well.


 Actually no, they are written by people (including H.R. Axelrod, who got the information 2nd hand) who had breeding piranas. If you would expend as much time reading the article than expounding on it, you would comprehend that P. nattereri when kept in home tanks do show some variations of color and pre-spawning behavior, but that alone does NOT indicate a pair. That is something I have repeatedly said and you have trouble absorbing it in your mind. I have also stated that visual inspection alone does NOT confirm sexual dimorphism. And while on this portion of topic, piranas generally are not sexually dimorphic (so that you can understand in very simple terms; they exhibit no outward sexual characteristics). As Xenon stated from me, only one species in Pristobrycon maybe be sexually dimorphic (anal fin) and the single species in Pygopristis is dimorphic (anal fin). The rest as usual is simply in your own biased opinions supported by your own large ego and lack of comprehension.


----------



## mdemers883 (Jan 9, 2003)

Also if you believe you can do what you say you can (sexing natts) then write up a paper on it and let it go under review of science. It seems that you are sure of yourself and won't let anyone tell you otherwise, then just publish your facts and see if you can prove scinence wrong. Just an idea.

Mark


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

mdemers883 said:


> Also if you believe you can do what you say you can (sexing natts) then write up a paper on it and let it go under review of science. It seems that you are sure of yourself and won't let anyone tell you otherwise, then just publish your facts and see if you can prove scinence wrong. Just an idea.
> 
> Mark


 AMEN!


----------



## Genin (Feb 4, 2003)

I sexed myself earlier


----------



## Genin (Feb 4, 2003)

on a serious note, this debate is old and gone. lets not bring it back up and get this argument going again...please. nate has devised a system that seems to work for HIS tank and HIS fish. like Mark said if you believe it is truly valid than go and publish it. everyone will take you more serious if you prove yourself. if you know it doesn't work than stop debating it nate and bringing it back up. it seems to upset everyone.

Joe


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I give up trying to have peaceful means of avoiding blown out arguements, nobdy here can accept others opinions without harassment, I just will keep my thoughts to myself on topics which I have a differing opinion from now on.


----------



## Genin (Feb 4, 2003)

that shouldn't be the case nate, when it's opinion based. the problem is that more and more people are now citing scientific theories and case studies that for the most part have been proven true, as to where you are meantioning heresay and observations. i am serious that you should publish the sexing info and get it tested to see if you are right. if you are then that's awesome and if you aren't well that doesn't matter you were just wrong. i am wrong a lot and it's fine as long as you admit it.

Joe


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> nobdy here can accept others opinions without harassment


 Not true. You consider anyone offering an opinion different than your own and then holding you accountable for the things you say "harrassment".


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

no but when people bring up all sorts of other crap that have no relevence to the topic to debate and dicker with you on is, I am fine when people disaggree, but when people demand I have proof to make an opinion with it gets old, its my opinion and I am entitled to it


----------



## bobme (Feb 17, 2003)

yes you are etitled to it, and so am i, however i am confued about your poll. But i see what you meen by useless crap in the thread, sorry man.
please dont fight, i dont like fighting,


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

bobme said:


> yes you are etitled to it, and so am i, however i am confued about your poll. But i see what you meen by useless crap in the thread, sorry man.
> please dont fight, i dont like fighting,










grrrrrrrrrrr

just kidding


----------



## bobme (Feb 17, 2003)

Ahhh a evil face!







DIE!


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

bobme said:


> Ahhh a evil face!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 bobme, this is a serious thread.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Nate,
I am not here to argue, I wanted to show you why I found your poll bias to your opinion.



> If you would like to know more about the opinionated method of determining sexing Nattereri click HERE!


You do not have a link to the opinion of the science community for any rebuttal.



> I want to know if you fellas think it is possible to sex Nattereri with decent accuracy, possible methods of coming up with your hypothesis can include coloring, belly size and shape, additude and behavior of the fish
> 
> given conditions:
> all the fish are mature adults
> ...


You are stating methods and conditions you believe can be used to sex Nattereri, but not stating why the science community believes differently



> I know science says that they are sexually dimorphic, I am just curious as to what you guys believe, I know many breeders firmly believe the opposite is true, I am not after fact here, just your own opinion!


Lastly, you state you know what the science community says and then rebut that by saying you know "breeders" who firmly believe the oppisite is true, giving them more weight than the science community.

If you had presented both sides of the argument instead of only your side, maybe the poll would have been better accepted. When someone that knows nothing about the debates that have been fought over this topic views this pole, visits your web sight where you state the differences between the male and female, read that you know people who make a living sexing Nattereri, how do you expect them to do anything but agree with you?

A poll such as this requires an unbiased viewpoint of both sides to be taken seriously.

My 2 cents


----------



## Mr. Hannibal (Feb 21, 2003)

I'm totally agree with hastatus. Not only because i respect his knowledge but i've read other cualified opinions and the same conclusions!

Thanks again Frank!


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

GG

I dont have links to a science stance on the topic, thats why it wasnt given, only stated that they claim its not possible


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> GG
> 
> I dont have links to a science stance on the topic, thats why it wasnt given, only stated that they claim its not possible


 My point was that if you have no links with the other viewpoint, none should have been given.
A simple poll like: Can sexing p's be done? Would be unbiased. 
But your poll was more like: Can sexing p's be done? This is how I do it and I know people who do it for a living, so now that you have this additional information do you think it can it be done?

Like I said, this is what I read in the poll, but others may have read it differently.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

grosse gurke said:


> Sir Nathan XXI said:
> 
> 
> > GG
> ...


 Im with you GG.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

I see this pointless debate has been brought up yet again.

Nate, you have yet to produce anything of value to this and other discussions, so far all you have produced is rhetoric and misrepresented quotes. You say you do not with to do any more than state your opinion, if this is so then you have done so countless times already and should have just shut up about it long ago. Since you are still rambling on it is quite obvious this is not your true intention but rather to make some sort of name for yourself as a piranha authority. But to do this you need to give us something of substance other than "It's true, believe me" or "Prove me wrong then" when in fact proving you wrong has already been done, accepted and published. Therefore, it is up to you to disprove what is currently held as fact.

Can nattereri be sexed? If so then where is all the documentation? Where are the published articles? Where are these breeders that have this unique ability? Where are the disected corpses? I have had conversations with people who claim to be able to do this. One person even said they had a large number that were successfully sexed, but since they did not breed they were sold off. Funny that they were successfully sexed without any way form of conclusive evidence (other than the infamous "bulge" technique).

Now, to the counter-argument. "Hundreds of years ago it was 'fact' that the earth was flat." Do you then presume to be able to see into the future and know what currently held facts will be disproved? That is quite a claim. If not then saying "well the earth isn't flat" is a useless argument because there is no way to tell what will be changed and what will not.

Your reading and comprehension skills are atrocious. Firstly, you seem to be unable to thouroughly read things so that a complete picture can be formed of the author's intentions. Secondly, comprehending the bastardized version also seems to be difficult for you. Case in point claiming Frank agrees with you on his web site about sexing nattereri. Had you read the entire section and took the time to understand what it was saying you would not have made such embarassing statements.

You also lack a basic understanding of the terminology you are using and debating. Science says piranhas are _not_ sexually dimorphic (you keep saying that science says the are SD). Not only is that flat out wrong it is also misleading to people who are not familiar with the terms. Your ignorance to the definition of holotype also does you a disservice as you try to make S. ternetzi to be it's own species, yet don't even know what is needed to classify a species. This also shows a lack of research and willingness to research on your part. A simple internet search will provide the definitions to the above terms and many others in mere minutes.

Every time concrete points are made against your claims you whine that you are being harassed. If we are unable to disprove you then what is the point in you constantly bringing the subject up? And you have the nerve to talk down to people in much higher authority than you, and when they put you in your place you dare to chastize them, calling _them_ immature. If you were able to digest half of what you spew out then most of the arguments would have been avoided because you would see the error of your ways. But since not a single shred has seemingly been processed by you the debates and arguments continue.

It is rather pointless debating with you and I'm sure that this has been a complete waste of my time, but at least I feel a little better getting this out. No doubt you will ignore or misinterpret the vast majority of this as you have done in the past. But just in case, I urge you to take your time reading this, mulling it over and re-reading it again before responding. It might save you the trouble of posting more of the same useless tripe.


----------



## pythonwill (Feb 2, 2003)




----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

a lot of the times i can sex natts because i have experiencing breeding them. also rob ndswings on pfish breeds them and he can sex them as well.
wes


----------



## SnowCichlid. (Jan 10, 2003)

Genin said:


> I sexed myself earlier


 ...and waht did you discover


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> a lot of the times i can sex natts because i have experiencing breeding them


 Please elaborate on this further and explain exactly what you mean.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

the point about the world being flat is that science can and occassionaly does change, I though maybe you could comprehend that


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> the point about the world being flat is that science can and occassionaly does change, I though maybe you could comprehend that


 Again you failed to read the entire section and misinterpreted what was said. Science does change, but you cannot tell us what things will be changed. It was proven the earth was not flat with hard data, something that you have heard mentioned often but haven't graced us with.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

perhaps you can explain to those who have sucsessfully sexed Natts many times why they were merely very lucky and there was no methods to it other than luck


----------



## mdemers883 (Jan 9, 2003)

Or better yet, since they can do it they can tell us so that we may understand.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

they use a method similar to or the same as mine in most cases


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Genin said:


> I sexed myself earlier


 This post nearly made me crap my pants.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

exactly how does one sex themself


----------



## WebHostExpert (Jan 16, 2003)

> exactly how does one sex themself


the same way you sex your fish, they look at themselfs.
Just thought I'd jump in here, cause noone caught that yet
MAD


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I was trying to relieve some of the tension here


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

hastatus said:


> > a lot of the times i can sex natts because i have experiencing breeding them
> 
> 
> Please elaborate on this further and explain exactly what you mean.


 males and females, for the most part, look different. i have breed many different pairs of natts so i have seen many different males and females. 
wes


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> males and females, for the most part, look different. i have breed many different pairs of natts so i have seen many different males and females.
> wes


 I'm focusing on this portion because there is something behind it and wish for better clarification.


> for the most part, look different.


Are you stating for the record that if I were to present you with 100 specimens of P. nattereri you would be able to tell me all the males from the females if they were all the same size and age without error?


----------



## JEARBEAR (Jan 30, 2003)

This post sucks, Always the same sh*t.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> This post sucks, Always the same sh*t.


 Actually no, different person who appears to have credibility, just need to verify a few things. A simple yes or no answer from him is all that is required. The rest of what I have in mind can be arranged to test this ability.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

hastatus said:


> > This post sucks, Always the same sh*t.
> 
> 
> Actually no, different person who appears to have credibility, just need to verify a few things. A simple yes or no answer from him is all that is required. The rest of what I have in mind can be arranged to test this ability.


 I really think there was a way we could have a "Sex the Piranha" experiment. Somehow, someway get those 100 specimins and see how Wes, Nate, and anyone else that says they can do it, do it and see their success rate and determine whether it is reapeatable. That is the only way to clear up this debate.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Perhaps we could try with fish that arrive DOA to Fishpost and Sharkaquarium and such, I dont know if the fish being dead would effect the "sexing technique" though, honestly with live fish experienced breeders can generally do this with well above 80% accuracy even with all the variables such as disease, overfeeding, etc, etc.

thats why there is such a strong argument over this debate, if they werent so sucsessful at it, this wouldnt be brought up soo much


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> I really think there was a way we could have a "Sex the Piranha" experiment.


 I have something in mind, as stated above, but I want those that believe themselves capable of sexing piranas 100% to present themselves so I can gather their names, addresses and phone number. I assure everyone, that the test will be fair and will be published either here or at OPEFE web site for all to read.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> I dont know if the fish being dead would effect the "sexing technique" though, honestly with live fish experienced breeders can generally do this with well above 80% accuracy even with all the variables such as disease, overfeeding, etc, etc.


 Your claim and others is that P. nattereri can be visually sexed. This will be the preamble for the test. You said nothing about limited percentage of accuracy therefore it will not be considered here for this test.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I have stated before it is not 100% but more like 80% - 99%, everyone makes mistakes, and as many have said before a very sick fish can through things off, Frank you are forgetting that the actions of the fish are drawn into the determination sometimes as well.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> I have stated before it is not 100% but more like 80% - 99%, everyone makes mistakes, and as many have said before a very sick fish can through things off, Frank you are forgetting that the actions of the fish are drawn into the determination sometimes as well.


Don't dance around it Nate, guppy's are sexually dimorphic, certain cichlids are sexually dimorphic, and your claim is genus Pygocentrus, specifically the species nattereri is sexually dimorphic = exhibiting outward sexual characteristics. That is the basis for the test I'm going to be arranging. Your percentage has no accuracy level because you have stated an ability to determine sex of this species by looking at it. You have brought your friends into it who breed piranas as stating they are able to do it, and one so far has come forward but has not provided any name, address, or phone number as of yet. Perhaps he has not seen this post, but I can wait until he does.

The question to be answered is "are Pygocentrus nattereri sexually dimorphic?" Science says they are not and you say they can be. The test stays as is and you will back up your statements or simply bow out.


----------



## Piranha King (Nov 28, 2002)

hastatus said:


> > for the most part, look different.
> 
> 
> Are you stating for the record that if I were to present you with 100 specimens of P. nattereri you would be able to tell me all the males from the females if they were all the same size and age without error?


 no, by no means was i saying that. nor was i agreeing with nate. he has a different method of sexing them. i'd say i could do it maybe half the time on a good day. 
wes


----------



## rosecityrhom (Feb 3, 2003)

I would be interested to see how that turns out. Maybe you can tell me more about your plans when I come to visit sometime? :biggrin:


----------



## rosecityrhom (Feb 3, 2003)

and on this topic...I believe their only success rate is that they have a large group of piranha and they end up getting lucky and noticing a few pairing up and breeding.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

rosecityrhom said:


> and on this topic...I believe their only success rate is that they have a large group of piranha and they end up getting lucky and noticing a few pairing up and breeding.


no, it doesnt effect me at all whether their is one fish or 100 fish, however the chances for errors will be higher with more fish obviously, nobody is perfect, but I certainly think 75%-90% accuracy is attainable.

Frank, I have some people to contact, I think I can find you more people to do this test as well, if you want PM me and let me know who you have so far so I dont re contact the people you have already. I want to work with you on this Frank so we can hopefully come up with some conclusive results, good or bad, that is if this test is not a biased or rigged one.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> that is if this test is not a biased or rigged one.


 You insult me Nate. The test will be as I have stated, your ability to determine visually the sexual dimorphism of P. nattereri. No tricks, not hocus pocus. You have stated they are sexually dimorphic. Evidently, you still do not know what that term means, so I will explain it again in simpler terms. Guppy males have a gonopodium, Molly males have a gonopodium. Cichlids (dependent on species) have elongated dorsal fins or ocelli (eggs) on anal fin to determin sex. Some Silver Dollars have bilobed anal fin to determine sexual dimorphism as do one known pirana species.

There will be no guessing, but absolute certainty on the sexual dimorphism on P. nattereri on your part. Whether dead or alive fish, you will be required to ID the sexuality of the fish. Just like any other sexually dimorphic species. That will be the test that you, et al., will be required to perform and your names will be posted as to the accuracy of your examination. I'm going to ask publically that Mike and Ron from fishpost volunteer to hold the correct sexual identities of the species I will be providing photos of to be released once all those that participate have indicated their willingness to participate. As you have already agreed to this privately Nate, I expect you to have 100% accuracy in identification.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

> I have stated before it is not 100% but more like 80% - 99%,





> but I certainly think 75%-90% accuracy is attainable.


Nate keeps going down and down now that he knows hes gonna be held to it. LOL


----------



## thePACK (Jan 3, 2003)

history in the making


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Ok Frank so this will be done Via picture, make sure to get plenty of clear side, front, and bottom shots of the belly, maybe I choose the wrong term sexually dimorphic, I am not sure, but I feel I can sex reds with a 75%-95% accuracy without a problem, I have some other people that wish to test as well. I am going to contact them soon. How many specimens will be used? At least 10 I hope. Make sure they are all sexually mature. I did not mean to insult you but I just got a vibe somehow that this was gonna be shady, I am intrested in a true scientific test here as you are. Hopefully alot can be learned by all with this test. IF you can please give us all the details.

Mike, I am not worried at all, I have done this for a while now.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

The fish will be at least 5 inches total length and others will be larger.



> maybe I choose the wrong term sexually dimorphic, I am not sure, but I feel I can sex reds with a 75%-95% accuracy without a problem


We will see, in order for a species to be sexually dimorphic requires 100% accuracy, not the figures you are citing, unless you are now willing to state and admit in public that piranas (with one known exception) are NOT sexually dimorphic? Last chance Nate. You chose to make this a science test and science test by its ground rules will you face not yours. I know you have (for the record) a history of telling people via photos they have a male or a female pirana, so any argument by you to the contrary is invalid. You will do this as any other species will be done, by the external characteristics of its sexuality to validate sexual dimorphism. This requirement will also be faced by anyone else that chooses to disprove science. Feeling you can do something is not the same as doing it, therefore has no place in this test.


----------



## Nethius (Feb 23, 2003)

really interested on how this goes!


----------



## Genin (Feb 4, 2003)

I am very excited that you are going to be testing this and am eager to see the results. Finally this debate will be ended, and scientifically none-the-less.

Joe


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

but if somebody can sex fish within the given range of 75%-95% doesnt that prove that they can generally be sexed by visually characteristics? 5" Fish arent mature yet usually anyways, 6 or 7" should be a min size, how many fish are we gonna do.

I really am not being an a$$ when I say this, but lets say for example with everybody combined we sex say 85% correctly then doesnt that prove that its more than luck and that generally they can be sexed?


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> but if somebody can sex fish within the given range of 75%-95% doesnt that prove that they can generally be sexed by visually characteristics? 5" Fish arent mature yet usually anyways, 6 or 7" should be a min size, how many fish are we gonna do.
> 
> I really am not being an a$$ when I say this, but lets say for example with everybody combined we sex say 85% correctly then doesnt that prove that its more than luck and that generally they can be sexed?


Read my remarks above how sexual dimorphism is determined by science. All others read this web page on sexual dimorphism of Pygopristis denticulata which also includes photos of male and female. These species were dissected by science to determine internal organs as well to validate the anal lobe pertaining to the male pirana.Pygopristis denticulata


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

OK I know you guys really like a good debate and a "who knows more" contest, but I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

If Nate can sex his piranhas - then great, but he is not here to sex mine, neither is he at your house to sex yours (I think) so it doesn't help anyone, and debating this is just a waste of space









I do think it is good to debate differant issues in fishkeeping, but how is this kind of argument ment to help?

say what works for you and leave it alone


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Innes, I think it can generally be done with good pics too. It is much easier in person just like IDing is too, but I feel it can certainly be done for the most part, and thats how we are gonna test

So Frank what you are saying is that unless I am 100% it will not prove a thing? I am confused to what the point you are trying to make is.


----------



## WebHostExpert (Jan 16, 2003)

frank after you have them do this, can we set something up here on Pfury so that member's of this site can try and sex them too. I think it would be fun to see if anyone was right. Like a poll with some pictures like the picture of the month contest, but would tell you if you were right or not.
just a thought
MAD


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> frank after you have them do this, can we set something up here on Pfury so that member's of this site can try and sex them too. I think it would be fun to see if anyone was right. Like a poll with some pictures like the picture of the month contest, but would tell you if you were right or not.
> just a thought


 The test will be one time only. Would serve no further purpose other than friends for sexing piranas would seize opportunity to nullify the test itself by providing answers to the questions, thereby proving what they set out to do in the first place.



> So Frank what you are saying is that unless I am 100% it will not prove a thing? I am confused to what the point you are trying to make is.


 Anyone else confused as Nate about what the scientific point is?


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Innes said:


> OK I know you guys really like a good debate and a "who knows more" contest, but I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
> 
> If Nate can sex his piranhas - then great, but he is not here to sex mine, neither is he at your house to sex yours (I think) so it doesn't help anyone, and debating this is just a waste of space
> 
> ...


 Innes, this "debate" they are having now is actually a lot less ugly....and it looks like it will be "going somewhere"


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

If Nate admits that the fish is not sexually dimorphic then I feel he doesnt need to prove it. I think Nate is trying to say (despite his previous comments) that he can sex the fish DESPITE it not being dimorphic. If this is the case, I personally would be satisfyed with 85% as a statistical measure of accuracy.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

Xenon said:


> If Nate admits that the fish is not sexually dimorphic then I feel he doesnt need to prove it. I think Nate is trying to say (despite his previous comments) that he can sex the fish DESPITE it not being dimorphic. If this is the case, I personally would be satisfyed with 85% as a statistical measure of accuracy.


 What I am trying to say is that according to Franks definition, then no they arent sexually dimorphic, however I feel they can be sexed with accuracy somewhere between 75%-95% without a problem, this is the point I have been making all along,

my way of looking at fish is like we see pregnant women, you can tell when there is offspring inside, well I can tell when females are carring eggs, and alot of times when they arent as well


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

> 75%-95% without a problem,


By this definition, 85% is the mean, therefore out of 10 specimins you will need to get 9. Out of 20 you will need to get 17. I would like to see this.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

and you probably will, let me verify with Frank they are all going to be sexually mature fish


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> How to Distinguish Between Males and Females:
> 
> These differences usually can not be seen until the fish start to mature which happens around 5 inches in length.
> 
> ...


 This is copy/pasted from SuperNate web site. This is what Nate will be required to prove (top line opening paragraph). He himself has stated 5 inches, NOT 6, 7 inches for sexual maturity. This constant changing by him along with his percentages of accuracy is a near admission he is wrong and still does NOT comprehend the term sexual dimorphism.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I dont mean to change but you know as well as I do we cannot keep our websites up to date. I really havent changed my ranges much at all, and I am not admitting I am wrong, because I dont think so, I dont care about terms, I can sex Natts very well and I am willing to prove it.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> I really havent changed my ranges much at all, and I am not admitting I am wrong, because I dont think so, I dont care about terms, I can sex Natts very well and I am willing to prove it.


We shall see.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> I dont mean to change but you know as well as I do we cannot keep our websites up to date. I really havent changed my ranges much at all, and I am not admitting I am wrong, because I dont think so, I dont care about terms, I can sex Natts very well and I am willing to prove it.


 Nate, this says a lot about your character. I am yet to see you admit when you are wrong, however, I see your "opinions and observations" changing all the time. This is just my "observation"


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> Sir Nathan XXI said:
> 
> 
> > I dont mean to change but you know as well as I do we cannot keep our websites up to date. I really havent changed my ranges much at all, and I am not admitting I am wrong, because I dont think so, I dont care about terms, I can sex Natts very well and I am willing to prove it.
> ...


 the test will be the proof, right or wrong, then I will admit wrong if I am, or you all will have to admit you were wrong


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Nate,
I was speaking about the information you provide on your web sight being inaccurate according to your latest statements. I could care less if you can sex Natts, but when you tell people they can do it at 5", YOU should be able to do it at 5", or admit that you were wrong about the size these fish mature. 
If I had a web sight that I promote every chance I could get, I would be very diligent in assuring I was providing accurate information, especially when that information is not based in fact and only on my observations.


----------



## pythonwill (Feb 2, 2003)

grosse gurke said:


> I was speaking about the information you provide on your web sight being inaccurate according to your latest statements. I could care less if you can sex Natts, but when you tell people they can do it at 5", YOU should be able to do it at 5", or admit that you were wrong about the size these fish mature.
> If I had a web sight that I promote every chance I could get, I would be very diligent in assuring I was providing accurate information, especially when that information is not based in fact and only on my observations.


I agree with Grosse Gurke, if your going to tell people something you should be able to back it up ALL the way or say so. it kinda pisses me off that when I started on Pfish you told me to check out your webpage and it would tell me how to determine the sex of my Reds, well I thought I was getting accurate information,not 75% to 90%,"if that" we sill see. and how many other people have you told the same thing? Everything you tell people is based on your OWN opinions and you should puy that in writing on you web page so that poeple will understand that it is not Science its "your opinion"I will not be going to your site for info any more thats for sure.
I have been trying hard not to get into this because it has nothing to do with me but your site is misguiding in this part.

Will


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

ok when I get a chance I will update that the fish must be mature, according to science that is around 2yrs of age. Fish that are kept in small tanks dont grow quite as much so there very well could be Natts that are 2yrs old and 5", I will make sure to include that.

Frank I was wanting to know abou the test. I have never sexed dead fish, is that what you had in mind. I know dead animals tend to swell, and distort, and they lose coloring, these factors will not allow for a fair test. I am sure you know people that live near by that breed Nattereri, go and get pictures of live fish to do the test with, I am sure they have seen the breeding and can be sure as to which is which without killing live fish. I will not participate in a test with dead fish, that will reduce accuracy, and none of us here would care about the ability to sex dead fish, we are concerned about live fish, so thats what needs to be tested. I would also like to know how many fish you plan to use, I know you know how experiments are run, so the more we have the more conclusive our result will be. I really would like to know how you plan to test this.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

pythonwill said:


> grosse gurke said:
> 
> 
> > I was speaking about the information you provide on your web sight being inaccurate according to your latest statements. I could care less if you can sex Natts, but when you tell people they can do it at 5", YOU should be able to do it at 5", or admit that you were wrong about the size these fish mature.
> ...


how well did most people or how well do most people do on school tests? I doubt above 90% with frequency so why should htis be any different? Key words to look for when reading (can, possibly, around, usually, etc) are all indicators that it is not a 100% thing


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

pythonwill said:


> it kinda pisses me off that when I started on Pfish you told me to check out your webpage and it would tell me how to determine the sex of my Reds, well I thought I was getting accurate information,not 75% to 90%,"if that" we sill see. and how many other people have you told the same thing? Everything you tell people is based on your OWN opinions and you should puy that in writing on you web page so that poeple will understand that it is not Science its "your opinion"


 Will,
I fell into the same trap as you and although I am not new to keeping piranhas, I was very new on how to do it properly. That is why I find it very irresponsible to put out that information as gospel when it is based on observing a few fish over a few years.


----------



## pythonwill (Feb 2, 2003)

Nate dont insult people that dont agree with you, this is a forum,I dint call you a dumbass so dont tell me that im stupid







I just said what was on my mind and I think you need to grow up and loose that HUGE ego of yours, you are not a god


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

I wasnt trying to call you stupid

I was trying to point out that a test of 75% is considered average, so I am saying I can do it well above average

my point is how can you hold somebody to higher standards than the rest of school tests in society

really no insult intended








I edited it to make it clear that no insults are intended, sorry for the confusion

nobody here is a God either, and well all know that, hopefully


----------



## pythonwill (Feb 2, 2003)

> how well did you or how well do you do on school tests? I doubt above 90% with frequency


 you were not trying to insult me huh


----------



## pythonwill (Feb 2, 2003)

I see you changed your wording now


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

pythonwill said:


> > how well did you or how well do you do on school tests? I doubt above 90% with frequency
> 
> 
> you were not trying to insult me huh


 I phrased it wrong, forgive me, I edited it so it wasnt direct at anybody in general


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> how well did you or how well do you do on school tests? I doubt above 90% with frequency so why should htis be any different? Key words to look for when reading (can, possibly, usually, etc) are all indicators that it is not a 100% thing


 Where are the (Can, Possibly, Usually, Ect) in these statements. Because all I see is WILL.

This is what you say on your web sight about sexing p's.



> 1. Looking from the front of the fish females will have a large bulge behind the pectoral fins and look much thicker than male piranhas do.
> 
> 2. Looking at the side female piranhas will have a round belly and males will have a flat belly.


I don't see anything that looks like speculation, do you Nate?

And Nate, if you are not frequently getting above 90% on tests why are you going to school? Don't you know that a GPA less than 3.5 is almost worthless when recruiters come to your school? To obtain a 3.5 you need to average a b+, which at the college I attended was 92%.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Sir Nathan XXI said:


> I was trying to point out that a test of 75% is considered average, so I am saying I can do it well above average


 How many tests do you take where there is only a correct answer and an incorrect answer? Someone who has never even seen a fish in his life has a 50% chance of getting the sex correct. So unless the tests you are comparing this to are true or false the comparison to an academic test is worthless.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

yes I score quite well but I am not the topic, I was speaking in general, at my school and A- is a 3.7 and a B+ is a 3.2, so it would be inbetween that range

you major has alot to do with the expected GPA as well, some majors are much more challenging than others, not that any of this matters to the topic

look above that section GG


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

I am tired of this Nate, your posts are littered with inconsistencies, none of which you will accept, so it is pointless to keep showing them to you. What is the definition of an idiot&#8230;&#8230;. repeating the same thing, expecting a different result......I don't feel like acting like an idiot today.


----------



## Sir Nathan XXI (Jan 29, 2003)

:laugh:

regardless of all this crap I am ready to do this test


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

> Frank I was wanting to know abou the test. I have never sexed dead fish, is that what you had in mind. I know dead animals tend to swell, and distort, and they lose coloring, these factors will not allow for a fair test.


When fishes are sexually dimorphic it doesn't matter if they are dead or alive, the dimorphism is present when the fish are preserved as the ones that are going to be used will be.

You have committed to take the test in a scientific way and that is the manner it will be given. I don't care if your information is current or not at your web site, you have expounded that you and others have an ability to tell P. nattereri as being dimorphic. And that will be the only level used at 100% accuracy on your part. Anything less is guessing and I believe that is what you have been doing all along and your percentages of accuracy even at that, is questionable. But that is not what this test is about, it is; _you proving_ that P. nattereri are sexually dimorphic as you have repeatedly stated throughout this entire forum, other forums and your own personal web site.

End of story, except for the test. Anything else you have posted on this topic is irrelevant.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

This will go on forever if I dont cut it off now. Frank or I will inform the board when the experiment is ready to be taken. Until then, lets take a rest


----------

