A comparison of two techniques to identify the sex of the eastern blue‐tongue skink (Tiliqua scincoides scincoides).

Introduction: The eastern blue‐tongued skink (Tiliqua scincoides scincoides), native to eastern Australia, is commonly kept as both a pet and for breeding. As a sexually monomorphic species, it is important to develop reliable techniques for sex identification, both for breeding and health purposes. Numerous techniques have been developed for the identification of sex in other reptile species but, other than possibly morphometric analysis, none have proven to be reliable in this species. Two techniques showing promise are contrast radiography of the hemepenes/hemeclitores, and morphometrical analysis. This study looks at both techniques and compares them for accuracy. Methods and Materials: Twenty captive eastern blue‐tongued skinks (of known sex) were sedated, contrast radiography of their hemepenes /hemeclitores was performed, and physical measurements were taken for morphometric analysis. The radiographs were examined by a panel of three researchers (blinded to the known sex) to identify sex. The morphometric data were statistically analysed, following a previously published methodology, and the individual sex identified. Again, the researchers were blinded to the known sex. Results: The contrast radiography technique was 100% accurate in correctly identifying the sex of all the skinks. Morphometric analysis was, by contrast, only 70% accurate. Conclusion and Clinical Relevance: Physical differences between wild and captive skinks, as well as different environmental and nutritional factors, may have contributed to the lower accuracy of morphometric analysis in identifying the sex of eastern blue‐tongued skinks. While contrast radiography was more accurate, the need for specialised equipment may render this technique impractical for field researchers, but more suitable for owned animals. More research is needed to assess the impact of captivity on eastern blue‐tongued skinks' physical morphometrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Australian Veterinary Journal is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)